Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved AmendmentNo. 18: Page 13, line 36, at end insert- ““(c) must require a local authority to ensure that the level of charges which they impose acts as an encouragement to local action and not as a hindrance to the viability of local businesses.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to her fears, which we share, that the ADZ scheme would be seen as a way of raising extra revenue. When the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replied to a similar amendment on26 April he said: "““The charge needs to be set at a meaningful level which is sufficient to recoup local agencies’ costs in mounting effective enforcement interventions based on what is required to properly reduce crime and disorder in any given locality””." In other words, local businesses would pay for the security firms and for extra policeman possibly—although that is unlikely—to patrol the particular area. That was a matter which concerned us. I tabled an amendment in Committee, suggesting that there should be a cap on the compulsory charge which would be the equivalent of 3 per cent of the premises’ annual rateable value. That was a fairly arbitrary figure but it provided a mechanism which could differentiate between different sizes of businesses. However, things have moved on and the Minister has given us foresight of the regulations, but not the regulations themselves, of course. I understand that there will be a national charging scheme with differential charges—there will not be a flat rate—and there will, of course, be discounts, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred a moment ago. In Amendment No. 18, all I am now seeking is that the regulations that we are promised should not impose an artificial cap, but should take into account the words of the Minister in Committee when he said: "““The important thing is that we get the principles right, that it does not act as a disincentive, and that it acts as an encouragement to get collective action at work””.—[Official Report, 26/4/06; col. 207.]" I have used those words in my amendment, which, as your Lordships will see, suggests that the regulations, "““must require a local authority to ensure that the level of charges which they impose acts as an encouragement to local action and not as a hindrance to the viability of local businesses””." I recognise that that is a great deal vaguer than the3 per cent which I proposed in Committee. I believe that the local authority must have in mind at all times that this is not a revenue-raising situation which can continue indefinitely, but that it is designed to deal with a specific problem, over a specific period—another matter to which we shall turn shortly—and that there should be a time limit on the imposition of these zones. I am not asking for a great deal and I hope to achieve some success on this occasion. I beg to move.