Gareth stated:

Now lets look at the senario. Why should any overtasked Police Officer bother about prosecution when he can :-

1/. Confiscate the Instruments and Amplifiyers ?

2/. Shut the premises for 24 hours, and object to licensce renewal ?

and if he gets any lip - Nick for various offences not conected with PELs.

Nice try Shambles - Unfortunately for your argument Points 1 & 2 are as a result of this Act.

I have emailed Gareth with the following message from Hamish Birchall - as requested by him. I post the message in full here as it is vital - if we are to make the most out of the Act - that we all understand it and other legislation.

It is also vital that incorrect information i.e. not 'spin' but lies -that Labour MPs and supporters would like to be true - are not accepted by us as being true...

Hamish writes

Gareth

I am sorry, but you have been seriously misinformed. Powers of seizure of noisy sound equipment and police power to close noisy pubs immediately have been around for a while.

They are emphatically NOT an innovation of the Licensing Act 2003.

I will set out the detail below and address your other misconceptions apparent from your discussion with Roger Gall. You can verify my statements about noise legislation independently with the Noise and Nuisance Policy Branch of DEFRA (020 7944 6429) and about police powers of closure with Chief Inspector Peter Keown of the Greater Manchester Police who represents the Association of Chief Police Officers on the Licensing Advisory Group (0161 856 3361).

1.    The Noise Act 1996 clarified local authority powers of seizure of noisy sound equipment already outlined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA). Since 1996 it has been clear in the law that all authorities have the power to seize noisy sound equipment immediately.

In addition, all local authorities not only have the power to issue reactive Noise Abatement notices under the EPA, they can also issue anticipatory Noise Abatement notices if they are satisfied a statutory nuisance is likely to occur or recur. The time allowed for compliance with an abatement notice is specified by the local authority and can be immediate. Breach of an abatement notices carries a fine of up to £20,000.

2.    The police have had the power to close noisy licensed premises immediately for up to 24 hours since December 2001. This was a consequence of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which amended the Licensing Act 1964.

3.    Also under the Licensing Act 1964 the police have the power to initiate a review of a justices on-licence if they believe the premises is a serious nuisance to local residents (i.e. in response to neighbour complaints), and on review or renewal licensing justices have the power to impose conditions relating to noise or indeed a 'safe capacity' (usually done on the recommendation of either an environmental health inspector, or fire safety officer).

The reason why these powers have not been implemented efficiently to the satisfaction of local residents is not because the legislation is inadequate: it is because of a lack of resources, and probably a lack of joined-up thinking between local authorities, the police and licensing magistrates.

Now to other points:

The original campaign was not simply to stop local authorities using PELs as a 'cash cow'. It was that, but more importantly it was also a campaign to reform licensing so that places like bars, clubs, restuarants etc could host live music ensembles automatically, within certain reasonable constraints. In short, to treat live music as a normal part of community life, and to allow it to thrive as a secondary business of such venues. This happens in other European countries, notably Ireland, Scotland, France, Germany, Finland and Denmark - why not here?

The Musicians' Union accepted that licensing could be necessary where premises specialise in music, or music and dancing, particularly if opening late.

As far as health and safety, and fire safety is concerned, it is plain that subsisting legislation is perfectly adequate for small-scale performance in such premises, irrespective of licensing. The exemption for places of public religious worship amply demonstrate that - if safety law is OK to provide amplified bands in churches (a common occurrence in evangelical places of worship), why is this legislation mysteriously deficient in, say, a library, restaurant or bar? The Government's near-hysterical babbling about trailing cables, staging, lighting etc was a complete red-herring. (See attached email from the Health and Safety Executive re trailing cables.)

As for fire safety, consider this statement by a senior officer from the London Fire Brigade, commenting on over-crowding in bars during the World Cup last year: 'We have the power to go into a pub or any other premises unannounced and place a restriction order on it that can be indefinite. I personally did it recently with a snooker hall. It is nothing to do with the licensing regime, it is simply the law of the land'. ['Hosts warned on Cup crowds', Morning Advertiser, front page, Thursday 13 June 2003].

The same paper carried a report about a Bristol Walkabout pub having to conduct an emergency evacuation because a ceiling started to come down on drinkers. Five people had to be treated for injuries. This was caused by football supporters jumping up and down while watching a big match in the first floor bar.

And of course ACPO wanted televised sporting events in bars to be licensable as entertainment because they are, in their own words, 'quite frequently a source of disorder'. The Government never put forward any evidence of disorder caused by the two in a bar rule, or any of the other PEL exemptions. And yet they abolished those exemptions, and ignored the televised sporting events. Musicians have been made the scapegoat for problems that are nothing to do with live music.

Kim Howells admitted the Licensing Bill was not perfect - not the Licensing Act. And what about the new Act? Where the provision of live music is concerned it is vastly more complex than the present law.

It is chock-full of complex, obscure and ambiguous provisions that will inevitably lead to test cases at needless cost to the tax-payer, local authorities, and businesses. The 'incidental' exemption sounds good on paper - except that lawyers are now telling us that it won't work if a venue provides any 'entertainment facility' (like a piano) because of the wording. Until a test case establishes the boundary of the definition, we cannot know how local authorities will interpret it.

The last minute government amendments concerning the potential 'suspension' of licence conditions in small premises make little sense. For example: late-opening bars will be initially exempt from any noise nuisance condition round the clock if they are licensed for and providing live music, amplified or otherwise.

Paradoxically, other places like restaurants will be subject to the full range of licence conditions, including noise, between midnight and 8am. The Local Government Association has already labelled this provision as unnecessarily complex and difficult to enforce.

The Morris dancing exemption is great - but it creates more anomalies: unamplified performance is legal if accompanying folk dancers, but illegal if featured on its own as entertainment. Where is the logic in that? Should all musicians now become Morris dancers so that at least unamplified live performance would be free of entertainment licensing?

The abolition of high annual PEL fees is the one unambiguously welcome provision in the Act, but the legislation maintains an unjust discrimination against live music, placing a significant legislative hurdle before any featured performance - even by one unamplified performer - whereas most canned entertainment gets through on the nod no matter how many people attend, no matter how powerfully amplified.

The government has, in effect, based its grass-roots cultural policy on this ridiculous statement by ACPO:

'Live music always acts as a magnet in whatever community it is being played. It brings people from outside that community and having no connection locally behave in a way that is inappropriate, criminal and disorderly'.
Chris Fox, President, Association of Chief Police Officers: letter to Tessa Jowell, DCMS, 2 July 2003

Is that something for the Labour Party to be proud of?

Hamish Birchall