Howells (now) asks for help PELs

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 07:59 AM

The publican 20th February 2003

Licensing minister Kim Howells has promised that live entertainment will not suffer under the new Licensing Bill.

The minister has called for a meeting with the music industry to clear up any confusion surrounding the reforms and has issued a leaflet called: "The answer to 20 myths about public entertainment and the Licensing Bill."

Dr Howells said: "A host of rumours – many of them completely ridiculous – have been circulated about this bill. I am setting the record straight for the benefit of everyone involved in live entertainment, either as a participant, organiser or spectator."

The leaflet claims that music in pubs will not be harmed by the new bill.

It categorically states it will not cost anything extra for pubs to provide entertainment when applying for permission to sell alcohol.

The leaflet, which is available on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's website at www.culture.gov.uk, also states that local authorities will not be able to impose unreasonable conditions on licences.

Hamish Birchall, from the Campaign for Live Music, said. "It would be churlish not to give a cautious welcome to the announcement – it's a good promise – but it doesn't alter our fundamental difficulty with the approach.

"We can't understand why there is no need for an entertainment licence to broadcast music in a pub yet if one acoustic performer plays, there is. It doesn't seem right and the government hasn't produced any evidence as to why it's required."

Mr Birchall, along with hundreds of other protesters, have been fighting against proposals to scrap the existing two-in-a-bar rule.

This allows up to two performers to appear in pubs without the need for a licence but under the new licensing reforms, all pubs, irrespective of size or audience capacity, will need to gain permission – a move that musicians fear will kill live music in pubs.

Mr Birchall estimates around 15,000 small pubs and bars will be affected.

Dr Howells has invited a working group, comprising the British Beer & Pub Association, the Arts Council for England, the Local Government Association and Stephen Navin, the government's music industry adviser, to help draw up additional guidance for licensing authorities to ensure venues can put on live music more easily, while protecting the rights of local residents.

This follows musicians' concerns that licensees would be discouraged from putting on entertainment in case local authorities imposed unnecessary and costly conditions to their licences.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 09:22 AM

When it says "the government's music industry adviser" this is what it means:
"The UK music industry is to co-fund a new post at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to act as a link with the government in the struggle with music piracy.Stephen Navin, who was previously acting chief executive of the V2 Music Group, will advise the DCMS on a range of music industry issues - including copyright and the protection of intellectual property. " (From a news item on the BBC in September.

Not it would appear somebody likely to have any awareness whatsover of our type of musicmaking. And there is nobody on that working group who can be expected to be any better.

I couldn't find that leaflet on the Department's site. Partly because it really hurt my eyes looking at the site - I've rarely seen one as painful as that.

I found the Draft Guidance for Licencing Authorities, but it's over 100 pages loong and in a format that makes it very hard to read - a measure of teh Deoartment's contempt for the wider public.

I see the House of Lords Report Stage starts on 24th February, so I imagine this is crunch time. Lobbying Lords is a lot harder than lobbying MPs, but maybe it might be more likely to achieve something.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 09:31 AM

The best way to study the Draft Guidence document is to download the file to your hard disk. There is a little icon in the top left hand corner, that will allow you to do this.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:21 PM

If anyone is minded to believe any of the government statements, please read also the issuances of the performer-lawyer group (at adac records and also as "does4you") and shortly to be on EFDSS site, and the bill, and then apply thought!

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 02:24 PM

[snip]The others can and must be reached and at some point, must listen, even if it is only self-preservation.

But civil servants like these are safe and insulated and therefore can carry on just saying the same things forever, but have no need at all to ever listen to us.[/snip]

I do of course copy all my letters to the civil servants at the DCMS to my MP as well.

We are now at the third occasion when the DCMS has said that the words spoken do not mean what they say!! I reckon a couple more and there might be a case for the ombudsman!!

Any ombusdman experts out there?

Dave

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 02:50 PM

Could those placatory comments from civil servants be any use in the future, maybe in court?

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 02:55 PM

I reckon it is now so confusing that any local authority solicitor when informed that a defence can be constructed from Ministerial advice - statements - leaflets - myths - etc. etc. will think twice about prosecuting anyone.

Once I win the lottery I intend to buy a pub, get Richard to construct defences for me and continuously break the law as a challenge!! Watch this space!!

Dave

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 04:44 AM

Press Release from the Performer " Lawyer Group.

On the 18th February Kim Howells, licensing minister, sent out a
letter enclosing a leaflet called "The answers to 20 myths about
public entertainment and the Licensing Bill". There were 25
points in the leaflet. 22 were wrong. We have already dealt with
that.

http://www.does4you.co.uk/REPLY.htm

http://www.adac-records.co.uk/licensing-bill/kim-howells/


It is a matter of constitutional importance in England that a
minister does not mislead Parliament or the public. In the cradle
of democracy we are entitled to better behaviour from our
ministers than this.

But the letter and recent ministerial conduct raises further issues.
The minister admitted on Radio 1 on the 10th February that he
had never had any complaint about unamplified music " an
admission that previous statements that œthe government did not
accept that there was any type of music that was never noisy쳌
were unjustifiable.

It also wholly undermines the minister's repeated refusal to accept
that unamplified music does not need to be regulated under the
Licensing Bill. But there is more to complain about in the letter
than that.

The letter says the minister is inviting the music world along with
local authorities to put in ideas to help him draw up statutory
guidance for the authorities. Note this. 94% of pub licensees
oppose the bill.

He has refused to accept musician input into the bill. He told the
Musicians Union they could not question policy. He refused to
consult the English Folk Dance and Song Society about the bill at
all.

If that symbolises the death sentence, now he says he wants input
on the guidance as to the type of rope to hang us with. But even
now not from us! He has not invited the EFDSS (yet) or the
Musicians Union, or any representative of folk dance of any type,
nor any darts players (yes, darts matches in pubs are likely to be
œregulated entertainment쳌 too).

Let us tell him. We do not want unamplified music regulated at
all. We do not need it regulated. It is not noisy, and it poses no
safety or disorder risks. It is much more welcome than
unregulated big screen TVs or thumping juke boxes or DJs (so
long as they have no dancefloor) " all of which are to go
unregulated.

The minister says that his bill will make it more affordable for
venues to put on live performance. There are 110,000 pubs in
England and Wales. About 5,000 have full Public Entertainment
Licenses. For them, fees are likely to be a great saving.

The other 100,000 or so at present pay £30 every 3 years for a
magistrates alcohol licence. If they put on live music, they do it
under the existing œ2-in-a-bar쳌 exemption, and it costs them
nothing. So the minister is taxing them to subsidise full-scale
nightclubs. But it is worse than that.

They will need, if they want to put on live music, to comply with
conditions the local authority imposes. Those using the 2-in "a-
bar rule do not yet suffer any such requirements for double
glazing, bouncers, new lavatory blocks, wheelchair ramps, crush
bars, air conditioning, (all designed to insulate the local authority
from increased insurance premiums when contingency lawyers
sue for absence of fanciful safety features) and public liability
insurance in astronomical amounts, etc, etc.

So they will also have to pay for these. And there is no
satisfactory protection from this " just promises of 'guidance'
with no clear mechanism for enforcement, and the risk for
publicans of applying to court against the (richer) local authority
that administers their liquor licence (and so livelihood). Some
protection!

Finally, licensing experts say that the proposed fees will leave a
hole in local authority revenues the size of Enron. So either the
fees will rise " or council tax will go up to subsidise nightclubs, or services will be cut.

Can we have a rational minister " please?

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 07:58 AM

As indicated above, "Statutory guidance" means it's binding and has to be followed - this is stronger than guidance circulars to local authorities on new legislation, which they can interpret at their discretion.   

The Government's side in the 24 Feb Report stage.

When the working group that we have convened has finished its work, the relevant sections of the guidance will draw clear distinctions about what might and might not be appropriate conditions for unamplified music.

It will be flexible enough to cope with special situations such as the use of drum kits or other loud and penetrating unamplified instruments in a way that the Bill never could without increasing its length and complexity.

While I am on that subject, it is not our intention to turn the guidance into regulations. We are proposing that the first issue of the guidance should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but it will still be guidance.

Authorities will have to have regard to it rather than being obliged to follow its every dot and comma. In maintaining the flexibility of guidance, we can tailor the system in the light of experience, subject to the safeguard that I have just referred to, which is a response to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 08:05 AM

Authorities will have to have regard to it rather than being obliged to follow its every dot and comma. In maintaining the flexibility of guidance, we can tailor the system in the light of experience, subject to the safeguard that I have just referred to, which is a response to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

At last a statement from the DCMS and friends that we can believe ....

Actually, this is a very useful statement to keep on hand. Everytime an official says 'the guidance will make clear that is not covered' we can quote this one back as evidence that authorities do not have to follow the guidance.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 08:28 AM

Licensed Premises: Entertainment Legislation
House of Lords Monday 11 December 2000

2.53 p.m. The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964, members of the public count as "performers" if they sing on licensed premises; and, if so, how local authorities can enforce public entertainment licensing legislation in a proportionate manner that is compatible with performers' rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 exempts licensed premises from the need to obtain a public entertainment licence where the entertainment provided consists of music and singing by not more than two performers.

Whether members of the public who sing on licensed premises count as performers is a matter for the licensing authority to decide, depending on the circumstances. Ultimately, the compatibility of this provision with the European Convention on Human Rights would be a matter for the courts to determine. As part of our proposed general reform of the licensing and public entertainment laws in England and Wales, we propose to do away with the Section 182 provisions.

The above was dismissed as follows, by my Council's Solicitor 24/08/01: "Secondly, as far as the comments in the House of Lords is concerned, the comments from a noble Lord on the interpretation of legislation passed almost 20 years ago is the day just that – a comment. It would have absolutely no relevance in a court of law."

It would be nice to know he is right or wrong if it ever did, but as we have not been in a court (yet), it may have a lot of relevance outside, at least until the Bill comes in. It does however show that all lawyers are concerned about are the words of the legislation.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 08:40 AM

I'm not clear whether the guidance will just be advising/instructing local authorities on how they should decide whether or not to give a licence, and what conditions they can require, or will it be also advising/instructing them as what things do not actually need licences.

It could be quite a important distinction. I suspect that there will be a lot of places which will never apply for licences, both pubs in respect of music, and other places such as cafés or community centres, because they aren't into selling alcohol, and that is the central element in the licensing system.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 06:16 AM

Culture minister backs down on unpopular licensing bill and agrees to work with Musicians' Union

Anne Perkins, political correspondent
Tuesday March 4, 2003
The Guardian

Kim Howells, the minister being dubbed "the greatest threat to live music since Oliver Cromwell", will today admit to critics of his controversial licensing bill that he has got it wrong.

In a rare case of ministerial penitence Mr Howells has invited the Musicians' Union to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ask them to work with him to improve the bill.

Already it has been savaged in the Lords by an alliance of Liberal Democrat and Tory peers who have fought to exempt some performances of live music from its provisions.

Yesterday the culture minister admitted there were weaknesses in the bill which he had failed to anticipate. "It's curious," he said. "We saw it as a civilising bill, relaxing licensing laws, cutting down on bureaucracy. It was only when it started going through the Lords we realised how it would be interpreted."
Musicians believe the bill would have a devastating impact on the number of venues where they can perform because instead of the "two in a bar" rule, allowing up to two musicians to perform unlicensed, every live performance would need licensing. Schools and churches also fear they will need licences for plays and concerts.

An online petition has received more than 76,000 signatures and protests have included a "gagged" musical lobby of parliament. Mr Howells, who has attacked what he calls a "pernicious campaign", fought back with "20 myths" he said were being put about.

"Spontaneously singing 'Happy Birthday' will not be illegal," he said. "Spontaneous singalongs in pubs will not be licensable."

But John Smith, general secretary of the Musicians' Union who will be at today's meeting, remains unconvinced. "We are philosophically miles apart," he said yesterday. "We don't believe we should be licensed at all, because ordinary noise and health and safety legislation covers us."

Musicians claim the government has failed to understand what a hurdle the proposals will be for small businesses like pubs and restaurants which will now need a licence for a Saturday night guitarist or pianist. "The trouble is no one at the DCMS has ever worked in a pub," one campaigner said.
Some members of the union are so angry they want to end their union's 80-year link with Labour.
Hamish Burchill, a jazz drummer who has been a vociferous critic, said the number of venues had already slumped as councils demanded new lavatories, colour-coded pipes and extra fire-proofing before granting licences.

Mr Howells - a minister more identified with the new liberalism of the 60s than with what critics call the authoritarianism of New Labour's Home Office - acknowledges that there have been bad experiences. "We've got to convince everyone we'll be watching them like hawks so they can't impose extra conditions. We will also set fees centrally and they will be the same everywhere."

The bill has brought the department more bad headlines, just as it started to recover from its first-term involvement in such disastrous projects as the Millennium Dome and the rebuilding of Wembley. Insiders blame the Home Office, whose officials originally drafted the bill. The DCMS took over responsibility for licensing only after the 2001 election.

The minister, who is also in charge of the complex communications bill, is now staking everything on the introduction of statutory guidelines to govern the way local authorities issue licences.
After the bruising he has had in parliament over the past six weeks, Mr Howells is keen to settle. The Musicians' Union is also in the market for a rapprochement. "If I've got it wrong, I don't mind saying sorry," Mr Smith said.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 05:55 PM

Well, did this happen?

======

Culture minister backs down on unpopular licensing bill and agrees to work with Musicians' Union

Anne Perkins, political correspondent
Tuesday March 4, 2003
The Guardian


Culture minister Kim Howells

Kim Howells, the minister being dubbed "the greatest threat to live music since Oliver Cromwell", will today admit to critics of his controversial licensing bill that he has got it wrong.

Full link : http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,906903,00.html

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 03:06 PM

Err - that was Howells spinning again.

1. He still refuses to exempt unamplified music from the bill - but will exempt big screen TV, juke boxes and DJ's without dance floors.

2. He just wanted the MU to stop opposing the bill and to sign up to support it when it will impose regulation on one or two perfomers in 100,000 premises where music under the "2-in-a-bar" rule is exempt, merely because they could sit on a committee offering input (which HOwells did not have to accept) into the guidance to which (Clause 4(3)) local authorities must have regard. Check that. Not that they must obey, but to which they must have regard and from which (I add) they may depart unless they do so irrationally.

3. Howells 20 facts are almost all wrong. My Performer-Lawyer group has demolished them and published our reasons (unlike Howells who merely asserts he is right and the lawyers are wrong)

4. Happily the MU has refused to be Howells lapdog and is I think planning its own press release.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 04:01 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Yesterday's Guardian (04 March) carried a report headed 'Howells made to face the music', and a sub-heading 'Culture Minister backs down on unpopular licensing Bill and agrees to work with Musicians' Union'.

This was, unfortunately, premature. General Secretary John Smith met Kim Howells yesterday. The meeting was constructive, but the Minister made it clear that he would not accept changes to the Bill, including any unamplified exemption.

The Government strategy seems to be to make a public gesture of conciliation, but in fact we are being put under strong pressure to accept the blanket licensing regime and work with the Government purely on the Guidance to 'ensure that the leisure and entertainment industry take up the opportunities provided by the new licensing regime and increase opportunities for performers to perform'.

Indeed, the DCMS wanted the MU to issue a joint press release to that effect. We have proposed amendments to the joint statement reflecting our fundamental difficulty with the proposed regime. At the time of writing the DCMS has yet to respond. It is likely John Smith will issue his own press release.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:37 PM

I note that the Lords have just chucked out another daft part of the bill, the bit that would have allowed children under 14 in bars without even being in the charge of an adult. Here's a link to the story.

That will be a very tricky one for them to try to get reversed in the House of Commons.

This bit of legislation seems to be coming to pieces in their hands.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:56 AM

It does but this Government's majority in the Commons, means that they can and most probably will throw out all the Lord's amendments and pass the Bill as they wish.

The struggle for us is to demonstrate to our media and MPs, just how bad the Bill's words are and what it will mean for us, and the MP's political future, if the Bill is passed in this form.