Howells (now) asks for help PELs

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 04:59 PM

I think it means that the guidance will have to be laid before and approved, or at least not voted against, by Parliament (like the Highway Code, and the Code of Practice on Street Works).

Kitty

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 04:53 PM

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.

Isn't this strange concept of 'statutory guidance' what we would refer to then as the law? What is the difference??

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 04:41 PM

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.   But yes, we need to make sure they get the statutory requirements right in the primary legislation.

I've seen the draft guidance circular on the DCMS website (104 pages) and they haven't got round to drafting the guidance on Schedule 1 (regulated entertainment) yet.

Kitty

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 04:24 PM

As has been said all along, its what's in the bill that matters, not what's in the guidance, because experience says that will be largely ignored. So to that extent it doesn't really matter in the end whether the guidance is written by DCMS or the MU.

I'm all for the MU, EFDSS etc being involved in the guidance, but not in a way that implies reducing the effort in getting the bill improved, or can be interpreted as those bodies 'approving' the end result.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 03:53 PM

Wel, the grammar is a bit approximate if that's what you mean. But that's pretty traditional too.

I've read the press release now, and there's not much in it to comfort us - even if it's incoporated one way or another in the Act or in binding guidance.

For example when it talks about carol singers in pubs it says they'll not be licensable if they turn up unannounced. Which means that the sort of village carols that take place up in the Sheffield area will need need a licence. And of course thebpeople who organise it will be legally liable if the pubs don'tvhave tyeblicence.

Moreover that indicates that the meaning they give to "spontaneous", if they do use the word in the guidelines, is likely to be restrictive, more or less meaning "doing it on the spur of the moment" or casually, rather than "doing it off your own bat", and not because you are being engaged to do it by the landlord or proprietor.

Notbthta itb would be satisfactory even with a definition that permitted sessions, and allowed us to bring them to people's attention.

As Ian C pointed out, even if we got back what we've got now, we'd still be in a rotten situation. This PEL campaign started up with people hoping for reforms that would make things far better than they are now, and it would still be so easy for that to be achiueved, with a few amendments to the exemptions section. Whatever happens there has to be a continuing drive to get those kind of reforms.

In particular I want changes that would make it possible to have folk venues in a coffee house setting. I like pubs, but I don't like a situation where the only places you can play are in pubs.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 03:11 PM

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

The above link to the Performer-Lawyer Group letter referred to By Richard.

Kevin I thought the last verse has a certain 'rap' feel to it.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 03:05 PM

Lies don't matter any more than promises (well, they're the same thing). All that matters what ends up in black and white in the Act, I'd think.

Any advice on what "statutory guidance" means in this context? Does it actually determine how the law will be interpreted in court?

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 02:33 PM

Please go check the perfomer lawyer group letter.

Lots of what Kimmie says is the same tired lies.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 01:46 PM

Here's a song I wrote last week, and posted in another thread - but it's grown another verse since then. The last verse looks forwards to his retreating, getting dumped, or going off his head, in any order:

          C       G       F          C                      F                  G
We'll never find a better friend than the Minister of Culture.
                   C         G          F             C                F                           G   C
They may say we sent him round the bend, from Westmoreland to Wiltshire,
       F                                 C                   F                         G
But every time we sing a song, and the licence is not handy,
               F          G   (F)   C G C                  F                  G   C
We will think of Kim the Minister, from the land of Tonypandy.
         F                            G   C            F                      C G
Oh Kim we will remember you, who ever could forget you.
                     F            G         C G    C       F                     G C
You're the man who tried to silence us, except, we never let you.

Well he promised this and he promised that, but he never could deliver,
"If there's no money changing hands it's different altogether
Oh you can hold your sessions there's no reason for a licence."
Just a fine of twenty thousand pound to calm us into silence?
Oh Kim we will remember you, who ever could forget you.
You're the man who tried to silence us, except, we never let you.

When it's summer down in Somerset you might hear the chorus ringing,
He says "I'd rather be in hell than hear those Somerset folks a-singing"
And he won't have no sing-songs in the public bar in London,
So the piano locked and bolted, with a lock that can't be undone.
Oh Kim we will remember you, who ever could forget you.
You're the man who tried to silence us, except, we never let you.

Oh the bells were ringing in the church, and the dancers on the paving,
And the Minister of Culture he was very close to raving.
Oh he blamed it on the Union, for grave misinformation,
But the Minister of Culture now is a joke through all the nation.
Oh Kim we will remember you, who ever could forget you.
You're the man who tried to silence us, except, we never let you.

February 14th 2003

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:33 PM

Room for guarded optimism - or possibly modified pessimism. I haven't had time to work through this - but at a glance this jumped out at me:

"Amending the Bill to make it clear that entertainers who perform at unlicensed venues will not be committing an offence, unless they have a role in organising or managing the entertainment themselves" - which would imply that if people organise a session by ringing round or sticking it on their website, they are liable.

Not that that part of the Bill is too much of a worry - so far as playing in pubs or coffee houses or whatever, what matters is whether the landlord or whoever is in charge is liable for prosecution, because if he or she is, we won't be able to play anyway.

I get the impression Kim lad is making it all needlessly complicated. And of course this is the kind of input that should have been invited before the Bill was even published. (And the fact that it is needed is a measure of how badly it was drafted, and what libellous tosh Howells was talking when he bleated about the Musicians' Union "misinformation".

"Government plans to set up a working group of key players from the music world, local authorities and the industry" - so who is going to be on that, and will there be anyone who understands how our kind of music works? They should have Hamish, but I have a feeling Kim would blow his top at the suggestion. Or Martin Carthy - or Norma Waterson might be even better.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:32 PM

When David Heath asked in the Commons for guidance to be issued to local authorities under the current legislation, none appeared.

Now we have new legislation (the words), we have guidance coming out of our ears, all trying to convince us that the words of the new legislation don't really mean what they do.

Session are still at threat and you can be locked-up for organising one in an unlicensed pub. That looks as if it will be just about every small pub in the land, where you may wish to hold one.

They still keep banging away with the word 'spontaneous', even though it does not appear in the Bill and no one knows what it means. It means what a local authority wants it to mean.

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Mr Happy
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM

thanks,

'roll on the day'

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: IanC
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 11:58 AM

No, we haven't won.

If you read it, it's the same old stuff rolled out again.

So ... keep on supporting the Lords amendment which takes nearly everything out of the licensing regime ... keep on with the petition. etc. etc.

Even if we got all of the rights back we had before, there are still plenty of injustices and sillinesses left to campaign against.

Why stop even if we get a few changes made?

Let's keep the momentum going and put an end to all these stupidities.

:-)

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 11:54 AM

Only if they include all these exemptions in the actual wording of the bill - remember Sam Goldwyn's famous statement "A verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on".

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Pied Piper
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 11:54 AM

Not yet Mr Happy. We should not release our grip round Howells throat until the act is passed and the way it's operated is apparent.
Judge him by what does not what he says.
pp

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: Mr Happy
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 11:45 AM

does this mean we've won?

Subject: RE: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 11:36 AM

The 23 February (draft) guidance referred to can be found here

http://www.culture.gov.uk/new_responsibilities/guidance_section177_licensing.pdf

Subject: Howells (now) asks for help PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 11:34 AM

20/03 18 February 2003

"WE CAN WORK IT OUT" - KIM HOWELLS INVITES
MUSICIANS TO WORK WITH GOVERNMENT ON
DELIVERY OF THE LICENSING BILL

Licensing Minister Kim Howells today launched a package of
measures to allay fears about the Licensing Bill's impact on live music.

The three strands of the package are:

An invite to the music world, along with local authorities and
industry, to inform the drawing up of statutory guidance for licensing authorities that will ensure venues can put on live music more easily, while protecting the rights of local residents.

Amending the Bill to make it clear that entertainers who perform
at unlicensed venues will not be committing an offence, unless they have a role in organising or managing the entertainment themselves.

Issuing a leaflet entitled "The answer to 20 myths about public
entertainment and the Licensing Bill" that sets the record straight on some of the most pervasive myths being circulated about the Bill.

The first strand of the package follows concerns expressed by
musicians that licensees will be discouraged from putting on entertainment by a fear that licensing authorities will impose unnecessary and costly conditions to their licences, such as
requesting expensive adjustments to venues.

The guidance will clarify what appropriate conditions are. The
Government plans to set up a working group of key players from the music world, local authorities and the industry to inform it in deciding how to take the work forward.

The group aims to report back in April, but in the meantime the
issue will be discussed with representatives of the music industry at a summit on February 26 and at a face-to-face meeting between Kim Howells and John F Smith, the General Secretary of the Musicians' Union, on March 4.

Kim Howells said:

"Our principle is clear ? we want to spread live music. The
Licensing Bill will do that.

"I want to ensure the Bill is enforced with a heavy dose of
commonsense on the ground. I hope the music world, local authorities and the industry will take the opportunity to help shape the guidance and make sure this happens."

The amendment of the Bill, which forms the second strand of the
package will ensure that, for example, a band booked for a concert will not be committing an offence if they all they do is play in an unlicensed venue.

Kelly Wiffen, Research and Parliamentary Officer at Equity, said:

"Equity is delighted that the Government has listened to our
concerns and amended the Licensing Bill to exclude performers from clause 134. This change means that performers can make full use of the new employment opportunities we hope the Bill will deliver."

This amendment will also make it even clearer that very many of
the myths that have been circulated about the Bill are completely without basis. This message will further be backed up by the leaflet, which clarifies the position on many false scenarios.

Kim Howells said:

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

"The truth is this Bill will make it more affordable for venues to
put on live performance in the vast majority of cases. This will in turn increase opportunities for musicians and other artists to perform.

"Musicians have nothing to fear from this Bill, but much to gain
from it."

In addition to protecting the performance rights of artists, the
Licensing Bill will also help to protect their intellectual property rights - by including copyright offences. The unauthorised broadcasting of film, music or television could lead to
the removal or suspension of a licence. Equally, those who have
committed such offences may not be granted a personal licence.

Notes to Editors

1. In conjunction with the changes noted above, the Government
is also tabling other amendments to the Licensing Bill, which deal with:

á Government's concerns about copyright infringement and music
and video piracy in licensed premises.

á Broadening the range of offences to ensure police can properly
check offenders applying for personal licences.

á Making planning authorities responsible authorities where they
have an interest in a licence application.

á Ensuring that regulations are in place to govern the
administrative processes which will follow the Bill's implementation.

á Provide Parliament with an opportunity to debate the Secretary
of State's Guidance made under the Bill when it is issued or supplemented.

2. Under the original draft of the Bill it would have been an
offence for a musician to play at an unlicensed venue, although they could have claimed a defence of "due diligence" if, for example, they had sought to check the premises had a licence in advance.

3. The publication of the first draft of the statutory guidance to
licensing authorities was announced in press release 19/03, published on February 13 2003. The Government will use the guidance to draw very clear distinctions about what might and might not constitute appropriate conditions to apply to licences that authorise
live music. Licensing authorities will be required to have regard to
the guidance. This means that, although they are able to depart from the guidance, for example to take account of particular circumstances, they cannot disregard it and they will have to demonstrate good reasons for departing from it.

4. The answers to twenty myths about public entertainment and
the Licensing Bill

á Existing public safety and noise legislation does NOT cover all
of the issues dealt with by licensing law.

Music in pubs will not be harmed by the Bill

á It will NOT cost anything extra for a pub to apply to provide
entertainment as well when applying for permission to sell alcohol.

á Local authorities will NOT be able to impose unreasonable
conditions on licences.

Individual performers will not be disadvantaged by the Bill

á Performers will NOT need to be individually licensed.

á Performers will NOT now be liable to a fine or to imprisonment
just for playing or singing.

A licence will not be needed every time someone plays a musical
instrument

á Rehearsing or practising will NOT be licensable.

á Music tuition will NOT be licensable.

á Busking will NOT be licensable.

á Testing a musical instrument in a shop will NOT be licensable.

Community venues will not be disadvantaged by the Bill

á Village, church and parish halls, and other community buildings
will NOT need to pay for licences to provide entertainment.

á Any entertainment provided in a church will NOT be licensable.

á Church bell ringing will NOT be licensable.

Spontaneous performance will NOT be licensable so:

á Spontaneously singing "Happy Birthday" will NOT be illegal.

á Spontaneous pub singalongs will NOT be licensable.

á Carol singers, going from door to door, or turning up
unannounced in a pub and singing, will NOT be licensable.

á A postman whistling on his round will NOT be licensable.

Private events where invited guests are not charged will NOT
usually be licensable
so:

á A school nativity play, which took place before a non-paying
private audience of parents will NOT be licensable.

á A licence will generally NOT be required for performances
taking place at a private party where the host organises the music and does not charge their guests.

á A licence will NOT be required for a band playing in a marquee
at a wedding reception in someone's garden.

á A performance in an old people's home, hospice or hospital
before a non-paying private audience of staff and patients will NOT
require a licence.