A. Draft Local Authorities (Alcohol
Disorder Zones) Regulations 2008
Summary: These Regulations set out how Alcohol
Disorder Zones (ADZs) are to be designated and administered and
how the levy for their operation is to operate. We reported on
an earlier draft of these Regulations in our 8th Report: since
the Government laid the original draft of these Regulations in
December 2007 they have withdrawn and relaid them a number of
times. The Explanatory Memorandum laid with this draft responds
to a number of the questions raised in our earlier report, but
we remain of the impression that the system is unduly bureaucratic
and without a clear explanation of how ADZs offer benefits additional
to the other methods for combating alcohol-fuelled disorder that
are already available to the local authorities. The House may
wish to seek further information on how the complex charging structure
is to be implemented in a practical and transparent way, and on
the number of authorities likely to make use of the policy.
These draft Regulations are drawn to the special
attention of the House on the ground that they may imperfectly
achieve their policy objectives.
1. The Home Office have laid these draft Regulations
under sections 15-17 and 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act
2006 and sections 13 and 105 of the Local Government Act 2000,
together with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) and a Regulatory
Impact Assessment (RIA). We reported on a previous draft of the
instrument in our 8th Report of this session.
2. Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZs) are a manifesto
commitment, enacted by sections 15-20 of the Violent Crime Reduction
Act 2006. These Regulations set out how ADZs are to be designated
and administered and how charges within them are to be levied.
Much of the detail on how the system will work is included in
guidance, now published online.[1]
3. Although the EM is significantly better than
that laid with the original draft of these Regulations, we are
still left without a clear idea of how ADZs offer benefits additional
to the other methods for combating alcohol-fuelled disorder that
are already available to the local authorities. The RIA is that
provided for the Bill in 2005, and we question how robust the
Home Office's estimates of the anticipated benefits can be if
extrapolated from these figures. We made further comment on these
issues in our report on the original draft, published in our 8th
Report.
4. The Home Office estimate in the RIA that 30
areas will commence the ADZ process in the first year, but only
6 will move to the charging regime. The Home Office have not supplied
projections for subsequent years, which they say will be reviewed
after the first year of implementation. The Local Government Association
(LGA), which wrote to us about the original draft of the Regulations
(Appendix 1 to the 8th Report), expressed "serious misgivings
about this policy", questioning in particular
how they are to recover set-up costs in the anticipated 80% of
cases where the issues are resolved before the charging regime
can be initiated, and whether they will be liable for the costs
incurred by other agencies if the income from ADZ charges is inadequate.
The Explanatory Memorandum (pages 33-39) shows that other significant
consultees hold the same view.
5. We are left with the impression that the system
will be unduly bureaucratic and without a clear idea of how ADZs
will fit in with the other items in the local authorities' toolkit
for combating alcohol-fuelled disorder. We were not clear why
this policy was required in addition to voluntary measures such
as Business Improvement Districts, or enforcement action such
as suspending the licences of delinquent bars, or charging delinquent
individuals under existing legislation.
6. Our further enquiries failed to gain a clear
assurance on two points which the House may wish to pursue in
more detail during the debate:
- the temporary nature of ADZs
- the documentation states that ADZs are a temporary measure of
last resort but, although Regulation 22 requires there to be three-monthly
reviews of the action plan, there is no measure to set a finite
time limit to this additional, if carefully ring-fenced, source
of income to the authorities.
- the charging system is arcane
- as well as offering significant scope for discounts and exemptions,
the basic method of calculation is highly variable. Regulation
16 sets out a formula comprising two indicators (rateable value
and hours open) but these factors can first be weighted and then
added or multiplied. Under Regulation 16(6) the basis of calculation
can differ within the zone as long as all premises of the same
description have their scores calculated in the same way and under
Regulation 16(4) a higher charge may be levied if local authorities
think that premises are using a higher level of non-baseline services.
The level of charge is not capped as long as it reflects the actual
enforcement costs, but the Guidance also states that the charge
should be limited to what a viable business can pay (Chapter 6
page 23).
7. Many of the comments on the revised Guidance
still raise questions about how particular terms may be interpreted
(see current EM pages 31-39). Our concern is about the transparency
and practicality of this proposal: we suspect that, if implemented
as set out, this charging structure could result in a large number
of individual premises contesting the level of their charge in
comparison with that of their competitors, which would result
in a significant diversion of local authority resources from addressing
the alcohol disorder problem.
Conclusion
8. We wonder how many local authorities will
make use of this policy given its complexity, and we draw the
Regulations to the special attention of the House on the ground
that they may imperfectly achieve their policy objectives.
1 See http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operationalpolicing/ Alcohol_disorder _zones_guid1.pdf?view=Binary Back
| 
