Violent Crime Reduction Bill

My Lords, Clause 16(1) sets out the criteria for the designation of an alcohol disorder zone: first, a general test based around nuisance, annoyance and disorder in or near the locality; secondly, a link to the consumption of alcohol; and thirdly, a likelihood of repetition. The noble Lord’s amendments focus around the first criterion and seek to add a further restrictive limb. They add a qualification that the public nuisance would have to be ““persistent and repeated””, remove the terms ““disorder”” and ““or near”” from the first limb of the test and add a further limb placing an explicit requirement that full use of the Licensing Act 2003 had been made. In response to his point about persistent and repeated, I have made clear that alcohol disorder zones are an intervention of last resort, and we want to signal that. On the other hand, we want to ensure that the power can be used with a degree of flexibility. The Bill provides the overall framework. Clause 19 provides for guidance to be issued on the administration of ADZs, Clause 19(2) places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the guidance sets out what alternative steps should be considered prior to proposing an ADZ and Clause 19(4) places a duty on local authorities to have regard to the guidance. The guidance will set out clearly the alternative interventions to deal with alcohol-related crime and disorder, including tackling incidents that are not persistent. So we do not need the reference to ““persistent and repeated”” that the amendment would provide. I can also give an assurance that the guidance will emphasise that and specifically refer to full use of the Licensing Act 2003 before designating an alcohol disorders zone. That takes account of the concern at the heart of one of the noble Lord’s amendments. On the removal of the term ““disorder””, it would not be wise to lose the link between disorder and anti-social behaviour and alcohol. We need to tackle those behaviours, which have a significant impact on our communities. We want that in the Bill. Finally, turning to the removal of the term ““or near”” from the criteria, I certainly understand what the noble Lord says. As I recall, we had an interesting debate on that point in Committee. As I understand it, the noble Lord is concerned that problems occurring away from the immediate vicinity of licensed premises should be attributed to them and that they end up having to pay for services to tackle that problem. It is important to draw a distinction between local authorities making the case for an ADZ, how the ADZ will be drawn and what services the compulsory charge will cover. On making the case, it is important that some account is taken of the impact of alcohol-related crime and disorder in the area near the concentration of licensed premises. To give an example, residents in a nearby street may be disturbed by rowdy drunks leaving the premises, or there may be pinch points at a nearby taxi rank. All of that is alcohol-related and associated with patronage of the premises. Of course, the voluntary action plan may include preventive steps to tackle those problems—perhaps contributions towards a taxi marshal. On designation of the ADZ, the zone will be tightly drawn around the premises concerned and the compulsory charge will cover enforcement activity directly affecting the premises. The charge will not cover supervision of a taxi rank or the patrolling of streets outside what we envisage as being a tightly drawn area. I hope that having given those assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.