Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Sammy Wilson (Democratic Unionist Party) 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

It is a difficult question. We have to define the zone fairly well, but just because there are difficulties we cannot take the view that we should not try to recoup some of the costs associated with alcohol-related disorder. I accept that some sellers of alcohol are more irresponsible than others. I therefore ask the Minister for some reassurance regarding the practical implications of the measure. The Bill provides that for the fixing of"““different rates for . . . different descriptions of premises””" and different rates of discount. Will the Minister give examples? Will such conditions and provisions ensure that differentiation of premises is possible? I do not accept that we can take a black-and-white view in which some are wholly guiltless and make no contribution to the problems. We would run into great difficulties if we tried to do so. No landlord will say, ““I am a bad landlord.”” All will say that they are good landlords, but we know that some try to get as much money as they can from youngsters in as short a time as possible. Those people will be penalised more than those who attempt to reduce the effects of the sale of alcohol.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c763 
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