As we are so often reminded, the Licensing Act set out to promote four licensing objectives; prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.
As I have mentioned before, I am no great fan of the Licensing Act. It is not, in my opinion, fit for purpose. It does not address the issues it claimed to and it is scandalously drafted. For example, of particular interest to me is the section on Temporary Event Notices which affect the outside bars that I do. If you look at Section 109 it must have been written by an idiot. At the event a TEN must be displayed or in the custody of the licence holder (DPS). If the DPS is absent a written notice must be displayed stating who holds the TEN. This takes several paragraphs. It could have simply said that "the TEN must be available for inspection." Period. People have been paid huge sums to write this badly.
But back to the questionnaire. It came in two parts.
I was heartened to discover it has an Equalities Monitoring Form. I was particularly amused by Q2. " Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were assigned at birth?" I'm sorry? What? They ask of my disabilities ("impairmants"), my sexual orientation, race, religion and postcode. Much of it I left blank. I'm not sure it is necessary.
The questionnaire itself asked few questions that sought my views other than a section on "Night-time economy in Swale" which blandly asks "How safe do you normally feel when you are out, in Swale, at night?" in a manner which almost seems designed to elicit a response of fear. How about the question "Do you have any suggestions....to promote Swale as a safe place to socilaise of an evening?" Yes. How about the council stops whipping up a paranoid frenzy of night-time violence that doesn't exist. Even our police show figures of dramatic declines in crime and anti-social behaviour.
But my contempt for this questionnaire is mainly focussed on the final section regarding our licences and the council.
I am shocked by Question 2: "If you are a Premises or Personal Licence Holder, are you aware of your responsibilities?" and Question 3 "If you are a premises or Personal Licence Holder, are you aware of the relevant offences relating to your role?" Am I alone in thinking these are deeply offensive? These questions perhaps, more than anything else, demonstrate the extent of the stupidity we must deal with. Let me explain.
In order for you to get a licence you must demonstrate that you are a fit and proper person (crime checks) and that you understand the law. The council can then grant you a licence. If you are not "aware of your responsibilities" or not "aware of the relevant offences" you cannot be granted a licence. Thats not complicated so far.
But if you answer "no" surely this suggests that the council has acted improperly or incompetently by granting a licence? If you get a licence from the council to sell alcohol ,and you don't know the law, that would be scandalous. It would be far worse, for example, than you as a licence holder (therefore authorised by the council) selling alcohol to minors. But if you sell alcohol to minors your job and your livelihood would be on the line. By the same token, surely if councils were to grant licence to those who are unaware of their responsibilities or the consequences they, too, should be in danger of losing their jobs or livelihoods? Offical heads should roll. Sadly this is unlikely.
The Licensing Act transferred powers to local authorities and, as I suspected, there have been odd consequences. For me the saddest has been the continued demonisation of our role in the communities by local councils attempting to apply the "licensing objectives" by introducing inappropriate measures and, more offensively, by treating us as criminals and idiots.
If you get this questionnaire and you are asked "are you aware of your responsibilities" please answer "No". I'd like to think that then,perhaps, we can get some changes that will benefit us.