Forwarded - Richmond charging for licences

[islandofsodor]

For the last five years I have been running a successful campaign to change the legislation behind Children's Performance Licences. Many of you supported me in my petition to Gordon Brown.

I am still working closely with the government and now progressing forward and a lot nearer I hope to some positive changes. Many of you kindly supported my campaign against Islington who were charging to raise licences. It was real democracy in action and together with the support from the Stage they did a complete U-turn and dropped the charges.

However just as the industry was victorious over that, it seems that Richmond Borough Council are now charging between £50 and £200 for a licence.

This is nothing short of a tax on children and must be stopped now because the people who will suffer will be children and it is an enforced discrimination that will result in a return to a postcode lottery.

Richmond have felt justified in making this charge because they have had no opposition. It is up to us all in this industry to stand up to these charges and register our outrage. The effect on the industry will be that children of these Borough will simple be passed by for a more lenient local authority. I have already had some production companies saying avoid using children from Richmond. Once again I have joined forces with the Stage to publicise this.

Whilst Richmond (London) is nowhere near most of you, it is important that we make a stand nationally or else this will spread to an LEA near you. If you could take just five minutes to email Fiona Rowe - Team Leader Children's Services in Richmond f.rowe@richmond.gov.ukand just say that you disagree with these charges then they will have to register that
as an official complaint.

I am interested in any response that you receive. Please email any responses to
tarquin@stagecoachagency.co.uk

If we do nothing then all the work that has been done in to change licences will be in vain.

Thank you in advance for your support

[pg]

I have written. This is certainly a very worrying development.

[Dogcop]

I have just been made aware of your councils intention to charge between £50 and £200 for providing child’s performance licences.

Although I do not live in the borough, as a parent of a child performer, I felt I must write and register my disgust at what can only be described as a child stealth tax.

All of us regardless of where we live or who we are benefit from and enjoy entertainment be it live theatre, TV, radio or film, and children play an important role in those genres of entertainment.

By enforcing this fee you will deprive the wider population of the enjoyment of seeing young people from your Borough in taking part in these roles, purely because casting directors and companies will not come to your Borough because you charge.

I feel this is small minded and you need to be encouraging the children of your Borough to take up the performing arts not putting barriers in their way

copy of letter I sent

[OutoftheShadows]

Disgusted by this, & E-Mail sent,,
Hopefully Fiona Rowe will have her inbox full of them.

[sapphire]

E-mail sent

[Flosmom]

Considering all the debate this summer about kids getting into bad ways because they don't have enough opportunities for positive and constructive activities, you'd think our local authorities would be bending over backwards to find ways to encourage kids from all backgrounds to be able to participate in performing arts.

My guess is that they haven't joined up their children's strategy with their income generation plans. Shame on them! Let's hope we can 'help them with their thinking'

Deb x

[Viks2030]

I have sent an email .
This must be stopped !!!
Its hard enough for the kids out there to get offered parts in shows,tv,films etc
It makes my blood boil!

[Dogcop]

copy of reply I received - make of it what you will

Please see below for the Council response:

Richmond Council Spokesperson said:

“Richmond Council is currently reviewing the Child Performance Licensing process. We have a statutory duty to provide these licences in 21 days. This will continue with no cost. No decisions have been made as to whether we are going to introduce a fast-track system with associated charge.”

Many thanks

Kind regards

[missmoneypenny]

Saw this in the Stage - http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstor ... adlines%29

Let's hope it gets nipped in the bud :/

[paulears]

With the fear of being shot down in flames, there could be another reason. My own council have lost a lot of staff from departments that are not permanently busy. So at the moment, there is not a single person taking action on council by-laws - meaning any complaints are screened, and those below 'serious' have to be ignored.

If Richmond have put the price up, it's conceivable that the intention is simply charge a lot to cover the overtime of a member of staff doing it in addition to their normal duties. In effect, making the public pay for the service at a true-value rate. A department underused is a very expensive one. On a scale of importance (to them) kids licensing eats up resources so I can imagine Chief Executives not giving it much importance. The reference to fast track suggests that this is what is happening - if done in spare time, they can't meet the turnaround requirement, so charge for fast track as the only service?

Councils always put 'value' on everything they do - and saving money on low value work is common!

[pg]

You make good points. A better solution would be to overhaul the entire licensing mess. If this is not done, I predict that more and more people will simply ignore the licence requirements which is not the best outcome.

There is so little logic in having to (in theory) have licences for children performing in amateur theatrical shows and yet there is no need for licences for children playing in orchestras or singing in choirs (or, for that matter, playing in football matches or tennis matches etc.).

I know it will never be a priority though, so we will probably have to continue to muddle through and once again there will be children disadvantaged because of where they live, or how much money their families have. <sigh>

[paulears]

I think the last bit is the most important - what we do is not given a high priority by people who don't know. So many parents said to me when talking to them at college, about the way forward for their kids "but it's not a proper job, is it?" I don't think we can ever expect outsiders to understand what we do. The councils are made to do the licenses, but you can bet they treat it as a negative aspect of their role - they have to do it, but perhaps feel it's a chore - and apply a full cost approach. My own council do a similar thing with adult football facilities - they have to provide them, but charge for everything, and provide less and less.

[islandofsodor]

FORWARDED

Further to our campaign and my recent letter asking for clarification on
their recent statement which was nothing short of ambiguous

I am pleased to announce that Richmond Council have now officially
backed down over children's Licences.

We were on the front of last weeks Stage which can be viewed on-line at

http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstor ... d-plans-50

There is also an article on page two of today's Stage.

Below is the response we had been waiting for

See the email I received yesterday

*Child Performance Licence*
Cllr Christine Percival, Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and
Children's Services said:
"The Council has been reviewing the current Child Performance Licensing
process. We have a statutory duty to provide these licences
in 21 days and this will continue with no cost. Following an
investigation into the feasibility of introducing a fast-track system
with associated
charge, the Council has decided it is not feasible or necessary to
continue down this route; therefore a fast track service will not be
introduced. "

Thank you once again for your support. Democracy in action!

[francescasmum]

Brilliant news, hopefully the flood gates where closed in time!

[Nicola]

We have a statutory duty to provide these licences
in 21 days and this will continue with no cost. Following an
investigation into the feasibility of introducing a fast-track system
with associated
charge, the Council has decided it is not feasible or necessary to
continue down this route; therefore a fast track service will not be
introduced. "

I do understand the unfairness of this whole situation on a national basis, but is this really a win? All they're really saying is that they'll continue to do what they've always done and provide licenses within a 3 week period. Am I the only person that would rather pay, or get a production company to pay a [small] fee to speed up a license rather than lose out on a job entirely when it's last minute?!

I have to say, we don't have this problem where we live (as you know IOS), where we still have the elusive 12 month license, but I can't count the number of times I've heard people from more awkward councils bemoaning the fact that they've lost out on ANOTHER job because the council won't expedite their application. Isn't it just like the passport process - standard application takes x amount of time, expedited application costs a bit more but is processed more quickly?

Or am I missing something?!