More than a clampdown, the recent enforcement of existing regulations in Paceville is intended to preserve the multi-faceted character of the Maltese tourism product. PHILIP FENECH on the ongoing social re-engineering of Malta’s nightlife Mecca
As president of tourism, hospitality and leisure section of the Chamber of SMEs (GRTU), Philip Fenech found himself caught between hammer and anvil when the authorities finally decided to enforce early (4am) closing times on Paceville bars and nightclubs earlier this year.
On the one hand, several of his Chamber’s members were incensed by the decision to enforce these regulations precisely now, in the thick of an economic recession and just as utility rates have once again been hiked upwards.
But at the same time, he is also conscious of the need to strike a balance between the interests of all the entertainment area’s niche segments: which include not just nightclubs and rock bars, but also hotels, and restaurants and, ultimately, residents.
First off, however, he dispels the perception that the new licensing hours constitute a ‘recent’ decision.
“It is true that Paceville venues were once licensed on a 24-hour basis, but that was a long time ago now,” he observes. “In fact the closing times are not really ‘new’ at all. It is more a question of enforcing regulations and licence conditions that have existed for some time...”
Be that as it may, since the mid-1990s things appear to have moved in only one direction when it comes to Maltese nightlife – from total liberty (some would say anarchy), to total control (some would say repression). Starting with a decision to become the second EU member state after Ireland to ban smoking from all venues, Malta has since 2004 gained momentum in the ‘regularisation’ of its previously unruly nightlife capital.
A law against drinking in public was the next item on the agenda, followed by an upward revision of the minimum drinking age, a ban on outdoors speakers, and now this: a last-minute, pre-NYE reminder than establishments found open after 4am may face harsh penalties.
As with all local quandaries, the goings-on in Paceville seem to have automatically polarised punters into two warring factions. But Philip Fenech, who straddles both sides of the argument, reminds me that it all started out with a concern for health and safety.
“Fact of the matter was that Malta had developed a ‘no-limits’ culture that was unsustainable in the long term,” he recalls. “Things came to a head with a number of serious accidents on the road, some of them fatal. ”
In a series of meetings with the industry in the early 1990s, the government of the time made it clear that it expected more regulation in the chaos that was Pcaeville at the time. From the outset, however, there was another reason apart from road safety: namely, the development of a more ambitious and sophisticated tourism marketing strategy for the country as a whole.
“Malta had earned something of a ‘forbidden fruit’ reputation back then – young teenagers would come here on holiday, and then spread the word that things which were not permissible in other parts of Europe (mainly, underage drinking) were business as usual in Malta. So the word got out that Malta was a place you could just whatever you wanted...”
This also coincided with the growing demand among young people (fuelled by mass-appeal programmes on channels such as MTV) for an Ibiza-style style of tourism – characterised by beach rave parties and above all, loud music.
“But Malta is not Ibiza,” Philip Fenech points out. “There’s much more of a marketing mix in Malta – there is sun and sea tourism, certainly, but also cultural tourism, conference and incentive travel, cruise liner tourism, English language tourism, religious tourism... it didn’t make sense to ruin all the other segments for the benefit of only one...”
But as GRTU’s representative of several of these sectors – including bar and nightclub owners – Philip Fenech nonetheless represented (and still represents) their demands for more flexibility, in the negotiations with government over regulation changes in Paceville.
“Initially, we requested an extension to 5am instead of 4,” he recalls. “That one additional hour would have made a lot of difference to the turn-over of these establishments: provided, of course, they agreed to properly sound-proof their venues, and not to disturb the neighbours...”
But it was the police who objected, not government, and on purely logistical (as opposed to moral) grounds.
“They argued, not without good reason, that 4am made more sense in order to maintain a clear distinction between daytime and night-time traffic. At 5am many people get up for work, and the decision of 4am was taken specifically so that these people would not encounter the ‘night people’, so to speak, driving back home...”.
The resulting hour is what Fenech describes as a “cooling off period” between diurnal and nocturnal habits.
But as the debate got more heated, other considerations found themselves thrown into the mix – perhaps the most contentious of all being noise pollution.
“Obviously government was very keen on striking a balance. They didn’t want the ‘no-limits’ culture, but at the same time they didn’t want to completely lose the entertainment aspect of Paceville, either. Above all, though, they didn’t want to affect other sectors that were equally important to Malta’s tourism strategy. The idea behind ongoing discussions has constantly been to allow bars and nightclubs to be able to operate, and to continue offering a service, without damaging any other tourism niches.”
The balance was equally important for the GRTU itself, which also represents some of the other ‘competing’ services.
“It would go against the interests of restaurants and hotels if, because of the noise factor of bars and clubs, beds were only being rented out to language students (who are arguably the only ones who can put up with that sort of thing to begin with),” Fenech explains, “Besides, at GRTU we started getting complaints from some of our other members – namely hotels – that certain bars had turned overnight into glorified discos, damaging the clientele next door. Also, a pathetic situation arose last summer when certain establishments starting competing with each other to attract passing trade, by placing speakers outside and turning up the volume...”
This sort of behaviour only exacerbated existing perceptions that Paceville was a law unto itself, and ultimately it seems these establishment owners didn’t do themselves any favours in the long term.
“We are now at the stage of meetings with the Malta Tourism Authority and the police, to ensure that the indoor music remains loud enough for a disco, but that nothing at all – or as close to nothing as possible – is heard from the outside.”
Philip Fenech is generally satisfied with the progress achieved to date. “I would say that since enforcement began in earnest, the volume of noise pollution in Paceville – at least, in terms of spill-over onto the streets – has gone down by around two-thirds,” he says.
But at the same time, he also admits to a private concern: “I hope we haven’t gone from one extreme to another,” he adds with a slightly exasperated air. “I have heard that in some cases, the police have complained about noise in the streets whenever a club opens its doors for that split-second needed to let clients in and out. Bearing in mind that bar and club owners have already gone to considerable lengths and expense to install soundproofing, double doors, and to take responsibility to control behaviour on the premises, it would be a bit unfair to start penalising for these small things too...”
Fenech is however confident that the ‘happy medium’ all his Chamber’s members desire is still within reach, with a little goodwill from all sides concerns.
“We have already seen a similar situation when it came to increasing the minimum drinking age. Originally the demand was to jump straight from 16 to 18, but we felt that the sudden transition, leaving out two years, may have been too extreme.”
The predictable compromise was a new minimum drinking age of 17: which brings Malta one step closer to full conformity with European norms in this regard, while not unduly upsetting the dynamics of Paceville nightlife.
Philip Fenech concedes that there remain a few outstanding problems – several bar owners find themselves turning away large groups, because only one among their number may be underage – but on the whole, through a combination of self-regulation and police enforcement, the new system seems to be working.
“One of the most successful aspects of this decision was that the new age-limit came part and parcel with the designation of a new type of licence, for a special place which caters for under-17-year-olds, provided no alcohol is served on the premises...”
He explains that this type of licence can only be applied for on a one-off basis from the MTA, and comes complete with a number of strictly enforced conditions: including police presence, and a strict dismantling of all alcohol and alcohol-related paraphernalia from bars for the duration of the event.
The idea is to create a safe and suitable alternative venue for young teenagers who would otherwise have nowhere to go: a situation which, in the experience of other countries, tends to breed social problems such as delinquency and vandalism.
“This is just one of the changes that have been effected recently,” he adds. “Right now, a pilot project on town centre management has just got under way, with the help of British consultants...”
The project, currently being carried out in both Paceville and St Julian’s, aims to involve all the social partners concerned – the local councils, the police, the entrepreneurs, the landscaping consortia, etc. – to harmonise the overall management of the entire area.
“At the end of the day one must remember that Paceville offers a whole marketing mix of activities and venues, which in a sense represents the full gamut of Maltese social life,” Fenech goes on. “There are bars and discos, yes, but also cinemas and bowling alleys, wine bars, a la carte restaurants, hotels, apartments, etc...”
With a bit of fine-tuning, the aim is to gradually transform Paceville into a suitable venue for all age-groups and types: including the teenage hip-hop enthusiast and fan of death metal, but also an older generation which – like teenagers overseas, apparently – very often have nowhere to go.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
