Column Number: 139
Standing Committee B
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairman:
Mr. Eric Forth
†Abbott, Ms Diane (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
†Blears, Hazel (Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety)
†Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff, West) (Lab)
†Butler, Ms Dawn (Brent, South) (Lab)
†Clappison, Mr. James (Hertsmere) (Con)
†Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)
†Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan (Huntingdon) (Con)
†Featherstone, Lynne (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD)
†Hosie, Stewart (Dundee, East) (SNP)
†Jones, Mr. Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)
†Keeble, Ms Sally (Northampton, North) (Lab)
†Malins, Mr. Humfrey (Woking) (Con)
†McCabe, Steve (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
†Pound, Stephen (Ealing, North) (Lab)
†Prisk, Mr. Mark (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
†Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
†Sheridan, Jim (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab)
†Thurso, John (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
†Waltho, Lynda (Stourbridge) (Lab)
†Wilson, Sammy (East Antrim) (DUP)
†Wright, Jeremy (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con)
Geoffrey Farrar, Sarah Hartwell-Naguib, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 141
Thursday 20 October 2005
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]
Clause 13
Designation of alcohol disorder zones
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 174, in clause 13, page 11, line 37, after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.—[Mr. Malins.]
1 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:
No. 138, in clause 13, page 11, line 38, after ‘been’, insert ‘persistent and repeated’.
No. 139, in clause 13, page 11, line 39, leave out ‘or disorder’.
No. 44, in clause 13, page 11, line 40, leave out from ‘with’ to ‘the’ in line 41.
No. 162, in clause 13, page 11, line 45, at end insert
(e) the decision to designate that locality as an alcohol disorder zone is reasonable in all the circumstances’.
Jeremy Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): I was talking about amendment No. 162 and the concept of reasonableness that it would bring to clause 13(1). I invite the Minister to consider the fact that the test set out in the Bill is subjective. The local authority should be satisfied not only of the necessity for an alcohol disorder zone but that imposing such a zone is the most appropriate response. Because of the financial obligations that the clause will impose not only on the businesses who may be at fault but on some that are not at fault, it seems sensible for that additional fetter to placed on the discretion of local authorities.
The Minister said that the alcohol disorder zone was an order of last resort, and I understand that it should not be used unless it is the only way to deal with the problem. It therefore seems sensible to have such a safeguard. I accept that the opinion of the chief police officer of the locality will have to be taken into account, but even with that additional constraint it seems sensible to consider putting an additional fetter on the discretion of local authorities, to ensure that alcohol disorder zone proposals are reasonable in every respect, so that they have the support of the business community.
The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Hazel Blears): Clause 13(1) sets out the criteria for the designation of alcohol disorder zones. In
Column Number: 142
summary, the criteria provide a three-part test before an zone can be designated—a general test of the nuisance, annoyance and disorder, a link to the consumption of alcohol, and the likelihood of repetition. Amendment No. 162, tabled by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), focuses generally on the first test, establishing the link to the consumption of alcohol and the level of proof required.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked some probing questions about whether the standard of proof was equivalent to that in civil or criminal cases—but such a standard of proof is not appropriate for a local authority decisions. Well-established case law and guidance is available on how local authorities should reach such decisions. It would not be appropriate to have a civil or a criminal standard of proof in such circumstances.
The Bill provides an overall framework. Clause 16 provides for guidance to be issued. Local authorities will have a duty to follow that guidance, which brings into play the point made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. Designating a zone is to be a last resort. The guidance will also provide for alternative interventions, and specific premises can be tackled under the Licensing Act 2003 or other powers. That should be sufficient.
On that basis, we do not need the reference to “persistent and repeated” alcohol misuse, as suggested by the Liberal Democrats’ amendment No. 138. We have a range of powers, and there will be guidance and alternative interventions.
Amendment No. 139 would delete the reference to disorder, but we have been over that territory before. We want the zones to cover crime and disorder; it would weaken them significantly if we were to remove the link to disorder and antisocial behaviour, limiting the criterion to criminal activity. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) should consider the fact that many of our constituents suffer from disorder as well as from criminal activity, particularly with binge drinking, when disorder becomes completely unacceptable.
Amendment No. 162, tabled by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, would add a reasonableness test. I understand where he is coming from, but the Bill contains a series of checks and balances, including the joint trigger between the police and the local authority, the need for an action plan, and the fact that an ADZ is to be used at a last resort. At the end of the day, all local authority decisions have to be reasonable, as they can be subject to judicial review. Their decisions would have to meet the Wednesbury test on rationality. They must take account of all relevant considerations, not take account of irrelevant considerations, and be reasonable in all the circumstances. If a completely irrational local authority decided to impose an alcohol disorder zone where there was no problem, there would be the possibility of making a judicial review challenge. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but there are already sufficient checks and balances in the system.
Column Number: 143
Mr. Malins: I may have missed this, in which case I am sorry, but has the Minister commented on amendment No. 44, which relates to whether an alcohol disorder zone can cover an area in which none of the alcohol responsible for the problem has been purchased?
Hazel Blears: My apologies for not dealing with that amendment. It relates to clause 13(1)(b), which is designed to ensure that an alcohol disorder zone can cover the consumption of alcohol in the public realm, as well as in particular premises. It therefore relates to people drinking on the street.
Clearly, the local authority must act reasonably, and I cannot envisage the situation that hon. Members have suggested, in which an alcohol disorder zone would be introduced simply because that people were coming into an area and consuming alcohol. There would have to be a problem with members of the public being caused nuisance and annoyance as a result of the consumption of alcohol, as well as the likelihood that that behaviour would be repeated, and the local authority’s decision would have to be reasonable.
One problem might be people buying alcohol elsewhere—as we have discussed, there could be off-licences outside an area—and then coming to that area, drinking on the streets and causing problems. However, I find it difficult to envisage that that would be the only problem and that it could be used to justify introducing an alcohol disorder zone. There would be a range of associated problems, with people drinking on and off the premises of pubs and clubs.
Subsection (1) is not designed to allow us to introduce an alcohol disorder zone simply because people are coming from another place. However, it does allow us to consider how to deal with people who are drinking not only inside pubs and clubs, but on the streets outside. It is therefore a sensible provision.
Mr. Malins: I thank the Minister for her full reply, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 175, in clause 13, page 12, line 1, after ‘locality’, insert
‘, including the proposed content of the action plan’.
The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 163, in clause 13, page 12, line 12, at end insert
‘and which are reasonable in all the circumstances’.
No. 164, in clause 13, page 12, line 13, after ‘appropriate’, insert ‘and which is reasonable’.
No. 165, in clause 13, page 12, line 14, leave out
‘bringing it to the attention of’
and insert ‘communicating it to’.
No. 140, in clause 13, page 12, line 20, at end insert—
‘(4A) The relevant authorities shall consult with affected business within the locality on the draft action plan.’.
No. 176, in clause 13, page 12, line 20, at end insert—
‘(d) consider and respond to any representations made in accordance with subsection (3)’.
Column Number: 144
No. 141, in clause 13, page 12, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 166, in clause 13, page 12, line 43, at end insert
‘and provided that decision to make such an order is reasonable in all the circumstances’.
Mr. Malins: The clause covers what a local authority needs to do to designate a locality as an alcohol disorder zone. My first passing thought is that a great deal of bureaucracy is involved, that there will be a lot of extra burdens on local authorities and that time will be taken. Is there any way of shortening the process?
[Mr. James Clappison in the Chair]
Subsection (2) requires a local authority to
(a) setting out their proposal to designate the locality; and
(b) inviting persons . . . to make representations”.
Shortly after that we find the provisions setting out the steps involved in introducing the action plan, intended to make designating a locality unnecessary. In short, the action plan sets out what the local authority wants to happen in an area, which is sensible. Would there be any harm in the authority setting out the contents of the action plan at the same time as it publishes the notice setting out its proposals to designate a locality? It could include in the notice the remedial steps that it believes would remove the problem entirely. If it does that at an early stage, it might save time, which might be an advantage. It is on that basis that I tabled this probing amendment.
Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 deal to some extent with the point made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). The Government seem to want representations from businesses and establishments in the zone in order to set up the plan once the local authority and the local police authority have accepted it. Those businesses and establishments have no opportunity to criticise or comment, or to point out particular hardship or special circumstances in connection with the completed plan. This appears to be a fait accompli. The Government have put on record the fact that they want to enable people to bring about the improvements themselves, but one stage of the process appears to have been omitted. It devalues the proposals, and the intention, if those affected by the scheme cannot comment on that element of consultation and partnership in the improvement stage.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab): I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, and I hear some of her views. I wonder, however, if there is a risk of the amendment making the process unnecessarily bureaucratic. Although the clause refers to representations, one hopes that it really means that there will proper negotiation. If it means that there must a formal process in which things are sent out, come back and are written down and advertised, it will create an expensive and bureaucratic process. What I want, and what I believe the hon. Lady wants, is to know that there is meaningful negotiation leading to a realistic action plan.
Column Number: 145
Lynne Featherstone: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I believe that we are thinking along the same lines. Perhaps it is my inexperience with legislation, but I am simply concerned that the Bill does not make that explicit. Perhaps the Minister can make it so; I would welcome her clarification.
On amendment No. 141, if there is a genuine opportunity in a given period to see whether an action plan is working, it will either be given a chance or it will not. It negates the point of the mechanism for allowing local pubs eight weeks to show the local authority and the local police authority that they can behave and improve themselves if the local authority can step in early and say that it does not believe that they will do so. I am simply concerned that this is another “Go straight to jail and don’t pass Go” clause.
Jeremy Wright: I shall not speak at length to amendments Nos. 163, 164 and 166, or to No. 165 on a separate subject, but shall say simply that I am grateful for what the Minister said about the reasonableness clause, which I proposed in an earlier group of amendments. Amendments Nos. 163, 164 and 166 make the same point about the action plan and about the variation, at a later point, of alcohol disorder zones.
I understand what the Minister said about judicial review, although as she knows, it is a lengthy and expensive process to challenge a local authority’s decision in that way. Will she, at the appropriate stage, consider regulations so that we can find ways in which local authority decisions can be challenged more swiftly and less expensively? I shall leave that thought there.
Amendment No. 165 is a probing amendment designed to make a simple point, which I accept might be dealt with a little later in the clause. The clause states that the local authority should bring the action plan
“to the attention of persons likely to be interested in it”.
I wonder whether it would be more sensible to make that duty more active, so that the local authority must communicate it to persons likely to be interested in it rather than simply bring it to their attention. It should be made very clear, particularly as such an action plan has financial consequences, given subsection (5). The amendment has more resonance in the context of clause 14, but it is designed to ask the Minister whether she believes that the wording of the clause is adequate to deal with the problem that I mentioned.
[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]
1.15 pm
Hazel Blears: Amendment No. 175 would require the local authority to publish the content of the proposed action plan when publishing the proposal to designate an ADZ. The hon. Member for Woking makes a good point. We know from our consultation with stakeholders that it is important for people to see the proposed action plan at the consultation stage, when they make their representations. I also think it important that people can see not only the action plan but the actions that might be taken if the compulsory
Column Number: 146
charging stage were reached. They could then keep in mind the consequences of not implementing the action plan.
I do not think that the amendment is the right way to secure that result. However, I assure hon. Members that, through a combination of regulations and guidance, what we mean by the proposal to designate an alcohol disorder zone will be spelled out. That will include a requirement to publish the proposed content of the action plan at the consultation stage, so that people will have a fair chance of knowing what the steps will be. I think that that would be a proper way of proceeding, and better than specifying everything in the Bill.
As for amendments Nos. 163, 164 and 166, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, I think that I dealt with the point about reasonableness. Local authorities are conscious of the need to act intra vires. In my experience local authorities do not behave as mavericks. They know what the consequences of judicial review are; it is not pleasant and it costs a lot of money. I am sure that they will exercise their policies in a reasonable way. Again, we can ensure that by means of regulation and guidance.
With regard to amendment No. 165, another of those tabled by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, I am not sure that there is any difference between bringing something to someone’s attention and communicating with them. If there is, it is semantic. I agree that there is a need for meaningful and constructive engagement between the trade and the local authority. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had drafted the Bill he would have used the term “communicate”, but I do not think that an amendment is necessary.
Amendment No. 140 contains a specific requirement for affected businesses to be consulted on the action plan. I agree that they need to be involved, and when we publish the proposal people will know the action plan requirements and the charges. My concern about the amendment is that it could mean that an additional formal round of consultation was required. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) made the point that that could lead to extra bureaucracy and lengthy delay—and the hon. Member for Woking was concerned to avoid delay in the making of the orders.
Amendment No. 176 concerns a requirement to respond to representations received during the 28-day consultation period. I do not think that that requirement is needed in the Bill. The real prize is an effective action zone, not a series of negotiations about what should be in the action plan. We need the action plan, not necessarily the charge. As I have said, I do not want the charging stage to be reached.
Regulations and guidance can cover all the issues that hon. Members have raised. That is what happens in relation to designated public places orders concerning drinking in the street, and that process works well enough.
Column Number: 147
Amendment No. 141 is perhaps more serious. It would remove the second limb of clause 13(8), which states that the local authority can take action before or after the expiry of the eight-week period. If an action plan has been made and it is clear that the relevant people are not coming to meetings, are not willing to engage and will take no action, I do not think that the local authority should have to sit on its hands and take no action for two months, while problems continue on the street.
Equally, if an action plan existed and in the ninth week everyone concerned stopped doing what they were supposed to do, the amendment would make it necessary to go back to the beginning of a new process. That is not appropriate either. We want the zones to bite and to be effective. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Mr. Malins: May I correct an oversight, Mr. Forth, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) who, in your brief absence a moment ago, took over the Chair with such charm, courtesy and efficiency—matched only by that of the Minister, who has responded very helpfully to the debate? I am happy with her response to my amendment, although we might return to some of the issues on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 13, page 12, line 43, at end insert—
‘(9) The following persons may appeal to the Crown Court against the designation of a locality as an alcohol disorder zone—
(a) a person holding a premises licence authorising the use of premises in the locality for the sale of alcohol by retail, or
(b) a nominated officer of a club in the locality, holding a club premises certificate authorising the supply of alcohol to members or guests.
(10) Any appeal made under subsection (9) above shall be made within 28 days of the designation.’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 11—Appeals against designation of zones—
(a) person who holds a premises licence authorising the use of the premises in an alcohol disorder zone for the sale of alcohol by retail, or
(b) club which is authorised by virtue of a club premises certificate to use premises in such zones for the supply of alcohol to members or guests,
may appeal to the Tribunal.
(2) On an appeal under this section, the Tribunal may—
(a) dismiss the appeal, or
(b) exclude an area, which includes the premises of the appellant, from the relevant alcohol disorder zone, or
(c) revoke the designation of an area designated as an alcohol disorder zone.
(3) No area which has ceased to be, or to be part of, an alcohol disorder zone pursuant to subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b) may be re-designated as an alcohol disorder zone within two years of it ceasing to be so designated without the consent of the President of the Tribunal.’.
New clause 12—Constitution of Tribunal—
‘(1) In sections [Appeals against designation of zones] [Tribunal Procedure], “the Tribunal” means the Alcohol Disorder Zone (Designation) Tribunal.
Column Number: 148
(2) The Tribunal shall exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it by this Chapter.
(3) There shall be appointed—
(a) a President of the Tribunal (referred to in this Chapter as “the President”),
(b) a panel of persons (referred to in this Chapter as “the chairmen’s panel”) who may serve as chairman of the Tribunal, and
(c) a panel of persons (referred to in this Chapter as “the lay panel”) who may serve as the other two members of the Tribunal apart from the chairman.
(4) The President and the members of the chairmen’s panel shall each be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
(5) The members of the lay panel shall each be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) provide for the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to be exercised by such number of tribunals as may be determined from time to time by the President, and
(b) make such other provision in connection with the establishment and continuation of the Tribunal as the Secretary of State considers necessary or desirable.
(7) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide such staff and accommodation as the Tribunal may require.’.
New clause 13—President and members of the panels—
‘(1) No person may be appointed President or member of the chairmen’s panel unless he has a seven year general qualification (within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990).
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the requirements to be satisfied by a person before he may be appointed a member of the lay panel.
(3) If, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor and of the Lord Chief Justice, the President is unfit to continue in office or is incapable of performing his duties, the Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, revoke his appointment.
(4) Each member of the chairmen’s panel or lay panel shall hold and vacate office under the terms of the instrument under which he is appointed.
(5) The President or a member of the chairmen’s panel or lay panel—
(a) may resign office by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State, and
(b) is eligible for re-appointment if he ceases to hold office.’.
New clause 14—Remuneration and expenses—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may pay to the President, and to any other person in respect of his service as a member of the Tribunal, such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
(2) The Secretary of State may defray the expenses of the Tribunal to such amount as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.’.
New clause 15—Tribunal procedure—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the proceedings of the Tribunal on an appeal under this Chapter and the initiation of such an appeal.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, include provision—
(a) as to the period within which, and the manner in which, appeals are to be instituted,
(b) where the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is being exercised by more than one tribunal—
(i) for determining by which tribunal any appeal is to be heard, and
(ii) for the transfer of proceedings from one tribunal to another,
(c) for enabling any functions which relate to matters preliminary or incidental to an appeal to be performed by the President, or by the chairman,
Column Number: 149
(d) for hearings to be conducted in the absence of any member other than the chairman,
(e) as to the persons who may appear on behalf of the parties,
(f) for granting any person such disclosure or inspection of documents or right to further particulars as might be granted by a county court,
(g) requiring persons to attend to give evidence and produce documents,
(h) for authorising the administration of oaths to witnesses,
(i) for the determination of appeals without a hearing in prescribed circumstances,
(j) as to the withdrawal of appeals,
(k) for the award of costs or expenses,
(l) for taxing or otherwise settling any such costs or expenses (and, in particular, for enabling such costs to be taxed in the county court),
(m) for the registration and proof of decisions and orders, and
(n) for enabling the Tribunal to review its decisions, or revoke or vary its orders, in such circumstances as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.
(3) The Secretary of State may pay such allowances for the purpose of or in connection with the attendance of persons at the Tribunal as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
(4) Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996 shall not apply to any proceedings before the Tribunal but regulations may make provision corresponding to any provision of that Part.
(5) Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with—
(a) any requirement in respect of the discovery or inspection of documents imposed by the regulations by virtue of subsection (2)(f), or
(b) any requirement imposed by the regulations by virtue of subsection (2)(g),
(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.’.
New clause 16—Alcohol Disorder Zone (Designation) Tribunal for Wales—
‘(1) There shall be a tribunal to be known as the Alcohol Disorder Zone (Designation) Tribunal for Wales.
(2) Sections Appeals against designation of zones to Tribunal President shall apply in relation to that tribunal as they apply in relation to the Alcohol Disorder Zone (Designation) Tribunal, but as if—
(a) functions of the Secretary of State were functions of the National Assembly for Wales,
(b) references to the Secretary of State were references to the National Assembly for Wales,
(c) requirements for the Treasury’s consent were omitted.
(3) The powers of the National Assembly for Wales under sections 16B(4) and (5) and 16C(2) are exercisable only with the agreement of the Secretary of State.’.
|
