The following is from Hamish Birchall

The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section on the DCMS alcohol and entertainment licensing website contains the usual misleading guff and omit key facts:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/alcohol_and_entertainment/QuickLinks/f_a_q/default.htm?properties=%2C%2C%2C&print=

See Q&A reproduced below, plus my comment in bold:

DCMS Q: How do you define public entertainment?
DCMS A: In broad terms, public entertainment is music or dancing, or entertainment of a like kind, which is presented publicly for commercial purposes or for gain.

Comment: Seriously economical with the truth. Under the new and the old law, in broad terms, if licensable entertainment is public it is irrelevant whether it is amateur or for 'commercial purposes' - providing it is a criminal offence, unless first licensed. Maximum penalty for illegal entertainment: a £20,000 fine and six months in jail.

Under the new law, 'regulated entertainment' covers not just music or dancing. It incorporates separate existing licensing regimes for the performance of a play, an exhibition of a film, an indoor sporting event, a boxing or wrestling entertainment. If provided for the public, or in private (for commercial or charity fund-raising purposes), all will be illegal unless licensed as entertainments, irrespective of whether alcohol is sold.

Some of the definitions provided in the Act are very broad. The performance of a play, for example, captures Punch and Judy. Indoor sporting events covers darts contests. For the first time the provision of 'entertainment facilities' becomes a criminal offence unless licensed - even if the facilities are not in use. Providing a piano in a bar for customers becomes an offence in itself, unless licensed.

There are exemptions. These are, broadly: anything broadcast; Morris dancing and dancing of a similar nature and any unamplified live music that is integral to the dancing performance; 'incidental' live and recorded music - but this exemption is disapplied if the venue provides an instrument or any 'entertainment facility' for the performance; any entertainment at a public place of religious worship is exempt; garden fetes and similar functions not for private gain are exempt (but if they seek to raise money for charity they are caught); any entertainment on a moving vehicle is exempt; military bases and royal palaces are exempt.

DCMS Q: How will the Government's proposed licensing reforms affect public entertainment?
DCMS A: Under the new licensing regime, the concept of a public entertainment licence would completely disappear. Permission to sell alcohol, provide public entertainment, stage a play, show a film or provide late night refreshment (between 11.00pm and 5.00am) would be integrated into a single licence - the "premises licence". This would integrate six existing licensing regimes into one, cutting at a stroke significant amounts of red tape.

Accordingly, under the proposals, any public house would need to obtain permission to sell alcohol for consumption on those premises and would be free to apply simultaneously for permission to put on music or dancing or similar entertainment whenever desired. The fee for such a premises licence would be no different whether the pub simply seeks permission to sell alcohol or if it decides to go for multiple permissions. Any variation in fees, which will be set centrally to avoid inconsistencies, is likely to relate to the capacity of the venue so that smaller venues pay less than small ones.

The Government does not intend to require the licensing of any type of entertainment not already covered by the existing public entertainment licensing laws.

Comment: Tosh. Firstly, the concept of public entertainment licensing won't disappear - the name is simply being changed to 'premises licence', or 'temporary event notice'.

Secondly, giving six different licensing regimes the same name still means that six different activities remain illegal unless licensed as 'regulated entertainment'.

Thirdly, it is unlikely that red tape will be cut. It will increase, at least in the short term, for all those alcohol-licensed premises that will need to obtain permission to host even one or two live musicians (if they want to be bothered). 95% of these venues don't hold public entertainment licences now, and they have been free to apply for one since the year dot. The centrally-set, lower licence fees of the new regime may help (when it comes into force in 2005). Thirdly, the 'two for the price of one' licence offer only applies during the six month Transition Period. After that, if live music is desired, licensees must apply to 'vary' their licence, for which a fee (£100-500?) will be payable.

Variation is no light touch. It is essentially the same process as a full-on application. Applying for permission means paying to advertise the application to the public, and possible costs of a public hearing (if there are objections).

Fourthy, there is no guarantee that permission will be granted, and for most premises there will be cost implications arising from licence conditions. Challenging disproportionate conditions means an expensive appeal through the courts. None of this palaver will apply to big screen broadcast entertainment, or the pub jukebox.

The Act gives bars playing recorded music an easy ride through the licence conversion, even if they are known to cause disturbance to local residents. If bars want to feature even solo unamplified musicians, however, they must run the gauntlet of entertainment licensing even if there have been no complaints in the past. The actual entertainment permission process is little changed under the new regime.

The last sentence is code for: 'The Government will not inconvenience its good friend Rupert Murdoch and the pub trade by requiring the licensing of televised sporting events, in spite of the fact that the police asked for this because this entertainment is quite frequently a source of disorder.'