I enclose the following letter that I have sent to Baroness Buscombe in the Lords. I am sorry for the length of this - as the actress said etc...

Licensing Bill

Dear Baroness Buscombe

Firstly can I thank you for your efforts so far. Could I ask that you consider the following and distribute this to anyone in the House of Lords who you feel may be able to help to turn this pigs ear- if not into a silk purse at least to improve it? Or if that cannot be achieved to let the Bill fall?

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): said in another place on 24 June 2003.

What many people do not seem to realise is that the Licensing Bill is not an extension of the scope of entertainment licensing. Generally speaking, nothing that does not need a licence or other authorisation now will need one under the Bill. What the Bill does is make it much cheaper and easier to get a licence where one is needed.

This Government mantra is plain nonsense as it is a plain fact that the Licensing Bill extends potential criminal law sanctions to performance in thousands of venues and performances where entertainment licensing has either never applied, or has not applied for a very long time.

Like the 5,000 registered members clubs that now fall within the new regime and will also lose the right to hire out the club to non-members - unless they convert to a full premises licence.

Like the live music at private events raising money for charity has always been exempt from entertainment but now the provision of live music at such events triggers the licensing requirement.

Providing unlicensed musical instrument like a piano for the public to play for their own amusement has never been a criminal offence, but will be under the Bill, unless licensed as an 'entertainment facility', this being a totally new regulation.

Even Punch and Judy shows, traditional sessions and dance on public land also fall into the extended scope of entertainment licensing, where it will even be a criminal offence for the organiser to put on such an event without a licence.

Even if you ignore all of the above, as the members in another place have been successfully led to do - in order for the Governments claim to have any creditability at all, a deminimus to replace the existing deminmus MUST first be found.

Small events exemptions

The provision of one or two musicians performing in 110,000 liquor licensed premises has been exempt since 1961 (not 1964 as the Government often claims). But the Licensing Bill now does away with this deminimus and now will ensnare these performances, with no evidence provided for this. For as this exemption, applies only where a justices licence is held it simply reflects the controls, already in place in the 95% of licensed premises currently without additional Public Entertainment Licences.

In fact if the brains of the Government were to be concentrated on finding a deminimus that is acceptable - rather than only finding fault with what already exist or is proposed by the Lords - in order to scrap it completely - we may at least have this small problem solved already?

Safe capacity limits

If however a deminimus is to be found a way of establishing which premises/events are exempt must be found. My favoured approach has not been a deminius exemption, or indeed any exemption but one recognising that a safe capacity limit would have to be imposed to enable this and that a safe capacity limit be imposed by way of a fire certificate/Premises Licence etc on all premise whether providing entertainment or not.   

This would be easy and also do away with Schedule 1 and all the dated arguments and confusion about what is or is not regulated entertainment. For the only genuine concern that I have for musical events is one of possible overcrowding this measure would deal with this and with the problem of overcrowding at vertical drinking establishments.

For as long as this safe capacity limit was not exceeded any (legal) activity could take place. If specific concerns subsequently arose from or were presented by these activities, these could be address without the risk of discouraging all activities everywhere by the continuation of blanket entertainment licensing.      

I suspect that this may be seen as a little too radical and the following scare-storywas (part) of the reply I received from my MP Jim Knight, who sat on the Licensing Bill Standing Committee, in another place. This reply provoked the following questions to him from me about the Bill as it stands and I would be grateful if you could consider (and find the answers) the following questions, as I am not sure they have been established in either House.

Safe capacity limits on all venues would have required all venues to check customers in and out, using door staff as in nightclubs. This was an unrealistic burden on the industry.

Can you establish from Mr Caborn the answers to the following?

·       Will he confirm that currently ALL premises with PELs have to have a maximum safe capacity limit imposed - and as most of these premises manage to do this perfectly well without bouncers- where the is the unrealistic burden currently presented to the industry?

·       In most premises with safe capacity limits and PELs - these limits can be maintained now without bouncers - where is it written that all venues under the Bill with Premises Licenses and imposed safe capacity limits will have to employ bouncers?


·       Does the Bill require all Premises Licence holders to automatically have an imposed safe capacity limit ?


·       Does the Bill require all Premises Licence holders applying for entertainment permission to automatically have an imposed safe capacity limit - as is current practice?


·       Why is currently imposing a safe capacity limit on all PELs, not an unrealistic burden on the industry?


·       Why would imposing a safe capacity limit on all premises under the Bill be an unrealistic burden on the industry?

·       Can this presumed unrealistic burden on the industry be quantified?

·       Given the objectives of this Bill - should this presumed burden on the industry be considered to be more important than ensuring that the public are not placed at risk of overcrowding, by placing a safe capacity limit on premises?

·       Given the objectives of the Bill - are the public being placed at risk by NOT insisting that all premises have an imposed safe capacity limit to ensure that premise are not overcrowded?


Whilst a safe capacity limit in premises providing entertainment is a good idea for public safety is there really any good reason why premises not providing entertainment should not also be subject to this?

The Commons Amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment 62A

My view on the latest amendment is that it is a genuine attempt to alleviate the fears that licensees will not want to include entertainment for fear of costly mitigation measures such as sound proofing. It would then be easier for them to include entertainment in their operating schedule, at no extra cost, and thus resolve the problem.

The above reply to me from Jim Knight MP.

I am amazed if, given all the scare stories from the Government and local authorities about needing additional entertainment licensing to deal with noise - that measures like the sound proofing of premises cannot be a condition of entertainment permissions. If this is now the case - I am even more amazed that the Commons have voted for it but I am not really surprised as the level of understanding of this Bill in Commons, seems to be very low and Labour MPs do as they are told.

But if the Government and the Commons has really accepted that (all) noise cannot be dealt with by blanket entertainment licensing, as the Lords largely have - why oh why can they not give us substantial measures that really reflect this view?

But the amendment does not say such conditions can't be insisted on before permission is given. It just says when they are applied by a local authority, for pubs only with a premises licence and a safe capacity - conditions other than those based on the Bill's two objectives of crime and disorder and public safety - will have no effect. It will be a little late by then.

As the pub will have already had to satisfy all four of the Bill's Licensing objectives in order to obtain a premises licence - there really is no concession. If there are noise concerns or objections - the premises will simply not get permission even if sound proofing would solve the problem. Possibly given this amendment - even if they offer to provide sound proofing!

If in fact the amendment was saying this - the Commons or the Government did not seem too sure, but they voted for it anyway.

Does it mean that conditions based on all four of the Bill's objectives and measures like sound proofing can then be placed on pubs with a premises licence and a safe capacity of more than 200 (or indeed no safe capacity at all)? Is this not even more inconsistency and more ammunition for the JCHR?

If all this were so - it will not be much of a concession for say a cafe (or even a village hall) not serving alcohol. They would still have to apply for the premises licence - just to be able to provide entertainment alone and this amendment would not apply to them even if they had a imposed safe capacity of less than 200, unless they did also provide alcohol. So the local authority could insist on soundproofing, or even say, a condition that pictures on the wall had to be removed, on the grounds of protecting children from harm.

Surely given the problems associated with alcohol consumption and young people in particular - it would be a good idea to have measures that encourage live music in coffee bars and other places not serving alcohol? Rather than creating a permanent and link and presenting these premises with the whole burden of entertainment licensing or providing any incentive for them to apply to supply alcohol?

Connecting together the benefits of music and the problems of alcohol in this one Bill is the main reason why the Licensing Bill in this form deserves to fall. This will enable future reform to be done properly.

All this is very good reason why this Bill should not be rushed - as it continues to be rushed.

Yours faithfully

Roger Gall



Four examples of competing premises wishing to provide entertainment.


Is the Government justified in claiming that the Licensing Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and is a deregulated and fair licensing system that will encourage music making? Looking for the moment at conventional paid entertainment only, let us question the differences and the possible effects of the following four examples of premises competing to provide a commercial concert every week:

1:   A place of religious worship (i.e. any church):
No requirement for additional permissions and possible conditions or modifications in order to provide licensable live entertainment.
No requirement for a Premises Licence.
No requirement for the one-off Premises Licence application fee.
No requirement for an Annual Inspection.
No requirement for Annual inspection Charges.
* See note below - re Personal Licenses and application fee.

2:   A church or village hall:
A requirement for additional permissions and possible conditions or modifications in order to provide licensable live entertainment.
A requirement for a Premises Licence.
No requirement for the one-off Premises Licence application fee.
A requirement for an Annual Inspection.
No requirement for Annual Inspection Charges.
*See note below - re Personal Licenses and application fee.

3:   A coffee bar or other premises not serving alcohol:
A requirement for additional permissions and possible conditions or modifications in order to provide licensable live entertainment.
A requirement for a Premises Licence.
A requirement for the one-off Premises Licence application fee.
A requirement for an Annual Inspection.
A requirement for Annual Inspection Charges.
*No requirement every ten years for a Personal Licence or the fee.

4:   A pub or other premises serving alcohol.
A requirement for additional permissions and possible conditions or modifications in order to provide licensable live entertainment.
A requirement for a Premises Licence.
A requirement for or the one-off Premises Licence application fee.
A requirement for an Annual Inspection.
A requirement for Annual Inspection Charges.
*A requirement every ten years for a Personal Licence and the fee.

*Note that the licensing exemption for places of religious worship is only for regulated entertainment, not alcohol. Anyone selling alcohol must pay to hold a licence: either a Temporary Event Notice, or a Personal Licence valid for 10-years.
**Note also the word 'licensable' before 'live entertainment' (because there is popular live entertainment that is not licensable regulated entertainment under the Bill, like stand-up comedy (and TV sport).