Coulson: ADZs - will the rules create a monster?

Last month I gave advance warning of the impending arrival of alcohol disorder zones (ADZs).

Having listened to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith on BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show at the weekend, I am convinced that neither she nor anyone else knows exactly what they are for (she said "to close pubs") - nor whether they will be effective in any way.

The Government has now published the regulations and explanatory notes for MPs and peers. I hope they enjoy their reading between now and the parliamentary debates.

Some may just question the wisdom of it all, given the complexity and lack of clear objectives. But I suspect that not enough of them will vote against it to bring the measure down.

But what is the legal framework, once the vote to continue has been taken? First, the Home Secretary has to issue written Guidance to local authorities, explaining how to go about each stage of the order-making process.

This has existed for some time in draft form, but will now need to be amended in the light of changes made to the regulations. As no revised drafts are available, one can only guess at the final content.

Last resort​

The draft does stress in many places that the creation of an ADZ is an option of last resort.

This is borne out by the fact that before one can be declared, there has to be a formal consultation lasting 28 days, followed by the creation of an action plan, setting out what steps the licensed trade (and others) need to take to make the situation better.

Only if the action plan is clearly failing, during its eight-week implementation period, can the ADZ start in earnest.

The problem is that the licensed trade itself, on the written admission of the Government in published documents, is not directly responsible for the social evil which this scheme seeks to cure.

Much of the problem lies in congregation and anti-social behaviour in town and city centres away from licensed premises.

Yet the remedies being proposed, for which the trade is being asked to pay, are premises-based and are already covered by the work of the police and the licensing authority under the Licensing Act itself.

The four main "services" are:

•More police visits to licensed premises to check on conduct

•Test-purchasing with underage volunteers by weights-and-measures inspectors

•Checking on licences and certificates, to make sure they are in order

•Noise pollution inspections and enforcement.

These have to be described as "services" to the licensed trade, because they must be justified as such in order to issue an invoice.

Otherwise, they would be an unfair tax and there would also be possible human rights contraventions. Even the Government is nervous about this aspect, and is asking local authorities to be extremely careful how they proceed.

Action plan​

The problem is the scatter-gun approach to the issues. What if 80% of the licensees follow the action plan, but some do not? Is this deemed a failure, so that charging under the ADZ can proceed?

Who takes the ultimate decision on whether the plan has worked, or has partly worked, or whether it was workable in the first place?

What if the trade thinks the plan is flawed?

I fear that in the few places where this may be tried, these questions will not even be addressed. There will be a plan claiming to aim to stop street disturbance.

Licensees will be given an instruction to ensure that people leaving their premises do not go on to create disturbance. This is an impossible objective - so it will fail.

The licensed trade will be blamed and the ADZ will take effect. The money will come rolling in to "pay for" the services the local authority and the police should be providing anyway, under the Licensing Act.

This is an unpopular measure for many reasons, not just in the licensed trade. The best message that can be communicated to Government is if not a single local authority adopts it.

If they do go ahead, then all the partnership and goodwill initiatives will fly out of the window.

And that would be bad for everyone.