Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from James Brokenshire (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Crime and Security Bill.


Crime and Security Bill

That is the point. I was genuinely trying to make the point sensibly, and not in a partisan way, so that we could try to make the legislation more workable in the spirit of positive opposition. It is interesting that the Government have turned their face against the proposal, and indeed against the very local communities that they claim to represent. It has been a fascinating debate, in terms of the Minister's response. He very much seems to want centralising control over local authorities, which would make the scheme unworkable and ensure that local councils did not have the powers that his Bill seeks to set out. It has been interesting to see how he responded to amendment 23. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello), highlighted his experiences in his constituency and rightly identified the problems with alcohol that affect not just his community but many others. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) supported what we said about alcohol disorder zones. We have highlighted the fact that the measure was designed to create a soundbite, rather than a sound basis for dealing with the alcohol-fuelled disorder that affects far too many of our communities across the country. The Minister accepted that there are problems, but the number of accident and emergency department admissions related to the problems of alcohol has continued to grow over the past few years. It seems clear that the Government's policies have made the situation worse, not better. We believe that there is a much more elegant way of achieving the end of ensuring that contributions are made to the cost of dealing with the late-night economy and late-night drinking: a late-night levy. By contrast, alcohol disorder zones have been a policy disaster zone from start to finish. We believe that there is a better way of dealing with the problem. That is why we would introduce a late-night levy and abolish ADZs, and why we would like to test the opinion of the House on this issue. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 267.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
507 c87 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Data protection Databases Criminal investigation Crime Alcoholic drinks Administration of justice Anti-social behaviour Fingerprints Immobilisation of vehicles Licensing Genetics Domestic abuse Licensed premises Identification of criminals Drunkenness Injunctions Protection Organised crime Opening hours Licensing laws Sentencing Young offenders Alcohol disorder zones Domestic violence protection orders Domestic violence protection notices
Legislation
Crime and Security Bill 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk