Licensing Bill - How will it work ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:40 AM

"... there is no reason to see it through 'rose-coloured glasses'"

I think that seeing things through rose coloured glasses is often a very sensible way of dealing with them. By that I mean, putting an interpretation on them that is most in line with our wishes. After all, that is precisely what we wish councils and licensees and courts to do.

Whether the rose-coloured way of looking at things coincides with the historical truth of the way the legislators were actually thinking is not germane. If we had reason to think that the way the legislation and the guidelines come out were more restrictive than the legislators actually intended, that would be relevant - but the other way round is a different matter entirely.

"On the face of it the law can be read as meaning that this activity does not need a licence to be carried out - but it can be demonstrated that in fact the people drafting the law did not intend that to be the case" - that really would be helpful wouldn't it?

......................

And with that kind of thing in mind, I am wholly opposed to any formal fencing-in of the kinds of dancing that could be covered by "Morris Dancing and similar".

Possibly the politicians were just thinking in terms of a limited spectrum of street dance, but it is perfectly possible to argue for one that is very wide ranging indeed, and I think we should encourage the rule-makers to accept that - even if some Morris purists may find it painful.

At Sidmouth one year for example there was a display of Punjabi Dancing. I heard people referring to it quite casually and sensibly as "a kind of Indian Morris Dancing". Fair enough - a bunch of men wearing bright costumes, adorned with bells and with lots of energetic leaping about.

At Leigh-on-Sea the range of street dancing typically includes Irish step-dancing and set-dancing, Belly-Dancing, Line Dance, Samba Bands and just about anything going, along with a whole range of teams from various English traditions. At the end of the festival they all take part in the procession, and finish up dancing together.

Most people seeing them pass sing or dancing at the end would probably refer to the whole lot as "some kind of Morris Dancers". I think we should defend the position that, behind all the interesting differences which are highly valued, there is an essential similarity, and that all our dancing traditions, new or old, should be able to use this hard won exemption.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:51 AM

And with that kind of thing in mind, I am wholly opposed to any formal fencing-in of the kinds of dancing that could be covered by "Morris Dancing and similar".

I would suggest that the term 'folk arts' would be broad enough cover everything our Peers in the Lords intended when they introduced this exemption at the last minute. I would also suggest that this term would include sessions - as this is just the integral music but without the dancing.

No harm in trying to get our LAs to see it our way - but we must always remember that it is the actual words of the Act that count.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 10:29 AM

Does anyone know how long landlords havegot until they will have to fill in the form with the famous "Tick here if you wish to have entertainment" box ?   Our main concern from now on, has got to be to try and persuade as many publicans as possible to do this when the time comes - and not just the ones that already have live music in them.

I expect that some councils (Greenwich for one) will still engage in a cmpaogn to disuade landlords from initially applying for an entertainments license, by supplying false information. This way they will hope to be able make some money out of subsequent applications.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 11:00 AM

Here's a link to the EFDSS page about this - but I note it hasn't been updated since July last year. And the Musicians Union has settled down and isn't making any noise about it. Here is their page on the issue, and it stops in July 2003 as well.

Is there anybody anywhere who is actually holding things together on this, and trying to make sure that we all come out of this in a reasonable position?

Going on about the stuff that is all past and gone is all very well, but what is the situation about the dates and the review committees and all that for the future? Because that is what really matters.

It's a bit as if the game had stopped and the whistle blew, and it was a draw - and then our team sloped off the the dressing-room, and ignored the fact that there was a penalty shoot-out scheduled to decide the result.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:03 PM

I completely agree with you Kevin. While it has been useful having an analysis of the guidance document, I think that too much discussion on the detailed legal details and how they might/could/should be interpreted is not necessarily very constructive, and indeed may distract us from the more inportant issue of making sure that as many pubs (and other venues) as possible do apply for entertainmant licenses when they first have to fill in the new application form.

I think it is also most important to look and see if any councils are trying to find loopholes in the system so that they can continue to make money out of granting entertainments licenses. As noted elsewhere, Greenwich council have closed down a session within the last couple of months insisting that "The Star & Garter" obtain a PEL - which I'm sure the council expect to make some cash on.

No-one seems to have answered my question about what happens when a pub has already paid for a PEL under the old system - I can't see the council being very happy to say "OK now you've ticked the box, you don't have to pay anymore and here's a refund on the six months that your old PEL still had to run". Yet having granted a PEL in the past, it would be rather difficult for them to refuse a new entertainments license or to insist on new conditions. Councils like Greenwich, definitely saw PELs as a way of raising revenue and somehow, I don't think they're going to give up so easily. The fact that they are still being quite draconic in this interim period seems to support this.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:31 PM

Dave,

Your point about "does anyone know..." is well made. The answer is effectively "not quite". The timetable is that the guidance has to be approved by both houses of parliament. There is then a period of approximately six months during which time the local authorities have to prepare and publish their policy statements. The final date for this will be published by the DCMS as the "first appointed day", which is the first date at which an application for a licence can be submitted. There is then a period of approximately nine months to the "second appointed day" when all existing licences become invalid and new licences come into force.

So licence applications will be in the autumn and they will come into force sometime next summer.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 03:22 PM

Our main concern from now on, has got to be to try and persuade as many publicans as possible to do this when the time comes - and not just the ones that already have live music in them.

I don't really see that this is our main concern and how do we go about this anyway? For no matter how many do apply - there will be many that will not and the final choice to apply remains theirs not ours. What would you consider to be a good take-up percentage figure? It will not be too difficult to improve on the current 5% take-up figure and no doubt our Government will claim that whatever the figure turns out to be will be a good thing. But that will still mean that no live music at all can take place in the remainder.

I would suggest that our main concern (through our local licensing committees) is to ensure that incidental live music can still take place in all the places that will not have applied for entertainment permission and most probably will have no intention of doing so.

The key is to ensure that where recorded music will be considered as incidental and exempt by our officers, that live music is also able to take place as exempt. We can do this and it is vital that we do this before some officer makes a stand and we have to fight this interpretation. This at least is within our power as council tax payers.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 04:13 PM

...the guidance has to be approved by both houses of parliament...

Does that mean the guidance as it stands, or is there any mechanism for amending it? If so, what is that and is there any way of affecting it? (If there is an amendment process, that could mean that there might be someone lobbying for changes that would actually make things worse, so it'd be no good sitting back and saying "Oh well, the guidance document is as good as we can expect", even if the existing guidance might be seen by some as measuring up to that.

And do we know when the Houses of Parliament are likely to do their stuff, and the next phase kicks in, with local authorities drawing up their policy statements?

And where does this committee with Feargal Sharkey fit into all this?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 07:34 PM

McGrath,

To start at your end, http://www.culture.gov.uk/creative_industries/music/livemusicforum.htm is a link to the notes of the first meeting of the Live Music Forum.
It gives good background to the Live Music Forum under Feargal Sharkey.

When do the Houses of Parliament do their stuff? Apparently not in the next two weeks. It appears that it will be referred to a committee in each house which will typically spend a few hours on it. I have found no visibility on the web of such ocmmittees proceedings. I suspect that in practice they either approve or persuade the Minister to go away and modify the draft and then resubmit it. More likely than such a withdrawal is a promise of a further document making minor changes subsequent to approval. It will then go to the floor of each house for approval without debate. It is possible, but unusual for there to be a straight vote at that stage which the Govenrment would win in the Commons and it would be most unusual (at least) for it to lose in the Lords.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 07:45 PM

Regarding discussions about our main concern, I see one serious flaw. Concern neets to be plural, but can be time ordered.

The first thing that happens outside parliament is that the Local Authorities write their policies. We need to influence these over the next few months. One of the initial outcomes from Feargal Sharkey's group is an intention to pressurise Local Authorities to stress the desirability of Pubs including entertainment in their initial applications. That was one of the objectives of my draft of a few mailings ago. One aspect of that is to educate council's that the Act definitely does not favour recorded music over live music.

Sometime in the autumn it will become too late to influence the policy documentation and additional documentation going to applicants. At that stage and befor elicence applications are submitted we need to persuade premises owners to include entertainment in general and live entertainment in particular in their applications.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 06:55 AM

I still stand by my statement that we should try to ensure that landlords do apply for entertainments licenses. I realise that the choice is ultimately that of the Landlord or in many cases the brewery or company who own the pub. If as seems likely, a charge will be made for entertainment licence applications made at a later date, then landlords may be deterred from applying later. There are going to be many ocasions when it would be convenient to perform in a pub - folk festivals, town fetes, national saints days, mayday. While these might be OK on the basis that they are impromptu, some Landlords who would otherwise be interested, might get cold feet because they don't have a license. The same thing could also apply when someone is looking for a venue to start up a new club or session.

Moveable sessions (Like Travelling Folk) may also have problems finding a good circuit of venues if many of the pubs don't apply for licenses. If we do try and explain to pubs the sense of applying for an entertainments provision when it won't cost them anything, then we might build up a useful stock of premises where it would be possible to hold events.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 07:26 AM

It's not "either / or", it's "not only / but also".

Of course it's important to try to ensure that pubs get their licences to cover live music as well as selling drinks, but that's not enough.

There are going to be pubs which don't do that, for various reasons, and we want to make sure that that isn't the end of it, but that it is recognised by the pubs and the local officials that licences aren't needed for music in some circumstances. And that particularly applies in the case of possible venues which are not pubs, and which are not in the business of selling alcoholic drinks in the first place.

People keep on slipping back into this daft and lazy assumption that the only places where live music can possibly hapen is in pubs.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 07:43 AM

Sham - you right, except that even after HRA, ECtHR can sometimes be relevant.

This Act is so dreadful that the only really sensible thing to do would be to tear it up and start again.

Quite apart from the "two in a bar" exemption, the other thing that has been lost is the liberty to perform music at all times and in all places where it is/was not "public". All folk clubs in pubs that operate under the figleaf of being private members clubs will need licensing under the new law. And before the "acoustic music" relaxation of licence conditions can be applied, a licence permitting music will first have to be obtained, so any capital requirements will have to have been observed.

If the guidance purports to permit that which the Act does not, then it is ineffective and unlawful, and someone like Norris McWhirter will (probably successfully) seek judicial review of it, so invalidating it.

What will also probably eventually happen is that someone will bring a claim (or run a defence) under the Human Rights Act, turning on the definition of "incidental" (although it could also be in pursuit of a declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR), and the courts following the obligation to strain every meaning to comply with HR obligations, will find that "incidental" is much much wider than Howells has said was intended - maybe along the lines of the assumptions behind the drafts I prepared about "incidental" anamplified music namely that "incidental" included most things that were not the primary purpose.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:52 AM

I still stand by my statement that we should try to ensure that landlords do apply for entertainments licenses.

Yes it is indeed sensible to try and ensure that as many places we know of do apply for the additional entertainment permission. I just think that where this may be out Government's and perhaps our LAs main task - in order to try and make the unworkable, work - it is not really ours. As it is not possible for us to have very much impact as to who chooses to apply or not - beyond those we may have personal contact with.

Another possible factor for us to bear in mind is that in order to try and ensure that most places apply - The offical bodies may even try (through the wording of guidance and local policies) to push the scales. To try and create a situation where it looks as if applying for the entertainment permission is the only way that even background recorded music can take place. I certainly would not like to been seen as party to that.

That is why I think that our efforts are best made, to try and ensure that the many exemptions - especially the one for incidental live music - will mean that the basic right for an individual to express themselves through music making, will not be taken away by the officers who will have to try and make this this terrible piece of legislation work.

It would also be nice and perhaps part of the answer, if we could get our local licensing committees to concentrate on the safety aspects. What in fact this Act was supposed to be about - rather than wasting time defining words that the Act or the guidance does not define. And arguing about what an entertainment facility is, what is or is not incidental or what is Morris - whilst drunken football supporters are tearing our towns apart after attending live TV showings in pubs - which of course will still NOT require the addtional licensing permission. Euro 2004 is just a few months away.

I agree with Richard (B) - the whole thing is a desgrace and should be torn up. It will not be and we will now have to accept and make the most of it - but I suspect that most of us will never forget what has been inflicted upon us.........

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 01:57 AM

Richard (P)said: We seem to be coming together quite nicely. However, I can see no possible circumstance where anyone will bring the European Courts into play in support of a live session, so I am sure that any reference to European Law would be a red rag to certain councillors and offiserd rather than a strengthening of our case.

What we have to ensure is that councillors are now advised by their officers as to the whole legal framework in which entertainment licensing and this Act is just a part. Too often it is a rather selective picture of legislation that is presented to our elected local council members.

If any councillors are offended at the thought of correctly following the law of the land - then we have every right to first offend them and then vote them out of office.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 05:00 AM

People keep on slipping back into this daft and lazy assumption that the only places where live music can possibly hapen is in pubs.

I may be being selfish, but at least 90% of the places where I'm involved with live music these days is in pubs (even at most festivals) - where do we usually meet up ? Of the others some (Theatre type venues, CSH etc) are going to have licences anyway, the rest will probably count as impromptu - I'll take my chance with the BBQs.

As it is not possible for us to have very much impact as to who chooses to apply or not - beyond those we may have personal contact with.

I like many others on the folk scene have contact with many pubs, I have always had a habit of just walking into pubs and singing and have discovered many useful venues that way. If we all talk to the landlords of pubs which we know - it could make a big difference to the number who take advantage of the initial chance to get a license free.

I just think that where this may be out Government's and perhaps our LAs main task - in order to try and make the unworkable, work - it is not really ours.

In the light of the way that my local LA sees entertainment licenses, I can't imagine them being very keen to see premises get them for free. I'm sure thart they would rather the licenses were applied for subsequently, when they could make a charge.

I do not want to belittle the legal discussion side and think that you are doing an important job, but for the rest of us at this point, talking to pub landlords is something useful that we at the grass-roots could be doing.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 05:44 AM

In the light of the way that my local LA sees entertainment licenses, I can't imagine them being very keen to see premises get them for free. I'm sure thart they would rather the licenses were applied for subsequently, when they could make a charge.

This indeed is the old thinking but we must accept our part of the blame for permitting this to hold sway in our local areas. This is largely by not getting involved in the boring processes of local politics, and just moaning. I will admit to be a fine example of this (until fairly recently) and there are current exeptions to this of course.

The Act now requires that every local licensing authority form a Licensing Committee. This committee is charged with making a policy. As council tax payers and voters, we now have the chance, through our local councillors, to form the local policy towards live music, (as far a the words of the Act will allow) that we wish to see.

If we can do this well by using all the exemptions and exposing all the problems, it is possible that the restrictive areas of the Act toward live music and performance in general, could pretty soon become totally unworkable - as these really deserve to be.

With the low turn-out in many local elections - it should not even be too difficult for us to elect fellow folk club and sessiom members - if they were willing) to become councillors and sit on these Committees. We have the chance to do more than just moan, it is up to us what we do with that chance.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 06:04 AM

Richard Bridge is incorrect in one respect. He says " the other thing that has been lost is the liberty to perform music at all times and in all places where it is/was not "public". All folk clubs in pubs that operate under the figleaf of being private members clubs will need licensing under the new law."

This is not true. It is true only in those cases where the club either pays for the room, which some do and some don't, or if the club organiser is making a profit out of the club operation, which is very rarely if ever the position in a folk club. So Richard is correct in saying that there will be a loss of the words "all times and all places" but not to imply that this eradicates the liberty.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 10 May 04 - 06:55 AM

I wonder if Richard Bridge, Shambles etc could clear up a few points for me regarding the guidlines for the introduction of the new act. Am I right in thinking that the following are true

1. If the "Entertainments Box" is ticked on the first application for a license under the new act, it is not possible for the LA to insist on a charge before granting one ?

2. It will not be possible for councils to insist on structural alterations to premises before granting an entertainments licence - this would have to be done on other grounds.

3. If any restrictions are applied to the granting of an entertainments provision (on Public Order/Nuisance grounds), these would not apply to "Small Events".

Just to remind me, what is the maximum number of people allowed by the "Small Events" clause (I realise that it has to be unamplified) ? Is this the maximum number of Performers, or does it include Audience as well - or is it the total number on the premises ?

Finally will councils be at liberty to allow a blanket provision of unlicensed entertainment for an area, for perhaps carnivals, special events, saint's days etc, as Maidstone seem to be allowing for the forthcomming Watt Tyler festival ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 11 May 04 - 12:03 PM

Refresh - can anyone give me an answer to my questions ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 May 04 - 02:28 PM

I don't wish to be rude Dave, but it might be best if you asked your MP or Council for the answers and posted them here, when you have them.

As for the Wat Tyler event. My understanding was that there was no formal blanket licensing arrangement. This may have changed however?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 12 May 04 - 04:35 AM

My MP wouldn't have the faintest idea. I e-mailed him twice during time that the Licensing Bill was being batted backwards and forwards between the two houses, and did eventually receive a standard letter about 6 months later. He recently phoned me as part of a local poll he was running, and was completely unaware that I had e-mailed him - he seemed to have no knowledge of any of the ramifications of the act or any interest. He probably wipes his elbow with bog paper most mornings !

My council (Greenwich) are still trying to get every penny from PELs and are still closing down sessions. I can't imagine them admitting that they might have to change their policy as a result of the act.

Do you mean that after all your discussion and perusal of the guidlines that you and Richard still have no idea of the answers to theses simple questions.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 May 04 - 05:25 AM

In a word no.

They are not simple questions and whatever answer is provided to them here, will just start off another round of personal opinions as to what the correct really answer is.

If they were simple questions and after reading the Act and the guidance, I suggest that we should all really know the answers.

We can certainly provide AN answer, but this would not most probably not turn out to be be THE answer.

The only people who can directly affect or challenge Greenwich Council's current policy are those who live and have a vote there. Although I am certainly willing to do what I can to help. There is little point in confronting the officers but there are councillors who can help.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 12 May 04 - 07:35 AM

But I thought that the whole idea of the act (and the guidance document) eas to ensure some uniformity in the way that it is applied across the country. If LAs are left to enforce it in anyway they wish, then things (at least in Greenwich) are going to get much worse.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 04 - 02:44 PM

Three responses to Dave Bryant points:

and was completely unaware that I had e-mailed him

emailing is not a good way to contact anyone these days. Snail-mail or faxing is far better, because it means there is a bit of paper in the in-tray. Use Fax your MP

...............

But I thought that the whole idea of the act (and the guidance document) was to ensure some uniformity in the way that it is applied across the country.

In practice what is going to happen is that local authorities are going to come up with their policies, and some of these are going to be used as mode la for other local authorities, and some are going to probably get struck down as illegal. From what I've hear of Greeenwich I think there should be a good chance that they will fall in that latter category.

.....................

but at least 90% of the places where I'm involved with live music these days is in pubs (even at most festivals)

That's quite true - but if you cast your mind back to the days if long ago, it used to be commonplace to have live music, folk music even (skiffle that is) in coffee bars. A change in the law ended that, more than fashion; the fact that it's effectively only pubs now reflects the legal situation we've been living in for the last forty years. I'd like to see us get back to a situation where live music happened in a wider range of places.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 13 May 04 - 07:02 AM

Sorry - It was the "Fax you MP" service that I used to contact my MP on both occasions - it still took over 6 months (after the Bill had become an Act) for him (Clive Efford - Lab - Eltham) to send
me a stock "I have recieved your Fax" reply. When he phoned me, he asked if I was planning to vote for him next election. I replied "Do bears usually use public conveniences ?".

Kevin - Perhaps it might be a nice idea to have folk in many non-pub venues, but you could have a problem getting many folkies there - I couldn't imagine Derek Brown or Harlowpoet et al being very interested ! In the past I've organised and been involved with many outdoor folk events (National Folk Day, Canal Festivals, Village Fetes etc) - but there's usually been a pub or beer tent nearby.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 17 May 04 - 05:35 AM

McGrath,

Sorry that I was unable to reply to your posting of 10th May, but I have been out of the cafe touring festivals for the last two weeks. Oh the pleasures of retirement!

Simple Answers to your questions:

1) Correct. The initial fee covers all licensable aspects required with the fee fixed for the particular premises however broad or narrow the licence.

2) Correct. Structure is a matter for planning control and can now only be changed when there is a new planning application.

3) Correct. However, there is no mention of small events in the Act. The relaxation is with regard to events in small premises, i.e. those with a total capacity of fewer than 200 people. Essentially, licencing by its very nature occurs before the event (if it occurred after the event it would be essentially taxation). Hence, it is impossible to know what the attendance will be beyond the reasonable assumption that it wil be no greater than the premises capacity.

Now for the caveats. There is only an informal indication of the licence fees so far. They are banded on premises rateable value and are very much lower than the current entertainment licencing fees. I have no idea how they compare with the more relevant current fees for justices licences (for alcohol sales).

There is currently a close relationship between premises structure and licenced capacity in entertainment licencing. I am aware of a building that has had its licenced capacity more than doubled by relatively minor work undertaken to emergency escape routes. Furthermore the capacity will be significantly increased if a relatively inexpensive fire-break is inserted in the roof space because then two different areas will be able to be used simultaneously rather than as alternatives only. Consequently, although the licence cannot be conditional on sturctural alterations, there could be severe apacity constraints without them.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 May 04 - 06:47 AM

RichardP

Just to clarify a few points.

Are you saying (in 1.) that the cost of a license for a pub will be exactly the same, whether or not the "Entertainments Box" has been ticked ?

Are you also saying that the "Small Events" clause has been replaced by the equivalents of a "Small Premises" clause? - I just thought that the "Small Events" clause had been retained, but made subject to the possession of an entertainments license first. Will all pubs be assessed for the maximum premises capacity, irrespective of whether the entertainments option has been requested. If so it would probably prove difficult or costly for LAs to enforce it. The "Small Events" clause also needed the qualifying conditions of the entertainment being unamplified and ending before 11.30pm - are these still relevant ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 May 04 - 10:38 AM

3) Correct. However, there is no mention of small events in the Act. The relaxation is with regard to events in small premises, i.e. those with a total capacity of fewer than 200 people. Essentially, licencing by its very nature occurs before the event (if it occurred after the event it would be essentially taxation). Hence, it is impossible to know what the attendance will be beyond the reasonable assumption that it wil be no greater than the premises capacity.

For all practical purposes it is probably as well for us to ignore this red herring or 'catch 22'. The relaxation (if it can be referred to as this) is only to the conditions that can be place on the entertainment permission. This permission first has to be applied for, and granted. The so-called relaxation (to the conditions) only applies where the maximum permitted capacity is 200 people and the only way to obtain an official set safe maximum capacity figure, is to apply for the entertainment permission.

Premises (usually) now only have this safe capacity set (by the LA) when they apply for entertainment permission in the form of a PEL, and the-powers-that-be, wished this to continue. Premises not applying for the additional entertainment permission, will not automatically get a safe capacity set as part of their basic Premises Licence but the price will be the same as if they had applied for this.

I fear that they will have to pay again if they later wish to chamge the terms of their Premises Licence and apply for emtertainment permission.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 May 04 - 10:54 AM

Now for the caveats. There is only an informal indication of the licence fees so far. They are banded on premises rateable value and are very much lower than the current entertainment licencing fees. I have no idea how they compare with the more relevant current fees for justices licences (for alcohol sales).

You are comparing apples with oranges here and of course a cafe not serving alchol but wishing to provide any live music, will have to first pay for a Premises Licence.

Certainly many places currently paying for a PEL will be better off. However, many small pubs, not currently providing any entertainment nor wishing to provide any under the new Act, will be paying a lot more than they are are present, just to stand still.

They will now have to pay for a personal licence every ten years.
The Premises Licence, for the life of the current business (in its current form).
And an annual inspection charge.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 May 04 - 11:37 AM

For all practical purposes it is probably as well for us to ignore this red herring or 'catch 22'. The relaxation (if it can be referred to as this) is only to the conditions that can be place on the entertainment permission. This permission first has to be applied for, and granted. The so-called relaxation (to the conditions) only applies where the maximum permitted capacity is 200 people and the only way to obtain an official set safe maximum capacity figure, is to apply for the entertainment permission.

It might be interesting to know what sort of capacity an LA would rate the average small pub. I can think of quite a few where 200 people would pack them out - and quite a few of those host clubs, singarounds, and sessions. The one useful thing that this "Catch 22" might provide is that no restriction could be placed on the number of days that entertainment could be provided. Greenwich council currently tend to base their charge for a PEL on the frequency of events - £400 for two nights a week, £1300 for seven.

The only problem is, would the councils be likely to try an impose the capacity limit at times when there was no entertainment ? This could deter landlords from applying for the entertainments provision.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 17 May 04 - 04:29 PM

Taking points from the last few postings in the order ini which they are made.

Yes. The fee for a licence is dependent only on the size of the premises probably as a rateable value band.

The "small" clause was always "small premises" but was mistakenly referred to as a small event clause in postings. It really is not a very significant consession and even then it is open to the LA to explicitly insist on some or all of the excepted conditions.

Turning to the second posting. Since the small premises exception only applies to premises that have included musical entertainment in their licencing application, there is no increase in the number of the cases where capacities have to be defined unless - as we must all hope - more premises seek licencing for entertainment. The Guidance states that permitted capacities are defined by the Fire Authority. If a permitted capacity already exists it transfers into the new regime. In other cases a premises licence holder is supposed to undertake a risk analysis to establish an appropriate capacity and then to submit it to the fire authority for confirmation. Present practice is for each room to have a permitted capacity. On that basis the small premises conditions should apply to every room that has an individual capacity of less than 200. How many folk events even at festivals are held in rooms with a capacity of more than 200? Consequently, it appears that most folk events will be able to "benefit" from the small premises relaxation.

Shambles next posting appears to be based on ignoring the fact that every building which sells alcohol already has to have a licence (at not insignificant cost) although that licence is currently handled by the licencing justices rather than the LA. The annual maintenance payment, which cannot result in any changes to the licence being instigated by the LA, will be far less than the regular reapplications to the justices for new licences.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 May 04 - 07:07 PM

No Richard this 'spin' really won't do.

Shambles next posting appears to be based on ignoring the fact that every building which sells alcohol already has to have a licence (at not insignificant cost) although that licence is currently handled by the licencing justices rather than the LA.

The actual cost of the current justice's licence is not really a significant cost at all. Perhaps you would like to inform us of the current figure?

The annual maintenance payment, which cannot result in any changes to the licence being instigated by the LA, will be far less than the regular reapplications to the justices for new licences.

Let us say £150 for this annual inspection charge and leave out the cost (for 10 years) of the personal licence and the cost of the Premises Licence (for the life of the current business). Not only is this alone more than the current justice's licence, it is more than many local authorities currently charge annually for their PELs.

There are some LAs currently charging a lot of money for their PELs, some in the many thousands of pounds. But most of the (rural) LAs actually set the figures very reasonably. For example.........

A cafe or coffee bar (not serving alcohol) in my borough that wished to obtain a PEL for live music would now pay £220 a year. Under the new Act they will have to pay for the Premises Licence (for the life of the current business there) and the annual inspection charge (whatever this figure turns out to be). They may also find themselves next door and in commpetion with a church or church hall also providing commercial entertainment.

The church would not need a Premises Licence and would be required to pay pay nothing at all. The church hall would need the Premises Licence and the annual inspection but would not be charged for either.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 18 May 04 - 10:07 AM

In other cases a premises licence holder is supposed to undertake a risk analysis to establish an appropriate capacity and then to submit it to the fire authority for confirmation.

This will presumably be at the landlord's expense - will all landlords ticking the "Entertainments Box", who have not previously had a PEL, be expected to pay extra for this.

I am trying to get facts sorted out, before I start trying to persuade landlords to apply for an entertainments provision when their new licensing application is made. Are they going to get the extra provision for free, or will there be extra hidden costs if they tick the box ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 04 - 01:03 PM

Are they going to get the extra provision for free, or will there be extra hidden costs if they tick the box ?

Well one thing is for sure, if they don't apply for entertainment permission - they will not be able to provide any.

As to getting anything for free, no they won't. The safe capacity aspect is just part of the application to provide entertainment and in order to get this, the licensee will have to pay for the Premises Licence (for the life of the current business), an annual inspection charge and a personal licence every ten years.

Nothing to do with the Licnsing Act but there is also the matter of PRS licence fees. For the first time, PRS inspectors will have a list (kindly provide for them by the LA), of every pub that can legally provided lve music. Before there was no such list as some live music could take place without a PEL.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 May 04 - 03:17 PM

"Perhaps it might be a nice idea to have folk in many non-pub venues, but you could have a problem getting many folkies there"

Myself, I'll go anywhere where there's music. When I'm sitting in a coffee bar I'll happily drink coffee, and I won't grumble if it doesn't sell beer. I'd be glad to have a chance to take part in a song or tune session in a bookshop, for example, and maybe I'd drop into a pub before and after. It's silly to limit in advance, in the way you imply, and wrong that the law should effectively force us to do so.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 18 May 04 - 05:56 PM

Shambles,

If I knew the cost of a justices licence, I would indeed tell you, but I see no point in inventing figures to create an argument.

It is easy to invent high fees for new licences and then demonstrate that they are high. Unfortunately the fees are still the subject of consultation. However, the Secretary of State has given an indication of her present expectations which are typically a third of the figures that you postulate. Your argument falls completely if the Sec of State sticks with her figures.

On your other posting: I would certainly agree if you argued that the PRS is ineffective and inequitable in its support for the minor song writers. However, the songsmith is worthy of the few coppers that the PRS typically recover when his song is performed. I am ashamed to think that any folkie would take a stand on behalf of evaders of the PRS levies.

Richard

My understanding is that at present Fire Service inspections do not incur a fee and that the situation will not change. However, I could be wrong. Certainly there is nothing in the act which explicitly authorises the Fire Service to charge a fee.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 May 04 - 02:05 AM

If I knew the cost of a justices licence, I would indeed tell you, but I see no point in inventing figures to create an argument.

Then perhaps we can both leave biased statements about the relative costs of the two systems until the true figures are known? The true figures for the current alcohol licence are known however. and as you described them as 'not insignificant', we should expect you to know
and be able to tell us.

Perhaps you can tell us, what is the Secretary of States's latest figure for the inspection charge? The figure I gave was certainly in the range of figures that the DCMS have expressed for this element.

On your other posting: I would certainly agree if you argued that the PRS is ineffective and inequitable in its support for the minor song writers. However, the songsmith is worthy of the few coppers that the PRS typically recover when his song is performed. I am ashamed to think that any folkie would take a stand on behalf of evaders of the PRS levies.

I would be ashamed to think that any folkie would try so very hard to convince others that this new Licensing Act is anything other than a disaster and would try to minimise the financial aspects of it. Not that I am accusing anyone....

Nothing that I said in my post that suggested any support for evaders of anything. It was simply making the point that PRS inspectors had to work harder than they will have to find venues providing live music and it was in response to a question about possible hidden costs under the new Act.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 19 May 04 - 04:51 AM

However, the songsmith is worthy of the few coppers that the PRS typically recover when his song is performed. I am ashamed to think that any folkie would take a stand on behalf of evaders of the PRS levies.

Investigation by the EFDSS some years ago proved that PRS returns for all but the largest venues - many festival concerts would not even qualify, are basically chucked in the bin. The PRS fees from all the smaller venues are apportioned as per the returns from the large venues. This would mean that if I make a return for singing a Cyril Tawney song in a folk club, the fee would quite likely go to S Club 7.
If I were to sing a traditional version of Scarborough Fair in a large venue, Paul Simon would get the return. PRS provides very little benefit to any folk authors.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 19 May 04 - 07:55 PM

The fact that the PRS is fine in theory but a total failure in practice is a strong argument for the reform of the performing rights operation but not a justification for undermining it. This is way outside the scope of the Licencing Act. We should not have opened up that can of worms here. If there is any benefit to be gained by a mudcat discussion a new thread should be opened. Let's stop discussing it here.

RichardP

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 May 04 - 02:12 AM

I simply pointed out that it exsisted, in reply to a question about any possible 'hidden' cost arising from applying for the entertainment permission. A new licensee who had accepted the Government's claim that it would not cost any extra to provide entertainment under the Act, may be a little upset to find that they have to further pay for a PRS licence.

Any judgement on the PRS licence was started by you Richard. And as you did start this, perhaps one more thing needs to be added to Dave's comments in this thread, before we move back to the Act.

A session of tradiditional, original or other non-copyright material would not be liable for any payment to PRS and it would be incorrect for them to do so. But the default position held is that all live music venues must pay and the onus is one you to prove that the material in not under copyright.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 20 May 04 - 05:11 AM

I agree that the PRS consideration is another issue. What I want to know is what extra costs and charges is a publican likely to face (on top of the basic licencing costs) if he/she ticks the entertainments box ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 20 May 04 - 05:13 AM

I have just discovered that the Guidance will be debated by the appropriate commons committee next Wednesday. This will be a 90 minute meeting of about 10 MPs. On past form this is likely to consist of three lengthy speeches from a minister and spokesmen for the Tory and Lib Dem parties followed by a formal motion that the document has been debated. Following this there the normal process would be a formal non-debateabe motion in the commons to approve the document.

There is a comparable process in the Lords but I cannot find what stage they have reached through the Web. This menas that we are very close to the start of the approximately six month period for Local Authorities to develop and publish their policy documents.

RichardP

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 04 - 07:06 AM

3 quick things

an existing Justice Licence is £30 for 3 years but the PEL is separate, local authority and expensive.

In the paper yesterday there were concerns about entertainment Licenses for circuses at $500 per sight would do away with 90% - government reviewing

Tony Blair is suddently alarmed about binge drinking (shades of Euan). Making a speach today at a lunch hosted by a well known brewery. Me thinks Tony is organising the piss up there!

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 20 May 04 - 07:20 AM

Me thinks Tony is organising the piss up there!

I thought by now that we'd all realised that a task like that would be beyond his capabilities !

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 04 - 02:06 PM

Huh!! These Tories never rest, do they?


A

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 May 04 - 01:10 PM

The following link is to a thread that is not about the new Act but the problems presented to sessions by the current legislation. It does however show some of difficulties presented when local authorities do take an unhelpful approach under licensing legislation.

Palm sesh update

Perhaps the lesson of this is for us to work locally and ensure the new Act does support us, rather than waiting until it is too late?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 24 May 04 - 12:35 PM

I have recently been thorugh some of the debates on the Act. There were several amendments proposed for a "small events" exemption, but they were always defeated, sometimes because the case for them was not accepted and sometimes because they were technically inappropriate (i.e. badly written). In the end the "small premises" exception was written into the Act, primarily on the basis that small premises can only host small events but in large premises you cannot know whether an event will be large or small until the audience arrives.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 May 04 - 02:19 PM

In the end the "small premises" exception was written into the Act, primarily on the basis that small premises can only host small events but in large premises you cannot know whether an event will be large or small until the audience arrives.

It is quite wrong to still refer to this as an 'exemption' The impression is then wrongly given that this is an exemption to the licensing requirement, along with those for Churches and Morris etc.

When of course, it is no such thing, is it?


Have you any comment Richard, on the 'significant' current cost of the Justice's Licence that was provided?

an existing Justice Licence is £30 for 3 years but the PEL is separate, local authority and expensive.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 24 May 04 - 08:15 PM

The cost of a Justice Licence, a PEL or a new premises licence must not be confused with the price of the licence. There may be other elements within the total cost. For instance there are many cases where the cost of structural works required by a PEL are greater than the face value of the licence. This is frequently the case in the more rural authorities which make relatively lower charges for PELs. The other main elelment in the cost is the cost of internal staff or professional advisers in making the preparations and submissions for the licence (whichever it is).

I am not privy to the fees aid by any applicant for any licence. The research undertaken by the DCMS showed them to be considerably higher than the face value of the licences that are currently issued (again I assume with the possible exception of the most expensive PELs.).

I wonder if anyone knows the actual cost of any current licence since there are bound to be some internal staff costs which are not charged directly against the licence application.

Richard