My Lords, I am not sure that we have much more to add to what was said in Committee. I can understand where the noble Lord is coming from and is trying to go. The amendment imposes a sunset of a year on an alcohol disorder zone after compulsory charging begins. That is not right, nor is the requirement for the local authority and local police authority, not the local chief police officer, to restart the process if they believe that the ADZ should continue. We can see no merit in the noble Lord’s proposal.
However, a year is a long time and the vast majority of ADZs will probably come to a natural conclusion within a shorter time. We do not expect them to have an extensive life. After all, ADZs will be reviewed at three-monthly intervals. We expect the review to be thorough and to look extensively at whether the problem has been addressed. We intend the guidance to be very clear on that point. Given the intensive enforcement effort involved at the compulsory charging stage, it is unlikely that ADZs will last more than a year.
Perhaps those may turn out to be famous last words, but one can never be precise about these issues. When the ADZ covers an area with intractable problems that may be more deeply rooted than even the development of an alcohol disorder zone can deal with, a lengthier period may be required—but that is unlikely. One would hope that the effort put in by the police, the local authority and others involved in the zone should fairly speedily begin to have an effect and, I hope, wind up the ADZ within a year.
So the amendment is not necessary, nor would the extra effort be required for the local authority to renew an alcohol disorder zone. While I understand what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, we need to set the system in motion, view the imposition of ADZs as a last resort, hope that people are involved at an appropriate level and manner and ensure that we monitor the way that ADZs work and build on experience. Thus a ““sunset”” of a year would become unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bassam of Brighton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 October 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c582-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:02:23 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_352159
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_352159
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_352159