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

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in clause 14, page 13, line 3, leave out subsection (3).

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 167, in clause 14, page 13, line 4, after ‘varied’, insert

‘and to do so would be reasonable in accordance with the provisions of subsection 13(1)’.

No. 144, in clause 14, page 13, line 20, at end insert—

‘(5A)Twelve months after the compulsory charging stage of an Alcohol Disorder Zone has been implemented, the locality will cease to be designated as an Alcohol Disorder Zone.

(5B)If the local authority and police authority agree that the designation of the locality as an Alcohol Disorder Zone should continue, they may repeat the procedure set out under section 13 for the designation of the locality as an alcohol disorder zone.’.

No. 143, in clause 14, page 13, line 21, leave out subsection (6).

No. 168, in clause 14, page 13, line 26, leave out ‘publicise’ and insert ‘communicate’.

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

With amendment No. 142, we propose to remove subsection (3) of the clause, which allows a local authority to vary or extend an alcohol disorder zone. The measure means that premises might find themselves in a zone for which they have had no opportunity to join in the improvement or form part of the action plan, which they would have had if they had been in the original zone. It goes against the principles of natural justice that a zone might be extended to include an establishment that does not then have rights to make proposals for reformation and on how to improve its character and behaviour. Theoretically, a local authority could extend a zone to the edge of town. There are no limitations on that. It seems patently unfair that establishments included in that way should not have the same rights as those in the original zone.

Amendment No. 144 is a probing amendment to find out how the Government intend to ensure that areas are not condemned to being alcohol disorder zones for the rest of their natural lives, albeit that a review is mentioned and the Minister has gone some way towards explaining what the content might be. The amendment would effectively introduce a sunset clause. If ADZs are a last resort to combat alcohol-related nuisance, they should have a set life span, otherwise a local authority that is troubled with such disorder might have little incentive to lift the designation of such a zone. The compulsory charging stage of an ADZ should not be seen as an ongoing revenue source for subsidising the police and the local authority. Local businesses are genuinely concerned that that might be a perverse incentive. Despite the review process, it might benefit a local authority not to find in favour of terminating an alcohol disorder zone even though the situation is under control and things are working well. What provisions are there to compel local authorities to end an alcohol disorder zone?

James Clappison (Hertsmere, Conservative)

Amendment No. 144 caught my eye. I asked the Minister in a brief intervention how the Government proposed to judge the success or otherwise of the various measures relating to alcohol disorder zones. The amendment, which the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green described as a sunset clause, as it automatically brings the alcohol disorder zone to an end after 12 months, returns me to that line of thinking.

It is all very well for us to pass all this legislation to create all these orders, new instruments, and new charges on businesses but, at the end of the day, we   want to know whether they are a success. The Minister needs to tell us more about how the Government propose to judge whether they are a success, and what she expects to come about as a result of them. She will take on board the point made by the hon. Lady that we do not want the legislation to be just another mechanism whereby charges are levied on businesses, but no real difference is made and there is no improvement in the amount of alcohol-generated disorder in our great cities, particularly in our great provincial cities, late at night at weekends. We need the Government to tell us how they will judge whether the legislation is a success, because that is what we want on behalf of our constituents. We want this problem to be tackled; we do not want legislation that does not contribute to solving the problem.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I understand where hon. Members are coming from and I accept that their amendments are designed to probe the Government’s intentions to ensure that there are sufficient checks on the actions of local authorities and the police, and to ensure that there is full and proper consultation about what happens.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said that the variation in clause 14(3) meant that premises to which the zone was extended would not have the opportunity to go through the proposal and the designation, so would not have the opportunity to get their house in order. If she reads clause 14(3) carefully, she will see that it says:

“If a local authority consider that the locality designated by an alcohol disorder zone should be varied, they may ... make a proposal for the purposes of section 13”.

That means that it must make a proposal in accordance with the original procedure in clause 13, so premises to which it would be extended would have exactly the same opportunity as others to make their representations and be included in the plan. The phrase

“make a proposal for the purposes of section 13”

is sufficient to give the hon. Lady what she wants, which is for people to have a genuine chance to change their ways and get their house in order. I hope that that deals with her point.

It is important that the local authority has a power to make a variation, because there may well be unforeseen displacement of activity. If an alcohol disorder zone is drawn in one place, problems might emerge elsewhere. It is therefore right to give local authorities the flexibility to vary the zone, subject to consultation.

Amendment No. 167 would introduce a reasonableness test. I have dealt with that issue before and I understand the hon. Gentleman’s reason for tabling the amendment.

The Liberal Democrat amendment No. 143 would remove the power for us to make regulations. Again, that is not appropriate, as it would reduce the flexibility of the police and local authorities to attack these very real problems. We are as confident as we can be that the procedures that we are introducing are the   right ones, but matters that have not been considered before will inevitably be thrown up when ADZs are designated, hence the need for flexibility. Some procedures will be for guidance; others may well need to be written into regulations.

Amendment No. 144 would require automatic termination of the designation a year after the beginning of compulsory charging. I know what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green wants to achieve; a year is a long time, and possibly only a handful of alcohol disorder zones will still be in existence 12 months on. The very reason for including a review after three months—which is very early in legislative terms—is to ensure a constant focus on the area, rather than allowing the designation to run and run. I do not want to accommodate the appalling behaviour that the provisions are intended to deal with. We must prevent it and return the areas in question to the decent people who are in the majority.

The hon. Member for Hertsmere has asked me before what success will look like. Success will be when decent people can go into the town centre for a meal, to visit the theatre or to have a drink in a pub without facing a rampaging mob of 30 to 50 people who are completely out of control. Unfortunately, many people of perhaps similar ages to members of the Committee are now reluctant to go to city centres. A few weeks ago I went to a matinee performance at the theatre. I should not feel forced to go to a matinee because I am reluctant to be in the city centre at 9 or 10 o’clock in the evening. A matinee might be quite nice, but I should like to feel able to go in the evening without fear of being surrounded by people whose behaviour is out of control.

That would be one sign of success; so would a reduction in the incidence of low-level violence. Figures for recorded crime might go up, because police were catching more of it, but there would be a sense that our town and city centres were under control and that people could have a relaxed night out and enjoy themselves without the possibility of encountering antisocial behaviour.

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

The amendments were probing amendments intended to test the Governments’ intentions and find out the measures of success. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.