BS: Licensing Reform

Subject: BS: Licensing Reform
From: GUEST,steve
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:03 PM

With the proposed licensing reform due in the Queen's speech due shortly and the associated fears that an extortionate system of licensing will be introduced which will threaten sessions etc do any of you seriously trust New Labour or your MP to look after your interests?

Has anyone thought beyond gaining signatures for an early day motion?What a success that has proven to be!

Maybe it's time to cast the net wider. What about the House of Lords? Although it's early days a committee will be set up to discuss amendments to the Bill - what about lobbying that? Direct action against those with the most power to actually change the text of the white paper and Bill may still yield results. Let's face it, petitioning your MP is pretty ineffective when there are party whips and ambitious young MPs nervous of going against their party in fear that it may affect their careers...I'd say that the Bill's likeliest to be introduced in the Commons as it's one of Tony's own (he must have gained some votes from his text messages).

It may be the ultimate irony that an unelected (and undemocratic) chamber may provide the necessary amendments and the best hope for intelligent amendment as opposed to our democratically (i.e. elected by less than half the population) MPs?

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 01:53 AM

Good idea but I don't know any Lords and there does not appear to be a 'Fax your Lord' website. They may indeed be of some help.

All approaches should be followed of course but I think it is rather too early to write off this EDM (or indeed the next one). It is just part of a process of informing MP's (and Lords) of a complicated issue and of us trying to ensure that they know we are interested, are following their acions (or non-actions) and that there are votes in it. This must be kept up.

For I am not too sure what leverage we have or what pressure can be applied to those in the unelected 'other place', except possibly the threat of barrels of gunpowder underneath them?

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: ET
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:31 AM

Don't panic. I have written to Tony (Fast Fingers) Blair remnding him of what a fine folk guitarist he is and could he kindly make sure that folkies etc are ok in his licensing reforms, so all will be well.

Not had a reply yet but expect there will be a session laid on at No 10 with beer and sandwiches, soon.

What shall we play - your cheating heart is a good opener?

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:50 AM

Blair But For Fortune?

It will be interesting to see his reply....Or maybe it won't.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 03:41 PM

The EDM received 231 MP's names.

In fact I think that really should be 230. Teresa May's name appears twice!!!

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

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 02:38 AM

PELs links to all threads

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 07:26 PM

From Hamish Birchall- For circulation

Look out for an item about the government's licensing reforms and their implications for live music on Monday 11 Nov, sometime between 7-9am, BBC1 Breakfast programme.

The government has about a week in which to decide on the final form of its proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill, due to be announced in the Queen's Speech on 13 November.

Its current plan is that 'two in a bar' will become 'none in a bar', i.e. hosting one unamplified guitarist in a restaurant once a week is to become a criminal offence - unless first licensed. Broadcast entertainment on satellite or terrestrial tv, or radio, is to remain exempt. The government says that capping and standardising licence fees (no premium for live music) will lead to more live gigs.

However, licensing Minister Kim Howells has also said that the hospitality and leisure industry would resist 'robustly' if the Musicians' Union were to lobby for satellite tv to be a licensable public entertainment.

He didn't say why, but the reasons are obvious: they fear the bureaucratic licensing process, the consultation with local residents, and the potential for onerous local authority licensing conditions, such as monitored safe capacities and CCTV (becoming standard in many local authorities for PELs). Clearly the government's assurance that local authorities will be bound to take published guidance into account doesn't cut much ice with the big pubcos.

The MU is not currently lobbying for satellite tv to become a licensable entertainment. It is lobbying for a licensing regime like that operating successfully in Scotland where live music in a typical bar is allowed during permitted hours without a PEL, provided it is ancillary to the main business. The significance of the comparison is that safety and noise in these premises is regulated by UK-wide public safety and noise legislation.

New York

In 1988 jazz musicians in New York City successfully overturned a 'three in a bar rule' that had operated in zoned areas since 1955. They brought a law suit against the city authorities arguing that the rule breached their first amendment rights. Their case was argued by a jazz-loving civil liberties lawyer, Professor Paul Chevigny. They won.

Professor Chevigny, who is based at the New York University School of Law, has kindly given me help and advice over the last three years. Yesterday he provided me with an outline of how live music is regulated now in New York City:

A New York Bar or restaurant accommodating less than 200 listeners does not need a license to have live music or canned music. There are some fire regulations about exits and sprinklers that apply to places that have entertainment, but not licensing requirements. There are stringent noise regulations, enforced by environmental officers who will listen for decibels in the street. The enforcement is usually provoked by a complaint. The police will also respond to a noise complaint, but the only way to get something done systematically about noise is to get an environmental proceeding. Social dancing requires a cabaret license.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 01:28 PM

Sent to the BBC.

First off, thanks to Nick and those responsible for the coverage.

Filmed report
This was good but it was a bit much for the voice over to state that most
pubs were in favour of the proposals, just after interviewing a licensee
that was clearly not.

The big brewer's representative was allowed to rubbish what the "musician's"
want, but there was no representative from the Musician's Union to state
exactly what exactly they did want. Perhaps this could be rectified?

The statement he made about the cost of the new licence was misleading. A
liquor licence now costs £30 for three years. The proposed and compulsory
premises licence (with or without the optional) entertainment element) will
be considerably more and in addition, the licensee will have to pay for a
new personal licence.

What exactly is it, that this representative states that the musicans must accept the public are
wanting? They do want common sense.

Do they want that advanced official permission only needs to be obtained for
all and ONLY LIVE music?

Do they want that is not required for live TV sport or pre recorded sound,
irrespective of crowds or volume?

Do they want Morris dancing to be considered as an illegal activity?

Do they want all and only live music making to be automatically thought a
noise concern, even when it is non- amplified and clearly not presenting any
noise concern?

They may want sensible opening hours but can they not also have sensible
approach to what needs advanced official permission and what does not?

The references throughout the programme referred to loud music (but making
no distinction between live music or pre-recorded music) but no reference
was made to the fact that the proposals cannot or will not distinguish
between loud or not loud live music.

In fact LOUD pre-recorded music will not require advanced official
permission, nor will large numbers of people attracted to TV showing of live
sports events.

Studio interview
The statement made and not challenged, that a member of the public can now
only complain about noise once every three years, on liquor licence
applications, is nonsense.

The two (very nice) interviewers obviously did not know enough about this subject to conduct
any meaningful debate.
For they did not explore the crucial matter of safe capacities, when these
were mentioned.

Val Weedon made it clear that the majority of complaints to her organisation
were not to exclusively LIVE music in pubs but about crowds attracted to
premises, where NO live music may even be taking place, but the studio
conversation continued as if it was and that public entertainment licensing
was the only effective control.

Messages

The statement read out, that a duo were making unacceptable noise in pub and
the Council could not do anything about it is nonsense. The Council may not
have been able to 'encourage' the licensee to pay them for a Public
Entertainment Licence, but this is not the same thing as them not being
perfectly able to deal with a matter of excess noise.

As all noise does not emanate from music making, Public Entertainment
Licenses cannot logically be the only way for local authorities to deal with
complaints about excess noise, and they are not.

The main points are that the proposals consider ALL but ONLY live music to
require advanced official permission, whether it may be considered a noise
concern or not.

Liquor licensed premises in Scotland do not require additional licensing for
entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 03:33 PM

What is the Queen's Speech? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1388644.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: Guy Wolff
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 05:47 PM

Hello. One aside from a visiting tourest type from the US.. There is nothing more traditionaly British then one of these sessions.. They should be protected and norished like houses in the national trust ..THey bring money spending ,Hotel staying people into the country!!!! As far as the political side of life goes I think this might be a good tack to take.THey make money via touisum. . You mite even get some Conservative Lord ( Is that redundent) interested in keeping alive something iherently British. Good luck at any rate.. If the Money machine thinks your not playing the game they push you aside.. Pointing out a things atrabutes is just truthful and not at all subversive and can do some good.. Can Charles sing ???? Just a thought .. HA , All the best , GUY

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 07:24 PM

Thank you Guy. The tourism angle is one that will gain attention. Our Government do not appear to take much notice of us. If enough concerned folk from outside the UK are willing to help and can make their voices heard, we will be very grateful. Your thoughts expressed in the following 'heavies' may be prove useful.

Letters intended for publication on the
Letters Page of The Times should be e-mailed to [e-mail]

You can email letters to the Guardian at the following address: [e-mail], fax them to 0207 837 4530, or post them to: 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER
We do not publish letters where only an email address is supplied; please include a full postal address and a reference to the relevant article. If you do not want your email address published, please say so. We may edit letters.

Daily Telegraph Letters to the Editor
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 07:28 PM

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 07:36 PM

I have tonight, sent the following to the Guardian letters page.

On the 28th July 2001 this newspaper carried news of a Morris Dancing event that had fallen foul of my local council's interpretation of current public entertainment licensing legislation. This interpretation was that these unpaid dancers and musicians were 'performers' in a public entertainment and the activity was therefore illegal outside my local pub.

The article made reference to a promised reform Bill for England and Wales, that had fallen with the previous Parliament. Hope was that this Bill would replace the law risking these local activities, the so called 'two in bar rule', with sensible legislation.

This Bill is now due to be included in the Queen's Speech, but will introduce a 'none in bar rule, where all (and only) live music making (even non-amplified) by even one participant, will be a criminal offence for a licensee without advanced official permission from the local authority.

It may not be well understood but should Morris dancing really be considered as an illegal activity?

Strangely, as the justifcation is the public's safety, advanced official permission is not required for live TV sport or pre recorded sound in pubs, irrespective of crowds attracted or volume, only for performance of all live music.

All (and only) live music making is to be first and automatically thought as presenting a noise concern, even when it is non- amplified and clearly not presenting any noise concern, as the Bill will not make any distinction.

The Bill proposes a simpler system and sensible opening hours but not a sensible approach to what presents a risk to the public and may need advanced official permission. Or what clearly does not, in what remenber are already licensed, inspected and controlled premises.

Pubs in Scotland do not require additional licensing for entertainment. Why cannot this system provide a sensible basis for entertainment licensing reform in England and Wales? One that does not risk making all (but only) live music a criminal offence.

This measure, had it been introduced by the Taliban, would have been considered an affront to culture by many and partly warranted and justified an armed invasion.

Ironically, is a measure that is being introduced here, to very little public concern, by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:29 AM

This from the Daily Mail 12 November 2002, shows what the thrust and 'spin' will be, and the size of the task of tackling it.

Ministers hurry towards the 24-hour pub.

Plans for round-the –clock drinking are to be fast-tracked by Labour, the Queen's Speech will confirm tomorrow.
In the biggest shake-up of drinking laws for 40 years, pubs and clubs will have fully flexible licensing, which could in theory lead to 24-hour opening. Legislation will allow landlords to apply to their local council for licenses, submitting an operating plan to explain why they want specific opening hours.

Individual licenses will be able to impose conditions such as sound-proofing and the installation of closed-circuit TV.

Ministers, who insist the more liberal hours will curb rather than cause anti-social behaviour, want the law on the statute book by next July.

They argue that 'binge-boozing' is a consequence of strict licensing hours with many 'drinking against the clock'. This, they say, has led to many city centres turning into no-go areas because of disorder once pubs and clubs shut.

The Government is certain to run into criticism over the measures, not least because the central thrust of the Queen's Speech is a crack-down on crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: Davetnova
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:01 AM

Unfortunately is seems that our MP's are severely confused. It would appear from the reply I received, from Russell Brown, and from what publicity I have seen, BBC breakfast TV. The general concensus, including that of the MU according to BBC, is that the new laws are going to make things better by doing away with the two in a bar and making everything much simpler and clearer for both publicans and musicians.
Until this misconception is corrected I fear theres not much to be done. At the moment any referall about this seems to elicit the response- we're fixing it with our new law.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:37 PM

Until this misconception is corrected I fear theres not much to be done. At the moment any referall about this seems to elicit the response- we're fixing it with our new law.

They would say that wouldn't they? However, the devil is in the detail.

As long as WE are clear, we can inform and prevent our media or MP's real or convenient confusion. If WE don't do it, especially as regards effects on the unpaid folk activities that are a long established part of our culture, no one else will.......There will never be another opportunity.

People in England and Wales should never be thought of as being involved in a criminal offence, just for making music. There will always be a real danger of this, as long as the entertainment element of the compulsory premises licence is optional, and advanced local authority premission is only required for any, all (but only) live music making.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:28 PM

Come back Guy Fawkes all is forgiven

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:57 PM

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

If this is the final score of EDM 1182, then there are at least 233 MPs who are not or should not be confused about what they expect the Bill to do.

reduce the cost and bureacracy of entertainment licensing and promote the use of live music and singing in pubs and clubs; and urges the Government to introduce a Licensing Law Reform Bill in the next Queen's Speech.

It is up to us to ensure that they earn their money and deliver.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 01:54 PM

http://www.shantscamra.org.uk/hop-press/hop-press5.shtml#Sec12

The above link, about the big pub chains, is very interesting and demonstrates the size of the problems that face us.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 05:29 PM

Word is filtering through of a press launch of the Bill by Tessa Jowell to be held in London this Friday.

In of all places, The Red Lion in Whitehall!!!!

The very same place where the Musician's Union have help two protests against the Bill's entertainment reform proposals.

An invitation was given for Dr Howells to attend the last one, with Billy Bragg singing with MPs, but was declined as it was too left wing.

It does not look as if the invitation is to be returned. The MU do not appear to have received an invite...........Maybe they need some music?

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: ET
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 10:29 AM

Heard from Tony. He says via a flunky, has been passed to the culture department.

Hmm   Already been there loads of times. They promise the law will aid tourism and the folk culture. As said the devil is in the detail of this law.

Saw Tony jetting off to see Bush recently lugging a guitar case. Hope he didn't get it out on the plane. His playing might have interfered with the controls and caused a crash.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 01:49 PM

I suppose if poor old Ina Drunken Sniff and his opposition have to listen to the sams old rubbish, it should not be too surprising that they expect us to also.

The 'stone-wall' defence, is pretty effective against all but the odd silly sod who is prepared to keep on banging their head against the wall. If they do not go completely 'fairybrained' first, cracks may eventually start to appear in the stone wall.

Possibly if there are enough silly bastards prepared to keep on banging away, the wall may fall down completely?

Or have two years of banging my head, gone to my head?

This from my long-suffering MP Jim Knight.

The bill will be introduced first in the Lords in the next couple of weeks when it will be published with its initial wording. It will then have a second reading in the Commons in mid December. There will be committee and third reading stages next year with a hope that it will complete its stages and hence have final wording around Easter.

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 08:11 AM

The wording of the Bill that will be going first to the Lords.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/pabills.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 08:44 AM

Schedule 1 defines Licensable 'entertainment'.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldbills/001/03001.107-111.html#J1s1

Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Reform
From: vindelis
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 01:02 PM

Does that mean that you can only play your instruments at home if you keep the windows and doors shut? (opening sentence to para 2 and para 2a refers)