Licensing consultation announced!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 07:15 PM

Unfortunately the interpretation of the Act is ultimately a matter for the courts, not the minister. If a local authority is applying the Act incorrectly then the correct course of action is for the person who is being asked to obtain a licence to challenge it in the courts. Of course, this is unlikely to happen. In the meantime, the wording of the Act is so vague that an authority can make its own interpretation - indeed, it has no other option.

The only other course of action is to draw these situations to the attention of the DCMS in the hope that they will clarify their guidance to cover them. Some hope.

In practice, I note that the licensee of at least one of the pubs you were concerned with did in fact obtain a licence. Is there evidence that the policies of this or other authorities are preventing licences being granted for this type of music and preventing sessions from taking place? I know this was a huge concern while the bill was going through Parliament, but the actual effects since it was past don't appear to have been as bad as originally feared.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM

Anyone who has read the Live Music Forum's report would know that the piece presented to the Committee was very carefully selected by the Licensing Manager, as supporting their position (that any form of advertising meant that an event was a licensable peformance of live music that could not benefit from the incidental exemption) as there were very few other findings in this report which they could claim to be favourable.

And of course such an interpretation is not supported by the 'new' Guidance. Both the advertising in the example provided in the Live Music Forum report and in the case of the single local paper advert for the Cove House Inn session (as they did not contain a named performer) would not prevent these events from qualifying under the exemption.

But getting my Licensing Authority to sensibly enforce this legislation seems beyond the power of Government Ministers, who don't appear to really care very much anyway. I suggest that ensuring that mine and other Licensing Authorities do sensibly enforce this legislation is up to those of us who do care.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 02:16 PM

The following what was the Licensing Manager represented to the Management Committee as being their response to my submission to the last public consultation.

Reference Number: 002 and 005 Respondent: Roger Gall, Comment: See attached letters (ref: 002 & ref: 005) Appraisal: Ref: 002:

The Government, largely as a result of work undertaken by the Live Music Forum, have recently identified the need for clarification with regard to the definition of regulated entertainment. On 28th June 2007 the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 was revised and pages 27 to 31 of the guidance are reproduced here for Member's consideration (ref: 002B). Members may wish to make specific reference to the Licensing Authority's desire /obligation to adhere to this guidance when considering whether or not a licence is required.

In order to properly address the points raised by Mr Gall it is necessary to re-visit the situation which led to Mr Gall's campaign and to examine the facts. Mr Gall has claimed throughout his campaign that he and a group of fellow musicians were discriminated against. His assertion is that their gathering at the Cove House Inn (a venue which was not at that time licensed for public entertainment) was spontaneous/incidental music making and did not require a licence.

[It was not thought necessary to speculate on the reasons why any other submission to this consultation was made and what are referred to as facts are not. There was no claim made that the two sessions involved were spontaneous.]

This Council's view is that the gatherings went beyond spontaneous and required licensing for the following reasons:
a) They were held on a regular weekly basis
b) They were advertised on a notice board outside the premises c) They were publicised in the Dorset Echo
d) At the time the "two in a bar rule" was in existence but there were 5 musicians playing.

[There is no mention that there were in fact two sessions affected and that the minimal advertising referred to - only applied to the Cove House Inn and that the one that was lost - at New Star Inn was not advertised in any form.
The two-in-a-bar reference should of course be to the number of 'peformers' present. There were in fact customers partipating but no 'performers' involved in either session.]


Mr Gall consistently failed to mention these mitigating factors when
canvassing support for his cause. Mr Gall felt aggrieved by this ruling, even though the then Landlord of the premises willingly obtained an entertainment licence in order that the sessions could continue legally, and reported this Council's actions to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found in this Council's favour.

[Mr Gall in fact mentioned all these factors as there would have been no point in not doing so.
The Landlord of the Cove House Inn did not in fact willing obtain an entertainment licence. He did so only when faced with what these employees referred to as encouragement. That 'encouragement' consisted of a letter threatening them with prosecution and a possible £20,000 fine and six months in prison if they did not comply or end the session.
The Ombudsman did not in fact find in the Council's favour. The finding was that the LGO could find no evidence of maladministration which would have required them to actually investigate.]


A recent report on the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 by the Live Music Forum contains a number of case studies and the one on page 50 reads as follows:
"A small restaurant in South London which seats around 40 people. In the past, and on a very occasional basis, live music was provided under the "two-in-a-bar rule" as an accompaniment to dinner. The music was advertised by means of a chalk board on the pavement and a small notice in the window. GENERAL CONSENSUS would seem to suggest that in this case the advertising of the music would preclude it from qualifying as "incidental".

Mr Gall and his fellow contributor (Mr Diaper and Mr Hopkins) have some very valid points to make with regard to small gatherings of acoustic music makers having little or no adverse impact on the licensing objectives and this is presumably why the Government devised Section 177 of the Licensing Act which was intended to provide, under certain circumstances, flexibility for unamplified live music.

Unfortunately, as stated in the report of the Live Music Forum, the current wording of Section 177 is convoluted. Their understanding, and this Council's, is that for this concession to be used the following circumstances would have to apply:
a) the venue would need to have a capacity of not more than 200 people.
b) The applicant would need to have appeared before a Licensing Committee,
at a Licensing hearing, and had conditions relating to live music attached to
the premises licence at that hearing by that Licensing Committee.
c) If the premises were then to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
midnight, and were it to be providing unamplified live music;
d) Then any conditions, relating to live music, attached to the premises licence,
except those relating to public safety or the prevention of crime and disorder,
by the Licensing Committee, at that Licensing Hearing, would have no effect
and could simply be ignored by the venue operator.

Within Weymouth and Portland Borough there are 358 licensed premises in total. Only 24 of those licences have had conditions attached to the premises licence as a result of a Licensing Hearing and out of those 24 only 7 have a capacity of less than 200. It is therefore not surprising that the Live Music Forum could not find a single example countrywide where this concession had been used either by Licensing Officers or venue owners.

The recommendation made by the Live Music Forum is that Section 177, where it relates to the provision of live music, should be deleted from the Act and Schedule 1 Part 2 – Exemptions, should have a new paragraph 7(a) inserted which should read:
"The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of unamplified live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act."
Members may wish to give consideration to lobbying Government in support of this recommendation.

Whilst Mr. Gall's claims that this Council, its Officers and Members have acted inconsistently and unfairly in interpreting the Licensing Act 2003 are unsubstantiated, Members may also wish to give consideration to the adoption of a Code of Practice on licence conditions in order to allay his fears. The attached draft code of practice has been drawn up by the Institute of Licensing and all its Members (of which I am one) are being encouraged to adopt it. Relevant policy paragraph(s): 4.3.2, 5.6.2
and 5.6.3

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 10:30 AM

I doubt the authority will listen to anyone else from outside their area.

Well, if everyone outside of their area shares your doubt - my Licensing Authority won't have anything to listen to, will they?

Whether they actually listen or just go through the motions - the Licensing Act 2003 (currently) requires every Licensing Authority to review their SOLP every three years. Part of this process is a formal public consultation which every member of the public and all national organisations are invited to contribute to.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:14 AM

http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=169:190310item3&catid=92:newsitemsnew&Itemid=97

The NCA is seeking members' comments on its draft response to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) latest consultation on the Licensing Act, which proposes to exempt live music events for audiences of not more than 100 people from the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 09:13 PM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040455&c=1

Live Bill loses out
16:53 | Thursday March 18, 2010
By Robert Ashton

Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill could be crippled by the Easter recess and impending General Election.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:37 PM

"Could take place without an audience" is also a nonsense, although a session is probably one of the few types of music which could meet this particular requirement.

The employees of my Licensing Authority do not agree and advise that sessions are the provision of a performance of live music to audience and licensable as Regulated Entertainment. Mainly as they argue that a regular session is not 'spontaneous', so it must be a licensable performance....

As the exemption still only applies to 'performance of live music and the playing of recorded music' this advice/view/position (- but not policy -) means that 5.6.2 of the SOLP, cannot benefit anything that does take place for an audience.

And anything that didn't take place for an audience, wouldn't be licensable in the first place, as a performance of live music to andience and would have no need of the exemption.

They may need some protection from employees of the Licensing Authority claiming that the premises are being provided for the purpose of the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing and licesable as Entertainment Facilities.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:10 PM

The LGA's main concern would be to ensure that the authority acted within its powers. As long as it did so, and exercised them reasonably, the LGA will be satisfied. That doesn't mean the authority's actions are correct, merely within their powers.

The reference is not to the LGA (Local Government Association) but the LGO (Local Government Ombudsman.

Maladmisitration is all that the LGO can decide - this was defined as a Council not following their own rules or the law.

It cannot be within any of the Licensing Authority's powers to state one thing as correctly endorsed policy in the SOLP, as required by the Licensing Act 2003 - but for their employees to offer advice to licensee which ignores and takes precedent over the correctly endorsed policy contained in the SOLP.

My MP has recently received a letter from them which makes reference only to the policy in the SOLP and no reference to the 5 May 2006 advice and the fact that the LGO still considers this to be the Council's view on the incidental exemption. As follows:

Kate Hindson
General manager
Communities & People
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Our ref KH/HH
18 January 2010

Dear Jim

Revised Guidance To Licensing Authorities On The Provision Of incidental Music Licensing

Many thanks for your letter of 4 January 2010 the contents of which my licensing Manager and her team were already aware of.

I am happy that Paragraph 5.6.2 of this Council's current Policy already explains the principles of incidental music albeit in slightly less detail than the revised guidance. The Policy (at paragraph 2.4) also takes note of the provisions of the 2003 Act and the Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Act so my view is that there is not a need for immediate revision of the Policy.

However, we will be starting consultation on the statutory review of the statement of licensing policy in May this year so this will present us with an ideal opportunity to make amendments/improvements to the policy to reflect the revised guidance.

In the meantime I will ensure that all Councillors who sit on Licensing Committee are provided with a copy of it (in addition to the Licensing Services team members who have already been given copies).

Yours sincerely

Kate Hindson
General manager - Communities & People

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM

I doubt the authority will listen to anyone else from outside their area.

I don't know how your particular session operates, but the ones I go to would satisfy all those criteria, with the exception of "not being held on a regular basis". However this particular criteria flies in the face of the guidance, which says nothing about this, indeed implies the opposite. Under the guidance a restaurant should be able to provide live background music 24/7, provided it is ancillary to the main purpose of eating.

"Could take place without an audience" is also a nonsense, although a session is probably one of the few types of music which could meet this particular requirement. Restaurant example again - the music is played specifically to entertain an audience, what makes it incidental is the fact that the audience's main reason for being there is to eat, not to listen to music.

The LGA's main concern would be to ensure that the authority acted within its powers. As long as it did so, and exercised them reasonably, the LGA will be satisfied. That doesn't mean the authority's actions are correct, merely within their powers.

You need to hammer this home to the DCMS, since it is clear that local authorities are still either misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring the guidance.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 02:39 PM

The local policy on enforcement for this exemption, was sought by me and a local Councillor and the following was carefully advised, in the letter to us, dated 5 May 2006.

As you know, the Act contains no definition of 'incidental' and my legal team advise me that in these case it is normal to use dictionary definitions to aid interpretation. The dictionary definition of incidental includes the word 'casual' which, in our view, does impact on the regularity of incidental music. I can confirm that we would advise licensees asking us that we would regard incidental music as that which:
could take place without an audience;
would not be advertised or held on a regular basis;
and would not be amplified."

As I have said before here, the 'new' LACORS Guidance on the incidental exemption was issued in November 2009. This makes it clear that the 5 May 2006 advice still being maintained by the employees of my local Licensing Authority is totally wrong [but this was always clear].

Should anyone wish to contact them to try and help bring some common sense to bear - I would be most grateful.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 02:22 PM

This is what the Statement of Licensing Policy (which was endorsed by the Council's Management Committee) has to say on the exemption.

5.6.2. The incidental performance of live music and the incidental playing of recorded music may not be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment activities for the purposes of the Act. This is where they are incidental to another activity which is not itself entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities falling within paragraph 5.6.2. Whether or not music of this kind is 'incidental' to other activities will be judged on a case by case basis

[For information, the previous SOLP, which presumably formed the policy on this exemption at the time the advice was presented on 5 May 2006, reads as follows.]

5.6.2 Music incidental to certain other activities
The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not in itself-
• A description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or
• The provision of entertainment facilities.

As you can see from the above - the details of what the LGO refers to as being the Council's view on the incidental exemption - is not what appears in the SOLP and has never been endorsed by any Committee or even presented to one. It is not clear if any of the elected members of the Council are aware of how this differs from the Government Minister's advice - or if they are aware - if they care.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 02:08 PM

The following quote from the Local Government Ombudsman 03 April 2008 Ref 07/B/13783/BM. It refers to advise contained in a letter to me and a local Councillor dated 5 May 2006.

She [Bridget Downton then Corporate Diector of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council] enclosed information available and commented on the Council's view of what constituted incidental music. This was considered to be; music that could take place without an audience, music that would not be advertised or held on a regular basis: and music that would not be amplified. She added that the Council's preference was not to apply 'a one size fits all' approach and to consider each case on its merits and to advise licensees accordingly.

The LGO also states 03 April 2008 Ref 07/B/13783/BM: I have not found evidence that the Council's officers have given misleading advice and information to Members or that the authority has acted in disregard of government guidance in its interpretation of the new statutory provisions for premises licensing.

That the LGO finds in favour of the Council's employees here, is not surprising as they do this in a about 95% of all complaints and that is not to say that the remaining 5% are happy with the outcome.

So as there is no effective watchdog, it should come little surprise when council employees feel that they are safe to advise what they choose to and feel that their advice has more authority than that which is offered by Government Ministers.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 01:55 PM

If you have not already done so, I would suggest sending copies of your local authority's responses to the DCMS. OK, interpretation is the responsibility of the authority, but it might demonstrate to the DCMS that their guidance is not getting through and authorities are not enforcing the Act in the way which the government intended.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:15 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030401/pm/30401s08.htm#end
Column No: 070
Jim Knight: I would not have become interested in the subject if it were not for Roger Gall, a constituent of mine, who lives on Portland, where there is a folk jamming session on a Friday night in a pub called the Cone House Inn. It became known that the landlord was comfortable with people coming along on a Friday night and playing their music. These sessions were not advertised. Such an event, which is not advertised or actively encouraged, may be a passive part of the atmosphere of the pub, and it may begin to build up business and become a substantial attraction and profit maker for the publican. Would the Minister regard such an activity as one that should be regulated under the Bill?

Dr. Howells: It seems that that is largely a spontaneous activity, to which people turn up occasionally, and it seems also that the word has spread that people can hear some nice music. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, the licensee does not spend money on advertising. If it is clear that music is being played in the corner of the pub, that would be incidental in my book. I do not know whether that gives him any comfort.

Often, if it is intended that the everyday meaning of a term be used in legislation, it must be judged commensurate to the circumstances of each case. I know that that has drawn some guffaws from Opposition Members, but I hope that the combination of the term ''incidental'' and the explanation that I have tried to give, taken together with the guidance that the Department will issue, will be sufficient to ensure that licensing authorities give due consideration to whatever music is being performed.

As you can see, there is a difficulty in getting my Licensing Authority to accept that sessions are exempt as performances of live music that is incidental etc. Is there anything in the proposals that will change this?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 07:57 AM

One question to ask the Licensing Authority is what Licensing Objectives they believe are being promoted by demanding the sessions are licensed.

That is a good question but there is no point in me asking them, as they will not respond to me on any licensing matters. I would be grateful if someone else would ask.   

Extract from Mike Harding's BBC Radio 2 show 17 July 2002. Published in The Rose Of The Ribble Valley by Graham Dixon ISBN 1-84294-100-3.
Dr Kim Howells was then Minister in the DCMS responsible for introducing what later became The Licensing Act 2003.
Mike Harding Kim, if I can just go on to some questions we've had sent in from listeners, very quickly, because I do realise you've got to get off to the house and various other things...Roger Gall has emailed to say, and I quote, "When you introduce this new licensing system, if pubs don't have an entertainment licence, will sessions and singarounds be banned?"
Dr Kim Howells MP Yes, i suppose they would be. The landlord would need to get an entertainment licence to cover himself or herself....
Mike Harding But this is not for gain, is it, you were talking about...
Dr Kim Howells MP Oh, I see, I am sorry, I thought that you meant it would be professional musicians being paid ....
Mike Harding No, just sessions and singarounds, people just playing for their own fun.
Dr Kim Howells MP No, they certainly wouldn't and I'm very keen that we should make sure that that facility is there. There shouldn't be a problem. As long as money is not changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 04:33 AM

Whilst Kim Howell's words have no statutory weight, it seems to me that they should be taken into account when interpreting the Act, because they shed light on what was intended by the wording used when the Act was being drafted.

Ultimately it is up to a Court to interpret the Act, and they will look firstly at the language used and what it could be expected to mean in terms of usual everyday language, but having regard to definitions of particular terms in the Act and legal precedent from other cases. Nevertheless, Dr Howell's words do shed light on how the words were intended to be interpreted, and what the Act was intended to include and exclude, and should carry some weight insofar as they don't contradict the other meanings of the words used.

One question to ask the Licensing Authority is what Licensing Objectives they believe are being promoted by demanding the sessions are licensed. I suspect that any issues of noise or disturbance, for example, could either be dealt with by other legal measures, or shown from previous experience not to be a problem.

The Licensing Authority seems to be taking the view that everything should be licensed, which flies in the face of all the guidance and clarifications from the DCMS. By disregarding the guidance they put themselves on dangerous ground from a legal point of view, in my (unqualified) opinion. The problem is that no one is likely to risk the costs of testing this in a court.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM

http://www.thesession.org/sessions/display/361

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:04 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86358?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

Tories stoke rumours of licensing shake-up
By John Harrington
18/03/2010 10:42
The Conservatives want to "rationalise" the number of Government departments dealing with pubs — adding weight to rumours they'd put the Home Office back in charge of alcohol licensing.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 07:51 AM

The following is from the S182 Guidance.

Legal status
Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides that in carrying out its functions a licensing authority must 'have regard to' guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182. The requirement is therefore binding on all licensing authorities to that extent.
However, the guidance cannot anticipate every possible scenario or set of circumstances that may arise and as long as licensing authorities have properly understood the Guidance they may depart from it if they have reason to do so as long as they are able to provide full reasons.

Departure from the Guidance could give rise to an appeal or judicial review, and the reasons given will then be a key consideration for the courts when considering the lawfulness and merits of any decision taken.

1.8 Nothing in this Guidance should be taken as indicating that any requirement of licensing law or any other law may be overridden (including the obligations placed on the authorities under human rights legislation). The Guidance does not in any way replace the statutory provisions of the 2003 Act or add to its scope and licensing authorities should note that interpretation of the Act is a matter for the courts. Licensing authorities and others using the Guidance must take their own professional and legal advice about its implementation.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 07:45 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The government has avoided answering the latest questions raised by Lord Colwyn about DCMS live music stats.

This purely fictional conversation between a junior and senior civil servant is inspired by the Q&A (full text below):

Junior: The Lords want to know how many professional musicians are actually accounted for in our live music report.
Senior: We can't tell them.
Junior: Why not?
Senior: Because we don't know.
Junior: But we published figures and claimed there had been a 20% rise, 2006 to 2008.
Senior: I know, but some fool plucked numbers from a website without checking. If we admit the mistake we might have to withdraw the report.
Junior: So what shall I say?
Senior: Refer them to the previous answer.
Junior: But we seem to have avoided an answer the first time.
Senior: I know.
Junior: What about the second question, the one asking for the actual dates of the research?
Senior: Tell them... I mean, imply the fault lies with the source material, and that those responsible are now making revisions which we may incorporate later.

[Junior retreats with a conspiratorial wink]

In real life, the civil servants who prepare ministers' answers are, of course, bound by a Code of Conduct which requires honesty, impartiality, objectivity and integrity: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/values/cscode/index.aspx

Actual Q&A:

Lord Colwyn: To ask Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport report Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector, of 28 January, (a) what is the definition of the term professional musician, and (b) how many professional musicians are included in the total of "those employed in live music performance" in 2006 and 2008. [HL2477]

Lord Davies of Oldham: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer that I gave to Lord Clement-Jones on 23 February 2010 (Official Report, col. WA 285).

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100315w0004.htm#10031553000799

Lord Colwyn: To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the dates of the research sources for the numbers of professional musicians in 2006 and 2008 cited in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's report Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector under the heading "increases in those performing music-are there more musicians?". [HL2478]

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector report used source material taken from the Creative and Cultural Skills Council (CCSC) studies of the industry. We understand that CCSC are making some revision to their material. DCMS will incorporate any changes affecting our analysis in the report in due course.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100316w0004.htm

Link to DCMS live music report webpage, published 28 January 2010, revised 16 February:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/6603.aspx

Link to previous DCMS answers to questions by Lord Clement-Jones:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100223w0004.htm#10022368000777

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 06:55 AM

"If the landlord simply advertises "folk music here tonight" then under the new guidance that should be OK. However if he advertises a named performer then it's regulated entertainment.

But what sense is there in this? How can the words of a advert change the risks presented to the licensing objectives?"

I agree it's nonsense, but at least under the new guidance the distinction is a bit clearer. If the landlord is in a position to advertise a named performer then it suggests he is promoting an event, rather than merely permitting incidental music - a crucial distinction for the purposes of the Act. It also suggests a different sort of event from what the more informal incidental music might provide, although this isn't necessarily the case in practice.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that while the DCMS's guidance may have no statutory force, an authority which ignores it (especially if their policy actually contradicts it) could be on shaky ground. A court would look at the official guidance to help it decide how the Act should be interpreted (although it would also look at other legal precedents). The problem is that these issues are unlikely to be tested in court, it's easier for the licensee to just agree to the authority's demands even if they're wrong, easier still simply to stop the music.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:04 AM

If the landlord simply advertises "folk music here tonight" then under the new guidance that should be OK. However if he advertises a named performer then it's regulated entertainment.

But what sense is there in this? How can the words of a advert change the risks presented to the licensing objectives?

The so-called 'new' Guidance was issued in November 2009 - My lot still will not accept that their advice needs to change at all and see no hurry to even discuss it. They will be looking at it in May 2010 - as part of the three-yearly general review of the Statement of Licensing Policy but this is a requirement of the Act and has nothing to do with the Guidance. As there is currently nothing in the SOLP which supports the officer's advice - such a review is unlikely to change the situation anyway.

But the Guidance does not make it clear that the exemption only applies to the performance of live music and to the playing of recorded music. The situation where the public are provided with licensable Entertainment facilities, in the form of premises, to enable them to entertain themselves in music and dancing is unchanged.

I can see nothing in the Guidance that would make my lot change their advice and it is only Guidance remember.

But if you think you could change their advice - I would be most greateful if you could please contact them and try.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 07:07 PM

Most sessions in my experience are not "promoted" by the landlord. "Promoted" usually means someone has arranged the event, booked the performers, etc. In most cases sessions are merely permitted by the landlord and advertised by word of mouth, and more between musicians than potential audience.

If the landlord simply advertises "folk music here tonight" then under the new guidance that should be OK. However if he advertises a named performer then it's regulated entertainment.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM

You picked out "Pub promotes sing-along event with pianist". However that is clearly being promoted as an event which will attract customers specifically for the purpose of attending the sing-along, and so is not incidental music. Where a pianist is simply playing background music, without it being promoted and with the audience free to listen or ignore him as they choose, that is incidental music.

I picked this out as it was the nearest to what my Licensing Authority would claim that a session was. They do actually still advise that any form of advertising would make a session licensable and not eligible for the incidental exemption.

However, the point you make about the licensing objectives is a good one. Should an event be licensable, by an advert stating the performer's name - when an advert which does not is exempt? The event could be pretty much the same event and be presenting the same risks to the licensing objectives. But being involved in organising one of them could get you a £20,000 fine or 6 months in prison!!!

The Guidance is full of such subjective judgements which place our licensing officers in really difficult positions and which give very little protection to the public.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 04:41 PM

On the contrary, I think the new guidance seems very helpful, and certainly a lot better than the previous guidance. From our point of view, it's a pity that folk sessions aren't explicitly mentioned, but on the other hand they vary so much that they could fall into either category depending on how they're run and whether or not they're advertised.

You picked out "Pub promotes sing-along event with pianist". However that is clearly being promoted as an event which will attract customers specifically for the purpose of attending the sing-along, and so is not incidental music. Where a pianist is simply playing background music, without it being promoted and with the audience free to listen or ignore him as they choose, that is incidental music.

What the difference is in practical terms, or in terms of achieving the licensing objectives, is unclear to me. It appears that two very similar events could fall into one category or the other due to quite small differences, but at least these differences are now a little bit clearer.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 04:37 PM

I think we have to accept that part of our problem is that DCMS do not have the slightest idea of what sessions, open mics and singarounds are but they have a real obsession with ensuring that karaoke is caught.

The provision of performance of the activity itself is already licensable Regulated Entertainment but they appear to want to prevent unlicensed karaoke at any cost. So to make doubly sure, any facility provided to enable karaoke is also licensable as Entertainment Facilities.

I am quite sure that the legislation could be drafted in such a way as to ensure that the specific activities DCMS are concerned about can be licensable, without making licensable, as Entertainment Facilities, the provision of any faciltiy to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 04:22 PM

I'm sure that somewhere in all the recent stuff that's been quoted the DCMS has specifically said that the public entertaining themselves should be considered incidental music

This is the latest Guidance on what performances are exempt under this. Not sure that it helps much.......

http://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/downloads/Item6_App2_3_.pdf

It contains the following gem:
The music is likely to be licensable if those present at the premises are arranged as an audience, compared to customers seated as diners, for example.

And the following is an example of an activity which is licencable: Pub promotes sing-along event with pianist
(or other single instrument)

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 03:33 PM

Sessions are usually not provided, even partly, for entertaining an audience, which is one of the requirements for "regulated entertainment". On the contrary, an audience is usually unwelcome since they take up space which would otherwise be occupied by musicians - that's the situation at my regular local session, anyway, although we're not rude enough to tell them that.

I couldn't agree more but I have been trying to explain this to my local Licensing Authority for the last ten years - perhaps you could persuade them?

The Licensing Manager
Weymouth and Portland Borough Council
North Quay
Weymouth
Dorset
DT4 8TA
www.weymouth.gov.uk

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM

I'm sure that somewhere in all the recent stuff that's been quoted the DCMS has specifically said that the public entertaining themselves should be considered incidental music.

Sessions are usually not provided, even partly, for entertaining an audience, which is one of the requirements for "regulated entertainment". On the contrary, an audience is usually unwelcome since they take up space which would otherwise be occupied by musicians - that's the situation at my regular local session, anyway, although we're not rude enough to tell them that.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM

The tweak to also exempt facilites provided for exempt performances of live music is needed as the current words only exempt the activity itself. However, even in its new form, it is too little and too late and unlikely to make any difference now. Had our licensing enforcers a different culture to the one that had already caused most of the problems - this exemption could, without costs and red tape, have encouraged all sorts of live music in all sorts of premises.

Music incidental to certain other activities
7 The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself—
(a) a description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or
(b) the provision of entertainment facilities.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:27 PM

The provision of facilities for incidental music will be excluded by the proposed Schedule 1 (19)(b).

Yes and in the other proposal the public will be able to be provided with non-amplified instruments to enable them to entertain themselves in music and dancing, which is not performance to an audience.

However this depends on the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing being seen as "incidental music". From various comments, that seems to be the DCMS's intention, but it's not explicit in the Act and is not very clear from the guidance notes. We're left to rely on "common sense".

Common sense would tell us that only performances to an audience can qualify for any exemptions which are specifically worded as being for performances to an audience.

The only proposal which applies to the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing is to allow them to be provided with non amplified instruments, without these being licensable as Entertainment Facilities.

The tweak to the incidental exemption will make little difference as this exemption has been part of the original Act. It has proved in practice to be of little use and many Licensing Authorities, including mine, whilst insisting that participatory sessions are licensable as performances to an audience, currently do not accept that the incidental exemption can be used.

So what hope is there for sessions affected by licensing, in any of what is proposed, without some way of ensuring that Licensing Authorities comply with what has always been available to them?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Rumours of the death of Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill were, it seems, exaggerated.

Although not debated in the House of Commons last Friday, a new date has been set for 2nd reading: Friday 26th March.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100312/debtext/100312-0011.htm

Lib Dem MP Normal Lamb announced the new date, although for some reason Hansard does not record his name. For even stranger reasons, Hansard does not record who shouted 'Object' to this and five other private members bills. One of quirks of the mother of democracies is that while individual Parliamentarians may originate bills, other individuals may scupper them with one word. No wonder why, for many, Parliament has become something of a farce.

The House of Commons is not sitting on 26th March, but Mr Lamb's announcement means that the bill remains live until the general election is called. Put another way, the ball is in the government's court. They could make time for the bill before the election. That is, they could make time if they were sincere about wanting to act 'very quickly' to introduce an entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs, as licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe told BBC You & Yours almost five months ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/06/2009_42_thu.shtml

Friday 26th March happens also to be the closing date for the DCMS public consultation on a new small gigs exemption:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx

Ministers will know by then whether or not the majority of responses back a 200-capacity exemption, like the one in Lord Clement-Jones' bill and recommended by the All Party Culture, Media and Sport Committee last year. Both the Musicians Union and the Live Music Forum have already criticised the consultation's proposed 100-capacity exemption as too small to be of much use.

By 26th March the government runs out of excuses for any further delay.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:58 AM

The provision of facilities for incidental music will be excluded by the proposed Schedule 1 (19)(b). However this depends on the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing being seen as "incidental music". From various comments, that seems to be the DCMS's intention, but it's not explicit in the Act and is not very clear from the guidance notes. We're left to rely on "common sense".

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM

I am concerned that what is proposed in the draft does not appear to exempt any associated Entertainment Facilities and will only apply to the provison of performances of live music and not to the provision of facilties to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.

"Live music in certain small venues

7A (1) The provision of entertainment consisting of a performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if the conditions in sub-paragraph (2) are satisfied in respect of the performance.

(2) The conditions are that-

(a) the performance takes place wholly inside a building;

(b) the performance takes place in the presence of an audience of not more than 100 persons, all of whom are accommodated wholly inside the building where the performance takes place;

(c) no part of the performance takes place between 11pm and 8am;

(d) the performance does not take place on premises in respect of which an exclusion decision under Part 2A of this Schedule has effect."

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:34 AM

Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003
2. After paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003, add—
"Entertainment facilities
19 The following are not be regarded as the provision of entertainment facilities within the meaning of this Schedule—
(a) the provision of a musical instrument, or anything to be used to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification;
(b) the provision of facilities solely for the purpose of a performance of live music of the kind described in paragraph 7 of this Schedule.".

The above is what is proposed. It would seem clear to me that the provision of any amplified instrument or any amplification would still be regarded as Entertainment Facilities. If the intention is really to exempt the provision of all instruments and amplification from being Entertainment Facilities - there is a clearer way of expressing this - possibly without any mention of the the words 'without amplification'.

It would be easier if Entertainment Facilties were simply removed.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 09:37 AM

The following from the DCMS own consultation document would seem to make it clear that only a musical instrument provided without any means of amplification is excluded by the proposals.

1.3 The proposal would also ensure that the provision of musical instruments (such as a piano made available to members of the public to entertain themselves) is excluded from the definition of regulated entertainment. For clarity, this exemption will extend to items provided to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification. This is intended to clarify that ancillary items such as music stands are also excluded from the definition of entertainment facilities.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM

However even if the proposed changes to the incidental exemption are accepted, the provision of an amplified instrument or PA to such an activity - would still need licensing as the provision of an Entertainment Facilty.

Not according to the DCMS (see the last para of the following).

I am able to reassure you that it is not currently the case that "any facility provided (including the floor but with the possible exemption of the premises themselves) to enable the 'playing of recorded music' constitutes the provision of entertainiment facilities".

Nor will the proposed Statutory Instrument make such 'facilities' licensable. In most circumstances, the mechanisms for the transmission of recorded music are and would remain entirely outside the definition of entertainment facilities. The definition refers to facilities for enabling persons to take part in 'making music' and 'dancing'. It does not otherwise include the playing of recorded music.

There may nevertheless be circumstances when the making of music involves recorded music. Karaoke might be an example. It is the intention of the Act that the provision of facilties to enable people to take part in (electronically amplified) karaoke is licensable, and it will remain licensable under the current proposals.

However, the current proposal would clarify that anything (including amplification and amplified instruments) provided to enable incidental music is not licensable.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 05:47 AM

A performance of stand-up comedy is not a licensable activity. Rightly or wrongly, The incidental exemption is supposed to make exempt any facilities provided to enable it even when live nusic is used as part of this performance. Although I am not sure I follow the logic being used here.

However even if the proposed changes to the incidental exemption are accepted, the provision of an amplified instrument or PA to such an activity - would still need licensing as the provision of an Entertainment Facilty.

Not too sure about the provision of floor though?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 03:16 AM

In the second, the room is specifically set up to enable dancing to take place and so does add something to enabling the activity itself to take place. Whether the alleged facility is provided on a regular basis or not does not seem to us to be relevant. It is the nature of the thing itself, not how often it is provided, that determines whether it is an "entertainment facility" or not. Schedule 1 does not contain anything that allows one to characterise (or decline to characterise) something as an entertainment facility on the basis of how frequently it is used. The Guidance does not contradict this.

As it is exempt when taking place inside or out, any performance of Morris dancing taking place on the floor of a premises is an activity that is exempt, along with any associated Entertainment facilities that are provided to enable it. But any other dancing taking place on the same floor would need licensing as this would be then be considered to be provided for the purposes of the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing.

It is unclear when a provided floor become a dance floor? The pretty obvious answer is when the public are dancing on it. Although spontaneous music and dancing is said, in the S 182 Guidance, not to be licensable.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 02:33 PM

I think the provision of premises to enable the public to dance on the walls or the ceiling or the provision of a building with no floor at all, is safe - well safe from being a provided licensable Entertainment Facility.

Or is it?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:46 AM

It was like pulling teeth but the DCMS have finally replied as follows. However, as you correctly observe, the Act does allow for the possibility that premises or land may be an entertainment facility.

Leaving aside the fact that no one really knows when the premises or land may or may be claimed to be provide as a licensable Entertainment facility - I wonder why this rather important fact receives little attention in the S 182 Guidance and does not appear with the other examples provided?

This is the worst example of bad legislation as it provides no protection at all for the public, like so much else in this legislation. If those who are paid to enforce it - wish to claim that the premises are a provided Entertainment Facility, they can. And if they don't (or don't need to as there are already so many other ways of making an activity licensable) they can ignore the legislation's requirement.   

In answer to the following question (which I thought was fairly easy one) I received a (short) answer that I still do not understand.

However, I would be very grateful if you could answer for me, what is the obvious question after reading your comments: The following situation is one that is far more common than one where any instruments were provided. What is the situation currently and what would be the case should the proposal be accepted - where no instruments were being provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music but there is no question that the premises are being provided, on a regular basis for this purpose - would the premises be Entertainment Facilities, require specific Entertainment Permission and be illegal without this?

The short answer to your last question is, as we have previously said, that it depends on the nature of the premises and whether it is meaningful to regard them as "facilities" that are being provided for making music or dancing. Whether the premises themselves have anything to do with enabling the music or dancing to occur in any distinctive way is obviously relevant to this.
We covered the point with the example of the piano in the bar versus the specially-designed dance floor that occupies most or all of a room.

In the first case the thing claimed to be a
separate "facility" adds nothing to the making of the music, apart from the mere presence of the piano and the participants.

In the second, the room is specifically set up to enable dancing to take place and so does add something to enabling the activity itself to take place. Whether the alleged facility is provided on a regular basis or not does not seem to us to be relevant. It is the nature of the thing itself, not how often it is provided, that determines whether it is an "entertainment facility" or not. Schedule 1 does not contain anything that allows one to characterise (or decline to characterise) something as an entertainment facility on the basis of how frequently it is used. The Guidance does not contradict this.

The last point seems to bring us back to the S 182 Guidance, where it is claimed that the premises are not being provided for 'spontaneous' music. But as the S 182 Guidance iteslf states - Licensing Authorities can ignore it................

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 07:40 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, which if enacted would exempt most small gigs from entertainment licensing red tape, is listed for 2nd reading debate today in the House of Commons.

The bill is backed by UK Music, Equity, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the original Live Music Forum (www.livemusicforum.co.uk), the Musicians Union, and the National Campaign for the Arts.

However, at 14th in the list of private members bills it is unlikely to get any Parliamentary time and will almost certainly fail.

Lib Dem shadow culture secretary Don Foster said:


'The bill represents a great opportunity to repair the damage done to live music by Labour's licensing rules. I am disappointed the government have refused to support it, despite their slowly coming to accept that they have got it wrong. The minor change suggested in their consultation [an exemption for gigs with an audience up to 100] does not go anywhere near far enough, and bureaucracy will continue to strangle live music provision unless our ideas are put into action. When the government consultation reports and the election is complete, we will assess how best to take the contents of the Bill forward.'

Needless to say a lot depends on the outcome of the general election, which must be held by the end of May. The Conservatives have already backed the 200-capacity venue exemption recommended by the All Party Culture, Media and Sport Committee last year.

Labour has promised to consider a 200-capacity exemption, but only if 'an overwhelming majority' backs this in the current DCMS consultation: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx

The deadline for responses is 26th March.

On 1st March, Music Week reported that DCMS had already received over 100 responses and that those by the Musicians Union and the Live Music Forum had slated the government's 100-capacity proposal as too small:
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040220&c=1

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 01:52 PM

The other side of the same exemption permits the playing of recorded music - all of which of course must be amplified.

If this were not so serious - it would be funny.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 10:09 AM

Ooops!

The exemption for a performance of live music that is incidental etc. is in no a way limited to non-amplified performances (according to the latest LACORS guidance on this.

However any associated Entertainment Facilities that are provided to enable it - cannot be amplified. The provision of a PA for example or an amplified instrument is not being exempted is it?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 05:13 AM

Where the public are entertaining themselves then this could be considered "incidental music", since it is not for the purpose of entertaining an audience or attracting customers, and for many customers would be something going on in the background.

It cannot be considered to be a 'performance of live music', which is what the exemption is worded for.

The only things re live music, that qualify for current exemptions and the changes proposed to make the incidental exemption work - must first be licensable as the provision of a activity which is a performance of live music and thus licensenable as Regulated Entertainment, this does (or will then) include any associated facilties provided for this.

Anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music which is not the provision of an activity which is a performance of live music - will remain licensable as a Entertainment Facilty.

The proposed small gigs exemption will not be of any use unless it is worded to include the public entertaining themselves live music which is not performance.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 04:25 AM

Shambles, I not sure I follow the final paragraph of your post of 10 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM.

Where the public are entertaining themselves then this could be considered "incidental music", since it is not for the purpose of entertaining an audience or attracting customers, and for many customers would be something going on in the background. Unfortunately the definition of "incidental music" in the Act and Guidance Notes is typically woolly, and we are left to rely on "common sense", which experience shows is in short supply.

Where it is a "performance" then it should be exempted under the proposed small gigs amendment.

All this assumes both amendments actually go through.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 02:48 AM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66575

Have your say on government's live music plans
10 March, 2010
By James Wilmore
Licensees have until March 26 to respond to DCMS consultation

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM

This shows that the provision of entertainment facilities is not linked to the provision of musical instruments. Part (b) would permit the provision of a room for incidental music whether or not an instrument were provided.

But only for a performance of incidental live music or the playing of recorded music. The following is the existing Para 7.

Music incidental to certain other activities
7 The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself—
(a) a description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or
(b) the provision of entertainment facilities.

Anything (including the premise or land) provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing - an activity which is not licensable itself as Regulated Entertainment, as a PERFORMANCE of live music or the playing of recorded music, cannot qualify for this exemption and as a result, is still caught as Entertainment Facilities.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:06 PM

The following is the proposal from the DCMS consultation document.

Chapter 1: Proposal to clarify the definition of 'entertainment facilities'

Summary of proposals
1.1 The consultation document seeks your views on a proposal to:
• exclude the provision of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities in the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act) schedule 1, section 3 (see extracts from the Act at Annex B); and
• clarify that entertainment facilities are not separately licensable if they are used solely for the provision of incidental music (as described by schedule 1 section 7).

1.2 The proposal would encourage the use of the existing exemption for incidental music. Performances of live music which meet the conditions in paragraph 1(2) and (3) of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act would remain licensable if they:
• are for purposes that include the purpose of entertaining an audience and take place in the presence of an audience;
• do not benefit from the exemption for music that is incidental to other activities; and
• do not fall within any other exemption in Schedule 1.

1.3 The proposal would also ensure that the provision of musical instruments (such as a piano made available to members of the public to entertain themselves) is excluded from the definition of regulated entertainment. For clarity, this exemption will extend to items provided to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification. This is intended to clarify that ancillary items such as music stands are also excluded from the definition of entertainment facilities.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 07:57 PM

Where exactly is this propsed amendment from Howard?