|
GUIDANCE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 182 OF THE LICENSING ACT 2003 Issued by The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport – July 2004 (2007 update) OBSERVATIONS OF THE BRECKNOCK ACCESS GROUP Paragraph 7.8 [p77] quite clearly states that a license cannot be refused, or conditions attached, on the grounds that the premises in question was not accessible to a disabled person because it would duplicate or conflict with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act [DDA] 1995. It goes on to suggest that other remedies are open to disabled people to achieve accessibility [ a suggestion we would strongly refute – the only remedy open to disabled people is to take non-compliant service providers to court, a course of action that probably 0.01% of disabled people can afford to take]. Aside from that it ignores the tens of thousands of established public houses, hotels, restaurants etc that are currently not accessible and who are not planning to undertake refurbishments that would require planning permission and building control restraints. Under the Licensing Act these premises will continue to apply for and be granted a license in perpetuity without having to provide accessibility or accessible facilities. However, para 7.12 [p78] would suggest – the wording is loose and ambiguous – that where a licensing authority has a race equality scheme an application for a license could be refused if the service provider discriminated against a particular ethnic group. If our interpretation of this paragraph is correct it shows a clear case of discrimination against disabled people: if a notice in a pub window indicating “no gypsies” is grounds for a refusal then a step or other physical barrier to entry, and lack of facilities for wheelchair users is, in our view, tantamount to saying “no wheelchairs” or “no disabled” and should be regarded as discrimination against a minority. While we would like to see the Guidance revised to remove this barrier to disabled people there is, in our view, an opportunity already open to licensing authorities contained in para. 3.45 [p27] under the heading of ‘Integrating Strategies’. It says “The Secretary of State recommends that statements of policy should provide clear indications of how the licensing authority will secure the proper integration of its licensing policy with local crime prevention, planning, transport, tourism, race equality schemes, and cultural strategies and any other plans introduced for the management of town centres and the night-time economy. Many of these strategies are not directly related to the promotion of the four licensing objectives, but, indirectly impact upon them. Co-ordination and integration of such policies, strategies and initiatives are therefore important”. We believe that, in theory, every licensing authority can adopt both tourism and disability equality schemes that have access for all as a guiding principle and can operate the issue or refusal of licenses accordingly, In practice, however, most local government bureaucrats will wish to continue to stick to the four ‘licensing objectives’ [ which are – the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm ], keep their heads below the parapet, oppose any nasty innovations, and browbeat their licensing committee members to accept that only the four licensing objectives can be taken into account. We say this because all the above arguments have been put in writing to the Powys County Council officer responsible for licensing. We have been stonewalled and had none of our questions properly answered. We suspect that Powys will not be alone in this and that access groups and disabled peoples organisations elsewhere will meet with the same response. It is for this reason that while education and activity at local level will continue it would be of some benefit if the current Secretary of State for DCMS can be persuaded to agree to revise the Guidance to ensure that disability equality and access become a ‘licensing objectives’ along with those mentioned above, and racial equality etc. Another point about the DCMS Guidance concerns the Foreword signed by Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State in 2004. We attach herewith a copy of her statement and have underlined a number of key sentences. As far as we are concerned all the high-minded politically correct buzz words such as ‘vibrant society’, ‘greater choice’, ‘enjoyment of leisure time’, ‘local knowledge’ and ‘development of tourism’ might just as well have the words “except for the disabled” added in parenthesis to underline the sham and the lack of ‘joined up Government’ that lies behind this particular piece of legislation. Finally – as far as Westminster is concerned – it would be helpful if the current Secretary of State could be reminded of the points made by the Disability Rights Commission in their Briefing Paper issued when the Bill was under consideration in March 2003. These are – “ [the DRC] would not wish to see an approach which exclusively relied upon the DDA and individual legislative enforcement of the rights of disabled people. We believe it is essential that a wide range of bodies and organisations accept the importance of access for disabled people in promoting social inclusion and give priority to improving access within their objectives.” and “The DRC believes that those responsible for licensing premises for leisure activities such as entertainment should have regard to the accessibility of these premises and their ability to facilitate reasonable use of the services by all sections of the community including disabled people.” and “Therefore the DRC would wish to see section 2 amended to ensure that the licensing objectives include that of ensuring that disabled people have reasonable access to the benefits to be derived from the leisure amenity of such premises…….We would strongly recommend that Licensing Boards should be taking these factors into account when making decisions.” As far as the Welsh Assembly Government [ who should have a role in recommending best practice via the Welsh Local Government Association ] and local authorities are concerned we will continue to put the case for action at local level, irrespective of what happens at Westminster. The opportunity to do this arises through the provisions of the DDA 2005. Under this legislation ALL PUBLIC BODIES ARE REQUIRED to “…adopt a pro-active approach, mainstreaming disability equality into all decisions and activities.” The DRC advice goes on to say that “…they will also need to take action to tackle the consequences of decisions in the past which failed to give due regard to disability equality.” We will be active in making observations on a wide variety of issues regarding local authority services and functions. As far as licensing is concerned we will endeavour to make the following specific points for inclusion in the Powys County Council’s Disability Equality Scheme in addition to the general points set out above – 1] that PCC should as a matter of guiding principle adopt the policy enunciated by the DRC “that those responsible for licensing premises for leisure activities such as entertainment should have regard to the accessibility of these premises and their ability to facilitate reasonable use of the services by all sections of the community including disabled people.” In addition there should be an unambiguous cultural and tourism strategy adopted by the Council that will bind their licensing policy to regard accessibility in the same way it does to race and ethnicity; 2] the adoption of the above guiding principles would then enable the authority to require an access statement to accompany each license application: the application should not be considered unless and until this statement is received; 3] where an access statement is considered unsatisfactory or where the applicant has been deemed not to have taken ‘reasonable steps’ to overcome barriers to accessibility a ‘provisional’ license should be issued, such to be time-limited to enable the applicant to take steps to comply with DDA legislation; 4] all applications for licenses should be published, as with planning applications, and available for scrutiny by any member of the public; 5] the current practice of only accepting comments for consideration from police, fire and other public bodies and local ‘interested’ individuals should be revised so that any organisation of disabled people [ and organisations representing race and other minority interests ] should be able to make representations on applications for consideration by the Licensing Board; 6] members of the Licensing Board should receive training and advice from organisations of disabled people and be made aware of the impact of their decisions on the life of disabled people. It is the strongly held view of the Access Group that unless the views of disabled people, as expressed in the recent consultation events held as part of the Council’s Disability Equality Scheme, are taken forward and find expression in concrete and specific revisions to current practice on such matters as licensing the whole exercise will be meaningless. We consider the above proposals as reasonable, and that their adoption would add little or no cost to the operation of the service, and at the same time provide evidence to disable people in Powys that the authority is willing to take seriously its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005. August 2006 |