Official 'No tradition' 2 (PELs)

Subject: RE: OFFICIAL 'No tradition' 2 (PELs)
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 May 02 - 03:33 AM

This got a little lost in the last thread. It is important for as many people to see this as THIS IS WHAT GOING TO HAPPEN! Perhaps there could be some comments and discussion on this, and hopefully some concerted action.

The following are answers and further clarification of the White Paper, obtained from the DCMS by Richard Bridge, who has kindly agreed for these answers to be circulated.

It contains some important detailed information about the current proposals. I would just add to this, the latest information, in this World Cup year, that crowds attracted to live satellite TV in pubs will be able to continue, without a premises licence.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has today (15/05/02) confirmed, however, that the Government has no plans to require landlords to declare the provision of live satellite television on their licence application.<

From: [e-mail] 08 April 2002 13:51

You ask me to explain how the two responses can be reconciled.
In response to the question - will criminal offences be committed by customers who spontaneously break into song, our advice is that we do not anticipate that spontaneous singing which does not constitute a "performance" under the terms of the Bill or is not undertaken or organised for "reward" as defined in the Bill, will be within the range of the licensing regime.

Whereas a musical "performance" as defined in the Bill by a single musician undertaken for "reward" (either his own or the organiser's) will be subject to the licensing regime. It is for Parliamentary Counsel to decide how in terms of draft clauses to give effect to that policy.

Accordingly, whenever a group of people in a bar break into spontaneous song, the licensee would have to decide the point (noise level)at which he is at risk of being closed by the police because of "excessive noise" which might be disturbing the public. This is an important point for context and explains why it would not be necessary to bring spontaneous singing (music making) within the licensing regime as adequate public protection would already exist.

Ronnie Bridgett Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Branch Tourism Division

From: [e-mail] Sent: 09 April 2002 13:41

Your concerns have been noted and will be taken into account when final instructions are sent to Parliamentary Counsel.

With regard to more detail of definitions to be used, I am sorry to have to report that you will need to wait until the publication of the Bill.

Finally, you asked why there is a need to license music if noise controls are adequate. I can confirm that the Government would not accept that it is the case that public performances of acoustic music are not always "noisy". Also, as you will appreciate, noise is not the only factor to be considered when considering the licensing of musical performances. Public safety issues have to be taken on board, and the time of day or night with regard to public disturbance.

Your sincerely Ronnie Bridgett Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Branch Tourism Division

From: [e-mail] Sent: 20 May 2002 14:22

Further detail is given in section 5(ii) of the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Appendix 4 to the White Paper (particularly the section "Under the New Regime").

Only one fee will be paid for a premises licence regardless of the activities which the licence covers.

There will also be an annual charge to provide a revenue stream for inspections.

The fee and the charge will be set centrally by the Secretary of State. It will not be set by local authorities.

The fee needs to recover fully the costs of administration, inspection and enforcement associated with licensing law.

The most likely formula for calculating the band levels is capacity - so that larger venues pay more than small ones. However, it may be necessary to include a geographical factor in the formula. This is because administrative overheads are likely to be different in different parts of the country. For example, employment and accommodation costs are higher in the South East of England.

The Secretary of State will set the fee levels after consulting the industry trade associations and the local authorities.

The new regime should save the businesses affected around £1.9 billion in the first ten years of operation. Most of this saving will be from legal costs associated with the current system.

From: [e-mail] Sent: 20 May 2002 16:09

With regard to any amendments to a premises licence, the Secretary of State will set the appropriate fee structure for variations to the premises licence. It should not be presumed that it will be the same fee as for the original application.

Noise complaints are dealt with by DEFRA (the Department for the Environment, Food and Regional Affairs) whose advice we take on these matters. In addition, the police and the local authorities raise matters concerning rowdyism and general disturbance. Advice from all these sources does not differentiate between types of music. In any event, we are not aware of a precise definition of what constitutes "folk music".

It would not therefore be possible to cite particular examples of complaints which are specifically to do with venues at which "folk" musicians are performing.

As for public order issues, consideration is linked to the provision of alcohol at premises. As we have explained, there will be one licence which will cover the sale of alcohol and the provision of public entertainment.

Ronnie Bridgett Alcohol & Entertainment Licensing Branch

Subject: RE: OFFICIAL 'No tradition' 2 (PELs)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 02 - 06:30 PM

God, what a pathetic opposition. They can't even recognise an open goal when they see it. A Hallowed Tradition under attack, the Englishman's Pub is His Castle, the true-born Englishman's right to sing "Do Ye Ken John Peel" as he quaffs his ale in the Fox and Hounds...

Mind, it's as well, it might be the kiss of death having them on board.

Subject: RE: OFFICIAL 'No tradition' 2 (PELs)
From: BanjoRay
Date: 22 May 02 - 06:01 PM

I figured somebody ought to do it, so I've just been getting the party distribution of the signers of the Early Day Motion.

Labour 46
Lib Dem 16
Con 3
Plaid Cymru 2

Lets hope the Labour government starts listening to its MPs - it's not noted for it!
You're doing a great job, Shambles and others.

Cheers
Ray

Subject: RE: OFFICIAL 'No tradition' 2 (PELs)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 02 - 04:51 PM

Subject: OFFICIAL 'No tradition' 2 (PELs)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 02 - 04:47 PM

This thread has got too long for convenience.

I get a feeling that a little bit of momentum is building up as it starts to become clearer that the "reform" we'd been promised is likely to turn into a disaster for informal music making in England.

Here's the fax your MP link which was in the last post of the old thread, in case people weren't able to open it.

And here is the link to the page giving information about the "Early Day Motion" about this, to give you something specific to fax them about. If their name isn't in the last fax and gently ask why. If it is, fax and thank them. (It's as easy as writing a post to the Mudcat, and equally free.)