Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jeremy Wright (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 14 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Violent Crime Reduction Bill 2005-06.


Violent Crime Reduction Bill

If the hon. Lady is saying that people who supply alcohol to individuals who become drunk and cause disorder should bear the burden of costs, I agree. However, I do not agree that we should assume that every supplier of alcohol is therefore irresponsible. The assumption made by those who framed the proposal is that people who live or operate and work in a particular area of town that the council has designated an alcohol disorder zone must be contributing to the problem and will therefore be charged for the expense of sorting it out. That is fundamentally unfair. If we want premises to comply with all the wonderful schemes and positive measures that have been introduced they will not be encouraged to do so if they are subject to a financial penalty, whether or not they take those measures. The Government must address that difficulty if alcohol disorder zones are to be as effective as they want them to be and, even more worryingly, if they are not to cause our town centres, pubs and clubs to be less inclined to do precisely the things that they would like them to do.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c761-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Crime prevention Crime Alcoholic drinks Crimes of violence Anti-social behaviour Airguns Licensing Further education Imitation firearms Licensed premises Drunkenness Misuse Offensive weapons Sales Schools Young people Right of search Students Drinking banning orders Anti-social behaviour orders Alcohol disorder zones
Legislation
Violent Crime Reduction Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk