---

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

This is another debate about process, but an important one. Amendment No. 89 covers implementation of the action plan and would provide that a local authority could not designate an alcohol disorder zone if the whole action plan is, or the majority of its steps are, being implemented. As we have made fairly plain from the start, the action plan is the real prize here and the core of what we are trying to achieve. I cannot see that there would be case in which a local authority would wish to move to designate an ADZ when all the steps in the action plan were in the process of being carried out. What about when the majority of steps in the action plan were being put into effect? I can see that there may be some cases in which the local authority may decide that, if this was the case, designation was unnecessary. On the other hand, what if the remaining steps were absolutely critical? In such circumstances, the local authority might well decide, perhaps reluctantly, to move to designation. We believe that the Bill is drafted to provide a robust and flexible framework within which those affected can work. When it is clear that designation is not appropriate, when steps are being taken to implement the action plan, and there is sufficient flexibility to manage situations where the action plan falls short on some of the steps, I do not think that we want to tie local authorities’ hands in these cases. So the spirit of what the noble Baroness proposes is already there in the Bill’s drafting, and the flexibility is there to proceed as she suggests. Like her, we do not want to see businesses being overburdened with unnecessary costs, because things are moving along as we want them to. That goes back to a point that I have made on several occasions before that ADZs are a last resort and that we hope that before we get to that point local authorities can work with the police and those businesses involved to secure the outcome that they all want to mitigate or deal with the problem.