Yesterday Teresa May announced the new proposals to change the licensing act to prevent alcoholism in city centres and to prevent binge drinking. With it the home office opened up a 6 week public consultation on the proposed changes.
Included in this document are such offerings as:
- Increased licence fees
- Enabling licensing authorities to repeal licences for non-payment of fees
- Removing the rule that objectors must be 'in the vicinity'
- Requiring greater weight to be given to police representations and objections
- Enabling licensing authorities to refuse grants or trigger reviews without the need for representations
- Introducing greater restrictions on Temporary Event Notices
- Extending closure orders from 48 hours to 7 days
- Introducing an additional levy on premises opening late to fund policing
- Banning sales of alcohol below cost price
- Enabling authorities to consider the impact of a licence on public health when exercising their functions.
A change of remit precluded this announcement with the Home Office taking the responsibility for alcohol licensing away from DCMS but leaving the entertainment aspects of licensing with DCMS.
This split implies that alcohol licenses and entertainments licenses are separate entities, they are not! At the end of the process a venue or event organiser ends up with a license, this license allows both the sale of alcohol and also the provision of entertainment.
In commencing this divide it is clear that the sole focus of the Home Office is to effect a change on issues of anti-social behaviour in city centres and they are, quite reasonably as it is not a Home Office remit, ignoring any knock on effects such changes would have on music venues or outdoor events.
The key responsibility for protecting the interests of culture and entertainment is presumably left with the struggling DCMS. Many will note from the news that DCMS is being cut back by Jeremy Hunt with up to one in two staff being made redundant. The question that unerringly sits at the front of my mind at the moment is this,
"Is a ministry thrown completely into disarray by loosing half its staff and being asked to move location going to be in any way capable of protecting the interests of culture and arts against a well organised and heavily financed ministry preparing to make sweeping changes to a system?"
Unfortunately then I fear that arts and culture industry is going to have to look after itself here and give DCMS the voice it needs. I am currently writing my objections to the proposed changes that attempt to encompass both my cultural, procedural, legal and moral concerns about the proposals. When these are finished I shall release them for others to cherry pick and send in personal objections.
As this consultation has been released by the Home office it is therefore failing to acknowledge that such changes can easily have a detrimental effect on the media and culture in the UK.
Whilst I respect that anti-social behaviour as a result of drinking is a problem in the UK and that ways to minimilise this should be considered. to hastily throw powers at police and local authorities allowing them to close down venues and revoke licenses at will and take away the need to genuinely consider the situation is clearly not the solution, it is dangerous and it will result in good causes loosing out or being cancelled.
The proposed changes allow a shoot first, ask questions later attitude towards the awarding and revocation of licenses, removing the rights of businesses to present a reasoned case. It will allow "responsible authorities" to ignore cultural significance in the face of emotive and insubstantial evidence.
There is a desire in the new proposals to "remove bureaucracy" from the process but the interpretation of this seems to be the inclination to remove the right to a fair hearing on the part of the licensee, and give both the police and local authorities the power to issue summary revocations or refusals of licenses without the "need" to hear opposing arguments.
If the government is going to persist on removing the state funding for arts and culture in spite of this being of questionable logic even on purely economic terms and they are demanding that philanthropy becomes the central source of funding then events and venues need to find it easier to get licenses not harder.
I hope this is vaguely informative, more to follow
