Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 174, in clause 13, page 11, line 37, after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 138, in clause 13, page 11, line 38, after ‘been’, insert ‘persistent and repeated’.

No. 139, in clause 13, page 11, line 39, leave out ‘or disorder’.

No. 44, in clause 13, page 11, line 40, leave out from ‘with’ to ‘the’ in line 41.

No. 162, in clause 13, page 11, line 45, at end insert

‘; and

(e)the decision to designate that locality as an alcohol disorder zone is reasonable in all the circumstances’.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

With this probing amendment, we seek to clarify how satisfied the local authority should be of the need to make a designation? Does the Minister want simply to leave the word “satisfied” in the Bill? She probably does. What are her thoughts on whether there should be a higher or lower test, as with civil and criminal court proceedings? What about using the word “sure”?

I move on to discuss amendment No. 44. It seems to me—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that under clause 13(1)(b), it is entirely possible that an area could be designated as an alcohol disorder zone even though none of the alcohol that has caused the problem has been supplied by any of the premises within it. That paragraph states that an authority can designate an area as a zone if it is satisfied that the nuisance is

“associated with the consumption of alcohol in that locality or with the consumption of alcohol supplied at premises in that locality”.

This is not a point of principle; the problem may be down to poor drafting. It is odd to say that if alcohol is supplied irresponsibly in one town and drunk there by a whole lot of irresponsible people who then go together to another town where they neither purchase nor consume any alcohol, the second town could be designated as an alcohol disorder zone even though   none of the alcohol that fuelled the problem was supplied there. I would appreciate the Minister’s response on that little difficulty.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

The purpose of amendment No. 138 is to raise the threshold of and require a more causal link for the establishment of alcohol disorder zones. There must be a fear that the threshold is too low and that a local authority might, in designating an area as an alcohol disorder zone, particularly if there is an incentive to get funding for policing, believe a nuisance or annoyance to be relatively low. The Minister looks at me quizzically, but that fear applies throughout the Bill: we do not know how far the measures will be applied. The intention may be obvious, but the wording is not. If the words “persistent and repeated” were inserted, the threshold at which a local authority could designate such a zone would be raised.

Jeremy Wright (Rugby & Kenilworth, Conservative)

I tabled amendment No. 162 to address a concern similar to that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. The clause states that a local authority must be satisfied that an alcohol disorder zone is necessary and the appropriate response to the problem that has been identified. Should not there be some fetter on the local authority’s discretion in that regard? To be satisfied of something is a subjective test, and I wonder whether the test should be more objective, given the financial consequences—