---

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I think that that nervousness will remain after the noble Lord’s last reply. I wonder whether he and his officials could give some thought to how to give an assurance that the charges will not simply go sky high and that some control will be exercised over the level of charges. As he said, I am not wedded to any particular percentage of the annual rateable value; all I seek to suggest is to introduce a mechanism that introduces a form of control, even if the word ““cap”” is not acceptable. The second thing I took from the Minister’s reply is that it is not the wish of the Government to put people out of business. I am sure that when these charges are considered and calculated, the costs to a particular business of taking appropriate measures to deal with the problem will also be taken into account. It cannot be cost free to have to deal with disorder in a particular zone; otherwise no charges would be imposed. So there is a double burden of charges in the form of the charge payable to the local authority and a charge for the actual measures that the licensee wishes to take. If those are allowed to go out of control, the Government will have the undesirable consequence of businesses ceasing to trade. As a result, an area would become not just an alcohol disorder zone but a desert where you cannot get a drink. No doubt that would be even worse. Perhaps the Minister will be able to think of a mechanism by which the charges can be controlled. I see that he is indicating his assent. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 62 not moved.]