Lords slam illogical ADZs

So it is not just the licensed trade that thinks alcohol disorder zones (ADZs) are a bad idea. The House of Lords thinks so too. The criticisms levelled at the measure by the Scrutiny Committee are all-embracing and go to the root of the problem - there is not a great deal of logic in the scheme, and the only objective seems to be a simple fund-raising exercise, which is a form of additional taxation.

The Home Office seems adamant that ADZs will go ahead, but there is bound to be a delay, and that might also allow further consideration of the merits.

For example, there is a suggestion that the police are going to be given extra powers, in addition to those contained in the current legislation, to prevent congregation of people in the streets and to confiscate alcohol.

If that is indeed what will happen, then the onus seems to me to move once again to the enforcers, whose responsibility is to ensure that town and city centres are kept trouble-free. It is clear that it is not just the on-trade that may be fuelling this type of disorder, so to place the financial burden principally on them seems also unreasonable.

But the main argument for ditching the whole idea, in the face of Home Office intransigence, is that it is extremely unpopular with local authorities as well. If I were legal adviser to any council, I would raise several issues concerning the procedures, how complex they are and how many legal pitfalls there might be in trying to enforce and sustain an ADZ. I would also point out that the strong trade opposition could mean a costly time in the High Court, as councils are taken to judicial review of their decisions.

The stages of the creation and maintenance of an ADZ make other licensing procedures appear simple by comparison. A council has to be extremely careful to issue proper notices and communications, undertake accurate consultations, ensure that the areas are correct and that the right premises are involved.

It has to devise a proper strategy for the licensed trade to combat the problems it perceives. It then has to recoup the cost of all this from the hapless licensee, even before it can add on the estimated cost of that "additional" policing which is to be required if the ADZ comes about.

Given the negative coverage so far, even among councils, it would be surprising if more than one or two think it is worth the effort.