Licensing consultation announced!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:01 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

St Albans made national headlines last week for insisting, on health and safety grounds, that runners should only be allowed to walk during the annual pancake race on Tuesday 16th February:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7250644/Health-and-safety-officers-ban-running-in-pancake-race.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251508/Health-safety-ruins-Shrove-Tuesday-pancake-race-contestants-disqualified-running.html

By an ironic coincidence, on that very day St Albans councillor Chris White was making a presentation to DCMS on behalf of the Local Government Association. An LGA spokesperson confirmed the presentation theme: 'the value of Culture, Tourism and Sport services in promoting and improving peoples health'.

Councillor White, who represents the LGA on licensing and is chair of the LGA Culture, Tourism and Sport Board, publicised this 'DCMS gig' on Twitter:

'Haircut and then off to DCMS for a joint presentation with the Permanent Secretary. Hence the haircut.' [12.43am Feb 16]
'Early for DCMS gig so a little jaunt to the National Gallery. :-)' [4.23am Feb 16]
See: http://twitter.com/chriswhite17 [scroll down]

The LGA is opposing entertainment licence exemptions for live music, even for hospitals and schools, on the grounds that these pose a threat to the wellbeing of local residents.   It is lobbying against the exemptions for live music proposed in Lord Clement-Jones live music bill, due for debate in the Commons on 12 March, and indeed the exemption in government's current consultation which would apply to gigs with an audience of up to 100 people.

St Albans came to public notice last year for the extraordinary range of restrictive licence conditions on live music in local bars:
http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council

On 2nd February this year councillor White announced the creation of two new licensing officer posts in St Albans:
http://chriswhite.mycouncillor.org.uk/2010/02/02/licensing-compliance-officers-to-help-reduce-crime-and-disorder/

Presumably their remit will include checking that St Albans bars comply with council licence restrictions on the number of musicians and indeed genres of music. Breach of such conditions, where they apply, is a potential criminal offence punishable by a fine up to £20,000 and six months in prison.

What is behind Councillor White's apparent passion for licensing? Daily Telegraph jazz writer Sebastian Scotney has a theory:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sebastianscotney/100006759/st-albans-creates-licensing-compliance-officers-just-what-we-need/

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 04:31 AM

The disturbing report into licensing in St Albans can be downloaded from;

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: 21 Feb 10 - 04:37 PM

St Albans is not known as a hotspot for crime, or weekend debauchery, or indeed of unlicensed cabbies. But there is no council in Britain which either pursues its responsibilities as seriously or is prepared to rack up expenses as boldly as St Albans City and District.

Read more about St Albans' new "Licensing Compliance Officers here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sebastianscotney/100006759/st-albans-creates-licensing-compliance-officers-just-what-we-nee

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: SunrayFC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:59 AM

does anyone read this tosh?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:54 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Questions have been raised in Parliament about the latest DCMS live music statistics:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/minutes/100222/ldordpap.htm#qwa [search on page for 'Clement-Jones']

The questions came in response to a new DCMS report 'Changes in live music between 2005 and 2009' published on 28 January (link to PDF file 254kb):
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf

The report's headline claim is that 'Overall live music is thriving'. Although it acknowledges a fall in attendance at smaller venues, entertainment licensing is ruled out as a contributory factor.

There are apparently three reasons for DCMS optimism: the number of live music licences has increased; more adults are going to gigs; and a large increase in the number of professional musicians.

But doubts are growing about these claims.

Live music licences:
The Licensing Act 2003, not to be confused with copyright licensing, came into force on 24 November 2005. It extended the scope of entertainment licensing, capturing large categories of event and venue that did not previously require authorisation for live music. This included performances by one or two musicians in bars, private concerts raising money for good causes, and performances on public land. It is therefore not surprising that the new regime generated more licence applications. The government has already conceded that it does not know what proportion of the claimed 10% rise in live music licences between 2007 and 2009 is accounted for by premises or events that would not have needed a licence under the old regime.

Increase in adults attending live gigs:
The report suggests that over the period in question, based on the DCMS 'Taking Part' survey, there has been an increase of about 3% of those attending at least one live music event a year (excluding classical performances). But their analysis does not seem to take into account the appearance in 2007 of the O2 and Wembley Stadium venues. The series of 21 concerts given by Prince in 2007, for example, was attended by over 400,000 people. In the same year, nearly 500,000 attended concerts at Wembley Stadium. The combined attendance at these two venues in one year alone account for more than half the DCMS estimate of 1.64 million more adults going to gigs between 2005 and 2009.

Number of professional musicians:
The report claims that: '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.'

But this is simply wrong. John King, co-founder of the Welwyn and Hatfield Live Music Forum, explained why in a comment posted yesterday beneath Music Week coverage about Lord Clement-Jones' questions:

'... DCMS 'statisticians' cherry-picked their live music sector employment statistics from a statistically unreliable survey - 'Music Impact and Footprint' published by the Creative Skills Council. The 50,780 'professional live music musicians' are nothing of the sort, and include 41% part-time musicians and a further 30% employed in ancillary activities (e.g. sound engineers, roadies). But – fatally for the DCMS's argument that this is evidence of a 'thriving' live music sector - this 20% increase in professional employment (even if true) actually relates to the period 2004 to 2006. It appears that DCMS civil servants have misled their own ministers. '

See: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040108&c=1

Link to Creative & Cultural Skills Council research page (Links to their two reports under 'Sector', 'Music' 06-07 and 08-09):
http://www.ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx



The CCSC has confirmed that about 30% of the 'live performance' category within these reports represent people who are not musicians, but are in occupations associated with putting on live performance.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:33 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86007?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

I have sent the following question to the above:

Comment Date: 19/02/2010 08:29:03

Dear Mr Sutcliffe I take this opportunity to thank you for the 1st January 2010 letter to my MP, in which you state that: "The Government wants to encourage the growth of live music."

(a) Can you confirm that since your Government's introduction of the concept of Entertainment Facilities in the Licensing Act 2003, that currently 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 and that nothing the Government has proposed can alter this?

(b) As Entertainment Facilities do not apply to anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in indoor pub sport but only to music and dancing - perhaps Mr Suttcliffe can explain why his Government have now chosen to discriminate against the public entertaining themselves in music and dance, especially in pubs and on what statistical basis the concept that this presents more concern to the Act's objectives than participatory pub games? Thank you

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: The Barden of England
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM

And - - - - -100

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: SunrayFC
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 01:26 PM

what a shambles!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 01:13 PM

Lord Clement-Jones has tabled several Parliamentary Questions on the latest DCMS statistics http://tinyurl.com/yeq89bx

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:37 AM

A chance to ask Licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe some questions.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86007?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:02 AM

The following from the consultation document:

The licensing objectives
1.4 The burdens imposed by the Act are justified by the need to prevent potential adverse impacts on the promotion of the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. The Government believes that the requirements of the Act in relation to entertainment facilities can be clarified and amended, as described below, without any adverse impact on the licensing objectives.

The current situation
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.

Proposal to clarify the exemption for incidental music
1.6 The Act provides for an exemption for performances of live music to the extent that they are incidental to some other activity which is not itself "entertainment" or "the provision of entertainment facilities". However, a broad interpretation of "entertainment facilities" can capture the provision of facilities even if they are intended to be, and are used solely for the provision of exempt incidental music. Such an interpretation limits the usefulness of that exemption, especially for venues that do not have a premises licence, or do not have authorisation for regulated entertainment on their licence, if they are providing the facilities necessary for the performance (such as the provision of a piano in an unlicensed cafe). In such a case, it would mean that they have to make an application to vary the terms of their licence (to add authorisation for entertainment facilities) or make a new application for a premises licence in order to provide exempt incidental music. The Government considers that this was not the intention of Parliament when it introduced the exemption for incidental performances of live music.

1.7 Discussions with musicians' representatives, the licensed trade, and local authority officers have revealed that the broad interpretation described above is not uncommon. We therefore feels that the issue requires clarification and propose to amend the Licensing Act 2003 by statutory instrument made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to state that entertainment facilities are not licensable if they are to be used solely for the provision of exempt incidental music.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Licensing Act 2003 should be amended to state that entertainment facilities are not licensable if they are to be used solely for the provision of exempt incidental music? Yes/ No
Please provide reasons for your answer, giving as much detail as possible.

Proposal to exclude the provision of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities

1.8 To further clarify the law with regard to the provision of pianos and other instruments, the Government proposes to change the 'descriptions of entertainment' (at Schedule 1, paragraph 3(2)) by statutory instrument to exclude the provision of musical instruments. Performances of live music and the provision of facilities other than musical instruments will remain licensable. This will remove any doubt about whether a licence is required when musical instruments are made available by themselves. 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 music facilities. The provision of other facilities, such as amplification, will remain licensable, as their provision may present risks to the licensing objectives. (For example, of public nuisance due to noise, or public safety in the case of a stage).

Question 2: Do you agree that the Licensing Act 2003 should be amended so that the provision of musical instruments and ancillary items is excluded from the definition of entertainment facilities? Yes/ No
Please provide reasons for your answer, giving as much detail as possible.

The benefits of the proposal
1.9 The proposed clarification 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). There will be a small economic benefit in terms of reduced burdens, but we have not attempted to quantify this.

Implementation of the proposals
1.10 Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we propose to introduce the clarification by means of an affirmative statutory instrument as noted above. The draft instrument will be laid in Parliament and debated in both Houses. If Parliament approves the measure, the Minister can then bring the instrument into force.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 03:47 PM

Well perhaps you can ask the DCMS? As you will see from the following link - their document states 26 February 2009!!!!!

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/091020PN_FACILITIES_clarification_condoc.pdf

In fact I dicn't notice. I just copy and pasted from their document.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 03:34 PM

Am I right in presuming the last post should read 26th February 2010

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 06:18 AM

The closing date for making responses to the consultation on Entertainment Facilities is 26 February 2009.

If you would like to respond to this consultation, please email your response to [e-mail]

If you prefer, you may submit a hard copy by post to:
Shelley Mickleburgh
Licensing Team
Sport and Leisure Directorate
2-4, Cockspur Street
London SW1Y 5DH

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:25 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill has reached the House of Commons where it has been picked up by Don Foster, Lib Dem spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport.

Significantly, the bill also has Conservative front bench support from Ed Vaizey, Shadow minister for Culture and the Creative Industries.

Commons debate in the form of a 2nd reading is scheduled for 12 March, although there is competition for time with several other private members bills.

If enacted the bill would create exemptions from entertainment licensing for live music, but not dancing or recorded music, from a range of venues up to 200 capacity, including hospitals and schools. It would also partially reinstate the old 'two in a bar' exemption, permitting one or two musicians to perform anywhere unamplified or with minimal amplification. These measures would implement most of the all-party Culture Committee recommendations.

The bill is already supported by Equity, the Musicians Union, the National Campaign for the Arts, the original Live Music Forum (www.livemusicforum.co.uk), UK Music and The Publican (see their Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=mf ).

For the first time, however, the Incorporated Society of Musicians has added its weight to the campaign.

ISM Chief Executive Deborah Annetts said:

'With just weeks to go before the general election, MPs have the chance to free musicians from mountains of paperwork and allow live music to flourish. Performing in small venues is the first step in a musician's professional career but the current licensing regime is causing opportunities to dry up. This Bill has the support of politicians from all parties and musicians from all genres. We now call on the government to make time for this important piece of legislation and enable it to make a difference to music and musicians."
['Live music strangled by red tape', Lib Dem press release 09/02/10:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/press_releases_detail.aspx?title=Live_music_scene_strangled_by_red_tape_says_Lord_Clement-Jones&pPK=3e109ef6-86d5-436c-91df-bc71326d7cc1 ]

Whether the bill succeeds or fails is now down to the government. Lord Clement-Jones explains:

"My Bill is the only chance to change the law before the general election and breathe new life in to the live music scene. I challenge the Government to explain why they will not support it."

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:08 PM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66368&c=1

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 12:13 PM

Councils should be given "total control" over setting licensing hours in their area, says a group representing local authorities in London.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/85873?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 12:07 PM

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

This is our own Live Music Forum submission to the consultation sent on 5th February 2010:-

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 01:13 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

46 Minor Variations. It could be the name of a monumental keyboard work by Beethoven or Bach.

But no. It is rather the best estimate to date of applications by venues to add or amend authorisations for live music using the supposedly cheap, simple, fast-track Minor Variations process introduced by the government on 29 July 2009.

Just to put this into some sort of context, the British Beer and Pub Association claimed last summer that 52 pubs were closing a week: http://www.beerandpub.com/newsList_detail.aspx?newsId=289   Even if the average were 30 closures per week, that would mean for every Minor Variation application for live music, about 17 potential pub venues are closing. And that assumes all 46 applications were for pubs - but they weren't.

The identities of more than half of the 46 applications are unknown, apparently. But the rest included 11 pubs, 3 restaurants, 2 hotels, one civic building, one 'club', one 'cafe', one public area and one skittle alley.

The latest Minor Variations lament was delivered today by Lord Davies of Oldham in a Written Answer to a question by Lord Clement-Jones (the Q&A has yet to be published on the Parliament website):

Lord Clement-Jones asked: Further to the Written Answer by Lord Davies of Oldham on 25 January (WA299), what are the types of venue of the six examples identified by the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services that have had applications for live music under the Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Order 2009 granted; and which local authorities granted those applications. [HL1600]

Lord Davies replied:

We do not hold the information requested about the six examples referred to in my previous answer.

Since that answer was given on 25 January, however, more local authorities have responded to the request for information made by Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS). LACORS is now aware of approximately forty-six applications to add or amend authorisations for live music, of which three were refused. The figure is approximate because one local authority said it had granted 'a few' relevant applications.

We understand that the survey conducted by LACORS did not request the names of the authorities providing the information, and descriptions of premises type were not given in every case. The descriptions that were given were eleven pubs, three restaurants, two hotels, one civic building, one 'club', one cafe, one public area and one skittle alley.

LACORS' request for information was not intended to discover the details of each minor variations application, but to establish whether or not the new process is being used successfully to vary premises licences and club premises certificates (including the addition or amendment of authorisation for live music).

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 06:44 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill will have its 3rd Reading in the House of Lords next Tuesday, 9th February:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/livemusic.html

If enacted the bill would exempt a range of venues up to 200 capacity from entertainment licensing for live music between 8am and midnight, and allow up to two musicians to perform anywhere unamplified or minimally amplified. The bill is supported by UK Music, the original Live Music Forum, the National Campaign for the Arts, Equity and the Musicians Union.

The Bill passed the Lords Committee stage on Monday 1st February without amendment or opposition:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100201-0002.htm#1002012000310

If progress continues unobstructed, it will go to the Commons. Its success there is dependent on the government. In reality, it is unlikely that the Bill will receive Commons debate as the Government will be unwilling to find time before the general election for a Bill they do not support.

But as The Publican reported yesterday: 'Although the bill is a private members' bill and is unlikely to become law, it could help to effect the government's final plans over live music licensing':
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66320&c=1

Meanwhile the police have been making friendlier noises about live music. The original Live Music Forum, founded by campaigner Phil Little in the 1990s, has published a correspondence with the police in which they state:

'The vast majority of live music events serve to provide considerable pleasure and social benefit without implication for policing or public safety. In a very small number of cases there is clear evidence of association of criminality with events or acts and that obviously needs to be dealt with as the intelligence and circumstances indicate, however, this is clearly the exception and not the norm.'
[Letter to Phil Little from Commander Paul Minton, Chief of Staff, Association of Chief Police Officers, received 13/01/2010
See: http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ and follow the link]

On 21 January Phil Little wrote back asking whether or not the police will support the exemptions in the live music bill and the government's own consultation. A reply is expected soon.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM

A peer's bid to force the government to make it easier for pubs to host live music has survived for a third reading in the House of Lords next week.

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66320&c=1

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 12:42 PM

Consultation re simplifing procedures for Licensing Statements; Interim Authority Notices; & TENS ends 9 Feb 2010:

http://www.culture.gov.uk

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 08:43 PM

DCMS denies tough licensing regime is to blame for fall in people seeing live music in pubs.

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66307&c=1

The scrapping of the exemption for live music by two or less performers and the introduction of legislation that requires payment for any live music anywhere is not going to have any adverse results - is it?

No of course not - who suggested such a thing? Such measures can only encourage live music.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 03:17 PM

A few informed comments on the latest DCMS Live Music statistics.

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/dcmsreport.pdf

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 03:00 PM

(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. So exempting provided instruments like pianos, in order for the public to entertain themselves, as proposed, will still result in this being licensable.

And the Government can still claim that such musical activities as rehearsal, when the public are not admitted, are not licensable.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:09 PM

My poor brain is hurting from trying to work out what to submit to the consultation on what is proposed for Entertainment Facilities.

It is obvious that in order to benefit from any exemptions, the activity first needs to be licensable Regulated Entertainment.

So if an activity qualifies as Regulated Entertainment and also qualifies as being a provided Entertainment Facility (like a performance of live music) then they are both exempted. So far so good.

And of course the proposal will exempt any provided instrument from being a licensable Entertainment Facility.

But for example, the proposed small events exemption is of no use to activities that are in effect licensable (by virtue of what is provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing) but are not also performances of Regulated Entertainment.

So it is difficult to see how the proposal can specifically exempt the public entertaining themselves with a provided piano unless it is first claimed that the activity itself is a licensable Regulated Entertainment.

Which it plainly isn't - as the Act has specifically introduced Entertainment Facilities to catch this. Unless Entertainment Facilities are scrapped completly, what is proposed will just make matters worse and even more confusing than it is now.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 04:31 AM

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/6603.aspx

The following from John King on http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=mf

"No evidence of negative impact of live music licensing" according to the DCMS 'statisticians'.

So, according to the DCMS; the House of Commons Select Committee, The Live Music Forum, the MU, Equity, UK Music etc are all wrong. According to the DCMS's... own statistical bulletins 114,261 premises have lost the entitlement to stage any form of live music since Nov 2005.
More rubbish from the DCMS 'statisticians' who have discreetly added Scotland and Northern Ireland to the live music employment 'statistics'.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:01 AM

The Committee stage of the Libs Dems Live Music Bill is on 1st February 2010.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/livemusic.html

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:57 PM

They would say that wouldn't they?

But to be fair, I don't really know enough of the facts to judge in this case but I think that events on temporary sites probably are one area where additional entertainment licensing may still have a role.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 01:59 PM

From the brief information contained in the report, it appears that there were problems with traffic management and security. These are the sorts of issues that licensing is supposed to address. Of course, without more information its difficult to know whether refusing the licence was an over-reaction or whether the problems could have been resolved. However since they appear to have been due to problems with the management of the event it seems possible that imposing conditions might not have been sufficient.

On the face of it, this seems to be licensing doing what it's intended to do.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 01:41 PM

A music festival in mid Wales has lost its licence amid concerns over safety, crime and disorder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/8482972.stm

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:44 AM

Don't ever ask a civil servant to arrange a piece of music! Chances are that you won't be able to play it.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/85723?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:19 AM

EDM 689A1 by Independent MP Bob Spink calling for the 200 capacity exemption to apply up 500 capacity.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40297&SESSION=903

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:15 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

The government has confirmed that they know of only three new live music permissions resulting from the 'minor variation' licensing process, introduced on 29 July 2009.

'Minor variations', which requires an £89 application for an uncertain outcome, was touted by the government as a cheaper and simpler means to add live music permission to an existing premises licence. About 40% of smaller venues have no live music permission.

Only two weeks ago, the Local Government Association suggested that the minor variations process, and confusing guidance on the 'incidental music' exemption, were reasons no new exemption for small gigs was needed - this despite the fact that they already knew some councils had a policy of refusing all such applications ['info @ lacors' in-house magazine, p5, Issue 18, November 2009].

The government's admission came on 25 January in response to a written question by Lord Clement-Jones:

'To ask Her Majesty's Government how many applications there have been for live music under the Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Order 2009; and how many of these applications have been granted.' [HL1360]
Lord Davies of Oldham replied:

'The minor variations process came into force on 29 July 2009. Official statistics on its use are not yet available. We hope to be able to include data about minor variations in the next Statistical Bulletin on Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing, which we expect to be published in autumn 2010.

'The Government have asked the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) to request information from licensing authorities about minor variations applications that relate to live music.

'LACORS has informed the department that, although it has not conducted an exhaustive survey, it is aware of six examples of applications being made that include requests to add or extend authorisation for live music. There were three requests for the easing of conditions relating to an existing authorisation for live music, and three for new authorisations for live music. All these applications were granted. LACORS is not aware of any minor variation application relating to live music that has been refused.'

See:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100125w0003.htm#10012523000275

Three new related Early Day Motions have been published.

EDM 666 by Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland calling on the government to support Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill:

'That this House supports the Second Reading of the Live Music Bill; commends the proposal contained in the Bill to revive live music by the creation of an exemption from licences for small venues such as pubs; regrets that there has not been an expansion of live music since the introduction of the Licensing Act in 2003; recognises that bureaucratic procedures and red tape have stunted the growth of live music; further regrets that this has had a detrimental effect on both musicians and on the pub industry; believes that pubs and small venues play a vital role in nurturing new and unsigned music talent; and calls on the Government to support the Live Music Bill to encourage the return of live music to pubs and similar venues around the country.'

EDM 689 by Labour MP Janet Anderson welcoming the government's small gigs exemption consultation, but claiming that a 200 capacity exemption would be more effective:

'That this House celebrates the cultural value of live performances in enriching and entertaining communities; welcomes the Government's consultation regarding an exemption to the Licensing Act 2003 for venues with audiences of 100; but believes that an exemption for audiences of 200 would be more effective in tackling the negative impact of the Act in reducing the number of small venues hosting live performances.'

And EDM 689A1 by Independent MP Bob Spink calling for the 200 capacity exemption to apply up 500 capacity.

See EDM database: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/Default.aspx

ENDS

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

No doubt a lawyer could make a great deal of the meaning of "provision", "event", "performance", "audience" and "entertaining", and probably quite a lot more, but the reality is that in the case of a session the costs of a legal challenge would far outweigh the costs of getting the appropriate licence, so it's unlikely to be tested.

Yes, would that the law only affected lawyers..........

I tend to agree with you. I am of the mind that when it comes to legislation like this, which is devolved to individual local authorities, that the wording of the legislation only really matters if or when it is tested in court. Those who are paid to enforce it know that it is unlikely to be tested so this leaves them free to advise and do pretty much as they wish. The law then becomes what those who enforce it, wish it to be.

The Act did one good thing in taking away the power of local authorities to set their own fees. The next step is to take all additional entertainment licensing away from them and preferably to scrap it altogether.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM

"SCHEDULE 1 Provision of regulated entertainment
Part 1 General definitions

2 (1) The descriptions of entertainment are—

(a) a performance of a play,

(b) an exhibition of a film,

(c) an indoor sporting event,

(d) a boxing or wrestling entertainment,

(e) a performance of live music,

(f) any playing of recorded music,

(g) a performance of dance,

(h) entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (e), (f) or (g),

where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience."

No doubt a lawyer could make a great deal of the meaning of "provision", "event", "performance", "audience" and "entertaining", and probably quite a lot more, but the reality is that in the case of a session the costs of a legal challenge would far outweigh the costs of getting the appropriate licence, so it's unlikely to be tested.

I don't think Hamish Birchall's statement has been ignored, exactly, rather it says pretty much all there is to say. There are hints that the Government is beginning to admit that the Act is not achieving the intended results, at least so far as encouraging live music is concerned, but it seems reluctant to undertake a full-scale revision and instead is trying to get away with the bare minimum changes which don't fully address the issues.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:02 AM

I see that amongst all this barrack room lawyering Hamish Birchall's latest letter to the DCMS has become ignored.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 09:36 AM

No, the term "event" applies only to indoor sports. Pub customers playing a casual game of darts isn't an "event", even if it's taking place in public and there are spectators. An organised darts match or demonstration might be an "event".

I think you are reading far too much into the Act's use of the word 'event' and providing a definition which the Act does not supply.

Like you, I can't see much distinction between customers playing darts or pool for their own amusement, and customers playing music for their own amusement. However the Act does make a distinction. Live music is on the list of regulated entertainment.

You and my local officers may choose to make a distinction between the two activities (or events) but for purposes of determining what is or is not Regulated Entertainment, the Act does not. All the activities listed (including indoor sport) must be treated equally for determining whether they are Regulated Entertainment or not.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 07:21 PM

No, the term "event" applies only to indoor sports. Pub customers playing a casual game of darts isn't an "event", even if it's taking place in public and there are spectators. An organised darts match or demonstration might be an "event".

Like you, I can't see much distinction between customers playing darts or pool for their own amusement, and customers playing music for their own amusement. However the Act does make a distinction. Live music is on the list of regulated entertainment. So far as I can see, the Act makes no distinction between music made by customers or organised music. There's no requirement that anyone is actually entertained by it, simply that it takes place in public (which might include the musicians at a session) and is one of the activities listed in Schedule 3 Part 1 Para 2(1).

I imagine that most sessions will fall within the 100 people maximum for the proposed small events exemption, should it be implemented.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM

Shambles, live music is specifically mentioned in the Schedule 1, which lists what is meant by Regulated Entertainment. Dancing is also specifically mentioned. So far as sport is concerned, the Schedule refers only to "an indoor sporting event" (boxing and wrestling are also specifically mentioned).

All those activities you list are subject to the next requirement, that that they be for or include the purposes of entertaining an audience or spectators. If any form of live music, dancing, indoor sport and the rest in the list are for that purpose, it is a performance of Regulated Entertainment.

It is not a question of treating different forms of regulated entertainment differently. Customers playing pub games among themselves is not an "event" and so is not regulated entertainment. Live music of any description is. So the licensing officers appear to be correct in their interpretation.

Customers playing music for their own entertainment among themselves would also not be the 'event' you refer to would it? The legislation simply cannot support the different treatment that these officers advise for determining what is or is not a performance of Regulated Entertainment.

The legislation can support different treatment for determining what is and is not licensable as Emtertainment Facilities. As these are only to enable music and dancing and not applicable to indoor sports or any of the other activities listed in Schedule 1.

>Hopefully the proposed amendments will remove at least some of this nonsense.<

I'm not so sure, as all the incidental exemption and proposals are exemptions for (performances of) Regulated Entertainment. Sessions are not this but are caught as the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing, so that wherever they take place can be said to be provided for that purpose and be a licensable Entertainment Facility

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:00 PM

Shambles, live music is specifically mentioned in the Schedule 1, which lists what is meant by Regulated Entertainment. Dancing is also specifically mentioned. So far as sport is concerned, the Schedule refers only to "an indoor sporting event" (boxing and wrestling are also specifically mentioned).

It is not a question of treating different forms of regulated entertainment differently. Customers playing pub games among themselves is not an "event" and so is not regulated entertainment. Live music of any description is. So the licensing officers appear to be correct in their interpretation.

In any event, the Act does treat different forms of regulated entertainment differently. The provision of "entertainment facilities" only applies to facilities for music and dancing, or similar activities.

I suspect this came about because the government recognised that pub games are a normal part of pub life, but refused to accept that the same applied to pub customers entertaining themselves with music. As I recall, one of the many Ministers involved in seeing the Bill through Parliament said as much. We all know that's nonsense.

Hopefully the proposed amendments will remove at least some of this nonsense.

It's interesting to see the quote from the police accepting that the vast majority of live music events have no crime or public order implications. This is contrary to the impression often given by the authorities to justify the Act.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 01:09 PM

And this new one,

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40277

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

There is a new Early Day Motion(EDM)
for you to ask your MP to sign.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40255

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:37 AM

>I'm not sure what you mean by the "Cove and New Star" sessions, or why you think they don't need the small events exemption.<

These are folk sessions where the customers entertain themselves by making non-amplified music.

The officers of my licensing authority deem these sessions to be perfomances of licensable Regulated Entertainment.

These same officers have made it clear that a performance of indoor sport like pool, i.e. provided for spectators, would be deemed to be performances of licensable Regulated Entertainment. So far so good you may think?

However, the same officers have made it clear that customers entertaining themselves in games of indoor sport on a regular basis, would not be deemed by them, to be licensable Regulated Entertainment.

All I expect is that all the activities listed as potential Regulated Entertainment in Schedule 1 of the Act, are treated equally. Thus, if participatory games of indoor sport are not licensable Regulated Entertainment and other pub customers present are not judged to be an audience or spectators, then nor are participatory pub sessions and vice-versa.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:11 AM

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/sirhughordeletter.htm

The following from the above.

I am happy to provide you with the reassurance that you seek. The vast majority of live music events serve to provide considerable pleasure and social benefit without implication for policing or public safety. In a very small number of cases there is clear evidence of association of criminality with events or acts and that obviously needs to be dealt with as the intelligence and circumstances indicate, however, this is clearly the exception and not the norm.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Minton
Commander
Chief of Staff
Association of Chief Police Officers

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:52 AM

>My understanding is that all live music is Regulated Entertainment, however spontaneous performances by the customers themselves are exempted. Since most folk sessions either take place on a regular basis, or require a degree of organisation, they are not "spontaneous". Or am I missing something?<

With the inclusion of Entertainment Facilities, it could well be that in practice and effect, that all live music (certainly all that is open to the public) is licensable. The reason for this is a bit complicated but is not the case that the activity itself would qualify as licensable Regulated Entertainment.

You are probably missing the difference between a licensable performance and live music which is not performance (as defined in the Act) and exactly why activities become licensable. Just because some live music may not be spontaneous does not mean that it automatically becomes licensable Regulated Entertainment.

Whether live music by customers a thing would qualify as the spontaneous 'performance' you refer to or if there could be such a thing is questionable but there is no such exemption for this in the Act. There is an explanation of what is considered to be spontaneous in the S 182 Guidance which could lead people to think that the Act did contain an exemption for this.

Any live music that was a spontaneous 'one-off' would be not be licensable in practice, as it would be over before the authorities became aware of it. And if it was in the nature of a performance, it would be licensable if or when it was repeated. However, the word 'spontaneous' is really a red herring here.

There is no specific exemption for live music that is spontaneous, whether this is claimed to be a performance or not. If there were such a thing, how would that work when the provision of anything to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing (And NOT a performance) are licensable Entertainment Facilities.

The key here is that Entertainment Facilities mean that even where the activity itself may not be licensable as Regulated Entertainment, anything that is provided ( including the premises themselves) that enables the pubic to entertain themselves in music and dance is a licensable Entertainment Facility.

What is proposed is only to exempt the provision of musical instruments (and music stands) from being licensable Entertainment Facilities.   

A regular night provided in pub for the public to entertain themselves in indoors sports (which the performance of, is now a licensable Regulated Entertainment) is not at risk and anything provided for the public to entertain themselves in indoor sports is not a licensable Entertainment Facility.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:42 PM

The government denies the need for a related facilities exemption but I have looked careful at the reasoning and it is wrong.   

THe house piano, guitar, music stand, or stage are all caught still

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:11 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Cove and New Star" sessions, or why you think they don't need the small events exemption.

My understanding is that all live music is Regulated Entertainment, however spontaneous performances by the customers themselves are exempted. Since most folk sessions either take place on a regular basis, or require a degree of organisation, they are not "spontaneous". Or am I missing something?

The small events exemption will remove most sessions from being Regulated Entertainment. However, unless the "entertainment facility" rule is changed, the venue would still need a licence for a piano (even if it isn't played) but not for the music, which even the Government seems to recognise is nonsense.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:29 PM

Is it not a little strange when the Government side claim that some forms of live music are gaining benefit, being favoured or being discriminated against in a process of additional entertainment permission that they have claimed is not complicated or expensive and does not deter any live music?

See Lord Faulkner's claim that it is fair to use audience size, rather that a venue's capacity, as lager venues can put on gigs with limited audience size, in order to benefit from the exemption.

I have yet to see how the Government propose that an events audience size limit of 100 is to be determined in advance, to estabish if they qualify. If it is anything like the crazy way it was established for S177, this new proposal will be as much use as S177.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 08:05 PM

Lord Faulkner of Worcester:
The Bill seeks to reintroduce a variant of the old exemption for one or two musicians performing in a premises licensed for alcohol-the "two in a bar" exemption. The old exemption was not universally popular with musicians and was not widely used. A limit on the number of performers discriminates against musicians who perform in larger bands.

The fact that the two-in-a-bar rule was not popular may be true, that it was not widlely used is not in any way true.

The use of this partial exemption may be difficult for the DCMS to quantify and measure but perhaps it is in the nature of the best exemptions, that they work with the mininium of fuss and red tape.

It seems strange for a Government about to introduce an exemption which will discriminate against larger venues to critise one which they claim dicriminated against larger bands.

It may be a good idea to point out that the 200 limit proposed by the Lib Dems Bill is limited to premises already licensed for alcohol (as was the case also with the two-in-a-bar rule) but the proposed consultation on the 100 limit, is not.