Here's my take on the DCMS document. We may also need to provide some case studies and query how these would be dealt with.
Regulation of Entertainment Under the Licensing Bill
(a response)
2.4 "All performances will be licensable if the public are admitted"
This is an enormous increase in regulation, and is the essence of what people are protesting about. In pubs, it is clearly far more restrictive than the old "two in a bar rule". Outside of pubs it regulates a whole swathe of things, from Morris Dancing to Carol Singing, which have never been previously regulated.
It is, perhaps, worth remembering that the "two in a bar" exemption was introduced because previous bad regulation in pubs meant that the law as it stood was untenable. This bill is simply going back to that state of affairs, and it's almost inevitable that a similar exemption will eventually be needed.
Impromptu perfomances are quite clearly caught by this, and there is nowhere in the bill, at present, where these are exempted.
2.6 The second condition ...
Perhaps I'm being completely thick, but what does his actually mean? If entertainment is provided in a premises, surely the premises are being made available for the purpose. Is it trying to suggest that this must be the prime purpose? If so, perhaps the Plain English people should get involved.
2.7 The Description of Entertainment ...
Here, I may just be misreading it but does the "where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience ..." bit refer to the whole list or just the last item?
2.8 An antique piano in a pub that was only provided for decorative effect would not give rise to the need for a license. And a license would not be required if the pub operator did not allow the public to play it. A license would only be required if it was used to entertain people at the premises or by people on the premises to entertain themselves.
Again this is a new restriction. There is an age-old tradition of a single pianist leading a sing-song (often a customer) or being hired to provide entertainment in pubs. Even if they were otherwise not licensable, impromptu performances on a piano would be licensable, according to this, because the piano is itself licensable.
3.4 We are abolishing the two in a bar rule ...
3.5 Secondly, the rule is anachronistic ...
These paragraphs define the essentially restrictive nature of the bill as regards entertainment in pubs. This is not a deregulatory bill as far as entertainment is concerned. Quite the contrary.
(as 2.4 above) It is, perhaps, worth remembering that the "two in a bar" exemption was introduced because previous bad regulation in pubs meant that the law as it stood was untenable. This bill is simply going back to that state of affairs, and it's almost inevitable that a similar exemption will eventually be needed.
3.6 What we are putting in place ...
Since the great majority of opportunities for music making (both numerically and in terms of variety) are presently free, this is simply not true.
11.1 The Government requires certain types of entertainment ...
Since item 2.4 has already stated that "All performances will be licensable if the public are admitted", it is clear that what we are talking about here is essentially all forms of entertainment. The approach is a scattergun one, with one or two exemption (e.g. for a performance which is part of a religious sevice).
12 Folk music and traditional activities such as ...
12.1 There is no reason why ...
Many of these traditional acivities have been carried out in ignorance of an existing rule which can be interpreted as making them illegal. The bill interprets them so that they will be clearly illegal under the same circumstances. If they are not affected, it will be because people will continue to carry them out but, now clealy in breach of the law.
As it states that a venue is any place, the bill will now require entertainment outside to be licensed. This was not a requirement previously. It is actually difficlut to see how people dancing outside can actually obtain a license, so that it will not be possible to carry out these acivities legally.
12.2 In addition, spontaneous singing and dancing would not be caught.
As the bill is currently worded, this is simply untrue.
14.1 Carol singers ...
As the bill is currently worded, this is simply untrue.
15.1 Church bell ringing would not be licensable.
This may be true of service ringing and practises but, as the bill is currently worded, this is untrue of all church bell ringing. Peals, quarter peals and other miscellaneous performances are, in fact, recorded by the ringing fraternity as perfomances and have, in general, no relationship to a religious service. They are quite clearly musical and have a public audience (it would be difficult to se how members of the public could fail to be an audience), so they would be licensable within the act as it is now written.
16 Spontaneous singing.
16.1 Section 2 above ...
Section 2.4 above states "All performances will be licensable if the public are admitted". In circumstance where members of the public are admitted, therefore, spontaneous singing would be licensable according to the bill as at present written.