Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 02:31 PM

The chap who has taken over Howells' title is Lord MacIntosh who handled business in the Lords before and also today. He will not be able to do it in the Commons but any damn fool could do that as one already has.

He stated that the amplified exemption was not required as the 'incidental live music' exemption they were so kindly leaving in for us, would deal with that.

Please circulate the following from Hamish Birchall.

At 1.35pm this afternoon Opposition Peers reinstated a small events entertainment licensing exemption for the performance of live music. The Division vote was 128 for, 113 against. This is a very encouraging victory. However, this doesn't guarantee that the exemption will be incorporated into the Licensing Act in its final form.

The Bill will return to the Commons next Tuesday, 24 June. If the Government remains determined to resist it may simply overturn the amendment again, and the Bill will 'ping-pong' back to the Lords. However, the Government may be persuaded to reach a compromise. That could depend to a great extent on how many Labour MPs make representations to the DCMS and the Government in support of a 'de minimis' exemption.

The amendment would allow the performance of live music without entertainment licensing, provided it finished by 11.30pm and no more than 200 people attend at any one time. The Government strongly resisted on health and safety and crime and disorder grounds. But Baroness Buscombe, leading for the Conservatives, set out in detail the existing legislative controls that apply irrespective of licensing, and Lib Dem Peers held their ground.

Anyone with a Labour MP - please write to them again. Identify your MP from either the Musicians' Union website www.musiciansunion.org.uk (click under Lobby your MP) or from www.faxyourmp.com, where you can also send a fax direct.

Here is a draft text:


Dear ........................ MP

Licensing Bill - live music - small events exemption

As a constituent and professional musician I ask that you make strong representations to Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), in support of the small events licensing exemption for the performance of live music reinstated by the House of Lords on Thursday 19 June 2003.

If the DCMS and the Government have concerns about any negative implications of the exemption I would ask that they seek to work constructively with the Opposition to improve it, rather than simply overturning the amendment.

The principle of the exemption is to encourage live performance in venues of all kinds, and to restore proportionality to the Bill. If any place can be fitted with big screens and a PA to provide broadcast entertainment, or a stage, lighting and PA for stand-up comedy, without licensing under this Bill, there is no justification in requiring the licensing of almost all public performance of live music. These apparently arbitrary exemptions are one reason why 12th Report of the Joint Committee of Human Rights, published on 13 June, has warned again that the Bill is potentially incompatible with the right to freedom of expression.

The Government has yet to take this fully into account, and in my view a small events exemption is the best way forward.

Yours sincerely

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 03:26 PM

So Lord Mac "stated that the amplified exemption was not required as the 'incidental live music' exemption they were so kindly leaving in for us, would deal with that". Did the buffoons actually accept that? Even though it would appear to have been a direct lie?

So far as I can see the incidental live music exemption makes no reference whatsoever to the amplification or non-amplification of the music being played.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 03:26 PM

The recent turmoil in government reschuffle has given us an opportunity...the Lords do not like the loss of their speaker, Lord Irvine via the lord Chancellorship and have said they may make life difficult for the government with its legislative programme!

DCMS gave in on another issue today - no youngesters in pubs unaccmpanied, despite being determined to hang on to this until recently.

Now that Howells has gone, the bull headedness may have also gone. If you have a labour MP make contact - by e-mail if possible. I have contacted John Whittingdale, Malcolm Moss (who is on the standing committee) and my local MP but all are tories.

See this from Hobgoblin. Copy it to your MP. On the new tonight was another article about the death of country villages. Don't let them add music to this.

4. Arts Council on Folk Festivals

The Arts Council have funded a project by the Association of Festival
Organisers which looked into the Impact of Folk Festivals on Cultural
Tourism. They have produced a report which shows that the folk festival
industry in Britain is much bigger than anyone thought and has a positive
impact on cultural tourism. Among their most interesting findings were:

76 % of festival goers are repeat attenders, with 44% of those attending
every year.

52% of folk festival attendees are women

6% of festival goers are new each year, and most of these come back for
more, so festival attendance is growing every year.

Overall the report shows that the folk industry is valuable to the
socio-economic and cultural life of our communities, and that it deserves
more positive attention from the government and media than it currently
gets.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 02:35 AM

From today's Daily Telegraph

Beware a House offended
(Filed: 20/06/2003)
By dismissing the Lord Chancellor in his high-handed way the Prime Minister has left the House of Lords looking and sounding like a nest of wasps into which some careless person has rudely thrust a stick. Much of the angry buzzing springs from what many peers view as rank discourtesy: a failure to consult them over major constitutional changes involving their own House.

It is a wholly valid complaint and one not met by the Prime Minister claiming, rather cynically, that he has granted the Lords a new freedom. Their presiding officer, he argues, is no longer to be a Lord Chancellor appointed by the Prime Minister. Henceforth they can choose any Speaker they please. That cuts no ice with the peers. Unlike the Commons, the Lords conducts its proceedings without direction from a Speaker's chair. That was the virtue of the Lord Chancellor. In wig and robes he looked a commanding figure, but he did not rule the Lords. They rule themselves and set great store by it.

A stronger underlying cause of anger is a feeling among peers that the Government has it in for them. It made that plain enough some while back by ejecting most of the hereditary peers. Indeed, as Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Labour leader of the Lords, makes clear to Rachel Sylvester, he would like to get rid of the lot. Yet even without most of the hereditary peers, the House of Lords has made itself fairly tiresome to the Government in recent months. With cross-bench support, it has amended and sent back to the Commons items of legislation of which it disapproved.

It has been seen on certain occasions as more representative of public feeling than an elected Commons tightly controlled by government whips. A Government accustomed to getting its own way has not taken kindly to this. It can, of course, offset in the Commons any change made in the Lords but this consumes parliamentary time, something of which a Government with a heavy legislative programme is always short.

In their present mood, the Lords might well decide to increase the Government's difficulties. We shall get some indication of this if and when the Government's mangled proposals for the future of foxhunting come before the Lords. In normal times, there is an understanding between government and Lords.

Both sides observe limits. By conduct that even the emollient Lord Williams has to admit was discourteous, the Prime Minister has put that understanding at risk. The breach that threatens might have serious constitutional consequences. It lies with the Prime Minister more than the peers to avoid it.


Lords' pub music reprieve
The Government suffered a defeat in the Lords when peers voted to exempt small venues such as pubs from requiring entertainment licences for live music.

The vote came during a debate on Commons amendments to the Licensing Bill which introduces a radical shake-up of the alcohol and entertainment licensing system and abolishes fixed drinking hours. The Opposition move was carried by 128 votes to 113, majority 15.
Small premises where live music is provided to an audience of fewer than 200 and where entertainment finishes before 11.30pm would not have to meet the licensing requirements under the latest peers' amendment.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 04:42 AM

http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,981303,00.html

Tenth defeat for 'draconian' licensing bill

Sarah Hall, political correspondent
Friday June 20, 2003
The Guardian

One of the government's flagship bills may never become law unless ministers back down after a vote in the House of Lords yesterday.

Opposition peers defeated the government for the 10th time over the controversial licensing bill, designed to liberalise drinking hours to create a more family-friendly drinking culture.

Since the bill began in the House of Lords, the government cannot impose the Parliament Act - a measure to override unruly peers and ensure a bill becomes law.

Instead, it looks set to become embroiled in an ungainly game of "ping-pong", with each chamber overturning the other's amendments. That "game" would - in practice - need to be over by the summer recess, in five weeks, to ensure the bill becomes law.

The risk of the bill being thrown out came as peers voted by 128 to 113 - a majority of 15 - to exempt small venues such as pubs from requiring entertainment licences for live music.

The Musicians' Union, which delivered a 110,000-signature petition to Downing Street this week, has been lobbying hard for the exemption, arguing that small venues will be deterred from holding gigs because of the additional "draconian" bureaucracy.

Peers sought to protect such venues by yesterday voting for the bill to exempt premises where live music is provided to an audience of less than 200 and where entertainment finishes before 11.30pm.

But the government insists that such an exemption is "seriously misguided" and risks public safety. Urging peers not to inflict a defeat, the culture minister Lord McIntosh told them their amendment "exposes the public and particularly children to great safety risks, leaves residents without a voice to protect against nuisance, and strips away the power of the police to control crime and disorder in vast swaths of venues, many of which may be totally unsuitable for the provision of entertainment."

But the Tory culture spokeswoman Lady Buscombe dismissed Lord McIntosh's arguments, saying safety aspects and noise control were already covered by existing legislation. "We have once again managed to defeat the government on this crucially important issue, which matters so much to the musicians and performers and whose contribution is so valuable to the social fabric of the country," she said.

For the Liberal Democrats, Lord Redesdale, a champion of folk music, said: "We're being robust about this because there are implications for human rights and for live music all over the country. It will be interesting to see what the government does with this in a situation of ping-pong. Will they give up now they have seen the degree of feeling?"

A spokesman for the Musicians' Union, Hamish Burchill, said: "Obviously we're very pleased about this but we know it's a long way from the end of the road." The bill will go back to the Commons next week and could be debated until the end of the year. That is unlikely since, if the bill does not go through by the end of July, it will need to incorporate a review of licensing in Wales. It would also not come into effect until after the next general election.

A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said: "We are considering our position."

· The government was yesterday accused of having performed a "belated and humiliating climbdown" after amending the finance bill to ensure bingo players are not liable to the same level of tax as the rest of gambling industry.
The u-turn on an announcement made by the chancellor in the 2002 Budget came after the Conservatives threatened a national campaign targeting Britain's 3 million bingo players - many in Labour constituencies.
Yesterday Stephen O'Brien, the shadow paymaster general, said: "Labour only agreed to the requests of the Bingo Association, bingo players and the Conservatives after we threatened a national campaign."

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 05:10 AM

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=103354&command=displayContent&sourceNode=103331&contentPK=6086232

Western Morning News - 20 June 2003
LORDS SCORE VICTORY IN NEW MUSIC LAWS
By Paul Andrews

The House of Lords remained defiant yesterday by voting to exempt small venues such as pubs from a new licensing regime. Peers answered the calls of a WMN campaign against the controversial Licensing Bill, which has been widely condemned by musicians, landlords and more than 11,000 readers.

Under the amendment, small premises where live music is played to an audience of less than 200 and finishes before 11.30pm would not have to meet the new licensing requirements.

Peers originally included the exemption when the Bill was first introduced in the House of Lords last year - directly against the Government's wishes.

The Government immediately sought to scrap the amendment, and when the Bill emerged from the Commons earlier this week, MPs had categorically rejected the idea.

But yesterday the Lords stood firm and reinstated their demands, casting the Bill into a difficult "ping pong" stage.

MP for North Devon and Lib-Dem spokesman for Culture Nick Harvey said: "The Government have now been defeated ten times on this Bill, and will probably be forced into a compromise.

"We don't know what form that will take yet, they may well just haggle numbers. But the Government must realise that venues causing no offence to anyone do not need to be dragged into a strict licensing regime."

Yesterday's Lords debate was won by 128 votes to 113.

Speaking afterwards, Tory peer Baroness Buscombe said: "Once again we have defeated the Government on this crucially important issue, which matters so much to the musicians and performers whose contribution is so valuable to the social fabric of the country."

The Licensing Bill, which could be law by 2004, would make virtually all kinds of live music illegal unless licensed.

The two-in-a-bar rule, which allows a landlord to have one or two musicians play in a pub without needing an entertainment licence, would also be abolished.

A landlord would be forced to apply to their local authority for a new premises licence to stage any musical performance. But because of the expensive conditions which may be insisted upon by police, fire and health and safety authorities, there are fears many pubs will simply abandon live music.

Westcountry-based musician Billy Bragg, who has spearheaded the WMN campaign, said: "The Lords seem to understand what the Government does not - the critical relationship between musicians and landlords.

"Pubs are often the first stage for a young performer and forcing each licensee to obtain permission to have live music would be devastating."

Yesterday's amendment differs slightly from the one rejected by the Commons earlier this week, in that it only applies to live music, as opposed to entertainment in general, and the audience limit is 200, not 250.

The proposed legislation now enters a critical time. It will be sent back to the Commons - as early as Tuesday - and another debate by MPs.

This process of being sent back and forth between the Houses is known as the "ping pong" stage. If that fails to produce an agreement, leading MPs and peers will be brought together for a Committee of Reasons to finally thrash out a compromise.

Hamish Burchill, a spokesman for the Musicians' Union, said: "We are now entering a negotiation phase. The Lords have stood by their promises and once again the focus shifts back to the Commons."

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 05:56 AM

The full Lords debate can now be seen on the following.

http://tinyurl.com/et2l

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 10:24 AM

To answer your question Kevin - it would appear to me that any unamplified music that is not incidental still requires a licence!

This would seem a little crazy as long as we have the exemption for any amplified music in the small events exemption. This point will have to be watched carefully if there is any danger of losing or amending the small events exemption in this 'horse-trading' period.

In truth the small events exemption does benefit more people in a practical sense, for there is very little live music that is totally non amplified. However the priciple is well worth fighting for as the non amplified music does not present the risks the Government say they are trying to combat, so this should not be subject to additional licensing.

This is what the Government has to say about unamplified music.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61.

The Government have considered very carefully the amendments made to the Bill in this House. Some of those defeats were overturned during Committee in another place; some of them we have compromised on, bringing forward significant concessions. Indeed, some we have accepted wholeheartedly, subject to necessary technical modification. The issue of incidental live music, which is the subject of these amendments, falls into the third category.

I hope that the House will allow me to make one matter clear. Regardless of all the myths and misinformation surrounding the Licensing Bill in relation to regulated entertainment, the Government are firmly committed, and have always been so, to improving the range and diversity of cultural provision available to the public, and preserving those important musical traditions that help define the character of the country. That is why the Bill was designed to make it much easier and cheaper for venues to get a licence to put on entertainment, and why it removes the perverse disincentive of the two-in-a-bar rule.

Having said that, we accept that there was more that could be done in the Bill to further that aim, which is why we have come forward with a range of concessions since the Bill was introduced. We have exempted places of public religious worship; we have amended the Bill to make it clear that entertainers who perform at unlicensed venues and do no more, will not be committing an offence. We have announced that we will exempt church halls, village halls and other community buildings from fees for entertainment.

We shall use the statutory guidance to ensure that only necessary and proportionate conditions are attached to licences.

As part of that package of concessions, we have accepted in entirety the broader of the two amendments made in this House, which would exempt incidental live music as well as incidental recorded music, subject to technical modification to ensure that the effect of the amendment is perfected.

Government Amendment No. 61 removes an anomaly that arose as a result of amendments made in this House. The spirit of the amendment to paragraph 7 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 was to exempt all incidental live music as well as incidental recorded music.

Paragraph 11 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 provides an exemption for unamplified incidental live music. As the Government have accepted the principle that all incidental live music should be exempt from the requirement to obtain a licence, whether amplified or not, that further exemption is unnecessary and has been removed from the Bill.

We have accepted the broader of the two amendments made in this House. The effect of the amendment that the Government overturned in the Commons is subsumed entirely within the one that we accepted. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 12:30 PM

For those who don't wish to wade through the whole Lord's debate - I have placed the most important bit on Graham Dixon's petition site.

http://pub22.bravenet.com/forum/fetch.php?id=10097438&usernum=1824620545

or

http://tinyurl.com/eu1t

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 01:53 PM

From John Whittingdale - Tory Culture Spokesman.

We had the debate on Report Stage in the Commons on Monday. The
Government have now backed down on several provisions including the
admittance of unaccompanied children. However, they stood firm in
throwing out the Lords amendment exempting small events (attended by
less than 250). The Lords then voted on Thursday to reinstate the small
events exemption. It comes back to the Commons on Tuesday. There is a
chance that the Government may give in; if they refuse then it goes back
up to the Lords. Whether we can win a third time is difficult to
predict.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 05:41 PM

http://www.thestage.co.uk/paper/0325/0101.shtml

The Stage
Howells – 'We got it wrong'
by Sally Bramley

Days before being promoted in the government reshuffle, former culture minister Kim Howells has admitted the government "got it wrong" over aspects of the proposed licensing bill and acknowledged the legislation would have to change if reform does not produce an increase in the number of live music venues.

In an exclusive interview, Howells told The Stage that the MU had conducted a "good campaign from their point of view". He said: "But they were wrong. It seemed to them doing away with the 'two in a bar' rule was okay but they thought that maybe they could get more."

However, he acknowledged the government had been wrong not to take account earlier of the effects of licensing reform on thousands of amateur venues and added that the professional sector must benefit from law change with an expansion in the number of performance outlets.

"If we don't see a proliferation of music venues as a result of this bill then we must change the law," stated Howells.

As parliamentary under-secretary of state with responsibility for tourism, film and broadcasting, Howells hit the headlines with his frequent outspoken comments. But, as a vociferous advocate for reform of the existing law he made enemies when he dubbed the MU's campaign against the bill "pernicious and lying".

Musicians' Union general secretary John Smith said of Howells' departure: "I'm not entirely unhappy to see him go but I will miss the war of words. He certainly raised the profile of the bill but he wasn't the easiest person to work with."

The smug arrogance of people who treat other people' business, passions and lives like it was just a game, when it suits their new political ambitions and becomes time to change their image, leaves a bad taste. Especially when it is not too late to work to correct the many things this Government have got wrong. Possibly Dr Howells did not expect the Bill to be defeated again in the Lords?

To even talk about the possibilty of introducing new legislation at this stage - when it has taken so long to even get to this stage and when amateur musicians were trying to inform them of these problems all through this long period, is callous and totally unforgivable.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 08:53 PM

"...there is very little live music that is totally non amplified."

I'd disagree. Most informal sessions I've been present at are totally non-amplified most of the time. The same goes for folk clubs.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jun 03 - 05:04 AM

I hope you will not disagree to the first part of the sentence which does put the bit you disagree with into its proper context?

In truth the small events exemption does benefit more people in a practical sense...........

We are talking about a rearguard action here, for we lost this fight the minute Howells and Co refused to listen to reason. It is not an ideal position we find ourselves in and it is only a question now of salvaging something of most use from the wreckage and running within the rules and best hopes of the Lords bargaining position.

Even if the Lords could win a vote on a non amplified exemption - where this exemption would save most sessions, any folk club with PA would fall foul, along with just about every other form of live music.

The other critism of course is that the small events exemption does not help traditional dancing, as it now only refers to live music. Again this is not an ideal position but under the current law there was a partial exemption for music, there was not one for dance.

It would also be difficult to argue a case for an exemption for traditional dance, that did not also exempt raves, strippers and lap-dancers. This would not be likely to be supported in a Lords vote, given the Government's hostile position to any move against the words of their Bill.

If you read the arguments in the Lords, you will see that the arguments in favour of the small events amendment as it is now worded, completely wrong-footed the Government, who true to form, relied of the same old scare-mongering.

Except perhaps for the one point abount premises closing at 11.30pm and re-opening at 11.31pm, so not requiring a licence whilst running right thorough until 11.30pm the next day!

The Government could easily close this rather unlikly loophole, as they could easily solve most of the other problems - if they had a will to. Unfortunatly they have up to now, decided not to do this but simply to vote any substantial Lords amendments out of the Bill completly.

Let us see if they have changed their approach when the Bill returns to the Commons this week.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 01:58 PM

URGENT

I have been sent the following (easier?) link for sending a FAX from the web.

http://www.urban75.com/Action/politicians.html

If you have not already done so (or even if you have) - will you please make the effort to contact your MP and ask them to vote to support the Lords small events exemption this coming Tuesday?

The E petition had 110,000 signatures - it would be nice to be able to send 110,000 FAXES.

Please circulate this to any one you think may be prepared to help.....Many thanks

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 03:06 PM

3 things are obviously needed. Two are not capable of rational opposition. One is more difficult.
A total exemption for unamplified music (leaving non-licensing controls in place), at least in licensed premises, is in my view essential.
Likewise an exemption for not more than 30 performers of dance who perform to unamplified live music is very desirable.
Some sort of "small scale" exemption is probably desirable but because the existing law of noise control is not properly enforced it is very difficult to draft something that does not cause problems. Perhaps places planning small scale performance should be able to notify the local authority and to hold the event as of right - unless they get caught breaking any other law such as (principally) noise law - since the LA has a statutory duty to monitor under the Environmental Protection Act.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 02:29 PM

I would bet that if the small events exemption gets through it will in practice be extended to cover a wider range of activities, such as Morris dancers.

It would also be difficult to argue a case for an exemption for traditional dance, that did not also exempt raves, strippers and lap-dancers. It wouldn't be a question of arguing a case, it'd be one of how the exemption was worded, and I think it'd be rather an easy matter to write one that covered traditional dancers but not strippers. If the effect was to encourage strippers and such to go in for garland dances and so forth, as a way of getting round the law, and using traditional musicians...

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 03:31 PM

What I mean is given the determined efforts of the Government to obstruct any sensible moves, rather than trying to find a way out - they would use this or any possible argument - no matter how well the exemption was worded.

I argee with you that with a will to do so - it would be a fairly easy process to solve all the problems. It is simply the will that is lacking or rather the Govenment's will is just to get this Bill through, at any cost.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 03:47 PM

Sham, you may be right, the gov't has avoided any rational discussion.

Magrath, I think that the stripper problem is a red herring: if you make the exemption for amateur dancers, dancing to unamplified music, Morris gets exempted but strip club not. Also surely strip clubs would need licensing as sex establishments under the Local Gov't Miscellaneous Provisions Act, don't they?

I am planning a broadside....

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 04:40 PM

Everything crossed for tomorrow then. The Government I know are desparate to get this bill through on time - there is a welter of things to happen in a short time over pub licensing. Lets hope if the government remains pig headed the Lords will be equally.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 08:17 PM

SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW LABOUR MPs HAVE BEEN MISLED AND HAVE MISLED THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

STANDING COMMITTEE D, 01 APRIL 2003

Dr Howells: "...I turn to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset. Incidentally, since we may consider some of the human rights issues later, the seventh report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomed the changes that have been made as a reaction to its concerns and to those that were raised by my hon. Friend in that Committee's fourth report. It has raised no further concerns in relation to article 10 on freedom of expression. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that."

He is wrong. The Seventh Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomed the Government amendment to Clause 134 (which now limits the potential criminal liability of musicians to those organising their own events), but added para 35 which can be seen below.

JCHR 7TH REPORT, MARCH 2003
34. While the licensing scheme under the Bill as amended would still interfere with rights under ECHR Article 10.1, we consider that the
Government is entitled to take the view that that the interference would be justifiable under Article 10.2. The licensing regime serves legitimate aims, namely the protection of public safety, the protection of the rights of others, and the prevention of crime and disorder.
It is legitimate to say that there is a pressing social need for regulation. The issue is one of proportionality. By avoiding the criminalisation of performers, the amendment to clause 134 seems to us to re-balance the rights and interests affected so as to prevent any interference with the performers' right to freedom of expression being disproportionate. We therefore welcome the amendment to clause 134.

35. As we noted in our Fourth Report, the Government intends that certain venues would be exempt from the licensing requirements, and some others would be exempt from the fees normally chargeable for entertainment licences.

While the proposals would make the licensing regime more responsive to the requirements of ECHR Article 10, exempting (for example) places of worship but not secular venues from the licensing regime might give rise to discrimination and threaten a violation of the right to be free from discrimination under ECHR Article 14 taken together with Article 9 (the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 10 (freedom of expression). We draw this risk to the attention of each House, and we might wish to report further on it when we have had an opportunity to consider carefully the terms of the Government's proposed amendments to the Bill.

JCHR 12TH REPORT, JUNE 2003
We take the view that there is a significant risk that the proposed system of exemptions from the licensing requirements and from the applicable fees as currently set out in the Licensing Bill might:

- give rise to an incompatibility with the right to be free of discrimination in respect of the enjoyment of the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief under ECHR Articles 9 and 14, in so far as the exemption is given to premises used principally for the purposes of religion, or occupied by people or organizations on account of their religious beliefs or practices, and is denied to premises used principally for secular purposes, or occupied by people or organizations without a religious affiliation; and - leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime for public entertainment, and so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10.2.

We draw these concerns to the attention of each House.


LETTER FROM DR HOWELLS TO JOHN BACON, President Morris Federation, May 2003

Dr Howells: "It was suggested that the exemption for incidental live music which the Bill now includes could apply to dance and theatre but an exemption cannot apply where these activities are put on specifically to entertain the public and are not therefore incidental. The live music exemption will work in situations such as a piano player in a corner of a restaurant playing background music, but if the public are attending with the intention of being entertained by musicians then the entertainment is not incidental."

The incidental live music exemption will NOT work in the case described as the piano is an entertainment facility. As such, if playable, the mere fact that it is there, will require the premises to hold an entertainment licence.

STANDING COMMITTEE D, 08 May 2003

Kim Howells: "I have had lengthy meetings with representatives of all the large morris, folk song and dance groups, including wassailers, storytellers and mummers. I took them through the Bill and they were much happier at the end of it than they were when we began. They were worried that they would suddenly have to apply for licences for performances that take place in public on the side of roads and so on. Such activities are not licensable. They will not be affected."

In the meeting between EFDSS and the three morris organisations, Kim Howells and his legal advisors said that folk dance in the open outside pubs is already licensable (which is itself not true) and that their only recourse is to work with the DCMS to ensure that local authorities license public spaces.

EFDSS was certainly not reassured by Dr Howells' meeting. For the record, EFDSS has had not even a formal acknowledgement of their report, Regulating the Folk Arts (submitted in February) by the DCMS, let alone an attempt to answer the questions it raised.

LORD McINTOSH, HOUSE OF LORDS, April 2003

The small events licensing exemption won on Tuesday 11 March in the Lords has provoked extreme comment from the Government. BBC News Online quotes Lord McIntosh: 'They have voted for eight-year-olds to watch the unexpurgated Texas Chainsaw Massacre.'
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2842595.stm)

In fact, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was broadcast on Channel 4, at 11.45pm, on 28 October 2000 and such a broadcast falls within the Government's own exemption for broadcast entertainment in the Licensing Bill.

Cinema operators are also worried about the Lords' small events exemption. They argue it could create an unfair commercial advantage, and a public safety risk. Interestingly, major cinema operators are in any case already exploring the possibilities of digital broadcasts. This would be not only film into their own cinemas, but also music and sport more widely via satellite or webcasts. It is possible that such transmissions could fall within the broadcast entertainment exemption in the Licensing Bill (which could be in 'any place', and imposes no limit on numbers attending or
amplification).

As far as safety is concerned (which in cinemas particularly relates to fire safety and means of escape) a radical new fire safety regime is due to become law in the Spring of 2004 (well within the Transition period for the Licensing Bill).
Called the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, it will replace the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.

This will create one simple regime that applies to all workplaces including pubs, theatres or cinemas. It is risk-assessment based, with responsibility for fire safety resting with the person responsible for the premises. It will apply to entertainment irrespective of any licensing requirement.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister oversees this reform. A consultation document is available online: www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/fire/consult/legislate/

The report states in relation to cinema: 'The safety provisions of the licensing arrangement for cinemas [meaning Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations 1955] include fire safety. To the extent that we wish to remove fire from licensing, the fire provisions of all cinema licensing could be removed.'

Indeed this is what will happen; the repeal of this legislation is acknowledged in the Licensing Bill's accompanying Guidance. Paragraph 8.25 states: 'The 2003 [Licensing] Act repealed the Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations 1955 which contained a significant number of regulations in respect of fire safety provision at cinemas.'

SPOKESWOMAN FOR DCMS, The Stage, 20 March 2003, p5

'[the exemption] would put children at risk and cause misery for local residents. It wholly ignores fire and safety and crime prevention. Just because there are fewer people doesn't mean there is less risk as there are fewer injuries and deaths.'

LETTER FROM DR HOWELLS TO RT HON CHRIS SMITH MP, 04 Sept 2002

"We recognise the importance of having a reliable definition of what constitutes a public performance and it is clear that if a musician or other performer is accepting money for a performance then it would be regarded as a public performance.

Similarly, it can be argued that any performance by unpaid performers, which was publicised with the expectation of bringing in extra customers and consequently extra revenue to the licensee would meet the definition of public performance.

If a member of the public engaged in a spontaneous rendition of a song on the piano, inviting a sing-a-long [sic], it would not be considered public entertainment.

I must reiterate, however, that even where a performance is regarded as public, the main current deterrent of an exorbitantly set licensing fee would no longer be available and there should therefore be greater freedom for all musicians and singers"

Of course the statement that a 'spontaneous' rendition of a song (even Happy Birthday) on a piano, would not be considered as public (or regulated) entertainment is totally wrong AND misleading.

A piano (that can be played) is an entertainment facility requiring advanced permission as part of a Premises Licence.

So despite this incorrect and misleading statement made to a fellow MP and former minister, under the Bill the traditional piano singalong is now not possible.

BBC RADIO 2.

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

Dr Howells: "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."

DAILY TELEGRAPH, 18 January 2003
From Battle over 'last orders' for music

"Musicians and publicans fear that the new Licensing Bill will impose a tax on music-making that many will be unable to pay". By Colin Randall

"Howells accepts that both the New Star singalongs, and the Dungworth carols, would be caught by the new legislation. As regular events, both sessions would have to be licensed."


STANDING COMMITTEE D, 01 April 2003

Jim Knight: I would not have become interested in the subject if it were not for Roger Gall, a constituent of mine, who lives on Portland, where there is a folk jamming session on a Friday night in a pub called the Cone House Inn.

It became known that the landlord was comfortable with people coming along on a Friday night and playing their music. These sessions were not advertised. Such an event, which is not advertised or actively encouraged, may be a passive part of the atmosphere of the pub, and it may begin to build up business and become a substantial attraction and profit maker for the publican. Would the Minister regard such an activity as one that should be regulated under the Bill?

Dr. Howells: It seems that that is largely a spontaneous activity, to which people turn up occasionally, and it seems also that the word has spread that people can hear some nice music. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, the licensee does not spend money on advertising. If it is clear that music is being played in the corner of the pub, that would be incidental in my book. I do not know whether that gives him any comfort.

MINISTER WRONG AGAIN ABOUT THE LICENSING BILL

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.

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 "the government did not accept that there was any type of music that was never noisy" were unjustifiable.

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.

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 "2-in-a-bar" exemption, and it costs them nothing. 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.

And there is no satisfactory protection from this - just promises of "guidance" with no clear mechanism for enforcement.

EFDSS Asked Dominic Tambling of the DCMS the following.

Q: I appreciate that you are busy. However, I must press for a hasty response particularly on the question of folk dance in the open on public land.

There is a crucial point here - namely that such activity is not currently licensable, yet will become so under the Licensing Bill. Folk Dance in public spaces can require the *permission* of the local authority in a large town or city, though I don't know of any instance where permission has been necessary on a village green. But this is not the same as requiring a entertainments or premises licence. I have been forwarded several DCMS responses to questions on this topic from folk arts representatives, and each response seems at best to completely duck the issue.

I note that Dr. Howells has said in Committee, "We should be slow to impose additional burdens without justification", yet no justification has yet been made for imposing additional burdens on folk dance.

We are running out of time to make this point heard in Committee, so I would appreciate an urgent response to these two direct questions:

a) Does the Government accept the point that to catch folk dance in the open on public land within the Licensing Bill is to extend licensing to an activity which does not currently require a licence?

b) How does the Government justify imposing additional licensing burdens in the case of folk dance in the open on public land?

Mr Tambling: "Folk dance in the open on public land is already licensable in Greater London and in the parts of the country where the local authority has adopted the appropriate parts of Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982."

He is correct on one point: the legislation in London is different, and technically public dancing in 'any place' is licensable in Greater London.

For Mr Tambling is completely wrong about the legislation on PUBLIC land outside of London. The adoptive part of this legislation to which he refers is paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. This applies to performances on PRIVATE land, not PUBLIC land.

If a local authority adopts this provision (and almost all have), a PEL is required for public performance on private land (i.e. pub car park or garden).

But PELs are not currently required for open air events on PUBLIC land outside London.

Q: In the following, the DCMS at least agree that the Bill is increasing regulation, do you still support your Government's claim that the Bill is not? For there can be no question that for music and dance the overall effect of this Bill is a dramatic increase in regulation.

Mr Tambling: "The Bill will introduce consistency throughout England and Wales and this means that in some areas activities which are not currently licensable will be caught."

Q: However the claim that the Bill introduces consistency is illogical and reckless: As performance of dance in any place of religious worship (which could be in the open) will be exempt. As will performances of dance at non-profit-making garden fetes and similar functions. This is hardly introducing consistency.

Mr Tambling: "The Government does not believe that there is any justification for treating public land in a different manner to other space since the issues of safety etc for performers and spectators are no different."

Q: If they are no different, then all dancing on public land can be treated consistently and follow the Government's logic on the church U turn and be made exempt in London, as they currently are all across the country. Not by using the reverse logic and doing the very opposite by making all dancing on public land licensable as it currently is in London.

Given the above and the stated objectives of this Bill, if the safety of performers and spectators cannot be regulated except by permissions under the Licensing Bill, then clearly there should be no exemptions at all (especially for churches).

Mr Tambling: "Ministers have always been clear that the Bill is deregulatory in some ways and regulatory in others but that the overall effect is deregulatory. What the Government wants to achieve is better regulation.

The Government will be encouraging local authorities to license public land so that folk groups would simply have to request permission to perform on it, as they often do at present. Local authorities would, however, be able to refuse permission to performers who might cause nuisance to local residents such as young people with sound systems if that was appropriate."

The DCMS say the Government is going to just ENCOURAGE local authorities to licence some public land. Can the Standing Committee establish how with the Bill as worded is it possible to require (or refuse) a further permission for premises that are already licensed for public music and dancing?

Can the standing Committee establish the evidence and justification for increasing the regulation and terminally damaging our precious cultural traditions in a completely reckless and illogical manner?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 10:24 AM

STOP PRESS

Consideration of Lords Amendments: 24th June 2003
Licensing Bill [Lords] continued

Commons amendment No 62

Secretary Tessa Jowell

*To move, That this house insists on its amendment No 62 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees to the Amendment (No 62A) proposed by the lords in lieu of that Amendment.

Secretary Tessa Jowell

To move, the following Amendment to the Bill in lieu of the Amendment (No 62A) proposed by the Lords:-

* Page 97, line 35 at end insert-'Special provision for pubs etc.
Dancing and live music in pubs etc.
(1) This section applies where-
      (a) a premise licence authorises-
          (i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premise,
and
          (ii) music entertainment, and
    (b) the premises-
          (i) are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises,
and
(ii) have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons.

(2) At any time when the premises-
    (a)are open for the purpose of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises,
    and
    (b) are being used for entertainment,
any condition of the premises licence which relates only to the music enetrtainment, and is imposed by virtue of section 19 (3)(b), 35(3)(b),52(3) or 166(5)(b), does not have effect unless it falls within subsection (3) or (4)

(3) A condition falls within this subsection if the premises licence specifies that the licensing authority which granted the licence considers the imposition of the condition necessary on one or both of the following grounds-
    (a) the prevention of crime and disorder,
    (b) public safety.

(4) A condition falls within this submission if, on a review of the premises licence-
    (a ) it is altered so as to include a statement that this section does not apply to it, or
    (b) it is added to the licence and includes such a statement.

(5) This section applies in relation to a club premises certificate as it applies in relation to a premises licence and, in the application of this section to such a certificate, the reference in subsection (2) to section 19(3)(b), 35(3)(b), 52(3) (b) is to be read as a reference to section 72(3)(b). 83(3)(b) or 86(3).








(6) In this section-
"music entertainment" means-

The provision of entertainment of a description falling within, or of a similar description to that falling            within, paragraph 2(1)(e) or (g) of Schedule1,or

The provision of entertainment facilities falling within, paragraph 3 of that Schedule,

In circumstances where the conditions in paragraph 1(2) and 3 of that Schedule are satisfied;

"permitted capacity", in relation to any premises means-

Where a fire certificate issued under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (c.40) is in force in respect of the premises and that certificate imposes a requirement under section 6(2)(d) of that Act, the limit on the number of persons who, in accordance with that requirement, may be on the premises at any one time, and

In any other case, the limit on the number of persons who may be on the premises at any one time in accordance with a recommendation made by, or on behalf of, the fire authority for the area in which the premises are situated (or, if the premises are situated in the area of more than one fire authority, those authorities); and

"supply of alcohol" means-

the sale by retail of alcohol, or

the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club"..

LICENSING BILL [LORDS] 9programme0 9No.3)

Secretary Tessa Jowell
Peter Hain

That the following provisions shall apply to the Licensing Bill[Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 24th March 2003 and 16th June 2003.

Consideration of Lords Message

1 proceeding on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, the Lords Amendment in lieu of Commons Amendment No 62, the Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments Nos. 6,15,16,20 and 21 and the Lords Amendment in lieu of words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No.50.

Subsequent stages

3. Any further message from the lords may be considered forthwith without any Questions put.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 12:55 PM

This is Richard Bridge's comments on the above. I hope he will not mind this posting but what he says is perfectly correct - if you have the entertainments bit on the licence - end of story. The government is either accidentally or deliberately missing the point - licensees will be reluctant to "tick" the music box in the first place!!

------------------------------------------------------------


I write on behalf of the performer-lawyer group. In view of the urgency I
am copying the other members at the same time and if any of them wish to
make comments independently they can of course do so.

I have considered the new draft "Dancing in live music and pubs" amendment
the government this morning proposes.

Frankly, it is irrational.

First, it can only apply if the pub already has a licence for music
entertainment (in the new meaning, which includes dance). The biggest
single point about the need for a de minimis exemption is to avoid having to
get such a licence. Having to get one and then disapplying certain
conditions in certain cases is no solution.

Second, the restrictions lifted might include those most likely to be
necessary, if any were necessary, namely those (if any) on noise levels and
amplification.

Third, if there is no "permitted capacity" (either under the
soon-to-be-repealed Fire Precautions Act, or otherwise) the provisions
cannot apply, no matter how small the premises (or, and the omission of this
is no doubt a mere drafting lacuna, the respective part ofthe premises).

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 04:50 PM

STOP PRESS

The Government's amendment was passed by by 268 to 159

The following from Hamish Birchall

In a short Commons debate this evening on the Licensing Bill the Government will overturn the small events exemption won last Thursday (19th June) in the Lords. The Government's position is no surprise. It means that Opposition peers will have another go at a small events exemption when the Bill returns to the Lords on Thursday 03 July (not this Thursday as originally proposed).

This gives a bit more time for Opposition peers to consider reinstating another small events exemption, working with the MU, Performer-Lawyer Group and others.

In place of the small events exemption, the Government is proposing an amendment (see below) that rejects any exemption but seeks to limit local authority conditions to those dealing with crime and disorder and public safety (i.e. not noise or protection of children from harm). It is irrational, convoluted, and in places impenetrable. Members of the Performer Lawyer Group have already dismissed it as 'barking'. Conservative and Liberal Democrats will vote against it, but the chances of any more than one or two Labour rebels are slim.

One reason for the Government's position was a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) sent to Secretary of State Tessa Jowell on 20 June urging Jowell to reverse the exemption. However, ACPO's focus was not pubs, but on events in premises where they have no powers of closure - in other words, places without a premises licence for alcohol. ACPO's letter included this comment: 'The differences [between heavy metal and string quartets] extend not only to the level of noise emanating from the venue (which could be a venue outdoors) but also to the type of clientele attending the event and which therefore may give rise to concerns regarding crime, disorder and nuisance and also issues surrounding the protection of children from harm'. Arguable perhaps, but just because heavy metal exists, why should that justify a blanket licensing requirement on string quartets and solo pianists?

It would have been a simple matter for the Government to address these concerns by restricting an exemption to premises that will already be licensed for alcohol or some other regulated entertainment. But, for the moment, the Government has rejected this notion. Odd that they have taken ACPO's hypothetical concerns so enthusiastically on board this time, when they have consistently ignored ACPO's recommendation that televised sporting events be licensable even though ACPO has plenty of evidence already that they are 'quite frequently a source of disorder'.

Once I have read the Hansard record tomorrow I will send a further update with recommendations for who to write to and a draft letter.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 04:22 PM

The full Commons debate on the Licensing Bill 24 June 2003 - can be read on the following site. The Government's arguments are enough to enrage anyone who cares about music - so please feel free to circulate these links widely, as we need all the help we can muster.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/cm030624/debtext/30624-41.htm

or

http://tinyurl.com/f9ei

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 08:52 PM

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): >snip<
What many people do not seem to realise is that the Licensing Bill is not an extension of the scope of entertainment licensing. Generally speaking, nothing that does not need a licence or other authorisation now will need one under the Bill. What the Bill does is make it much cheaper and easier to get a licence where one is needed.

Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Caborn: No. I am just laying out the case. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
>snip<

Mr. Heath: What did my hon. Friend make of the Minister's bold assertion at the beginning of his speech that nothing would need a licence that did not need one before? Is it not transparently obvious that two people singing in a bar did not need a licence before and now they will?

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point on which I wished to finish. The Minister's assertion that nothing will require a licence under the Bill that did not require one previously is self-evidently nonsense. A host of things will require licensing that did not before, not least the sort of events that the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) mentioned.

There was a useful de minimis exemption in previous legislation. I understand why in this day and age it is necessary to find something better and less arbitrary than the two-in-a-bar rule. The Government will have to spend the next few days scratching around to find such a de minimis exemption or we will get into an extended stand-off with the other place.

Peter Bottomley : To be fair to the Minister, he said that not many things would be caught by licensing that were not caught before. The Official Report will show whether or not I am right, but it is not my job to support the Minister.

Grrr

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jun 03 - 02:32 PM

Mr. Caborn: >snip<

The Bill is a combination of safety law and licensing that keeps people safe at entertainment venues of any size. Taking away licensing would undermine fundamentally the ability to protect the public. So Parliament traditionally has taken the view that it is necessary for professionals such as health and safety officers and fire officers to advise licensing authorities on the adequacy of the arrangements in place at any venue.

Again this style of argument intentionally highlights the confusion brought about by combining alcohol and entertainment in one licence, as if the risks presentent were the same. To introduce new legislation by referring to the view that Parliament has traditionally taken - is sad. For new legislation gives Parliament the opportunity to see if the view requires updating or if the measures are still required.

It is like your child telling you that they cannot ride their bike without the stabilizing wheels on - and the moment when you point out that in fact the wheels have not been touching the ground for the last mile.   

Lords amendment No. 62A would totally undermine the ability of the experts to assess public safety across a huge swathe of entertainment venues. For example, Westminster city council has written to the Department to point out that 62 per cent. of its entertainment venues would escape any kind of scrutiny at all under amendment No. 62A. In our view, that is completely unacceptable. It would take public safety out of the hands of the experts and putting it in those of amateurs.

Again not subjecting all venues to blanket entertainment does not mean that the premises escape any kind of scrutiny at all or are unsafe without the out-dated concept of blanket entertainment licensing.

Westminster city council in their letter seem to have over-looked the fact and made no comment at all that this Bill has already exempted any form of entertainment from this scutiny! That which takes place in all of its places of public worship (churches). What makes this acceptable to them and to the Government, if it is unacceptable to them to exempt small events from the same requirement?

A good question for your MP?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 03 - 03:53 PM

A good question, if they were the least interested. We've won all the arguments, but that doesn't help much.

However if the Lords stay onside there's a good prospect of coming away with something. This isn't the only bit of legislation in trouble for the same kind of reasons. Here's a piece in today's Guardian about the others - Logjam in Lords leads to timetabling problems "Lord Grocott, the Blairite chief whip in the Lords, is expected to admit the government's difficulties today after delays to reforms of criminal justice, extradition, mass media ownership and even the fluoridation of water."

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Jun 03 - 05:22 PM

The following from Hamish Bichall

During heated debate in the House of Commons debate last Tuesday (24 June 2003), Richard Caborn, the Minister replacing Kim Howells, predicted doom and disaster if the small events exemption were not overturned.

However, although they lost the vote, opposition MPs rejected the Government's arguments and warned that the issue would be taken up again by the Lords next Thursday, 3 July 2003.

The Government is now under considerable pressure to find a workable compromise, otherwise the Bill will 'ping pong' again, further delaying Royal Assent. The MU, Equity, EFDSS, the Arts Council, and the music industry have re-emphasised to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, their commitment to a small events exemption. The MU will be involved in further negotiations with DCMS next week.

A full transcript of the debate is available from Hansard:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/cm030624/debtext/30624-42.htm#30624-42_head0

or

http://tinyurl.com/f9ei

Selected quotes:

Mr Caborn said that the exemption '.... would take public safety out of the hands of the experts and putting it in those of amateurs.'

He later added '... I urge this House to throw out Lords amendment No. 62A, which we believe to be dangerous and defective. Otherwise, the House will have to be held to account if there is a serious accident at a venue exempted from the proposed regulations, and if a death occurs as a result.'

This should greatly concern anyone planning to attend a music concert, or indeed any 'regulated entertainment', in a church. Presumably the House is already prepared to be held to account for any serious accident or death due to the complete exemption for places of public religious worship, garden fetes and similar functions (provided they are not-for-profit), comedy clubs, and tens of thousands of bars providing big screen entertainment.

David Heath (Lib Dem) was first to draw attention to the exemption for big screen broadcasts: 'I have just been mulling over what the Minister said about the fire risk incurred when music is being played. Would the risk be any less if the same people were watching a widescreen television, or simply drinking on the premises?'

A point later taken up by Malcolm Moss (Cons): 'The Minister puts great stress on public safety and of course we share his concern that nothing must be done that would endanger the public. However, will he explain the point already raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Heath)? Why do the same considerations not apply in the case of a pub where 200 people may be watching a World Cup final on a large screen? Surely the same public safety issues would arise, yet they are not covered by the Bill.'

Mr Caborn replied simply: 'We do not take that judgment...' and went on to discuss the Government's substitute amendment which retained the licensing requirement, but disapplied conditions relating to noise or the protection of children from harm. He also discussed the recent letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers which paradoxically focussed not on pubs, but on premises that would not hold a licence for alcohol.

Mr Moss identified other entertainment licensing exemptions that undermine the Government's claims that only through entertainment licensing can public safety and the protection of children from harm be assured: 'A pub landlord could throw a party in his garden with fire eaters, knife throwers, a bouncy castle, cables trailing to an air compressor, and a powerful CD player and that would be exempt from entertainment licensing under the Bill. However, adding a featured, unamplified performance by a solo guitarist would be a criminal offence unless licensed.'

He added in relation to ACPO: '... Why, in ACPO's recent letter, does it not remind the Government of its written representations to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, warning that televised sporting events were quite frequently a source of disorder and should, in its view, be made licensable entertainments? Why has no notice of that been taken either in the letter from the police or by the Minister from Dispatch Box this evening?'

Nick Harvey (Lib Dem, Shadow Culture Minister) said: '... I listened the Minister's predictions of doom, disaster and calamities for public safety if we do not have entertainment licensing for all events, however modest their scale. I cast my mind north of the border to Scotland where there is no public entertainment licensing, yet I see no signs of the death, disease and pestilence that the Minister anticipates if we do not operate the regime in England. The Government have raised a completely false spectre.'

He should have said 'no public entertainment licensing for live music that is secondary to the main business of bars, pubs etc during permitted hours'. In other circumstances, public entertainment licensing is required in Scotland.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jun 03 - 07:30 PM

I would like to point out that unlike some some whip tarts the excellent Robert Marshall-Andrews QC (Medway) abstained as a matter of conscience.

If all Labour politicians had a conscience like this it might still be a party worth voting for.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Jun 03 - 05:30 AM

Mr Caborn said that the exemption '.... would take public safety out of the hands of the experts and putting it in those of amateurs.'

In the case of the London places of worship that the Bill has exempted from the hands of the 'professionals' - where the good Lord is in charge of public safety - does Mr Caborn then consider God to be an amateur?

My MP - [Labour Majority 26] - who was on the Standing Committee of the Licensing Bill - but so far had voted for the Government on every division - was in Germany on the 24 June!

I was not present on Tuesday because I was in Germany all day as part of a Defence Select Committee visit. Sadly this prevented me taking part in the final moment for the licensing bill which has occupied so much of my time.

Had he been there I suspect he would have voted the Lords small events amendment out and for the new Government amendment - again to Party instructions.

He eventually did comment on the Governments new amendment and I responded as follows -

>snip< Safe capacity limits on all venues would have required all venues to check customers in and out, using door staff as in nightclubs. This was an unrealistic burden on the industry.

Dear Mr Knight

Can you establish from Mr Caborn the answers to the following?

Will he confirm that currently ALL premises with PELs have to have a maximum safe capacity limit imposed - and as most of these premises manage to do this perfectly well without bouncers- where is the unrealistic burden currently presented to the industry?

In most premises with safe capacity limits and PELs - these limits can be maintained currently without bouncers - where is it written that all venues under the Bill with Premises Licenses and imposed safe capacity limits will have to employ bouncers?

Does the Bill require all Premises Licence holders to automatically have an imposed safe capacity limit ?

Does the Bill require all Premises Licence holders applying for entertainment permission to automatically have an imposed safe capacity limit - as is current practice?

Why is currently imposing a safe capacity limit on all PELs, not an unrealistic burden on the industry?   

Why would imposing a safe capacity limit on all premises under the Bill be an unrealistic burden on the industry?

Can this new and presumed unrealistic burden on the industry be quantified?

Given the objectives of this Bill - should this new presumed burden on the industry be considered to be more important than ensuring that the public are not placed at risk of overcrowding, by placing a safe capacity limit on premises?

Given the objectives of the Bill - are the public being placed at risk by not insisting that all premises have an imposed safe capacity limit to ensure that premise are not overcrowded?

ends

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Jun 03 - 05:44 AM

Jim Knight MP
My view on the latest amendment is that it is a genuine attempt to alleviate the fears that licensees will not want to include entertainment for fear of costly mitigation measures such as sound proofing. It would then be easier for them to include entertainment in their operating schedule, at no extra cost, and thus resolve the problem.

What a mess! I am amazed if you seriously saying, given all the scare stories from the Government and local authorities about needing additional licensing to deal with noise - that measures like the sound proofing of premises cannot be a condition of entertainment permissions.

If this is the case - I am even more amazed that the Commons have voted for it. I am not really surprised as the level of understanding of this Bill in Commons, seems to be very low and Labour MPs do as they are told.

But if in producing this amendment - the Government and the Commons has really accepted that (all) noise cannot be dealt with by blanket entertainment licensing, as the Lords largely have - why oh why can they not give us measures that really reflect this view?

But the amendment does not say such conditions can't be insisted on before permission is given. It just says when they are applied by a local authority, for pubs only with a premises licence and a safe capacity - conditions other than those based on the Bill's two objectives of crime and disorder and public safety - will have no effect.... It will be a little late by then.

As the pub will have already had to satisfy all four of the Bill's Licensing objectives in order to obtain a premises licence - there really is no concession. If there are noise concerns or objections - TO THE PREMISES LICENCE APPLICATION the premises will simply not get permission even if sound proofing would solve the problem. Possibly given this amendment - even if they offer to provide sound proofing!

If in fact the amendment was saying what you say it was - and Frank Dobson was questioning this point in the debate, and did not think much of it, if it did - the Commons or the Government did not seem too sure, but they voted for it anyway.

Does it mean that conditions based on all four of the Bill's objectives and measure like sound proofing can then be placed on pubs with a premises licence and a safe capacity of more than 200 (or indeed having imposed no safe capacity at all)? Is this not even more inconsistency?

If all this were so - it will not be much of a concession for say a cafe (or even a village hall) not serving alcohol. They would still have to apply for the premises licence - just to be able to provide entertainment alone and this amendment would not apply to them even if they had a safe capacity of less than 200, unless they did also provide alcohol.

So the local authority could insist on soundproofing, or even say, a condition that pictures on the wall had to be removed, on the grounds of protecting children from harm....

All this is a very good reason why this Bill should not be rushed - as it is being rushed.

Roger

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jun 03 - 05:59 AM

Please see also-

PELs - Protest invitation 81-20 July

You will also get to see for free - Billy Bragg - Eric Bogle - Nick Harper and many other fine performers + the opportunities to sing, play and dance yourself at a fine family event in a delightful village in the very heart of the fine Dorset countryside.

*[No one is paying me to hype this up honest]...It really is that good and up to now the best kept hidden event of the summer.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 29 Jun 03 - 06:40 AM

I had the misfortune to be compelled by family to attend a craft fair the other day at a stately home. Tedious I know but in the middle was an area cordoned off for a "band stand" and watching an excellent miners welfare band playing Glen Miller stuff were about 50 people, mostly eldererly, all respectable etc.

I thought about post licensing act provisions? Do the organisors need to give notice and pay £20 for an "occasional event" licence - probably- although it was free. Unless it was "incidental to" the main event, which was not licensable unless you need a licence to sell tea trays with padded backing to rest on your knee.

And would the local authority send in a team of inspectors? There were no obvious fire escapes apart from hundreds of acres of grass all round, but most of the audience were too old to beat a rapid retreat if a trombone caught fire.

And what about trouble. There was certainly some toe tapping that could have lead on to spontaneous waltzing on the grass, which could have lead to anything.

Seemed to me that the whole thing could have caused uproar and riot. The nearest police station was probably 10 miles away if there had been trouble.

On the other hand if this needs a licence but no one bothered I would have doubted if there would have been much action as a result. Then suddenly I saw someone I know. He is the Chief Executive of a local authority. Was he there as a spy checking out for noise disturbance or trouble? He was eating an ice cream and carrying a bag of hand made dried flowers but that could have been a front for someting far more sinister.

I used to be keaner on labour but I now gather they want to ban herbal medicines and supplements, and are continusing apace to regulate every aspect of life, whilst taking us to war on the back of someones A level Georgraphy paper so I have gone right off them.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 29 Jun 03 - 07:53 AM

Also now see Times Today - colour magazine - on reform of the Licensing Rules - Band on the Run

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jun 03 - 04:28 PM

Link to the [long] Sunday Times article that Eric refers to.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-719062,00.html

June 29, 2003

Band on the run: Is live music really dead? We share a Transit with tomorrow's stars

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 02:05 AM

It is (unattributably) rumoured that the govt may be about to concede a pretty sweeping unamplified exemption.

That would (if it pans out) leave us still needing a suitable Morris dance exemption, and a "small premises" partial exemption (to permit proportionate but not disproportionate control of amplification etc).

It would also be nice to have a mumming and other traditions exemption but I can't see how to draft one.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 02:43 AM

This is, at last, a flicker of light at the nd of a long tunnel. Lets hope Howells can't blow it out from the Ministry of Transport - he may claim to be in charge of tunnels.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 05:36 AM

To continue the metaphors.

It should be recognised that any 11th hour move should be viewed by us as shipwrecked sailors - who may have looked forward to finding a lush desert island, but after 6 months of difting without hope would warmly welcome even the barest rock.

I am also put in mind that this last minute rushed process was most probably also the birth of the original 'two-in-a-bar' rule.......

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 05:53 AM

I have now seen the latest government draft. I have prepared a redline showing it as an amendment to their previous (useless) 62B. It is below - but the redline did not come out even in blackline!.

It is still utterly useless in that it only applies if the premises licence already permits music entertainment (ie music and/or dancing in the new terms). The point the government refuses to take is that if the premises are already licensed for ANYTHING unamplified music adds no significant noise safety or disorder risks. Therefore the existing preemptive and reactive powers under other acts, and the existing powers in relation to the "anything" licence suffice for unamplified music and any further restrictions (such as are now proposed) are disproportionate and contrary to the ECHR.

It is also foolish in that it does not cover restaurants. It still does not recognise the current review of fire safety. It does not deal with the use of part only of larger premises. It only permits if the premises licence sets a capacity limit, so even the smallest events in large places will not benefit.

It is inadequate in that it does not provide for any form of traditional dance (most easily described as dance to unamplified music). It does not deal with the relay with amplification of music that is performed without amplification. It does not permit any small amplifiers (such as can readily be safety tested by so called "PAT" testing) which are necessary even for the most wel-mannered jazz guitarists - as could be dealt with by a mere notice requirement if amplification were to be used.

Curiously it does not regulate the use of additional lighting, or temporary staging, or obstruction of fire extinguishers, which used to be the goverments greatest express safety concerns. Is this an admission that the previous government remarks in those directions were ill-considered?

In summary it appears to be intended to be inadequate and less than useful, and a manifestation of the "NIH" (not invented here) syndrome.

Yours, etc


Latest version ( made up in composite)

62B        Page 97, line 35, at end insert—
        "Special provision for pubs etc.
               Live music in pubs etc.
            (1)    This section applies where—
                  (a)          a premises licence authorises—
                          (i)                the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and
                          (ii)                music entertainment, and
                  (b)          the premises—
                          (i)                are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for
        consumption on the premises, and
                          (ii)                have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons.
            (2)    At any time between the hours of 8 am and midnight when the premises—
                  (a)          are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for
        consumption on the premises, and
                  (b)          are being used for music entertainment, but not for the provision of any other form of regulated entertainment
                    any condition of the premises licence which relates only to the music
        entertainment, and is imposed by virtue of section 19(3)(b), 35(3)(b), 52(3)
        or 166(5)(b), does not have effect unless it falls within subsection (4).
        
        
        
        
        


            ( 4 )

            (4)    A condition falls within this subsection if, on a review of the premises
        licence,—
                  (a)          it is altered so as to include a statement that this section does not
        apply to it, or
                  (b)          it is added to the licence and includes such a statement.
            (5)    This section applies in relation to a club premises certificate as it applies in
        relation to a premises licence and, in the application of this section to such
        a certificate, the reference in subsection (2) to section 19(3)(b), 35(3)(b), 52(3)
        or 166(5)(b) is to be read as a reference to section 72(3)(b), 83(3)(b) or 86(3).
            (6)    In this section—
                           "music entertainment" means—
                          (a)                the provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of unamplified music
        
        
                          (b)                the provision of
        
        
        facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment within paragraph (a)
                           "permitted capacity", in relation to any premises, means—
                          (a)                where a fire certificate issued under the Fire Precautions Act
        1971 (c. 40) is in force in respect of the premises and that
        certificate imposes a requirement under section 6(2)(d) of
        that Act, the limit on the number of persons who, in
        accordance with that requirement, may be on the premises
        at any one time, and
                          (b)                in any other case, the limit on the number of persons who
        may be on the premises at any one time in accordance with
        a recommendation made by, or on behalf of, the fire
        authority for the area in which the premises are situated (or,
        if the premises are situated in the area of more than one fire
        authority, those authorities); and
                           "supply of alcohol" means—
                          (a)                the sale by retail of alcohol, or
                          (b)                the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the
        order of, a member of the club."

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 06:21 AM

The lush desert island was just a mirage then?

My fear is that the Lords will accept it.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 07:03 AM

It rubbish but is at least a start.

For although only applying as a condition they have accepted things that they have argued against.

The time limit i.e. 8am to 12 midnight - the concept of unamplified music - and a demimimus.

As this only apples where a a Premises Licence, entertainment permission and a safe capacity limit is in place - there are no details on how/when/where this safe capacity limit can be imposed and where it cannot.

It is only the Government's determination not to impose a safe capacity on ALL premises that prevent the whole issue being easily resolved by this simple act - as a measure to prevent overcrowding which must be consistent with public safety and rather difficult to argue against.

If all premises had a safe limit imposed - any legal activity could take place as long as this limit was not exceeded, without any need for additional entertainment permission or conditions.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 11:04 AM

We are still pressing on many fronts. DCMS even thanked me for a set of drafts I submitted (maybe they were short of loo paper). I think the Lords are digging in quite hard.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 11:44 AM

Remember there is a Conservative majority in the Lords. There will be those who genuinely support our right to make music without a licence. There will also be those who want to reject the government's position just because the government is having problems at the moment and 'the more the merrier.' That may be the worst possible reason for them to reject the Government's proposal, but at the moment I don't really care: anything to make the Commons see sense will do as far as I am concerned.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 10:03 PM

Leading the presentation will be folk club organiser Graham Dixon, who created the online petition, adapting the text of Shadow Culture Secretary John Whittingdale's Early Day Motion 331*. Mr Whittingdale and other MPs and Peers will also attend. The presentation is being organised by the Musicians' Union, who will be joined by the English Folk Dance and Song Society, and the Association of British Jazz Musicians, in the presentation group

www.lencom.com

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: GUEST,The Admiral
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 02:56 AM

What presentation is that then?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 03:53 AM

That link didn't seem to get anywhere relevant.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Barden of England
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 05:36 AM

It probably refers to the Petition that was handed in to No. 10 the other week. A tad late really.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 08:18 AM

If you're a drummer, that's a back beat, or swing.

Incidentally I just sent this to my allocated 6 Lords

Fax From Performer Lawyer Group
care of: - MacDonald Bridge, Solicitors
Forge House, High Street, Lower Stoke, Nr. Rochester, Kent ME3 9RD
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: McLaw @btinternet.com


If this fax is not clear or complete, please telephone.


TO:                                        FAX NO:        020 7219 5979
FROM:        RICHARD McD. BRIDGE                DATE:                3rd July 2003
NUMBER OF PAGES (INC.)        2.

Dear         Licensing Bill - URGENT

I write as briefly as possible.

It is imperative for the survival of folk music, folk dance, and small-scale musical events generally, that the government amended or original versions of Commons amendment 62B are rejected. These drafts require premises to have a licence for entertainment before they can benefit from the relaxation of restrictions imposed by the licence. But in most cases, the conditions will have required capital expenditure – double glazing, new lavatories, "crush bars", air conditioning, all to the standards required for full scale events. Therefore the preponderance of places that at present host small music either as private clubs in separate rooms (several hundred in England and Wales) or in reliance (erroneous or otherwise) on the existing law (many thousands), or in on the basis of Brearley –v-Morley (1899) (singing for one's own enjoyment not public performance), or tacitly, or that host (usually traditional) dance in the open air outside London, will not bother to "tick the box" and will be lost as performance venues. Temporary event notices are no substitute for they are number limited and subject to a fee that will (even though not huge) greatly inhibit amateur performance. This would be a disaster for the cultural heritage and cultural bedrock of England and Wales.

What is needed are: -

1)        An very sweeping exemption for unamplified music - the rare cases of massed trombones or groups of Japanese drummers are so rare that they can be left to the imperfectly enforced existing law of noise nuisance. If premises enjoy any licence under the Act they must be safe as such. Music without amplification (perhaps also if it is without extra lighting or staging, which in my experience are very rare for unamplified music) does not add significantly to any risks to any of the licensing objectives. The lack of amplification creates a self-policing number limit for without amplification a signer cannot be heard over a large crowd. It follows that subjecting unamplified music to a licensing regime, even disapplying some conditions, is disproportionate.

2)        An exemption for dance to unamplified music. Usually this will be Morris or other folk dance and the position is so similar that it hardly needs separate consideration.

3)        A genuinely light-touch regime for small events. In many cases these will need some controls, but of course the existence of a licence to sell alcohol or for some other thing under the Act will cover the basics. The differences lie in the amplification. Therefore there are three obvious possibilities. First, if events using amplification had to give advance notice, the relevant authorities would be alerted to the possible need to use their existing pre-emptive or reactive powers under various Acts including the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Environmental Protection Act – I can provide extracts if needed. If the notice specified a little guitar amplifier in a jazz band, they could decide not to bother. Second it would be possible to say that small events could not use amplifiers unless the local authority had prescribed a scheme for the use of noise meters. Third one could say that they could use amplifiers, but would have to comply with a noise meter scheme if introduced. It would even be possible to limit the number of performers using amplification, but some method of controlling the likely noise is essential. Otherwise, even thought the JCHR has not yet taken the point, the creation of a scheme that permits amplified music in the knowledge that the existing law on noise is not adequately enforced would face a problem under Article 8 ECHR. Conversely, pre-licensing of all music that uses amplification, even if the use is minor would be an unjustified interference. The issue in both cases is proportionality.



I should make the point that all of these things have been suggested to the government already – including by myself, so an assertion that they are new issues would not be credible. I have even submitted drafts of language, which are available if wished to be seen.

Finally I should say that any purported government reliance on the ACPO letter of the 20th June 2003 would be hard to defend at this stage. First, it is notable that the government dismissed earlier ACPO representations about the (self-evident) risks to the licensing objectives posed by big-screen TV. Now it seeks to hide behind ACPO, in relation to events that in general give rise to far lesser (if any) risks to the licensing objectives. Second, if notification or noise metering is adopted for small events, the types of events that ACPO were worried about ("Heavy metal") may be monitored in advance or will become impractical. Third the draft amendment ACPO were addressing has already been superseded (most notably by the removal of dance as exempted matter), and ther criticisms would not be relevant (even if they were originally) to an amendment of the type discussed above.

Therefore it would be justified and meritorious to return this issue to the Commons in the hope that sanity may eventually prevail under the press of business, since the Parliament Acts give no relevant coercive power

Yours



Richard McD. Bridge.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: GUEST,ET
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 09:15 AM

From Hamish - Urgent

The Lib Dem/Conservative coalition in the Lords is under pressure. Within the last 24 hours the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Local Government Association (LGA) have written to all Peers warning against the exemption. This development, combined with limited and somewhat irrational concessions by the Government for unamplified performance (licensable, but not subject to conditions initially) might persuade Liberal Democrats to accept the Government position and not to vote with the Conservatives tomorrow. The Conservatives will stick to the small events exemption, but unless they have the support of Liberal Democrats, or Cross Benchers, they cannot win a vote.

Lobby Liberal Democrats and Cross Benchers now!

Remember, with faxes you are restricted to ONE fax to SIX peers (names below) on this number (the Peers Lobby): 020 7219 5979.

Email Lord Redesdale, leading for the Lib Dems in the Lords: [e-mail], cc to Nick Harvey MP, leading on the Licensing Bill in the Commons: [e-mail] .

Draft text (your own words are best):

Dear.....

Licensing Bill - House of Lords - Thursday 03 July 2003
Live music - small events exemption

I ask that if possible you attend this debate and strongly urge you not to accept the Government's amendments that overturn the small events exemption for live music. It cannot be right in principle that live music, even unamplified, should require licensing when the provision of big screen broadcast entertainment, or jukeboxes, can be exempt no matter how powerfully amplified.

It must be possible for the Government to devise a regime where live music, alongside other entertainments, is regulated proportionately and consistently according to risk. Arbitrary discrimination through licensing which favours recorded music is bound to restrict opportunities for live performance, particularly in smaller venues.

The police have the power to close noisy licensed premises immediately, and local authorities will have that power when the Anti-social Behaviour Bill becomes law. Local authorities already have the power to seize noisy equipment immediately, or to serve anticipatory noise abatement notices. Local authorities are also responsible for enforcing Noise at Work Regulations, which can bear down significantly on noise breakout from within premises. The Government's exemptions for places of public religious worship show that, as far as safety is concerned, it is possible to regulate performance without licensing.

Yours etc.

~ ~ ~

Liberal Democrat Peers (incl. some email addresses):

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 06:38 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Government has defeated the small events exemption proposed by Opposition Peers.

The Lib Dem/Conservative alliance crumbled in the House of Lords this afternoon. The Government won by 145 votes to 75. The reason for the turnaround was that during behind the scenes horse trading late last night, the Government offered an outright exemption to morris dancing, and a marginal concession for unamplified live music.

This appeared to satisfy the Lib Dems who decided to vote with the Government. The letters to all Peers from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government Association opposing the exemption were also influential.

There were powerful speeches in support of the exemption from Baroness Buscombe, who led for the Conservatives, and Lord Colwyn. Significantly, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the guru of human rights law, also spoke out strongly against the Government position. He warned that it was, in his view, disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention.

He contrasted the level of licensing control with the exemption for big screen entertainment (as did Lord Colwyn, and Baroness Buscombe). He speculated whether Lord McIntosh, the Government spokesman, would in a court of law still say that the Government's position was proportionate.

Lord McIntosh did not answer that point, but said the Government had made a commitment to review the new Licensing Act 6-12 months after the Transition Period - which means in about 2 years' time. He also announced that a 'live music forum' would be set up by the DCMS to encourage maximum take-up of live music under the new rules.

As a formality, the Commons will ratify the Government amendments (probably next Tuesday 08 July) and the Bill should receive Royal Assent by 17 July.

So what will the Bill mean for live music?
It is anyone's guess whether it really will lead to a significant increase in employment opportunities for MU members, and/or new venues allowing amateur performance. A positive outcome will depend to a great extent on the proactive efforts of musicians, performers unions, and the music industry, to make the best of the new law.

What has been achieved?
When the Bill was published it proposed a blanket licensing requirement for almost all public performance and much private performance. All performers were potentially liable to criminal prosecution unless taking all reasonable precautions to ensure venues were licensed for their performance.

Lobbying has led to:

A complete exemption from any licensing requirement for regulated entertainment provided in a public place of religious worship.

A similar exemption for garden fetes and similar functions, provided they are not for private gain.

An exemption from licence fees for village halls and community premises, schools and sixth form colleges.

An exemption for the performance of live music (amplified or unamplified) anywhere, if it is 'incidental' to other activities such as eating and drinking (but not dancing, or another licensable entertainment).

An exemption from licence conditions (but NOT the licence itself) for unamplified live music in places such as bars, pubs, clubs, restaurants (i.e. where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises) between 8am and midnight (subject to review, if, for example, this gives rise to problems for local residents).

A limitation on licence conditions for amplified music in pubs, bars etc (subject to the same review procedure above), restricting those conditions to public safety, crime and disorder only.

A complete exemption for morris dancing and similar, and any unamplified live music that is 'integral' to the performance.

An exemption from possible criminal prosecution for ordinary performers playing in unlicensed premises or at unlicensed events. Now only those responsible for organising such a performance are liable, this includes a bandleader or possibly a member of a band who brings an instrument for another player to use. There remains a 'due diligence' defence, however (taking all reasonable precautions first etc).

A clarification that at private events, where musicians are directly engaged by those putting on the event, this no longer triggers licensing (however there remains an ambiguity that if entertainment agents are engaged to provide the band, this does fall within the licensing regime).


In spite of all this, the Bill does mean 'none in a bar' is the starting point of the new licensing regime. Any public performance of live music provided to attract custom or make a profit, amplified or not, whether by one musician or more, is illegal unless licensed (other than in public places of religious worship or garden fetes etc).

In the opinion of leading human rights lawyers, like Lord Lester, this remains a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression - whatever the Government may say about how easy or cheap it is to get the licence. The point being that there is and never has been evidence of a problem sufficient to justify such interference. Why add new rules where there are enough already?

The Bill for the first time extends entertainment licensing across all private members clubs, and registered members clubs. It also captures private events, such as charity concerts, if they seek to make a profit - even for a good cause.

The Bill creates a new category of offence for the provision of unlicensed 'entertainment facilities', which would include musical instruments provided to members of the public for the purpose of entertaining themselves, let alone an audience.

However, the 'incidental' exemption could prove to be quite powerful, but that will depend to a great extent on how local authorities choose to interpret the provision. The Guidance that will accompany the Bill may become particularly important on that point, and others.

This is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the Bill's provisions for live music, but should serve as a summary.

My sincere thanks to all who have kept pace with these developments and lobbied their MPs, Peers and the press.

My thanks to Hamish.