Clause 13 - Designation of alcohol disorder zones
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
1:00 pm
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
Clause 13(1) sets out the criteria for the designation of alcohol disorder zones. In summary, the criteria provide a three-part test before an zone can be designated—a general test of the nuisance, annoyance and disorder, a link to the consumption of alcohol, and the likelihood of repetition. Amendment No. 162, tabled by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), focuses generally on the first test, establishing the link to the consumption of alcohol and the level of proof required.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked some probing questions about whether the standard of proof was equivalent to that in civil or criminal cases—but such a standard of proof is not appropriate for a local authority decisions. Well-established case law and guidance is available on how local authorities should reach such decisions. It would not be appropriate to have a civil or a criminal standard of proof in such circumstances.
The Bill provides an overall framework. Clause 16 provides for guidance to be issued. Local authorities will have a duty to follow that guidance, which brings into play the point made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. Designating a zone is to be a last resort. The guidance will also provide for alternative interventions, and specific premises can be tackled under the Licensing Act 2003 or other powers. That should be sufficient.
On that basis, we do not need the reference to “persistent and repeated” alcohol misuse, as suggested by the Liberal Democrats’ amendment No. 138. We have a range of powers, and there will be guidance and alternative interventions.
Amendment No. 139 would delete the reference to disorder, but we have been over that territory before. We want the zones to cover crime and disorder; it would weaken them significantly if we were to remove the link to disorder and antisocial behaviour, limiting the criterion to criminal activity. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) should consider the fact that many of our constituents suffer from disorder as well as from criminal activity, particularly with binge drinking, when disorder becomes completely unacceptable.
Amendment No. 162, tabled by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, would add a reasonableness test. I understand where he is coming from, but the Bill contains a series of checks and balances, including the joint trigger between the police and the local authority, the need for an action plan, and the fact that an ADZ is to be used at a last resort. At the end of the day, all local authority decisions have to be reasonable, as they can be subject to judicial review. Their decisions would have to meet the Wednesbury test on rationality. They must take account of all relevant considerations, not take account of irrelevant considerations, and be reasonable in all the circumstances. If a completely irrational local authority decided to impose an alcohol disorder zone where there was no problem, there would be the possibility of making a judicial review challenge. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but there are already sufficient checks and balances in the system.