ADZ amendment thrown out by MPs

MPs have rejected proposals that would make it more difficult for councils to impose alcohol disorder zones.

Lords wanted to ensure alcohol disorder zones (ADZs) could not be imposed during the eight-week period given to operators to reduce

disorder, so long as the "majority" of agreed steps had been taken.

The aim was to stop councils acting "in a pre-emptive way" before the trade had a chance to make changes.

But MPs threw out this amendment to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, arguing that it was unnecessary and impractical.

Home Office minister Tony McNulty said: "The proposal is unworkable, because a one-size-fits-all check would hamstring local authorities, preventing them from designating an ADZ if the majority of steps had been taken.

"It may be that the 51% of actions taken are not the most critical actions in the action plan."

Tory MP Nick Herbert agreed: "It would not make sense to prevent a local authority from designating an ADZ simply because a numerical majority of steps - which may be the less important ones - in the action plan have been met."

Herbert said the amendment was not needed because the draft guidance for councils and police on ADZs addresses concerns about authorities jumping the gun.

For example, it says the action plan does not have to be implemented in full, and councils must give ample warning to operators about plans to have an ADZ if they are unhappy with the progress made to solve problems.

Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone called for a debate on raising the maximum fine for "persistently selling alcohol to children".

"To act as a deterrent, the upper limit of £10,000 should be raised significantly," she said.