Press Release from the Performer " Lawyer Group.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we have a rational minister " please?