Licensing consultation announced!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 07:27 PM

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.".

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.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 02:30 PM

I have finally had a reply from DCMS - It is all now made perfectly clear.............Except what is the current position or what would the position be, should the proposal be accepted for where the premises are provided for the public to entertain themselves in music - when no instruments are provided. Would this be a licensable Entertainment Facility?

You asked for confirmation that the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act) says that "any premises (or land) provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dance and on which this entertainment takes place, is a licensable Entertainment Facility."

It is not the case that the Act says that any premises or land provided in this way qualifies as an entertainment facility. In fact, the Act is clear that this is not always or necessarily the case. However, as you correctly observe, the Act does allow for the possibility that premises or land may be an entertainment facility.

Legislation often demands the use of common sense in its interpretation. In the kind of case with which the consultation is concerned, the provision of facilities for performances of exempt incidental music and the provision of instruments (such as a pub piano), it would be artificial to say that the pub (or the bar area where the piano is situated) is a separate facility (in addition to the piano itself) "for enabling persons to take part" in making music on the piano.

The customers' ability to use the piano would be exactly the same if it were placed anywhere else, so the room or bar area does not contribute anything. Nothing would be achieved in terms of the policy aims of the Act (the promotion of the licensing objectives) by counting the room or bar area as a distinct facility in a case such as this.

On the other hand, a room which has a dance floor as its main or sole feature could quite easily be seen as a separate facility in this sense. In that case, to distinguish the dance floor from the room might be artificial.

It should be noted that the draft clarification proposed in the consultation would prevent any suggestion that the premises or land might be separately licensable as an entertainment facility in relation to facilities for incidental music and the provision of instruments.

In the case of incidental music, the draft clarification applies to any "facilities". In the case of musical instruments, the clarification applies to "anything to be used to enable a musical instrument to be played". This would therefore apply to, for example, a bar area, if it were suggested that this enabled the playing of the musical instrument.

Thank you again for your helpful contribution to the consultation, which has now closed. All responses will be considered, and we expect that Ministers will be in a position to announce their response in the near future.

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

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040357&c=1

12:04 | Wednesday March 10, 2010
By Robert Ashton
The Second Reading of Lord Clement-Jones Live Music Bill is due to take place in the House of Commons this Friday.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 05:30 AM

http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/pdf/2/l/GN4._Club_Premises_.pdf

The above is an example of how many different interpretations of the words of the same legislation are being advised and more importantly, enforced.

The examples provided here for what is called 'Incidental Entertainment' are really interesting.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 06:35 PM

Small Gigs Exemption Consultation

The implementation of the small gigs exemption may depend, to an extent, on the Public Consultation and we all have a right to respond to it.

The closing date for submissions is 26th March 2010 and it is important that as many live music fans let their opinion be known.

It is also vital that professional organisations such as Schools, Music Teachers, Choirs, Charities, Shops, Entertainment Agents, Pubs and Brewers submit their own responses to the Consultation. You may be able to think of more, in any case, please urge all your contacts to respond and pass on the word.

The Consultation document can be found at,

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx

The email address given for submissions is,[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:17 PM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040220&c=1

10:13 | Monday March 1, 2010

The Musicians' Union has become the latest organisation to reply to the Government's consultation on live music venues by slating the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's proposals to limit exemption to events with attendance of just 100 people.

The MU has urged the DCMS to clarify a perceived ambiguity in the draft order about the performance of live music and making available "entertainment facilities" such as a piano.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:13 PM

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/5048346.St_Albans_District_Council___We_are_not_killjoys_/

THE district council has responded to a barrage of criticism of its two new "licensing compliance officers" by denying they are killjoys cracking down on live music.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM

http://www.popall.co.uk/LicensingApplications/itisimpossibletopleaseeveryoneallthetime.asp

The application to vary the premises licence of the Albert Hall to add boxing, wrestling, late night refreshment and an extension of hours at the beginning of the day should have been reasonably straightforward. The Albert Hall has been a significant venue for boxing and the staging of premier events in the past.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 11:17 AM

This survey identified 85 pubs in the St Albans District with live music authorisation, and of those:

• 30 have restrictions on the number of musicians who can perform
(35% of pubs)

• 45 pubs have restriction on the regularity or frequency of musical performances (53% of pubs)

• 4 have a restriction on the genres of music which can be performed

• 1 pub has to display a suitable and conspicuous notice advising the residents of forthcoming live music events.

• 1 pub has a restriction on indoors Morris Dancing

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

Thank you Dennis. You probably do have to know quite how badly I have been treated by the employees of my local Licensing Authority to appreciate the fact that I can still accept that even they do honestly feel they are doing the best they can, in difficult circumstances. But that is another long and even more tedious story.

However, it is sad and not very helpful that we seem to be so firmly on opposite sides.

However, the report linked to here is, I suspect not an isolated situation.

http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council

What disturbs me about this report is that although most if not all of the questionable licensing conditions detailed, are probably not directly imposed by the Licensing Authority, no one seems to be prepared to take responsibilty for these conditions appearing as legally binding in Premises Licenses.

The fact that a licensee or pubco may self limit their applications does not mean that the Licensing Authority should not accept full resonsibility for imposing conditions they know to be both damaging to live music and possibly illegal.

The argument used that the Licensing Authority may not have technically imposed these conditions in the licenses, is not really one which refelts much credit on this authority's employees or on their professional body.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 09:50 AM

Thank you for your sympathy, this is a pleasant change as normally we get all the blame and none of the credit.

As someone who has been involved, if somewhat obliquely, with enforcing this legislation, Enforcing Noise Legislation in Public Houses etc being one of my duties, I am learning much from this thread, I compliment all involved in this thread in particular "The Shambles" and Howard Jones on their vigulent contributions.


Some nuisance cases have recently been lost due to misinterpretations, this is expensive and obviously a cost to tax payers. In each case the enforcement officer felt they were acting correctly. We all need to know what we should be doing!!

The majority of enforcement officers do not instruct that legal proceedings should be taken without a great deal of deliberation and "consideration" for all parties involved.

I continually look for leadership from our associations and professional bodies, but at this moment in time they are lagging behind this thread.

If I am successful and obtain advice I will certainly post what I can within this thread.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM

.........so I need to get a licence to entertain myself?

If I don't enjoy my efforts, can I get my money back? 8-)

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 09:22 AM

Strange as it may seem, I am beginning to have some sympathy with all of those who are employed to enforce this legislation.

It simply is not possible for them to take a sensible approach - the words of the Act make this impossible.

But perhaps if they are placed in this position - they (through their associations and professional bodies) they should be the ones leading the calls for more sensible legislation?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 09:14 AM

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=997%3Adcms-to-tackle-confusion-over-entertainmen

Launching a consultation last week, the DCMS proposes:

Excluding the provision of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities in the 2003 Act, and
Clarifying that entertainment facilities are not separately licensable if they are used solely for the provision of incidental music.
There is a caveat to the exemption, however – anything that amplifies the music will still be licensed as an entertainment facility.

Grimsey said: "The reality is that even with the existing flaws in the legislation, most licensing authority enforcement officers have taken a common sense and practical view. This new consultation is an attempt by DMCS to restrict the few officials who do not take such a sensible approach, and in that respect it is partly successful."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM

Sorry, I was trying to say that you were casting doubt on the DCMS's claim that spontaneous music is exempt. Re-reading what I wrote, that doesn't come across very well.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM

It is not me but DCMS who maintain that performances of spontaneous live music are not licensable in the first place (as opposed to being licensable but exempt).

The activity itself may not be technically licensable but as any facilty provided for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing is licensable as a Entertainment Facility - the effect is the same.

If you - (and 100,000 others) turned-up in field (with permission of the owner) and claimed that this was a performance of spontaneous live music - would the DCMS advise and more importantly, would the local Licensing Authority accept, "the place where the entertainment takes place will not have been made available to those taking part for that purpose?"

Anyone wish to try it this summer?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 12:51 PM

Just for the fun of stirring the pot ... despite the government's protestations, I believe singing "Happy Birthday" may be illegal without a licence. My reasoning is that if people go out to celebrate someone's birthday, they probably intend to sing "Happy Birthday" at some point, so it cannot be spontaneous (even assuming, as Shambles points out, that spontaneous singing is really exempt).

It's not just music this government is out to get, they're planning to outlaw photography in public places and effectively take away your rights over your own photographs:

UK Government nationalises orphan photos and bans non-consensual photography in public

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 10:31 AM

I'm coming to the conclusion that the parliamentary draughtsman must have been channelling Lewis Carroll when he drew up the legislation.

Curiouser and curioser indeed -

I find the whole concept of "providing entertainment facilities" very odd. The intention seems to be to bring participatory singing and dancing within the Act, which would otherwise not be regulated entertainment as it is not for the entertainment of an audience. So why not simply include these in the definition of regulated entertainment?

If it was done that way, the admission would have to be made that the Act introduced for the first time the concept of the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing as licensable. Which was possibly thought a bit too controvesial to openly admit.

Ministers were briefed to say that the Act did not make licensable any activity that was not already licensable under previous legislation. This was probably true, as far as it went but it quite intentionally disguised the fact that the Act introduced the concept of making licensable any facility provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.

I'm also confused what is meant by "making premises available". The Guidance Notes explain that spontaneous music or dancing are not licensable because "the place where the entertainment takes place will not have been made available to those taking part for that purpose." However, unless the licensee immediately steps in to stop the singing or dancing, surely the premises have then been made available, if only by default? But since we are told spontaneous music and dancing are not licensable, why should the licensee step in to prevent it?

Again - it is probably not wise to place too much on what DCMS have placed in the S 182 Guidance. There is no specific exemption in the words of the Act for a performance of spontaneous live music so quite why this has a definition in the S 182 Guidance (when so much is left undefined) is not clear. They just keep on digging a hole of their own making, in the hope that no one will notice.

Of course it follows that the premises would have been made as much available for a peformance of spontaneous live music as they would be to enable the public to entertain themselves in any other form of music and dancing.

Spontaneous performances of live music are only not licensable on purely practical grounds, because the licensing process cannot deal with it until it occurs and it is too late when it is over. If the activity is repeated - exactly the same activity or anything provided to enable an entertainment consisting of music and dancing -becomes licensable whether paid conventional entertainment or not.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 09:18 AM

I find the whole concept of "providing entertainment facilities" very odd. The intention seems to be to bring participatory singing and dancing within the Act, which would otherwise not be regulated entertainment as it is not for the entertainment of an audience. So why not simply include these in the definition of regulated entertainment?

I'm also confused what is meant by "making premises available". The Guidance Notes explain that spontaneous music or dancing are not licensable because "the place where the entertainment takes place will not have been made available to those taking part for that purpose." However, unless the licensee immediately steps in to stop the singing or dancing, surely the premises have then been made available, if only by default? But since we are told spontaneous music and dancing are not licensable, why should the licensee step in to prevent it?

I'm coming to the conclusion that the parliamentary draughtsman must have been channelling Lewis Carroll when he drew up the legislation.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:05 AM

My point was less the effect on sessions by the Licensing Act only but the effect on sessions over many years by the requirement for additional Entertainment Licensing. Many had already been lost prior to the introduction of this Act. But should any be lost or placed at risk? We don't see licensing presenting any threat to indoor pub sports.......Are these thought to be of more value?

But we have established that anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing is now licensable and that this introduction of the Act is something quite new.

In the light of the fact that premises have to specify the exact nature of entertainment being provided to enable it to be covered - what is the situation in the premises which have permission for conventional paid performances of live music but which do not have permission for facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing?

The assumption has been that sessions would be coverered in premises which already had permission for conventional paid performances of live music - but is this a safe assumption?

Would it work in reverse for example? Would permission obtained for the provision of facilities for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing also cover the provision of conventional paid performances of live music? I suspect not.

The Act has in effect introduced a quite distinct new area, presenting risks to th licensing objectives This needs specific Entertainment Permission and which I suspect that few if any premises currently hold.

Where permission for Entertainment Facilities does exist, it would only be to cover the provision of facilities associated with the specific conventional paid performance of live music.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 07:38 AM

I think on reflection you're probably right. There's undoubtedly a problem in that the Act does not mean what the DCMS would like it to mean, and possibly not what Parliament intended it to mean.

To answer your final question, I get the impression that the impact on existing sessions and singarounds has been less than was originally feared, although there have undoubtedly been some casualties. Most venues which were already hosting these simply included them in their licence application, which they were obliged to make anyway. However it's undoubtedly an obstacle to setting up new ones - if the licensee has to go to a lot of time, trouble and expense to alter his licence to allow something which probably won't bring him significant financial benefit, he probably won't bother.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 07:09 AM

The problem all along with this legislation are the claims that were made for it - in order to get it through. All sorts of assurances were given and still are, (especially for the music aspects) which the words of the Act could not support. The Lords did make an effort to address these aspect but our MPs in the Commons did a very poor job. I suspect that they understood it even less than you and I do any many of them were reassured by the claims rather than really examining if the claims could be supported in the words of the Act.

Things that are lauded as being all things to all people often turn out in practice to be of no real use to anyone.

The sh** has now hit the fan. The DCMS now have to explain to ministers and MPs what the real situation is but are not really prepare to admit the true scale of the situation. It was always going to be the case that the activities exempt under incidental exemption would have problems with the facilities provided to enable any entertainment consisting of music and dancing. Thus the playing of the piano is said to be exempt from being licensable Regulated Entertainment, as a performance of incidental live music but the provision of the piano is caught as an Entertainment Facility

The proposal to address this and change the words of the Act in this consultation cannot achieve the stated aim, unless the words of the Act which state that licensable Entertainment Facilities consist of the provision of premises to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.

The DCMS rubbished claims that the Act would require Entertainment Permission to enable a postman whistling on their rounds to entertain themselves, however I'm not sure who was making such claims. But that would currently be the case - if they were provided with a whistle or if they were provided with a van or bike to enable them to do this......these are Entertainment Facilities?

The Act has introduced (under cover) in legislation that was thought to be about ensuring the public's concerns for conventional performances of paid entertainment, a means to prevent the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing. Which many of us would consider to be an essential human right of free expression, which other legislation should have ensured for us.

It was bad enough when the requirement for additional Entertainment Permission applied only to conventional performances of paid entertainment. Its extension to catch anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, as Entertainment Facilities introduced for the first time in the Licensing Act 2003 is a step too far.

You could perhaps argue that the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing does present the same type of risks to the licensing objectives but the main problem with additional Entertainment Licensing is that those who enforce it tend only to concentrate on this side of things and not on the effect of this approach.

It has the effect of a aquarist who provided the same water conditions to all the fish in their collection - and who did this regardless of the consequences on the health of the fish. They may be able to present statistics to show a few very healthy fish - but this would not reflect the true situation.

In the past, Licensing Athorities could probably place pressure to pay and obtain the required licence, on a licensee who intended to profit from providing conventional paid entertainment, safe in the knowledge that they would comply.

The same approach taken where the premises were provided to enable customers to entertain themselves in music and dancing - would probably result in the licensee calling a halt to an activity, which has been part of our pubs for at least as long as the public entertaining themselves in darts and skittles.

But the provision of pool tables and (the few remaining) skittle alleys are not caught as Entertainment Facilities and are are not thought to be presenting any risk to the licensing objectives.

How many sessions and singarounds have been needlessly lost as result of this approach to additional Entertainment Licensing?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 07:25 PM

I'm b******d if I know. The more I read this the less I understand it.

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

The objectives referred to in S1.9 cannot be achieved if these activities remain licensable because the premises themselves are "entertainment facilities".

That is exactly my point. No matter how-well intentioned you may think the DCMS are the words of the Act remain what they are. What is proposed cannot happen unless the words of the Act regarding the provision of the premises are changed and this is not proposed. So the the whole thing is a nonsense.

The DCMS could have taken this opportunity to also remove "premises" from the definition. They have not done so. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the premises do not need to be licensed.

I am not sure that I agree that this is the only conclusion to be drawn.

The other, perhaps more likely, answer is that it is yet another cock-up by the DMCS

Not even the DCMS can simply wish the words of the Act to say something they would prefer it to say.

Would you accept that the above words (in the Act) make it quite clear that Entertainment Facilities [as defined in the words of the Act below], consist of making premises available?

Could you really argue, that a session is not a case of premises being made available to enable persons to entertain themselves in making music and dancing?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:36 PM

Shambles, you quote the DCMS on the wording as it stands. The latest consultation shows that there are at least two situations where they want to relax the existing rules - these are expressly referred to in S1.9 of the consultation which I quoted in my post of 05 Mar 10 - 12:39 PM .

The first situation is where a restaurant wants to provide incidental music (not itself regulated entertainment) but requires a licence because musical instruments, such as a piano, are provided. The second is where customers want to entertain themselves, for example using a pub piano. I think these are both examples, rather than being the only cases for exemption, but these are the ones actually mentioned.

The objectives referred to in S1.9 cannot be achieved if these activities remain licensable because the premises themselves are "entertainment facilities". The DCMS could have taken this opportunity to also remove "premises" from the definition. They have not done so. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the premises do not need to be licensed.

You may think that the DCMS is being sly, by offering an apparent concession which they don't really mean. However I think they would find themselves in a very difficult position if this came to court - having clearly stated what their objectives are they could not then try to undermine them.

The other, perhaps more likely, answer is that it is yet another cock-up by the DMCS, who don't seem to understand their own legislation. However I think the result is the same - a court would look at the intention, which is to free both incidental music and customers entertaining themselves from regulation.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:06 PM

http://www.licentiouslaw.co.uk/live-and-let-live-%E2%80%93-live-music-to-get-a-reprieve

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:04 PM

Howard you have not answered the points I made with reference to the words of the Act.

I have come to the conclusion that the S 182 Guidance and the consultation document must be intentionally misleading in the examples being provided, this is not helping you trying to find logic where there simply is none.

There can be no doubt that Entertainment Facilties have some intent, otherwise the Act would not have been drafted the way it is.

The view that it is just a plan B to be used to catch again activities that are already licensable Regulated Entertainment is a possible explanation but not a likely one. So it must be to catch activities which are not licensable Regulated Entertainment. The DCMS explain the intention here.   

Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Proposal to clarify the definition of "entertainment facilities"

1.5 The definition of regulated entertainment contains two elements: the provision of 'entertainment' and the provision of 'entertainment facilities'.

The separate 'entertainment facilities' element is intended to address situations where people take part in entertainment that may not be provided solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience, but which may nevertheless present risks to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Examples may include the use of a dance floor, or some karaoke performances. As part of this, the provision of musical instruments (such as 'pub pianos') can be licensable (separate from a performance of live music) if they are to be used by customers to entertain themselves.

The DCMS do not specify what performances of karaoke would require it to be caught as the provision of Entertainment Facilities. This is already licensable Regulated Entertainment as 'any playing of recorded music'. Despite what is implied in the consultation document, there is no further requirement in the words of the Act for Entertainment Facilities to be seen to present risks to the licensing objectives - they are automaticaly licensable if they are provided for the public to entertain themselves.

However, the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing is not a activity which is licensable Regulated Entertainment. So the only way our legislators could catch this is by making anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in (music and) dancing a licensable Entertainment Facility.

I think that the DMCS are being a little sly here. It seems pretty obvious that all the other things that are tangled-up and caught as Entertainment Facilities are simply a result of a clumsy attempt to ensure that the public could no longer be provided with premises or land on which they could quite legally entertain themselves in non amplified music made by themselves to enable themselves to dance.

Which most of would think that the public had every right right to do. There is nothing proposed in the consultation that will change this effect of the Act.

Entertainment Facilities discriminates against music and dancing. This is step too far and should be removed.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 03:34 PM

I hope your interpretation of the latest information is correct, Howard.
Being involved in Local Government, I know that the enforcers of the legislation would also like to know what the law means. Their life at the moment is very confusing, with many Local Authorities interpreting the Legislation differently.
Let's hope we all get clarification in the very near future.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:45 PM

I've read Schedule 1 Part 1 Para 3 of the Act numerous times and I'm still baffled as to what is actually meant by "entertainment facilities". Indeed, I don't really understand the need for them to be licensed - if an entertainment facility such as a piano (for example) is used for performing music, then a licence is required because music is a regulated entertainment; if it is not used, or the music it is used for is not regulated (eg is incidental music) then why should it matter?

It would appear to be unnecessary for premises in general to be considered as an "entertainment facility", since any regulated entertainment must take place on premises of some kind. As the Act is so unclear I have turned to the Guidance Notes, which suggest (but again are not explicit) that "premises" means elements such as a dance floor. However the whole thing is so vague that nothing is clear, and it is impossible to tell what this clearly bonkers government had in mind when it passed the Act.

I think this is what the latest amendment is intended to correct. The consultation document clearly states that one of the reasons for removing musical instruments from the definition of "entertainment facilities" is to allow customers to entertain themselves using for example a pub piano - this can only mean that the act of entertaining themselves is not itself regulated entertainment, otherwise removing instruments from the definition would not achieve this aim. Likewise, if instruments are to be excluded but the premises themselves are considered to be "entertainment facilities" and thus licensable, this too would defeat the intention of the amendment.

The logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that customers can entertain themselves with music without needing a licence, and that if the amendment is passed they will be able to use musical instruments and similar items provided by the venue.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 02:26 PM

What you can do.

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/lmfwhatyoucando.htm

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM

Howard, I agree with your first statement and that is really all that needs to be said. The fact that you and I may interpret these things differently is really inevitable for as you say, the Act and the S 182 Guidance could mean virtually anything. A point that the more legally trained among us have been saying since the first appearance of the Bill.

However it is important to remember that if there is a nitpicking something that can be used to obstruct the sensible treatment of all aspect of live music, my experience tells me that there will be some licensing employee who will advise that their failure to enforce it could result in the Licensing Authority facing a legal challenge. I think that you are possibly seeing these things in a more hopeful fashion than I can manage. But there is nothing stopping us from discussing our differences here and hopefully others will also chip in.

>So far as "entertainment facilities" include the premises, do you have any evidence that this means the whole premises?<

With so many words emanating from the DCMS, in the form of S 182 'statutory Guidance, Guidance on the incidental exemption and recently in all these consultation documents - the words that matter are those which still appear in the Licensing Act 2003.

(3) The second condition is that the premises on which the entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, provided are made available for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of enabling the entertainment concerned (whether of a description falling within paragraph 2(1) or paragraph 3(2)) to take place.

To the extent that the provision of entertainment facilities consists of making premises available, the premises are to be regarded for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as premises "on which" entertainment facilities are provided.

Would you accept that the above words make it quite clear that Entertainment Facilities [as defined in the words of the Act below], consist of making premises available?

Entertainment facilities
3 (1) In this Schedule, "entertainment facilities" means facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment of a description falling within sub-paragraph (2) for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of being entertained.
(2) The descriptions of entertainment are—
(a) making music,
(b) dancing,
(c) entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) This paragraph is subject to Part 3 of this Schedule (interpretation).

Could you really argue, that a session is not a case of premises being made available to enable persons to entertain themselves in making music and dancing?

However this suggests that in most cases a session should meet the criteria to be considered incidental music and therefore not licensable.

Sessions, [as defined above] do not qualify for the incidental exemption as currently worded in the words of the Act [or as proposed], as they are not performances of live music or the playing of recorded music.

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
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Concerns about recent DCMS live music statistics continue to be raised in Parliament.

Two new Written Questions have been tabled, this time by 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. [DCMS] HL2477

... 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?". [DCMS] HL2478

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcumlst.htm [search on page for 'Colwyn']

The questions, which should be answered within two weeks, follow yesterday's revelation that the UK Statistics Authority is now investigating DCMS live music statistics.

In the report cited by Lord Colwyn, DCMS claim that the number of professional musicians rose by 20% between 2006 and 2008:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf [see p4]

However, it emerged last month that these figures, lifted by DCMS without verification from research published online by the Creative and Cultural Skills Council, included a large number of non-musicians and was sourced from 2004 and 2006. Link to CCSC music research:

http://www.ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx [see Music 06-07 and 08-09]

Phil Little's original Live Music Forum has published a comprehensive dissection of the DCMS live music claims by the Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum: http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ [middle of home page]

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:39 PM

Shambles, I agree that both the Act and the guidance notes are so unclear that they could mean virtually anything. However I do question your interpretation of some points.

So far as "entertainment facilities" include the premises, do you have any evidence that this means the whole premises? The Guidance Notes suggest that it is intended to mean things like the provision of a dance floor. It would be contrary to common sense (which the Guidance Notes say should be applied) for the premises to be licensable solely as an entertainment facility when they would otherwise not need to be licensed.

This is reinforced, to my mind, by the statement in the latest consultation:

1.9 The proposed clarification [exclusion of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities] will benefit, in particular premises such as pubs, cafes, restaurants and community venues that do not have authorisation for regulated entertainment, but who wish to provide incidental live music to their customers. It will, therefore, also benefit musicians who wish to perform and members of the public who wish to hear them. The exclusion of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities may also benefit members of the public who wish to entertain themselves (for example, using a piano in a pub).

Again, it would be contrary to common sense, and contrary to the intention of the proposed amendment, to exclude musical instruments from the defintion if the premises themselves still needed to be licensed as an entertainment facility.

It must also be read in conjunction with the guidance on incidental music, although again this is far from clear. However this suggests that in most cases a session should meet the criteria to be considered incidental music and therefore not licensable.

The whole thing is fogged with lack of clarity, and unfortunately individual authorities have too much power to interpret the law for themselves. However it seems to me that the clear intention of the latest proposed amendments is to allow members of the public to entertain themselves, and that this should not be obstructed by the need to licence, say, a pub piano. This suggests that the public entertaining themselves does not in itself require a license.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 04:06 AM

http://ow.ly/16Io34

Licensing lawyer claims residents have too much power
4 March, 2010

By Matt Eley

Camden Council cited as example of making it too easy to complain about pubs.

---

The following from Hamish Birchall

The UK Statistics authority confirmed yesterday that they have asked DCMS for statistical evidence relating to claims made about live music by licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe in The Publican magazine.

In a wide-ranging interview about the Licensing Act, published on 25 February, the minister was asked:

'Is the [DCMS] consultation for exemptions for small gigs an acknowledgement that the original legislation has hampered live music in pubs?'
The minister replied: 'No. If you look at the facts we've actually increased the amount of live music that's taking place.'


The Publican: 'But not in pubs.'

Minister: 'Well in venues. Applications for live music has gone up.'

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66481

But DCMS has not measured actual gigs in pubs or anywhere else since the BMRB survey of 2007. Even the otherwise misleading DCMS report of 28 January 2010, 'Changes in live music 2005-2009' has no direct evidence and concedes:

'It is hard to say conclusively that the number of premises with a live music licence indicates more live music venues or more live music gigs...'

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf (see p2)

The minister's misleading claims were echoed in Parliament last Monday, 2nd March, by Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw, in an exchange with Conservative shadow licensing minister Ed Vaizey:

Mr. Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): The Government are fond of saying that there has been an increase in live music since the Licensing Act came in. One reason for that is that the number of events that need to be licensed has increased, and another is the coming on stream of the O2 arena and Wembley stadium. Is the Minister aware that the UK Statistics Authority has said:

"The DCMS...and Press Office will be alerted to the possibility of misinterpretation and the need to exercise caution when quoting the figures"?

Can he confirm that the UK Statistics Authority has written to him in those terms and that he will exercise caution in using those figures in future?

Mr. Bradshaw: Unlike the Conservative party, we always take very seriously what the UK Statistics Authority says, and I shall do so. Certainly on the information we have, I do not think anyone challenges the fact that there has been significant growth in the amount of live music, but the hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that it has been concentrated in medium and larger-sized venues. Similar growth has not been seen in smaller venues, which is exactly why we are proposing to extend the exemption to them. Again, however, I am afraid I am still completely confused about the hon. Gentleman's policy. On the one hand, he told the Performers Alliance, at a reception at Parliament recently, that he supported Lord Clement-Jones's Bill; but on the other, the Conservative Local Government Association is vehemently opposed to any exemption for licensed premises.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100301/debtext/100301-0002.htm

In fact attendance at the O2 and Wembley Stadium account for most of the 'growth in live music' claimed by the Culture Secretary.

The Statistics Authority wrote to DCMS in December 2009 including this request specifically in relation to DCMS Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing statistics: 'The DCMS Minister and Press Office will be alerted to the possibility of misinterpretation and the need to exercise caution when quoting the figures.'

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 12:09 PM

Meanwhile the horror that is Form 696 continues.

London police have ordered DJs including Danny Rampling, John Kelly and Rocky from X Press 2 to hand over their personal details in order to play at a cancer charity fund-raising event taking place at Ministry Of Sound on January 31st.

http://www.trackitdown.net/news/show/103220.html

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 07:49 PM

Don't Criminalise Live Music – Interview with Lord Tim Clement-Jones:

http://www.blueprint-blues.co.uk/dont-criminalise-live-music-interview-with-lord-tim-clement-jones

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 06:25 AM

100 not enough say Musicians Union.

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040220&c=1

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:28 AM

(3) The second condition is that the premises on which the entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, provided are made available for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of enabling the entertainment concerned (whether of a description falling within paragraph 2(1) or paragraph 3(2)) to take place.

To the extent that the provision of entertainment facilities consists of making premises available, the premises are to be regarded for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as premises "on which" entertainment facilities are provided.

There semms little doubt from the above that any premises provided for the public to entertain themselves in music or dancing is a licensable Entertainment Facility and requires Entertainment Permission, in its own right.

So in all the pubs and other premisise with Entertainment Permisssion granted to enable them to stage performances of live music - this Regulated Entertainment and any associated Entertainment Facilities provided to enable this, are enabled by the conditions of the Premises Licence.

But anything provided in these premises to enable the pubilc to entertain themselves in music and dancing is now separately licensable as Entertainment Facilities and needs specific Entertainment Permission for this. Until this is applied for and does appear in the conditions of the Premise Licence - the public entertaining themselves with music and dancing in premises provided to enable it, is illegal.

The licensee and any one else who plays a part in 'organising' this are liable for prosecution.

The assumption has been that obtainng Entertaining Permission for conventional performances of live music would also cover the public entertaining themselves. I can't see that such an assumption is safe.

Council employees obscure this in practice as they make no distinction but include sessions where the public entertain themselves in music for their own enjoyment, as performances of licensable Regulated Entertainment.

The only upside to this approach, is that sessions (incorrectly) viewed to be performances of Regulated Entertainment and their associated Entertainment Facilities can then benefit from any exemptions.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:22 PM

And of course even successful applications do not mean that the live music in question is free from illegal conditions being placed on it. As the following report will demonstrate.

http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:22 AM

Well in venues. Applications for live music has gone up.

Wonderful. It is a shame that no supplimentary questions were asked and as a result, Mr Sutcliffe has been given a chance to indulge in a blatant piece of election spin.

If the number of applications have increased, this would not be too surprising given that Mr Sutcliffe's Government have made it neccessary for practically all live music everywhere to make applications, have introduced a whole new temporary licence.

They have also introduced the concept of Entertainment Facilities which means that application needs to be made for anything (including the premises themselves) to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.

But the number of applications is not an indication of any increase or decline in live music for many reasons but one is that the claim may or may not refer to all applications, and may include unsuccessful applications.

In pubs specifically, as small scale live music was exempt in many pubs, these would have needed to make applications (for the first time) just to keep the existing level of live music. A situation made worse as Mr Sutcliffe and Co would have us acept that their Licensing Act has increased the number of pubs with live music - when the pubs themselves are still closing at an alarming rate.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:51 PM

On what evidence does Mr Sutcliffe base his belief that LACORS want to promote live music?

It has taken them 5 years to issue guidance on the incidental exemption and in which time the employees of local authorities have done a pretty good job of pretending that this exemption didn't exist.

We have a Minister for licensing, one for sport and now one for the few pubs that remain - perhaps one is needed for music?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=66481

The following from the above.

Is the consultation for exemptions for small gigs an acknowledgement that the original legislation has hampered live music in pubs?

No. If you look at the facts we've actually increased the amount of live music that's taking place.


But not in pubs
...

Well in venues. Applications for live music has gone up.


So why are you having this consultation?

Because we have been asked to do that. We have said we are not complacent about things.

We had the Live Music Forum and the recommendations that came from that. We decided to have a look at what could be done. On the counter side to that you have LACORS and the local authorities who have got a view on effects on residents. And I really wanted to bring it to a head to make sure we get the right results.

The good news for me is these bodies are talking to each other so I hope we can move as quickly as we can to a licensing reform order, which will give us what people want which is an increased number.


How likely is it that you will extend the exemption to 200?

Well I stated in the debate that was the figure that was put to me. But one of the thing that has concerned me in this whole debate is there are declared views from all sides and then the finger pointed at government.I think what I need to do, but haven't done is brokered discussion between the chair of LACORS and the Musicians Union. The live music guys have come to me and said 200, everybody wants it, it's not an issue. But Lacors say it is an issue. They both agree they want to promote live music.

To me I want to get to the end of the consultation process and try to get the decision as soon as we can after that. The route we've taken with the licensing reform order means we don't get caught up with the general election.

So it will come in before the election?

No, I don't think it will necessarily come in before the election. If we have got the timescale right then it could do. But this process gives us the opportunity for it not to be lost. That's why I've called for all party agreement on this, if we can maintain that momentum then we can get it through.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:58 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

As a result of questions by Lord Clement-Jones (see full Q&A below), DCMS has made a small change to the wording of its latest report on live music 'Changes in live music 2005-2009'.

In the report DCMS suggested that 'overall live music is thriving', partly on the basis of their claim that there had been a large rise in the number of professional musicians:

'In professional live music, the Creative and Cultural Skills Council counted 42,800 live music musicians in 2006, and 50,780 in 2008, a near 20% increase in employment over 2 years.'

This has now been changed to:

'In professional live music, the Creative and Cultural Skills Council counted 42,800 employed in live music performance in 2006, and 50,780 in 2008, a near 20% increase in employment over 2 years.'
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf (see Appendix D then p6)

Notice the difference? 'live music musicians' has been changed to 'employed in live music performance'. The statement remains as misleading as ever.

Since DCMS first published the report on 28 January, it has emerged that the Creative & Cultural Skills Council figures were: a) from 2004 and 2006, not 2006 and 2008; b) 30% were not musicians; and c) about 40% were part-time, not professional.   The CCSC music research included no definition of 'professional musician':
http://www.ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx [Scroll down to Music, 06-07 and 08-09]

DCMS has also now conceded that they did not verify these figures with either the Musicians Union or the Incorporated Society of Musicians. They merely trawled the MU and ISM websites for publicly available data - and didn't find any.

This is what DCMS is pleased to call 'high quality' and 'robust' research.

Something very odd is going on here. DCMS is currently running a public consultation on a new entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs. But at the same time it publishes a report which, on the basis of misrepresented statistics, asserts that live music is thriving, and suggests that if there are some problems for small venues this is nothing to do with entertainment licensing. It is effectively arguing against its any new exemption. And their dodgy claims are being used by the Local Government Association to lobby against this exemption.

Madness.

List of Parliamentary Q&A on the DCMS report 'Changes in live music 2005-2009' (questions put by Lord Clement-Jones and answered on 23 February 2010 by Lord Davies of Oldham):

Q:... how the terms "professional musician" and "professional live music" were defined by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for its report Changes in live music 2005-2009, published on 28 January.[HL2061]

A: The terms "professional musician" and "professional live music" were intended to be synonymous with the definition of "employment in live music performance" used by the Creative and Cultural Skills Council. A minor clarification has been made to the article to reflect this.

Q: ... whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport consulted the Musicians' Union and the Incorporated Society of Musicians on the numbers of professional musicians between 2005 and 2009 for its report Changes in live music 2005-2009, published on 28 January.[HL2062]

A: The department did not consult the Musicians' Union and the Incorporated Society of Musicians on the numbers of professional musicians between 2005 and 2009 for this report. However, the Musicians' Union website was searched for robust, publicly available employment statistics but none were found. The only data found meeting these criteria were hosted at the Creative and Cultural Skills website.

Q:... whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport estimated the proportion of the total annual adult attendance at ticketed live music events accounted for by the O2 Arena and Wembley Stadium between 2007 and 2009 for its report Changes in live music 2005-2009.[HL2063]

A: The Changes in live music 2005-2009 report neither estimated nor reported published data on total adult attendance at ticketed live music events. The attendance data published in the report were taken from the Department for Culture, Media and Sports' Taking Part survey. This showed a significant increase between 2005-06 (when the survey started) and 2008-09 in both the proportion and number of adults in England who attended at least one live music event in the previous year. This included both ticketed and non-ticketed events.

Q:... what proportion of interviewees in the 2007 British Market Research Board survey of live music were responsible for their venue's licence conversion in 2005 and had a good knowledge of the Licensing Act 2003.[HL2064]

A: The 2007 Survey of Live Music did not ask whether respondents were directly responsible for licence conversion as the survey was about staging live music and not the process of converting the licence. Regarding knowledge of the Licensing Act, 43 per cent of respondents said that they knew a lot; 31 per cent said that they knew a little.

[HB comment: DCMS does not mention that 12% said that they did not know very much, and 13% said they knew hardly anything. Moreover, the BMRB authors themselves included several caveats (see para 1.4) including this one:

'The third caveat relates to the fact that a significant proportion of respondents had been in post for a short period of time and in some cases had limited knowledge of the policy and practice of the venue in relation to live music prior to them taking up their position. The lack of knowledge among some respondents about their venue history was evidenced in a relatively high proportion of 'Don't know' responses to certain questions, for example in relation to when venues had started or stopped putting on live music. While this means that the survey cannot always provide a robust and complete picture of live music provision in venues, it should be noted that the 2004 survey was subject to the same limitations and so this particular shortcoming should not impact on comparisons between the two surveys.' ]

Q:... what is the source of the Creative and Cultural Skills Council research that specifies the number of "live music musicians" in "professional live music" as reported on page 6 of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport report Changes in live music 2005-2009.[HL2065]

A: The source of the information on page 6 of the original Department for Culture, Media and Sport reportChanges in live music 2005-2009is taken from the Creative and Cultural Skills (CCS) studies of the industry carried out in 2006 and 2008. The research is available on the CCS website: http://ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx. A new version of the report has now been released that includes the source of the data.

Link to Q&A on Parliament website: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100223w0004.htm#10022368000777

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:00 AM

Live Music Bill will create new opportunities says Live Music Forum founder Phil Little11:58 | Wednesday February 24, 2010

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=1040177&c=1

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 08:09 PM

Just a reminder that a submission to the consultation on Entertainment Facilities needs to be in by 26 February.

This is from my submission.

The introduction of Entertainment Facilities in this Act is like maintaining that the public still have a right of freedom of expression when restricting the means by which it is expressed.

The public are free to speak but denied the means to make themselves heard to a crowd by preventing them from having a platform or a PA system or permission to use the land they stand on.

In this case in order to express myself in music or dancing (but nothing else listed in Schedule 1) in a pub I not only need a third party's permission (which is perfectly sensible) but I need them to pay and apply for permission from the local Licensing Authority. If I play a part in organising this without this permission, along with the third party or licensee, I risk prosecution and face a maximum of £20,000 or six months in prison if found guilty.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 09:41 AM

Live Music Lord gets answers

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040176&c=1

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:18 AM

Tories ramp up pressure on Government over live claims

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040139

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:15 AM

Further progress for Lib Dem peer's Live Music Bill

http://prosoundnewseurope.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1546&Itemid=26

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:10 AM

But even this statement of Mr White is inconsistent and prejudiced against live music.

For if every attraction in (already) licensed premises is a potential public order problem - why is it that only facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing is a Licensable Entertainment facility which requies additional permission?

Where anything a pub may provide to enable the public to entertain themselves in indoor sports (like a pool table)is NOT a licensable Entertainment Facilty, even if when the activity itself, when provided to entertain an audience, is a performance of licensable Regulated Entertainment.

And where anything a pub may provide for the public to entertain themselves in quiz nights is not a licensable Entertainment Facility and the activity itself is not a performance of licensable Regulated Entertainment.

The last two examples present as much or as little public order concerns as live music in pubs but are viewed and treated quite differently.

Prior to the Licensing Act 2003, all of the problems presented to a thriving live music scene at root level were those presented by the local enforcement of additional Entertainment Licensing. An opportunity was missed to correct this and the current legislation just allows the same situation to continue.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:25 AM

'Live music is, like anything else which is an attraction in licensed premises, potentially a public order problem,' he began. 'If you start from that point of view, then it becomes clear what you must do...'
(Chris White, Lib Dem councillor for St Albans, member of the Local Government Association Executive, and chair of the LGA Culture, Tourism and Sport Board)

That assumption, which is implicit in the Act itself, is at the root of the problem. Anyone who attends live music events knows that this is the exception rather than the rule - even the police have changed their tune. A better approach would have been to treat live music the same as recorded music or TV, and to deal with problems if they arise. Unfortunately we are stuck with what we've got. Guilty until proved innocent.