Jonathan Deamer

August 2009: I’ve been trawling through an old hard drive recently, and found this old essay from my student days.  I used to work in festivals/events management, and began to find the mechanics and legalities of it really interesting. Worth throwing to the lions of the Internet, I thought….

Cultural policy: an examination of how the Licensing Act is used by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to aid its five strategic priorities for culture.

The British government’s Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is responsible for much of the legislation that affects culture in all its forms in the UK. According to the “What we do” section of the Department’s web site, this spans areas as wide as alcohol and entertainment licensing, broadcasting, the creative industries and tourism. Its mission statement explains that it

“aim[s] to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, to support the pursuit of excellence and to champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries”
DCMS (2007 c)

Based on this statement, for the purposes of this essay the term “cultural policy” is to be defined as the government or state initiatives (many of which originate with the DCMS) introduced in pursuit of the above aims. This definition will also include those policies that set out to regulate the way in which these aims may be achieved, whether by a state body or private enterprise.

It is evident from this that “cultural policy” is a very wide area, that covers a range of specific issues which may not initially appear pertinent to a manager within the arts, music or entertainment sectors. However, there is much legislation that, while not directly in reference to a performance or art form, can still have a profound impact on the planning or implementation of such performances. For example, the DCMS is “responsible for setting the framework of licensing law” (DCMS 2007 a) (in this instance the Licensing Act 2003) as administered by local authorities regarding the sale and supply of alcohol in England and Wales. While not an arts or performance issue in itself, if such legislation is not taken into account by the arts manager, he or she may not be able to sell alcohol at their event. This will obviously affect the projected income from this performance, and the funds available for this and future events. If the arts event is to be attended by a clientele who may expect alcohol to be on sale (eg. at a rock concert), this could even put them off buying a ticket, causing obvious problems to the arts manager, and inhibiting the very basis of an art form: its performance. In this way, we can see how easily a piece of seemingly non-arts-based legislation (which will hereafter be referred to as “in-direct” cultural policy) can in fact be classed under the bracket of “cultural policy”. This may lead one to question whether such policies are in fact helpful in achieving the DCMS’s aims of “improving the quality of life for all through cultural […] activites” (DCMS 2007 a).

It is important to note, however, that there is of course a great deal of cultural policy that is much more obviously intended to regulate arts or entertainment, such as the DCMS’s policies regarding the distribution of National Lottery money to arts causes. This essay, however, will concentrate on how the licensing act impacts on the cultural aims of the DCMS (in fact a cultural policy in itself), and is therefore a “cultural policy”.

A particularly topical area that is affected both by direct and in-direct cultural policy is that of live music, and in particular large-scale music and culture events or festivals. Indeed, at the time of writing a Commons Select Committee is launching an investigation into the illegal touting of tickets to events such as Live 8 and the forthcoming Princess Diana memorial concert, proving what a contemporary topic this is (Music Week 2007). The planning or management of such events is littered with cultural policy issues. From what I have defined above as “in-direct” cultural policies, such as seemingly mundane points of crowd control or structural safety, to the “direct” such as censorship of performance, various regulations can affect the way cultural pieces are perceived at these events.

Rather than simply detailing the existence, meaning and application of these regulations, this essay will primarily examine how such policies help or hinder arts managers in achieving the aims of the DCMS, both as outlined in the statement at the start of this essay, and the Department’s “Five Strategic Priorities” as outlined in the Appendix. It is important to note, however, that the DCMS priority to “host an inspirational, safe and inclusive Olympic Games” (DCMS 2007 b) in 2012 is not relevant to cultural events in this context, nor is the Department’s priority concerning its own delivery mechanisms, and so this essay shall concentrate of the remaining three priorities of “children and young people”, “community”, and “economy”.

It is obvious that one of the most direct ways in which the state can affect the provision of entertainment is whether they allow it to go ahead or not in the first place. One of the ways in which they do this with music festivals is through licensing, not just concerning alcohol as mentioned above, but a variety of areas. An interesting case study of how such licensing laws can impact on the aims of the DCMS is Glastonbury festival’s license application in 2002.

Glastonbury festival is well known as the world’s largest greenfield music and performing arts festivals. The festival is best known for its rock and pop music, and has in recent years seen performances from artists such as David Bowie, Paul McCartney and Radiohead. It also features dance, comedy, theatre, circus, cabaret and many other arts. (Glastonbury Festival Ltd. 2007)

The festival was prosecuted in 2000 under the Licensing Act 1988 for having too many people on site, owing to a number of factors including the failure of the site’s perimeter fence, and the inability of perimeter security to prevent unauthorised entry (Licensing Working Group 2002). Under the Act, such an event requires a premises licence which

“…provides a single authorisation to supply alcohol, provide regulated entertainment, such as a performance of live music, or provide late night refreshment or any combination of these activities”.
DCMS (2007 a)

One of the key reasons for requiring the authorisation of the performance of live music in this way is “to protect local residents from noise nuisance” and to combat anti-social behaviour, both on-site and in the local area (DCMS 2007 a). This is, of course, apart from being common sense, essential in achieving any benefit for the local community – one of the five strategic priorities of the DCMS’s cultural policies. The refusal of a licence at in 2002 (the festival organisers took a year off to carry out a report into the festival in 2001) was a real possibility with the final report into the events of 2000 stating that

“The potential safety implications of the excessive attendance in 2000 raised understandable concerns for the regulatory body. The licence application for future festivals may be refused until the Elected Members of Mendip District Council can be reassured about the safety and professionalism of Glastonbury Festival Limited”.
Licensing Working Group 2002

While it is understood that public safety is paramount in any Council or regulatory body dealings, there were some concerns that this incident may lead to the licence application being turned down on grounds of public nuisance (in the local area) under the Licensing Act rather than safety. So if such licensing requirements are at the cost of the event not going ahead at all, does the benefit of local residents being protected from nuisance or petty crime and anti-social behaviour outweigh the cultural and other benefits the event may have had? The DCMS says that one of the key purposes of the licensing system is that “it provides much greater scope for the further development of our rich culture of live music, dancing and theatre, both in rural areas and in our towns and cities”. (DCMS 2007 a) Would they in fact be hindering the development of and access to culture and performance with one of their cultural policies intended to do just the opposite? To evaluate this, let us look at how an event like Glastonbury may impact on the DCMS’s strategic priorities.

The first of these priorities, “children and young people” intends to further enhance access to culture and sport, both in a spectatorial and participatory capacity. Glastonbury festival aids this priority in a number of ways:

Admitting children under 12 to the festival at no charge when accompanied by a ticket-holding adult.
Making available at no cost all children’s activities on site.
Providing discounted tickets to young people attending local schools and colleges.
Providing a range of spectator activities aimed at children in the dedicated “Kidz Field” [sic] and the “Green Kids” area of renowned Green Field.
Providing further participatory activities in the “Kidz Field”, as well as opportunities for children in the more adult-orientated Theatre and Circus Fields, as well as the Tipi Field.
Glastonbury Festival Ltd. (2007 b)

While it may seem that Glastonbury can only contribute on the “cultural” front, it has also aided the “sport” part of the DCMS’s policy. Glastonbury Festival 2005 donated over £1,300,000 to charities and local groups, and was the fourth festival to pay over £1,000,000 to such causes. In recent years among the projects these monies have contributed to are the building and development of Pilton Playing Fields, including a pavilion and a number of football pitches and tennis courts. (Glastonbury Festival Ltd. 2007 c)

Clearly, such contributions do not only benefit children and young people, but the wider community as a whole. Here we see how, therefore, Glastonbury contributes to the aims of the DCMS concerning communities: “increase and broaden the impact of culture and sport, to enrich individual lives, strengthen communities and improve the places where people live, now and for future generations” (DCMS 2007 b). Although Glastonbury can be said to benefit the local community through the provision of culture it makes, there are also various auxiliary, non-cultural benefits. For example, the festival has funded a range of building and renovation work throughout Pilton, achieving the aim of “improving the place where people live” (DCMS 2007b).

It is recognised that Glastonbury festival does not make these concessions to young people or donations to good causes out of pure benevolence. Although the Festival insists that it “retains its ethos as a positive force for change both locally and internationally” (Glastonbury Festival Ltd. 2007 c), and festival founder Michael Eavis is well known for his involvement in good causes, Glastonbury is at its heart run as a commercial venture, and is part-owned by profit-making music promotions company Mean Fiddler. Perhaps, therefore, we can see how a cultural policy set by the DCMS (the Licensing Act) has influenced the organisers of a cultural event to run it not only for the love of music (or profit!), but to have a wider social benefit.

To explain further, it is tempting to see the Licensing Act not as a cultural policy, but as a legal requirement concerned more with health and safety than the arts. However, I believe that the above shows how untrue this is. Indeed, the Act does deal with some matters non-cultural, but by being enforced and overseen by local authorities under the guidance of the DCMS, rather than that of the Health and Safety Executive or Home Office, it has within it an inherent concern with the aims of that department. The fact that any cultural event must then, in effect, be approved by the DCMS via the Licensing Act means that in order to be licensed, such events will have to contribute towards the five aims of the DCMS. This can have the beneficial effect of causing profit-making cultural enterprises to incorporate into their plans a benefit to the local community (for example) that they may not have otherwise included, purely as a concession to getting a licence. For example, an event that is not known for its philanthropic attitude, and is run by Mean Fiddler very much as a profit making venture, is the Reading Rock Festival. This festival still allows local branches of charities such as Shelter, the Salvation Army and the Samaritans to have a free presence at their event, and one cannot see a reason for this beyond attempting to generate goodwill within the local community to aid the licence application (Carling Weekend Reading Festival 2007).

A further aim the DCMS hopes to achieve by enforcing their policies on cultural events is to “maximise the contribution that the tourism, creative and leisure industries can make to the economy” (DCMS 2007 b). Glastonbury Festival is a great example of the economic benefits that a large-scale cultural event, and all the tourism and surrounding trade that entails, can bring to an area. In the planning and implementation of Glastonbury Festival 2005, £5,000,000 was spent with companies within a radius of 25 miles of the festival site. It paid £750,000 worth of wages, with a quarter of the workforce (earning £400,000 in wages) coming from the local area (Glastonbury Festival Ltd. 2007 c). One can easily imagine the devastating effect there would be on the local area if the festival were not to take place. It is therefore within the best interests of the DCMS, in terms of achieving their five strategic priorities, that Glastonbury be granted a licence.

Perhaps the best mark of the festival’s economic impact is the research which suggests that suggests that “for every pound spent by a festival, there is a further £2.5 resultant spending elsewhere in the economy” (Glastonbury Festival Ltd. 2007 c). Based on these figures, the approximate £16,000,000 spent by Glastonbury Festival in 2005, the festival would have an impact of £40,000,000 on the rest of the economy, much of which would be in the local area. The festival organisers themselves explain that “while such calculations are open to challenge, what is irrefutable is that the financial benefits to the local community resulting from the Festival are massive” (Glastonbury Festival Ltd. 2007 c).

With the evidence of such benefits to the aims of “children and young people”, “community” and “economy”, we can see how although it may not at first seem it, the area of cultural policy is broad enough to include things such as the Licensing Act. The sort of health and safety procedures contained within the Act may not lie within the normal cultural realm of the arts manager, although the way in which the DCMS oversees the licensing process means that all areas of licensing can have a cultural knock-on effect. It is perhaps this area that best shows the necessity of having specialised arts managers on events such as Glastonbury, who are able to understand the subtle and wide-ranging implications that culture, and the policy or events surrounding it, may have. Furthermore, the above evidence of Glastonbury’s local benefit serves to qualify the assertion of cultural policy theorist Toby Miller that “entertainment and the economy nourish each other” (2002).

Bibliography
Allen, Judy (2003), Event Planning: Ethics and Etiquette, Wiley, Ontario
Carling Weekend Reading Festival (3007), General Information, retrieved May 2007 at http://www.readingfestival.com/info/general.aspx#onsite
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2007 a), Alcohol and Entertainment, retrieved May 2007 at http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/Alcohol_entertainment
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2007 b), Our Priorities and Targets, retrieved May 2007 at http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/Priorities_targets/
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2007 c), About Us, retrieved May 2007 at http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/
Glastonbury Festivals Ltd. (2007 a), About us, retrieved May 2007 at http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/aboutus/index.asp?id=59
Glastonbury Festivals Ltd. (2007 b), Children at the festival, retrieved May 2007 at http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/information/index.asp?id=43
Glastonbury Festivals Ltd. (2007 c), Local benefits, retrieved May 2007 at http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/causes/index.asp?id=134
Licensing Working Group (2002), The Report of the Licensing Working Group 2002 into Glastonbury Festival, Glastonbury Festivals Ltd., Mendip
Miller, Toby (2002), Cultural Policy, SAGE, London
Music Week (2007), Government to re-examine touting, retrieved May 2007 at http://www.musicweek.com/news/news_page.asp?newsid=14100
Parry, Bryn & Shone, Anton (2004), Successful Event Management: a practical handbook, Thomson, London