My only consolation in typing out yet more rubbish from Dr Howells (apart from the good contributions from Billy Bragg and Eliza) is that you - and those I hope you will circulate it to, will be made as angry reading it as was I writing it all out and that some good will come out of it.

BBC Radio 2 Mike Harding Show - 8th April 2003

Billy Bragg

BB: The most obvious way is that all performance will have to be licensed from now on. Today, you or I as a performer or anybody really as a performer can walk into any pub anywhere in the country and ask the landlord if they could sing. Either there or then or a quiet night next week, if he or she were sympathetic, they could make their mind up there and then..

MH: This is for no money at all?

BB: No money, you know just how all of us started out, a quiet night for a beer or something like that, to help to bring some punters into the pub. It would be up to the landlord and his discretion, providing that there were no more than two people performing. So for a solo performer, like myself, it would be fine.

Under the new licensing law, if it becomes law – the landlord would have to have a licence, So they would already have a licence or they would have to go and apply for a licence. Licence applications are complex things, they involve a lot of health and safety and also asking the neighbours, which I think is a good thing, fair enough, I have no problem with that. But it just makes it less likely that a landlord will give you a sympathetic nod. That's the thing that concerns me. I don't see how it can be more simple, than me going up to the landlord and he is going- OK son, come back next Tuesday, play in the corner there , with your guitar and we will take it from there.

Once this legislation comes in then landlords are going to have to make a decision when they apply for their licence, whether or not they want entertainment in the pub. If they leave it to later it is a whole rigmarole to go through. At the moment any pub can say - give you a green light and I can't see how when the new legislation comes in, it is going to be simpler than that. Some publicans will decide they do not want to have a performance licence, it will be out of the loop, it won't be down to there discretion or it will be down to the legislation. That is what concerns me.

MH: Have we any idea yet, how much this is going to cost?

BB: Yeah, it will depend on the size of the pub, £100 - £500 to get the licence and thereafter there will be annual inspections which will also cost money.

MH: What would you do say you were given 'carte blanche', say you were in Government now – what would you do?

BB: Very simple, I would bring in the regime they have in Scotland. No licence is needed provided the performance is secondary to the business. Which basically means that if you are running a 'boozer', someone playing in a corner – you don't need a licence for that, providing it ends at 11.30 in the evening. That encourages people to come in and play.

We are in a difficult situation, were I live in West Dorset we have a lot of rural pubs, where in summer it is not too much of a problem as a lot of people come down as we live in a very beautiful part of the country. In winter it is difficult to get people to come into the pubs so landlords are looking for ways, some do restaurants, some do quiz nights but having a few musicians coming in for a session in the corner, that's viable way of bringing people into the pub, by putting at the centre of the community and I think this is going to be less likely under this legislation.


Eliza Carthy

I represent a minority interest music and culture that is linked to the musical traditions and calendar ceremonies of England. Recent interest in the old Public Entertainment Licensing Bill caused the closure of many long-standing sessions, folk clubs and open 'mic' evenings. The local councils decided to err on the side of regulation and shut down mainly acoustic and informal evenings, depriving many areas of enjoyable small-scale live music events and frustrating and scattering local musicians.

It's no exaggeration to say that what the Government decides will effect the way tens of thousands of people watch and participate in the arts and the folk music of this country. I am sure you can appreciate the level of love-labour that goes into these kinds of things, it can take years to develop a regular crowd and atmosphere. Many landlords find that excessive levels of regulation, a deterrent to allowing people to play.

The musical community that I represent is fragile and marginalised in the media and in terms of funding, as it is. Advertised folk clubs maybe – they may charge a small fee on the door but I have never seen one run for profit. And I do not see them presenting a danger or an inconvenience to local residents or anyone.

Regular events, such as the Sheffield pubs carol singing tradition, which has been alive since the days of the old church bans, and the Whitsun and May Days celebrations deserve all of the support that the Government can give them. Not lumping them in with amplified rock nights whilst ignoring loud TV pubs. It simply does not provide these essential pastimes with a level playing field – and worse – in effect this picks off the weak, leaving commercial concerns unmolested.

In the lasts two years, sessions and folk clubs have been raided by plain-clothes police officers and closed with the threat of prosecution from their local councils. This is our precedent – this is what we are worried about. Issuing guidelines is NOT enough because the wording of the Bill is very clear. They will close us down.

MH: >Snip< How can you see sessions best protected under the terms of the Bill?

Dr Kim Howells: Thanks for giving me the opportunity Mike, because I must have signed a thousand letters I would think, mainly coming in from MPs but from very very worried people out there, that they're going to see their venues disappear and it is something I feel very strongly about, because I want them to thrive and proliferate not disappear.

Now the Bill as it stands- what we want to do in it is this. We say look when a licensee, and remember its not only pubs its all sorts of things restaurants, cinemas anywhere that sells alcohol, right. When somebody applies for a Premises Licence – that is a licence to sell alcohol, they won't any longer go along to the magistrates court, they will go along to the Licensing Committee of the local authority, they are going to be the new alcohol licensing authority. And they will go along there and say I would like a licence to sell alcohol, at such and such a building, and I also want to put on some entertainment.

At the moment, if you do that, and you have to pay a very large amount of money very often, in order to be allowed an entertainment. Now we are doing away with that. By ticking a box, or writing a few lines out on a bit of paper, you would say, I would like to have entertainment and this is roughly what I want to put on.

And it can vary of course between the situation as it is at the moment where you are allowed two musicians but not more. Or you might say I want a silver band to play in there, the local authority as the licensing authority, unless they have got some very serious objection, must grant you the right to do that. They cannot charge you a penny more than it costs for the licence to sell alcohol. So we are doing away with that separate entertainment licence, and what I think what that does it make it much easier for venues to stage music. It makes it much cheaper and puts everybody on the same even keel and it does away with a system which everybody has told us is crazy, and that is the 'two-in-a-bar-rule'.

MH: Do you not perhaps think that the Scottish model is a good one here? Where they just say well if the music is incidental to the business of the building i.e. if it is a pub or a restaurant there to serve food or drink whatever. If it is incidental in Scotland you do not need any kind of a licence and it is free and we are at liberty to make our music?

KH: We looked very hard at the Scottish model Mike, and what we heard off them was that they are reviewing their licensing law at the moment, for a whole range of reasons. But they also had system there where you were allowed to put on incidental music up until the end of what we call permitted drinking hours, which are roughly 11 or 11.30 in Scotland, and the after that they could curtail music with a by-law or whatever. Now I don't think that happened very often and it seems to work pretty well in Scotland.

We decided to do it differently- whether we are right or not is still a matter for debate. We thought it would be simpler to put everybody on the same even keel so you wouldn't have to keep going back all the time to licensing authorities and say, look I have changed my mind about what kind of music I want to put on – I would rather do this or end it like this time. That will all be in the initial application and err. And we think that is a better way forward because it is simpler.

MH: OK I know that in the Lords they are recommending that small events, say less than 250 people and ending at 11.30pm shouldn't need a licence. Well can't we go the continental way and just be really civilised?

KH: Well Mike in a way we are – I've got to tell you, the amendment that was carried in the House of Lords on setting a maximum figure of 250 people is in my view completely 'barmy'. And we not going to go down that road I mean because it rips all sorts of other time bombs in what can and can't be put on and so on, for children and things. That's a real problem Don't forget we have had a big lobby from the music industry, and quite properly. They have been worried about it, we have no explained it very well and I think there has been a lot of misinformation around as well, which kind of got my back up and so on. You will be glad to know that we are working closely now with the Musician's Union, we are going to issue joint leaflets and so on, which will let the landlords and licensees know – what we are proposing is, right?

Can I say this? The great problem I think with saying look, why don't we just dance all night, is that there is another lobby out there and that other lobby out there are the millions and millions of people who live close to venues who may or may not put on music. So what you have to try and do is to walk that tightrope and try and get the balance right between the needs of musicians and venues in which they can express themselves and enjoy themselves and the need to live side by side with the communities around them. And that's not an easy one to do really.

The reason why that 'two-in-a bar-rule' existed of course is because somebody had the idea a very long time ago that two musicians can make a racket but nothing like enough to disturb the neighbours, whereas three and four and five - you are starting to push it a bit. Now what has made a mockery of all of that is a guy turning up with a karaoke machine with a massive amplifier. Suddenly the game is very different, generally that is the thinking behind licensing music.

Billy Bragg

We down here in West Dorset are encouraging our young people, we have a thing called ZEST, which is a monthly gig for under-18 year-olds. Local musicians to come along and play in our arts centre. It is completely controlled and run by the youth service, there is no licensed drink there at all. But a lot of those people are getting really confident not just about performing but also song writing and they are going to go out from this programme and look for somewhere to play in a local pub. Not a big gig where there is a huge PA, but just in a little room in a pub where they can get their confidence up and play their own songs maybe to their peers or people who come in to the pub, the classic folk situation.

How is that going to be made more simple under this legislation if any pub landlord can give a green light to that now, at 24 hours notice – yes you can play. How is this legislation, whereby that performance will need a licence – how is that going to be made simpler under this legislation?

KH: I think that Billy's question is a very important one. We want the new licensing regime to open up opportunities for young musicians and I assume that the young people that Billy has mentioned are only playing in duets at most or as solo artists because and there are only two of them playing during an evening. otherwise they would need a separate licence now, under the existing law.

Now I think that has got to be stressed and they won't under the Bill you see. That is why we believe the existing regime is damaging live music, because performances with three or four musicians are associated with extra costs and administration and we are going to do away with all that. Abolishing the 'two-in-a-bar-rule' I think will promote more flexibility and diversity in the performance of live music and give young people the opportunity to perform, not simply as solo artists and duets but as part of bigger groups and that has got to be a good thing, I think   

Eliza Carthy

It's kind of two questions really. Why is it necessary to regulate everything we do, including our music? I don't understand why informal acoustic evenings need to be regulated. I don't see what danger they represent and I want to know what danger it is that Dr Howells thinks that these evenings represent? That's the question.

KH: Now that's a good question. I think that they only represent everything that's finest in British singing and in folk and I certainly want to encourage it, not to regulate it out of activity.

But remember what we are doing here now, What we are doing, right is trying to do away with a system, and I know I am going on about this a lot Mike. But we are trying to do away with a system which we think is distorting live music in this country by limiting the number of musicians or singers to just two. Now all we are asking, and we have got a job of explanation to do, I know that. All we are asking is that every venue that wants to put entertainment on - simply as part of getting that licence, ticks a boc or writes a couple of sentences there. Saying look, we are an important music venue or we want music as part of the attraction to bring customers in or whatever it is.

And that is not a huge step to take, you know it's not rocket science, it's not bureaucratic, it is simply doing away with the 'two-in-a-bar-rule' and putting everybody on the same footing.

I really hope that people understand that we are expecting local authorities moreover, and it will be in the guidance that we put out with the Bill, to come up with ways of encouraging the creative industries, and there is nothing more creative than music and singing. And that they recognise that this industry is as important as almost any other than we have got in this country. The music industry brings us as much money in, more money in than the steel industry does or anything else. It's not just a kind of one-off regulation, it's part of a much wider attempt by Government to galvanise the industry and make it much healthier than it is at the moment by doing away with these silly anomalies.

MH: Who is going to be on the working party, are there going to be any folkies on it, some people from the folk music world drafted in?

KH: Oh yes, absolutely Mike, and it's very important that we have a good mix of people representing all types of music. So far we have The British Beer and Pub Association, The Local Government Association, The Musician's Union, The National Campaign for the Arts, The Arts Council for Wales, Equity. The Arts Council for England and The English Folk Dance and Song Society. I very much welcome the input from anybody whose got a view on this one.

MH: Would there any chance of getting some performers, a sort of a representative from gigging musicians on your group, somebody like Eliza, for example?

KH: Well I don't see why not, I don't know who is working on drafting people into it at the moment but I'm sure that they would welcome very much, any interest that is shown by people, you know.