PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jul 02 - 12:39 PM

http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1182

181 MPs have now signed Early Day Motion 1182, has yours?

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jul 02 - 06:10 PM

There is a partial exemption to the licensing requirement for music as part of a religous service (not dancing). Any other musical activity in a church, paid or otherwise would be considered as public entertainment and require a PEL. There is an oficial reply on the the subject, posted here somewhere.

I have that wrong, I'm afraid. It is true that in London any concert in a Church would require a PEL. Outside London there is an exemption to the PEL reqirement (a)to any music (i)In a place of worship; or
(ii)performed as a an incident of a religous meeting or service;

So a concert in a church (outside London), would not require a PEL, as long as it did not contain dancing. This would mean that a full blown commercial public entertainment of music, could be staged in a church. With no emergency exits or adequate sanitation.

But three performers in a perfectly safe and inspected pub cannot, without a PEL.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Jul 02 - 06:08 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

181 MPs have now signed two in a bar Early Day Motion 1182. Thanks to all of you who have written/faxed or otherwise contacted your MP. Although technically they may continue to sign during the summer recess, the effective closing date for signatures is 24 July.

Please check to see if your MP has signed. If not, there is still time to contact them. Most MPs can be faxed quickly and easily from www.faxyourmp.com. The site can automatically identify your MP from your postcode.

EDM 1182 http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1182

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jul 02 - 06:20 PM

Dancing can form part of a religious service. I've seen nuns dancing at a Mass in Brentwood Cathedral for example. I doubt if they could make a PEL requirement stick in this sort of case even if they wanted to. A social dance held on church premises might be a different matter.

I only hope Mike Harding will have been rather less ignorant about the legal situation than whoever wrote that BBC press release. Or whoever writes Kim Howell's press releases and speeches.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jul 02 - 04:55 PM

We will soon find out............. I suspect it is our Mr Bridgett (unless they have dug up Sir Humphrey), who writes the speeches for the "great champion of live music".

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 04:13 PM

Bugger - I've just noticed the time, and I've missed it. Give us a link to a transcript or whatever, Shambles or someone.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 05:00 PM

Problem solved - the BBC site has a Real Audio of the interviews with Kim Howells and with Hamish Birchall of the Musicians Union, and a transcript on the site as well. This shold be there for at least seven days.

Mike Harding was good, and he idn't let Kim Howells get awy with much (and the man tried, he tried). What we got out of him was a promise that, where money doesn't change hands, sessions in pubs will be allowed to go ahead without interference; and a promise that a licence that covers music as well as alcohol will cost no more than a licence that only covers alcohol.

However I wouldn't trust the man as far as I could throw him. Pledges on the Mike Harding show don't count when it comes to interpreting the legislation.

And even if the law complies with what Kim Howells said, there are still some real dangers.

1. It appears that any kind of money changing hands turns a session into an entertainment that needs a licence - so even a few quid in the hand to the organiser to cover the costs of ringing round and so forth would put it over the line. And I strongly suspect that a few pints of beer for the performers would also fall into the same trap.

2. Even if there is no charge for the liccence to cover entertainment, that still allows a local authority to lay down all kinds of requirements for additional facilities which would inhibit publicans from applying for it - and the evidence so far is that these are often highly unrealistic and geared to a completely different level of event.

3. There was no mention of the situation as regards premises other than pubs where the PEL requirements inhibit people from making music - for example coffee bars or indeed anywhere which is open to the public.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 05:10 PM

Problem solved - the BBC site has Real Audio of the interviews with Kim Howells and with Hamish Birchall of the Musicians Union, and a transcript on the site as well. This should be there for at least seven days.

Mike Harding was good, and he isn't let Kim Howells get away with much (and the man tried, he tried). What we got out of him was a promise that, where money doesn't change hands, sessions in pubs will be allowed to go ahead without interference; and a promise that a licence that covers music as well as alcohol will cost no more than a licence that only covers alcohol.

However I wouldn't trust the man as far as I could throw him. Pledges on the Mike Harding show don't count when it comes to interpreting the legislation.

And even if the law complies with what Kim Howells said, there are still some real dangers:

1. It appears that any kind of money changing hands turns a session into an entertainment that needs a licence - so even a few quid in the hand to the organiser to cover the costs of ringing round and so forth would put it over the line. And I strongly suspect that a few pints of beer for the performers would also fall into the same trap.

2. Even if there is no charge for the licence to cover entertainment, that still allows a local authority to lay down all kinds of requirements for additional facilities which would inhibit publicans from applying for it - and the evidence so far is that these are often highly unrealistic and geared to a completely different level of event.

3. There was no mention of the situation as regards premises other than pubs where the PEL requirements inhibit people from making music - for example coffee bars or indeed anywhere which is open to the public.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 05:13 PM

It was a bit of a shambles.

Why they decided to sandwich it between music is a mystery. Hamish's bit was OK and MH was not trying to be impartial and came over as concerned. Less good in the good Dr's bit, which was strange. Dr Howells did not know the subject at all but MH did not make the most of this.

Dr Howells agreed that the enforcements were not good news but made no suggestion as to what could be done now or why he had just watched them for so long.

He gave two incorrect answers to the same question. Were unpaid sessons to be prevented? Yes (when he has earler stated they should not be used to prevent ordinary folk making music) - until MH repeated unpaid and then No under the proposed reforms, "as long as money does not change hands."

As we know the DCMS are stressing that reward can be indirect, to the licensee, so you pay your money and take your choice. Or you don't pay your money.............!

The question MH put was supposed to have been my question, MH said "and I quote! The only other question (from the listeners), he did not put as he considered the Dr had already answered.

I don't know if anyone else was as confused as I was, at the end?

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 05:51 PM

Kim, if I can just go on to some questions we've had sent in from listeners, very quickly, because I do realise you've got to get off to the house and various other things … Roger Gall has emailed us to say, and I quote, "When you introduce this new licensing system, if pubs don't have an entertainment licence, will sessions and singarounds be banned?"

Yes, I suppose they would be. The landlord would need to get an entertainments licence to cover himself or herself …

But this is not for gain, is it, you were talking about …

Oh, I see, I am sorry, I'm sorry, I thought that you meant it would be professional musicians being paid …

No, just sessions and singarounds, people just playing for their own fun.

No, they certainly wouldn't and I'm very keen that we should make sure that that facility is there. There shouldn't be a problem. As long as money isn't changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence.

Right. Well, Keith Acheson writes in from Hertford to say how much he enjoys his singaround, singing songs of soldiering and seafaring, parting and ploughing, love and drink - he writes here - "No money changes hands, we enjoy some wonderful evenings. Why does English law criminalise this very English and harmless pastime?" I think you've already answered that - it does at the moment but you hopefully will make sure that it doesn't in future, is that right, the way I read it?

Yes, absolutely, and can I also say that if a licensee, a landlord or landlady, can get an alcohol licence, they will get a Public Entertainment Licence for free, so it's not going to cost them any more, so it's not going to put off people making venues available.

Great. And this is on the White Paper and this is going to be in the Queen's Speech, is it, in the next session of Parliament?

Yes, very much hoping that it will be. You can never tell and no minister can ever say that it's going to be in the Queen's Speech (laughs) … I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Why oh why did he not ask Keith's question? For over two years his Govenment have just watched events suffer, where no money changes hands, and will continue to for some years yet!

Even if this extaordinary statement forms any part of the new legislation and the LGA permit it, it may not be in the next Queen's Speech and we may never in fact live long enough to see it become law.

How could it ever be established that no money changes hands. Would we have the same as now? Officers claiming money or reward was involved and we would have to go the Court to prove it did not?

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 06:24 PM

What does he mean by "money"? He can't mean cash, or cheques would be a way round it. So, would a tab at the bar count as money? Or a pint in the hand? Or would increased takings at the bar associated with a session count as money changing hands, even if none of it goes to the musicians, who might even be providing most of those increased takings? (And if that seems daft, that has been how the position has been stated by Kim Howells' man Richard Bridgett)?

It's important to ensure that the right questions are being discussed in any Parliamentary committee that scrutinises this legislation.

It would be very foolish to relax and take it that Kim Howells' waffling means that we aren't going to be under threat any more.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 02:53 AM

If no "money changing hands" will exempt music making from future licensing reqirements, as Dr Howells clearly stated, why are these activities now subject to the current legislation?

The White Paper makes no change in definition of what is considered to be public entertainment which is a performance of music or dancing etc.

So how can enforcements against unpaid music making be supported under legislation now?

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: GUEST,Keith A o Hertford at work
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 07:11 AM

I thought that the questions posted here and sent were more searching than mine. I just typed what I felt. Sorry if I displaced a more worthy wordsmith.
Keith.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 07:17 AM

I wrote to my MP months ago about PEL's, so I was surprised when I looked at the list of MPs who had signed the early day motion. Mine had not
Luckily whoever emailed me about the EDM the other day had put a link to Fax you MP. I did and he responded this morning, he has signed it and will '..continue to urge the government to update this archaic licensing system.'

RS

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 09:24 AM

I thought that the questions posted here and sent were more searching than mine. I just typed what I felt. Sorry if I displaced a more worthy wordsmith. Keith.

Keith your question was a good one, my only wish is that MH, having read it out, had allowed Dr Howells to answer as to why he is content to just watch these events criminalised. Why he just hoping that some future legislation may possibly change this, rather than making sure that it contains any measures to actually ensuring that it does.

Roger perhaps finding the other 180 MP's names there, woke your MP up?

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 02:14 PM

I would like to add Keith that you can also be satisfied in getting Dr Howells to be quoted as using your words; in - as long as "no money changes hands". this could prove to be very helpful for us in the long run, if not for Dr (no money changes hands) Howells.

Photo of Hamish Birchall can be found on the BBC site linked to above, along with a photo of Dr Howells.

186 MP's names now! Roger in Sheffield.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 04:55 AM

Is there anyone who having read the above transcripts who is now happy about the situation?

If so, I would like to be convinced here by their arguments.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: vectis
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 05:17 AM

Very unhappy. My club, which is a "pass the pot to pay the artists" one is threatened. We don't have a formal membership so God knows what our legal position is.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 06:24 AM

Well assuming that Kim Howells isn't lying, his comment that:

...and can I also say that if a licensee, a landlord or landlady, can get an alcohol licence, they will get a Public Entertainment Licence for free

seems reasonable enough to me

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 06:42 AM

But the small print will be that the licensing authority will be allowed to insist on all kinds of extra conditions which will be likely to price it out of reach of the publican. The actual cost of the licence is only the start of it.

In order to be able to allow a few people to make music in a situation where "money changes hands" - ie the person organises it gets expenses for ringing round reminding people to come etc, or there are a few drinks for musicians, let alone a payment for a guest - there are likely to be an insistence that extra facilities are installed, such as additional toilets which would only make sense if a najor concert was planned.

But at the same time, if the pub is packed to the rafters with football fans watching a match on a big TV screen, and pouring out into the streets tanked up and excited afterwards, that's covered by the ordinary drinks licence, with no question of an entertainment element being required, or any additional facilities.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 07:08 AM

McGrath,

Is this "small print" documented anywhere?

I'm not doubting you, just curious to learn more

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 07:59 AM

That's how it's worked so far, and that's my prediction of how it's likely to keep working. I could be wrong, and I hope I am.

It happened to a bluegrass session in Stansted Mountfitchet up the road from us only this year. It had been going for years.

Then the authorities started leaning on the landlord, because there were more than two people playing. When he tried to get a PEL to cover it, the council insisted on all kinds of modifications of the premises, so that it just wasn't on. Reluctantly he had to tell them to stop coming to play, somhe didn't have to make tey modifications.

The point I was making about Kim Howells' statement was that, even if it the new law is exactly in line with it - and there's no reason to trust that it will be, they've wriggled out of even more explicit promises than that - it could still leave all the room in the world for this kind of nonsense.

The Musicians Union proposal makes far more sense - that would mean that a licence to run a pub would automatically include the right to allow people to make music, subject only to the requirement that there is no risk to public safety - which could include, for example, by laying down a maximum number of people in the place, and that there is no public nuisance.

This would place music-making in the same situation as any other activity in a pub, such as talking to friends, or watching the TV.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 08:03 AM

That's how it's worked so far, and that's my prediction of how it's likely to keep working. I could be wrong, and I hope I am.

It happened to a bluegrass session in Stansted Mountfitchet up the road from us only this year, which had been going for years.

Then the authorities started leaning on the landlord, because there were more than two people playing. When he tried to get a PEL to cover it, the council insisted on all kinds of modifications of the premises, so that it just wasn't on. Reluctantly he had to tell them to stop coming to play, so he didn't have to make the modifications.

The point I was making about Kim Howells' statement was that, even if the new law is exactly in line with it - and there's no reason to trust that it will be, they've wriggled out of even more explicit promises than that - it could still leave all the room in the world for this kind of nonsense.

The Musicians Union proposal makes far more sense - that would mean that a licence to run a pub would automatically include the right to allow people to make music, subject only to the requirement that there is no risk to public safety, which could include, for example, laying down a maximum number of people in the place, and that there is no public nuisance.

This would place music-making in the same situation as any other activity in a pub, such as talking to friends, or watching the TV.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 12:51 PM

Proportionality!

You don't risk activities that present little or no public risk, by including them in measures designed for activities that may present a risk. It means you address only the places where a real risk to the public is presented.

Unless a licensee was able to predict the future, and know a folk club would need a home, it would not be possible, as now to approach them and ask if you could stage a folk club in their pub.

The licensee when making application for his combined premises licence would have to state in advance that they wished to have the entertainment element. They would have to place in an operating plan, the specific nature of this entertainment (a folk club, or even one singer), and wait to have it approved and any conditions placed on it by the local authority. And this is sold to us cutting red tape and the entertainment element being free!

In reality this "no money changing hands" is a nonsense, when you are talking of making music (even unpaid) on commercial premises. For officers can (and will) always claim that some indirect reward is involved, I suspect that Dr Howells is well aware of this, whilst making these reassuring statements to the (small) folk community.

How can they justify these measures, as they continue to try do on the public's safety and interests, if an unpaid and amplified) event is free from the requirement, just because no money changes hands?

You will see further qualifications to this emerging, for the DCMS have already specified the need for any future exempt public music making to not only be non rewarded but also to be totally "spontaneous".

Difficult to maintain that one just happened to have one's double bass with you in the pub when spontaneous music making broke out! ....But in all reality, why should you have to make such an attempt, if the licensing requirement is really for reasons of public safety etc? The risks of any music making are plainly the same - rewarded or not.

I suggest that we have to step up rather than relax For the (unpaid) folk activity argument, and the Governments lame attempts to enable these events in order to placate us, are demonstrating the whole bogus argument for the continued blanket licensing of music.

If not required in Scotland, where the same safety legislation is thought sufficient, how can it be justified to us and still tolerated by us in England and Wales?

It was a shame that the interview was allowed to be on the grounds of us all having 'cake tomorrow'. We have lost too many events already and will lose more now and in the years before we ever see this new legislation, even if it ever should contain measures that will protect music making from officialdom.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 01:03 PM

The small print

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

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

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

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

Ronnie Bridgett Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Branch Tourism Division

They seemed to have overlooked the fact that local authoritities have already brought spontaneous music making, (which is as near to spontaneous as you could practically get), into the licensing regime. Despite the fact that the DCMS admit that adequate public protection would already exist.

I wonder what Mr Bridgett thought of Dr Howells's no money changing hands, quote?

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 02:02 PM

Kim Howells needs to be held to those words, which could be achieved if friendly MPs were to successfully push for them to be included in the bill.

If Kim Howells were to resist this, it would be extremely embarrassing, since it would amount to an admission on his part that he was lying on the BBC programme, or else that he didn't know what he was talking about and was waffling. I suspect most of us would suspect that both those things may have been the case, but that's no matter. We should take them as a honest and clear statement of government policy, regardless of whether we think they are or not.

The thing to do is to use those words and that quote in all letters to MPs and others in this context.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jul 02 - 04:51 AM

We will just have to hope that he keeps his job! For he really is a priceless asset(or ass) to us.

I note that Mr Bridgett does not list all the words for which definitions must be defined by the Bill. Rather importantly he does not mention any defintion for the word 'spontaneous'.

The White Paper does not mention this word or the changing of any definitions of what entertainment is or is not. This must be done before Dr Howells can ever start to deliver what he stated.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge (cookie and format C)
Date: 20 Jul 02 - 02:44 PM

If, and I emphasise the if, Howells produces a bill that will allow sessions without any form of licensing requirement, so long as no money changes hands (and the trapdoor of increased beer sales does not get written in), there is some progress. So long, of course, as local authorities are not allowed to insist on their usual range of farcical alterations. Oddly, Howells did not specify "acoustic" sessions, so his exact words seem to plan the authorisation of electric jam sessions too, with no limitation on the power of amplifiers used.

But I spot three immediate problems. First, a singaround or a singers (or players) club would not be exempt. Second, paid acoustic performers (even a paid leader of a session) will not be exempt. Why? acoustic performers pose no noise or disturbance threat. This is not a taxation measure, designed to divert some money movements to central or local goverment, but a public order measure. Isn't it? Third, what about folk dancing?

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jul 02 - 07:49 PM

This is not a taxation measure, designed to divert some money movements to central or local goverment, but a public order measure. Isn't it?

No, as you well know Richard.

If any form of music making can be considered exempt from the new licensing requirement purely on the basis that "no money changes hands", it must be a taxation measure. An opportunity to raising revenue, (now centrally) from commercial music making (only).

This is the whole point of continuing to use and press home the unpaid folk session argument and not to relax. For it demonstrates the exact bogus nature of blanket licensing being necessary for the public's safety and interests.

This Government has seen that blanket entertainment licensing has been used by some local authorities for revenue raising purposes. Whilst criticising local authorities for doing so and holding the moral high ground, have decided that they will set, collect and raise this revenue centrally, and use the same bogus (safety) justification, to give this measure some respectability and to raise the liquor licence fee at the same time.

I know I may sound a little cynical and politically motivated but am I wrong? This is a Government that I voted for remember.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 02 - 08:12 PM

The thing to push for is the Musicians Union proposal, which is that music in a pub should be treated the same way as any other activity - conversation, watching television, playing darts or pool. In other words, do what you like, so long as you don't cause a nuisance, cause offence to other people, or and endanger people. Very simple. Too simple, it seems.

Anything else is an infringement of our basic human rights.

And of course that applies in other places as well as pubs. People keep on talking as though the only places where music can take place is pubs, or as if these are the only places where there are any restrictions on our rights. It's just not true. Singing in a coffee bar, for example, is illegal now except in the very unlikely circumstances that there is a PEL , and it will continue to be illegal after any proposed legislation - and this is not something that should be acceptable in a free society.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jul 02 - 05:14 AM

This is true but the "two in a bar" issue is clearly totally stupid and was the best way of getting public and media interest to the larger issue of entertainment licensing generally and PELs in particular. Which is a complicated subject, as we know.

The White Paper proposals link liquor and music making together forever and spends little or no time on music in premises that do not have or want liquor licenses.

As can be seen from Dr Howells comments, The Government make a great noise about getting rid of (for most of the wrong reasions), the "two in a bar rule". As if that alone made any diference to non liquor licensed premises or improved the situation for unpaid music making and folk clubs caught up in legislation that was never really intended to affect them.

The following link is to the White Paper. Which after all is the starting point for the reforms.

White Paper

The following is the current position of EDM 1182. Has your MP signed yet?

The following link is how you can instantly fax you MP. All you need is your post code.

Fax Your MP

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jul 02 - 03:00 AM

Am I a complete idiot? Is the following not exactly the argument that has been presented to the DCMS, for why blanket live music licensing of all premises is not necessary as, adequate pubic protection would already exist?

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

Ronnie Bridgett Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Branch Tourism Division

If the DCMS accept adequate public protection already exists (for noise etc) and it is the licensee's duty to ensure that the public are not disturbed, why do they need a PEL now and why would they need in future to specify the exact nature of any live music, well in advance in an operating plan and have local authority approval for this?

They can now and will under this proposed legislation be able to stage and advertise live TV sporting events, without this needing to go in any operating plan or obtain approval.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jul 02 - 07:41 PM

http://www.jazznights.co.uk/musicissues.htm.

Is a site with some PEL info on - It also annouces that there is to be another DAY OF ACTION. In London on 24 July at the Red Lion in Whitehall at mid-day.

I know it is long way to go (for some) just to get thrown out of a pub. I will be coming up from Dorset for the day and I hope to meet you there.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: vectis
Date: 22 Jul 02 - 08:01 PM

Let's face it the thing at issue here is not just the freedom to belt out a few numbers with our mates in a bar, pub, hotel or coffee shop.
Councils are strapped for cash at the moment and some bright spark has realised that the present law is a licence to print money if it is enforced.
It cost one local pub £1000 for a PEL this year and it has no regular music events just occasional concerts in the adjoining hall.
If the PEL is to be included in the licence fee then I guarantee that the price of licences will go through the roof.
How many rural pubs, already struggling because of the lack of passing trade, will fold because of the extra costs??????

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 02 - 08:41 PM

Well, if a council makes a profit from the inspection and registration process, the councillors are breaking the law, and the audit commissioners have the duty to make waves.

What they can do legally is cover expenses - but if they try to use this as a way of covering additional costs (like salaries for people who are only involved in this part time, and are doing other council work the rest of the time) they are in breach of the law.

If you have reson to believe that this is happening, I suggest you shop the bastards to the audit commissioners, and go public about it.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: fogie
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 04:04 AM

I hear on radio 4 that Billy Bragg is singing in a pub opposite the houses of parliament onWed 24 at 12 noon to confront the issues. There was quite an exchange in the house of commons yesterday. The pub is the Red Lion.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 08:15 AM

Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill

1. Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden): If she will make a statement on her policy towards the licensing of televising of sport in public houses under the terms of the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill. [68956]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): As is the case with existing legislation, the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill will not include the licensing of the televising of sport in public houses in its definition of public entertainment. A publican, of course, already requires and will continue to require a normal domestic television licence.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, given the licensing disparity between televised football and live music in pubs—the former is subject to no regulation but the latter is subject to a complicated regulation mechanism—will he encourage members of the Cabinet to look at introducing legislation in the Queen's Speech that will reform the public entertainment licence system and encourage live music and particularly young musicians in small venues?

Dr. Howells: We will certainly look at getting rid of the absurd two in a bar rule. I have looked long and hard at the evidence, but we have never received any to suggest that watching television in a pub causes the kinds of scenes that have sometimes occurred in pubs with live music. Nor, indeed, have we had any reports of disturbances caused by watching television in a pub—we have certainly received some reports of incidents following the playing of live music in pubs. Generally speaking, however, pubs are excellent venues for live music. We want to make sure that that continues to be the case and that there are more venues for live music, not fewer.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): Following that very welcome answer, does my hon. Friend agree that the distinction between two musicians and seven musicians is irrelevant, and that the real issue is the amount of noise? A string quartet or an unamplified jazz group should be perfectly acceptable in a pub, should people choose to listen to them. Does he also agree that more venues for live music would give work to tens of thousands of amateur musicians and increase our country's cultural richness?

Dr. Howells: I am very much in favour of live music in pubs, but I am not in favour of any Minister in Parliament trying to define what constitutes jazz, folk music or any other kind of music. I have been the victim of one man with an amplifier that nearly blew my head off.

Mr. Speaker: Question 2. Mr. Mole is not here.

22 July 2002 Entertainment Licences 5. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): What plans she has to reduce the cost of entertainment licences for live music in pubs and clubs. [68961] The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Our plans for the modernisation of the alcohol and entertainment licensing regimes were set out clearly in the White Paper "Time for Reform". The proposed new licensing system will remove at a stroke a considerable amount of existing red tape and reduce the licensing costs that currently deter many venues from providing live music and dancing. The reforms will be implemented by means of primary legislation to be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits. Lawrie Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for his recent excellent two-day visit to my constituency. [Hon. Members: "Two days?"] It is a big constituency. As he will remember, he had a listening brief on that occasion and, regretfully, turned down my invitation to go into some of the bars in Whitby to add his baritone voice to the great deal of notable folk-singing that goes on in the area. Next time he visits my constituency, will the people of Scarborough and Whitby be able to hear his lovely voice? Dr. Howells: I could clear the entire Chamber within three bars. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 1182, tabled in my name? It has been signed by nearly 200 right hon. and hon. Members, which underlines the view across the House that it is a ridiculous law that needs to be amended at the first opportunity. May I extend a welcome to him to visit not only Scarborough but, in a spirit of amity across the Bristol channel, the Red Lion, just across the road, at 12 o'clock on Wednesday, where I, other hon. Members and Billy Bragg will be engaged in a little light singing that may or may not contravene the present law, but will serve to show what a ridiculous law it is? Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will turn out to be a star performer, but it all sounds a bit left-wing for me.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 10:16 AM

The last bit again, this time with breaks.

22 July 2002 Entertainment Licences 5.

Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): What plans she has to reduce the cost of entertainment licences for live music in pubs and clubs. [68961]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Our plans for the modernisation of the alcohol and entertainment licensing regimes were set out clearly in the White Paper "Time for Reform". The proposed new licensing system will remove at a stroke a considerable amount of existing red tape and reduce the licensing costs that currently deter many venues from providing live music and dancing. The reforms will be implemented by means of primary legislation to be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.

Lawrie Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for his recent excellent two-day visit to my constituency.

[Hon. Members: "Two days?"]

It is a big constituency. As he will remember, he had a listening brief on that occasion and, regretfully, turned down my invitation to go into some of the bars in Whitby to add his baritone voice to the great deal of notable folk-singing that goes on in the area. Next time he visits my constituency, will the people of Scarborough and Whitby be able to hear his lovely voice?

Dr. Howells: I could clear the entire Chamber within three bars.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 1182, tabled in my name? It has been signed by nearly 200 right hon. and hon. Members, which underlines the view across the House that it is a ridiculous law that needs to be amended at the first opportunity. May I extend a welcome to him to visit not only Scarborough but, in a spirit of amity across the Bristol channel, the Red Lion, just across the road, at 12 o'clock on Wednesday, where I, other hon. Members and Billy Bragg will be engaged in a little light singing that may or may not contravene the present law, but will serve to show what a ridiculous law it is?

Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will turn out to be a star performer, but it all sounds a bit left-wing for me.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 05:06 PM

Dr. Howells: We will certainly look at getting rid of the absurd two in a bar rule.

Then you introduce legislation that makes even one musician illegal without more overall expense and increased red-tape?
What about the other equally absurd exemption? Outside London full-blown entertainment could take place in churches. Most of these would not measure up to the most basic of pubs in the matter of facilities and public safety but would still be exempt from the licensing requirement.

I have looked long and hard at the evidence, but we have never received any to suggest that watching television in a pub causes the kinds of scenes that have sometimes occurred in pubs with live music.

Never received any evidence - sometimes occurred in pubs with live music. Does 'sometimes' really justify the blanket licensing of all types of muisic in all types of venue?

Is the continuing of this scatter-gun approach, where innocent casualties are acceptable to address a few problem areas, really a proportiate and modern approach to ensure the public's safety and interests?

This waffling on about noise concerns justifing this approach is really not good enough. All the studies show that most noise complaints are cause by people making noise arriving and departing, outside premises.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: Sarah the flute
Date: 24 Jul 02 - 03:05 PM

Hurrah Hurrah for Mr Bragg. He even got a look in on the BBC local news. He says the pressure is on to change things in the next parliamentry session to bring us into line with those North of the Border. Can this be true - no licence needed unless playing after 11pm??? Here's hoping.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jul 02 - 04:41 PM

Which local news was that Sarah?

Well no entertainment licence is needed in Scottish pubs during normal licensing hours, but part of the problem here is that the proposals here effectivly do away with normal licensing hours. Not that this should be a big problem to overcome.

Nice of Billy to help (and he really did an excellent job today) but the pressure you speak of has been on for some time (to no real effect yet, in the way of movement from our Government). The action today has helped toward that end but I think some recognition should be given to Hamish Birchall, for almost single-handedly pushing this issue and also for organising todays action and Billy's appearance.

Also to all Mudcatters who have helped and are helping in many ways. Long way to go yet, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:12 AM

COMING UP ON THE MIKE HARDING SHOW 03/04/03

Subjects for forthcoming Mike Harding Shows on BBC Radio 2, Wednesdays 8 - 9pm are: April 9th Kim Howells; April 16th Requests; April 23rd Sandy Denny/St George.

Seconds out - Round 2.

Despite the back-slapping about how the Bill is improved since its Lords visit, the sad and disgraceful fact remains that if our Labour Government has their way - one (advertised) person singing in a pub that has not applied for permission, will be an offence for the licensee (and/or the organiser). They will subject to a maximum £20,000 fine or 6 months in prison and will have automatically made the premises unsafe.

That any form of concert can take place in any place of religious worship, at any volume, at any time and for any amount of attendees, free from any additional licensing permissions or resulting imposed conditions.

That despite the examples I have provided of violent incidents arising from TV football events in pubs, these will be free from any additional licensing permissions or resulting imposed conditions.

In the year 2003, that cannot be a Government action of which you can have any pride at all. I have found you to be a decent chap and I trust that you will do your very best. And try to ensure that this trust, and those of many other voters, is not misplaced and that the Government's creditability, that Dr Howells has done so much to damage, can be restored. Good luck.

Musicians are not Dr Howells enemy, why is he still so determined to see them as this, and in this determination ensure that they will become his enemies? A more contrite approach from him, and a sign that he was prepared to listen, rather than continue to demonstrate his ignorance of musical matters, even at this late stage, would not go amiss.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 01:34 PM

The 'decent chap' refered to above is my MP Jim Knight, who is on the Standing Committee. We will see if he lives up to that billing.

The following from Hamish Birchall is the latest position - Please circulate.

Last Thursday, 03 April, the Commons Licensing Bill Committee concluded its debate of Schedule 1 that deals with definitions and exemptions for 'regulated entertainment' and 'entertainment facilities'. As predicted, Culture Minister Kim Howells and fellow Labour MPs on the Committee have voted to remove the Opposition Peers' exemption for educational establishments (paragraph 14). The Committee now moves on to other parts of the Bill, a process that must be finished by 20 May.

Given that the Government can simply reverse anything the Lords have changed, people understandably ask: 'what is the point of continuing to lobby MPs?'. This circular attempts to explain why it is not just important but essential to continue lobbying MPs, particularly Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs. Part of the reason is that the show-down, if you like, is yet to come. The other part concerns Parliamentary process, and how this can work in our favour with the Licensing Bill.

Schedule 1 will not be debated again until the entire Bill as amended by the Committee receives its Report/3rd Reading in the Commons. Unlike the Lords, Report and 3rd Reading debates will be on the same day, back to back. The precise date has yet to be fixed, but is likely to be some time in the fortnight commencing 2nd June. Further amendments can be put at Report stage, but these will be limited in number, and for that reason carefully chosen. More on that later.

It suprised me that a Commons Committee of only 16 MPs can change an entire Bill, but that is the way the process works. The Committee votes on amendments of their own, and these can be put down by any of the MPs on the Committee. The composition of the Committee reflects the proportion of MPs by Party: 10 Labour, 4 Conservative, and 2 Lib Dem. So if the Labour MPs vote with the Whip, i.e. they toe the Party line, then the Government can do what it likes to the Bill at this stage. That is what is happening at the moment.

However, if Committee amendments change or reverse amendments that were introduced by the House of Lords, that has to be approved by the Lords. So once the Bill completes Report/3rd Reading, it goes back to the Lords. At that point the Lords may reintroduce Clauses they originally inserted but which were subsequently removed in the Commons, or amend any or all of the Clauses they first amended, but which were changed again by the Commons. The Bill must then return to the Commons, the idea being that the Bill cannot become law until its content is agreed by both Houses.

The Conservatives have promised to revisit the small events exemption when the Bill goes back to the Lords. Provided the Lib Dems support the Conservatives (as they did when that particular amendment was voted through on 11 March), there is a serious risk that the Government's timetable will be delayed. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrat Peers combined outnumber the Government in the Lords. Opposition Lords could therefore start a game of 'ping pong' between the two Houses.

Now comes the crucial bit: the Government cannot force the Bill through using the Parliament Act. For some reason I don't fully understand, Bills that have been introduced in the Lords are immune from the Parliament Act - only Bills introduced in the Commons can be forced through by that means. The Government are extremely anxious for the Bill to receive Royal Assent by July. So it is entirely possible that, faced with a solid opposition in the Lords, they might make a concession on the entertainment licensing side. So we are definitely still in with a chance of the Lords amendments on small events and educational establishments, or variations of these amendments.

It is also possible that a version of these amendments will be introduced by Opposition MPs during Report/3rd Reading in the Commons, before the Bill goes back to the Lords. Not all Labour MPs are against the ideas in principle by any means: indeed both Bob Blizzard and Jim Knight have argued in favour of some kind of exemption.

Public pressure will determine to a great extent whether Labour MPs are receptive to the arguments for a 'de minimis' exemption permitting a limited amount of entertainment/live music before entertainment licensing kicks in. That is why it is extremely important for the MU and musicians to keep lobbying and talking to their constituency MPs.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:13 AM

You will be able to hear Dr Howells tonight, on the following site.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/

E mail addresses for contacting the show are to be found earlier in this thread.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:19 AM

I have sent the following -

Can he be asked, without referring to the 'incidental' amendment, which original words of the Bill, and which aspects of sessions now include them as licensable, and why he stated on the show that they would not be licensable - if they were unpaid etc?

It has still not been clearly established, which words of the Bill, and which aspects of sessions include them as licensable.

For despite the answer he gave to my question on his last appearance on the show, that they were not, it was Dr Howells' latest position that sessions were licensable. It is rather important to know this, for if as looks likely, we will have to rely only on guidance, as this will enable the focus to be correctly directed to enable sessions to be safe from ALL Local Authorities.

In yet another change, in the Common's Standing Committee on April 1st, Dr Howells now seems to be relying, to exempt sessions, on the imposed Lord's amendment extending the Government's own exemption for incidental recorded music - to now include live music.

Strangely, as it was the Government' who introduced the word to the Bill, they claim not to understand it and are not prepared to define the word, to enable the exemption to be of much practical use, other than to further confuse us all and to pass the buck right back to local authorities.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:01 PM

Now that was a complete waste of time.

This is the answer given to all the good questions from M H, Eliza Carthy and Billy Bragg.

Dr Howells: Now that was a very good question, and I am very glad you asked me that {because I have not got a very good answer - so I will just respond will the same old rubbish and go on and on, as dear old Mike hasn't a clue and is just going to let me do it}.

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: Nemesis
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:25 PM

Ditto, Shambles... complete bloody waste of time .. when ARE the BBC going to have this man in open debate with an pro-active analytical interviewer?

They do it to Government Ministers on other issues .. why do they soft-pedal on Howells ... frightened he's going to cut off their funding or something?

It just confirms my impression that Howells doesn't really have a clue at what is going on (doesn't even know who involved in putting the working party inclusions) It's Andrew Cunningham head to head with, say, Paxman they should put on ... on eg., Question Time with all of us in the audience!

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: sian, west wales
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:48 PM

Yes, MH just let us down something chronic.

Oh, to get a serious interviewer - John Humphries or someone - to really take him to pieces. How dare he talk about 'misinformation' from others when he was pumping it out left, right and centre!

sian

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: BanjoRay
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 08:15 PM

I thought Mike Harding was supposed to be on our side! I've just listened to the show on the net, because I missed it live. Mike seemed to have less clue about what it's all about than Howells, and that's saying something. It's a pity they only had tapes of Billy Bragg and Liza Carthy, and Howells on the end of a phone line - a totally live discussion between those three could have made a major difference - Howells has to be made to understand what's involved.
Cheers
Ray

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show.
From: jonm
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 03:22 AM

Can I suggest that the BBC's Andy Kershaw would make a good interviewer? He's sharp, shrewd, not afraid of anyone and has a strong background in music and knows its roots and traditions.

While I should love to see Howells demolished by Paxman or Humphries, I doubt either of these has the love of ethnic music or the appreciation of the Bill's implications to cut through the Government's current smoke-and-mirrors approach.