 sj |
||
|
||
Licensing consultation announced!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 11 - 05:26 AM http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/couple-defend-proposals-for-former-hotel-38071.aspx John King comments: "Right from the outset a number of people decided they were going to try to bully us and take away our livelihood." 'Frightened' residents persuade the Council to install a noise limiter for music at a wedding venue. And yet weddings are EXEMPT from licensing... |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 05 Apr 11 - 08:16 AM http://mobile.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/8942607.Facebook_face_off_over_Charlbury_festivals_noise/ John King comments: Rival campaigns have been set up to fight for and against noisy (sic) festivals in Charlbury. Mark Hofman is seeking a reduction in festival noise (sic) in the town centre from 65dB to a yet-to-be decided lower limit. 65...dB is lower than a sneeze, a barking dog, a mobile ring-tone... |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST Date: 24 Mar 11 - 07:04 PM The following from Hamish Birchall In a letter to Tessa Jowell MP dated 21 March, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has hinted that entertainment could be removed from the Licensing Act altogether: 'As you may well have heard, Baroness Rawlings announced during the recent debate on the Live Music Bill that it is the Government`s intention to be supportive of the Bill. We will also be looking into whether we can go further than the Bill by deregulating entertainment from the Licensing Act 2003, and John Penrose [licensing minister] hopes to be in a position to say more in the coming weeks.' The letter was sent in response to an enquiry from Annie Bright via her MP, Tessa Jowell. Ms Bright is a jazz singer, former Equity Council vice-president and currently an elected Equity Councillor. In 2002, when she herself was Culture Secretary, Ms Jowell launched the then Licensing Bill as 'a licensing regime for the 21st century'. On 8th March 2006, about three months after the Licensing Act 2003 came into force, Ms Jowell found herself on the wrong side of her own Department's legislation. She participated in what turned out to be an unlicensed and illegal singalong while celebrating International Women's Day in Victoria Tower Gardens, next to the Houses of Parliament. The licensing authority, Westminster council, generously said they would not prosecute, as it was a first offence. See contemporary coverage in The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article742042.ece and BBC video of the singalong: http://bbc.in/fhrQCQ Jeremy Hunt's 'deregulation' could be the 'radical solution' to which Penrose referred on 21 June 2010 in response to a question from John Whittingdale, chair of the all party Culture, Media & Sport Committee: Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): 'Is my hon. Friend aware that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee - that there should be an exemption for smaller venues of a capacity below 200 - was supported by the previous Government, who were intending to introduce a regulatory order to provide an exemption for venues of a capacity below 150, and that there was widespread disappointment that that was not done? Will he confirm that he sees no need for any further consultation and that he will move to introduce the necessary order as soon as possible?' John Penrose: 'My concern is that my hon. Friend's proposal goes for a particular solution when there might be a broader and potentially more radical solution that should also be considered. If we go for other alternatives, we will need to consult on them, but if we decide to go down the route of ideas that have already been thoroughly canvassed, I would obviously want to move as fast as possible and reduce the level of consultation to the bare legal minimum.' On 16 February this year, Whittingdale tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM 1465) calling on the government to implement an exemption 'without delay'. 35 MPs have signed so far: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1465 Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill is awaiting its Committee stage in the Lords, possibly by June: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/012/11012.1-i.html Given that the government is already supportive of the bill, what better vehicle to implement a radical deregulatory solution for live music. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 11 - 04:25 AM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NeHKy_euxs&feature=youtu.be Lord Clement-Jones speaks about the Live Music Bill |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 19 Mar 11 - 04:06 PM http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7950.aspx John King comments: Licensing Minister John Penrose leading a conga off Weston-Super-Mare's Pier into an area not licensed for dancing. Max penalty £20,000 fine or 6 months in jail. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 18 Mar 11 - 07:31 AM The fact that this opposition has been expressed 'in a forthright manner' to DCMS [ICO decision, para 59] tends to reinforce concerns that prejudice and resistance to change underpins their position. The stated grounds and concerns that the LGA Group use in their active opposition to any proposed exemptions are equally applicable to the many (and often illogical) existing exemptions already contained in the Licensing Act 2003 - to which the LGA Group do not activly oppose and which have not been shown to menace the public. Producing the requested information is the only one way that the ICO, LGA, DCMS could demonstrate that the LGA Group's continuing, active and seemingly automatic opposition to any propsed exemptions is NOT due to prejudice and resistance to change. The extent of their reluctance to do this is probably answer enough. Sadly this and my personal experience shows that the safeguards and appeals (such as those under the FOI Act and Local Government Ombudsman) that should enable the public to be treated fairly contain far too many opportunities for the offending authority to not only maintain their original positions but to be able to launch personal attacks on members of the public trying to use the process for its stated pupose. This only proves, if proof was neeeded, that considerable power is exerted in licensing matters (both nationally and locally) by those who are not prepared to be held to account for their actions. Until this is changed to enable open examination by the public - should we be surprised if prejudice (and possobly even worse factors) continue to be responsible for some of the actions that affect us all? |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST Date: 18 Mar 11 - 06:55 AM The following from Hamish Birchall The Information Commissioner has upheld a refusal by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to disclose in full correspondence with the Local Government Association concerning a small gigs entertainment licensing exemption. The LGA has consistently opposed an exemption for small scale performances of live music, implicitly endorsing a regime that criminalises the mildest of live music while going easy on DJs and canned entertainment, on the grounds of public safety and noise risks. The ICO decision dated 7th March, reference FS50304461, is available on the ICO website:http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fs_50304461.ashx Although running to 19 pages and 88 numbered paragraphs, the decision boils down to this: full disclosure would embarrass the LGA. Why? Apparently because their officials expressed '... frank and candid opinions regarding the proposed licensing exemption' [para 59] and 'premature disclosure' would '... deny officials the space they need to consider the relevant issues without fear that their opinions could be subject to ridicule in the process.' [para 61] The Commissioner also notes DCMS assertions that some of my licensing updates 'contained criticisms of a personal nature of individual civil servants.' [para 33] This allegation was one of the grounds put forward by DCMS against full disclosure of their LGA material - a fear that this could lead to officials being targeted for criticism although 'not strictly accountable for the policy decision in question'. In my view, none of the licensing circulars cited contain any criticisms of a personal nature: see www.livemusicforum.co.uk [click on Hamish Birchall Articles] - 9 July 2009, 14 July 2009, 7 August 2009, 9 September 2009 and 23 April 2010. In 'Musicians in thrall to caterers', 9 July 2009, I pointed out that LGA music licensing policy officials Mark Du Val and Charlotte Meller had a food science background, highlighting the irony for professional musicians (for some reason there is a long history of uneasy relations between musicians and caterers at gigs). I implied that food science was not the best qualification for developing live music licensing policy. The LGA is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, its officers are not publicly elected or accountable. Many draw high salaries sourced ultimately from the public purse. For years its opposition to relaxation of a licensing regime that criminalises the mere provision of unlicensed live music, where a licence is required, has prevented any chance of reform. The LGA has never, to the best of my knowledge, explained in clear terms where subsisting safety and noise nuisance legislation is in its view inadequate to regulate small gigs. Their opposition to reform therefore seems to be based more on prejudice than rational argument. The fact that this opposition has been expressed 'in a forthright manner' to DCMS [ICO decision, para 59] tends to reinforce concerns that prejudice and resistance to change underpins their position. It is clearly in the public interest to understand why a small clique of unelected local government officers appear to be so emotional about maintaining very strict licensing control over live music. For that reason I will be appealing the ICO decision. ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 17 Mar 11 - 09:37 AM Sorry - this para should read - The really ilogical thing about this is that live music which proves in practice to be an actual noise concern and has not been granted additional entertainment licensing will be subject to the very same legislation to control noise, as would live music which has been granted additional entertainment permission. So as permission to make noise is not possible - what purpose can the need for this additional licensing permission possibly provide to address noise? |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 17 Mar 11 - 09:34 AM Prior to the Licensing act 2003 - there was live music in pubs which was exempt under the 'two-in-a-bar' rule. There was no evidence ever produced which showed that this was a problem that needed addressing by the abolition of this exenption. This live music ended when the pub closed (or a little before) but although there was general closing time for the serving of alcohol - there was never a set time by which this live music would automatically end or where it automatically required additional licensing permission. In theory, at least, there was nothing preventing this live music from continuing in pubs after closing time - but as pubs exist to sell alcohol - it was an unlikely event. The Licensing Act 2003 has done away with a generally set closing time for alcohol, in favour of a more flexible approach, which is generally appreciated. But now, despite the many problems associated with alcohol - it is live music, with its undoubted benefits, which finds itself with a set closing time or a time when it requires additional entertainment licensing to continue past a set time. This on the grounds that even non-amplified live music will automatically become a noise concern at this set time. And all this in advance, before a note has been sounded...... The really ilogical thing about this is that live music which proves in practice to be an actual noise concern and has not been granted additional entertainment licensing will be subject to the very same legislation to control noise, as would live music which has not been granted additional entertainment permission. So as permission to make noise is not possible - what purpose can the need for this additional licensing permission possibly provide to address noise? Additional entertainment licensing under the licensing Act 2003 is a very expensive and time consuming process - and as it cannot be used to deal with noise emanating from sources other than from entertainment - the pretence maintained by the LGA Group lobby and others, that additional entertainment permission can be any practical use to deal with noise, is one which is not credible and which must end. But now we find that our own side is agreement with this. The Live Music Bill first proposing a midnight point at which all live music must (except it would appear, non-amplified music for Morris dancing) requires additional entertainment licensing. The Govt are proposing an 11.30 point at which all live music requires the 'protection' afforded by this as part of the 'price' for their conditional support for the Private Members Bill. There is an argument that as all live music will be exempt prior to this curfew - that this is an improvment. Possibly but I contend that no proposal should be made or agreed where there is no logical underlying reason for it. The Morris exemption is a good example. There was no logical reason why the exemption for non-amplified Morric performances could not have been extended to cover all non-amplified live music. The possibly inconvenient fact remains, that there is now already in the Licensing Act 2003, an exemption for non-amplified live performances which are not thought to automatically become a noise concern and require additional entertainment licensing at 11.30 or midnight. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 17 Mar 11 - 06:19 AM http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/City-pub-loses-bid-stay-open-2-30am/article-3328664-detail/article.html Leicester city centre pub loses its bid to stay open until 2.30am By Tom Mack Residents have won a fight to stop a Leicester city centre pub staying open later. The owners of the Goose on Hotel Street, near Leicester Cathedral, had applied for permission to serve alcohol and keep the pub open until 2.30am at weekends – an hour later than at present. John King comments: Although there had been no noise complaints about the pub or police objections to the application the Council has told the owners to install a noise-limiting device. Which will of course prevent most amplified music. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 11 - 01:39 PM http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044560&c=1 Lib Dem Lord Clement-Jones has begun discussions with the Government about the sort of changes it wants to see in his Live Music Bill before it moves in to the House of Commons. Clement-Jones, whose Bill passed through its second reading in the Lords earlier this month, has been told that the Government planned to support the Bill – with caveats. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 11 - 01:35 PM http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=16&storycode=69183&c=2 "Though there was backing for it, the coalition's advisers will know there is next to no chance of a private members' Bill becoming law" The government's backing of Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill caught observers a bit off-guard last week. Baroness Rawlings' repeated support was welcomed, but such warm words from a government spokesperson sounded almost too good to be true. And this is where I would urge campaigners – myself included – to delay any victory parade. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 15 Mar 11 - 12:05 PM Rather unhelpfully and with poor timing - the EDMs on the Parliamentary website has been updated and the link given previously does not work Has your MP signed it yet? This is the new link: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1465 31 MPs have signed so far - has your MP signed EDM 1465 yet? |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 13 Mar 11 - 07:44 PM http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Neighbours-oppose-bar-s-late-licence-bid/article-3314780-detail/article.html But Westcotes councillors Sarah Russell and Andy Connelly said the changes would increase noise and crime in the area. Councillor Russell said: "If you have a family or have to get up for work it is very unpleasant to hear loud noise." John King comments: Yet another live music application provokes pre-emptive complaints from neighbours. It remains to be seen whether the Council will ban live music (even unamplified) before it has happened. DJs are allowed already. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST Date: 10 Mar 11 - 02:54 AM http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42496&SESSION=905 30 MPs have now signed this EDM - has your MP signed? You can find out who your MP is and request that they sign Early Day Motion 1465 on the following http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 10 Mar 11 - 02:44 AM http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-03-08a.44278.h&s=%22live+music%22#g44278.q0 John Penrose: 'We have also provided warm support for the Bill proposed by Lord Clement-Jones in this area, albeit with some concerns over details of some of its proposals.' John King comments: Concerns no doubt wildly exaggerated by the Local Government Association. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 08 Mar 11 - 02:40 PM http://www.ukmusic.org/news/post/133-uk-music-welcomes-government-support-for-live-music-bill Commenting on the bill's passage, Feargal Sharkey, CEO UK Music said: "Not for the first time, I think the entire music industry will want to show its gratitude to Lord Clement-Jones for his perseverance and support. Cutting red tape around the performance of small-scale live music will have a major impact on the careers of fledgling artists and jobbing musicians. "With Government now openly supporting the common sense measures in this Bill, there is growing confidence that we can move quickly forward to unshackle and promote one of this country's greatest and most identifiable assets." |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST Date: 08 Mar 11 - 03:13 AM http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=23359 John King comments: Optimism about the Live Music Bill may evaporate when LACORS issue their revised edition of the Event Safety Guide for small/medium music venues. Register to be consulted at http://www.eventsindustryforum.co.uk/purple_guide/form.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Mar 11 - 08:29 PM http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=24894 John King comments: LACORS publish Lord Clement-Jones Live Music Bill press release. Charlotte Meller (architect of the notorious bagpipe licence) writes: 'We will let colleagues know when we have further details of this will be taken forward' (sic) |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Mar 11 - 07:11 AM http://www.efdss.org/news/newsId/156 |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Mar 11 - 03:24 AM In the many pubs which can now serve alcohol well past 11pm - all non-amplified live music will still require additional entertainment licensing permission if it to continue past 11pm - on grounds of noise? The scapegoating of live music for no purpose other than to enable alcohol to be served, is set to continue. There is an opportunity here to remove the link created by the last Govt between the licensing of alcohol and the licensing of live music and doing it in one licence. This opportunity should be taken. This would allow the controls that are required to address the problems associated with alcohol and would enable the benefits that live music undoubtable brings. Our Govt and Peers seem finally to have recognised these benefits but just seem unable to move far enough away from long-engrained assumptions to do what is requred. There are Home Office proposals which are intended to deal with alcohol related problems but will also affect live music, as the same licence and procedure is in place for both activities. Lord Clement Jones To address the point about residents which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, picked up, the Local Government Association and others have commented on that and it is the reason why these proposals have sometimes got rather stuck in the pipeline. I do not believe that this Bill will adversely affect local residents. The Bill explicitly safeguards residents from public nuisance caused by noise from live music, by allowing licence conditions to be imposed as part of the process under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If these exceptions under the Bill are not granted we may well go backwards, as the coalition Government's Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill proposes changes to the Licensing Act 2003 that are aimed at dealing with alcohol-related crime. Two proposals in particular may have the unintended consequence of stifling live music. The vicinity test for making representations is proposed to be removed, so that any party can now object to a live music event even if they are located in the licensing authority area. Also under the same proposals, "necessary" will be replaced with "appropriate" in the powers given to councils when imposing licensing conditions. In 2009, the DCMS Select Committee rightly expressed concerns about the automatic association between live music and public disorder, so if we are not careful we will very much be again in the area of unintended consequences of combining the two forms of licensing: alcohol and music. That will not produce an effect which will advance the cause of live music. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Mar 11 - 02:08 AM There is a new exemption under the Bill to allow live and recorded music to accompany morris dancing, which I am sure my noble friend Lord Redesdale will approve of. Why do the Lords have this obbsession with Morris (which has not suffered under the Act) to the exclusion of other folk arts like Mumming plays, sessions and the like (which have)? Is non-amplified for Morris going to be the only type of non-amplified live music that is not to be automatically licensable between midnight and 8 am? If not and it is brought into line with what is now proposed for other types of non-amplified music and exempted amplified and recorded music - this will mean that all Morris pre 8am (well dressing and dawn welcoming etc) will now require licensing. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 06 Mar 11 - 02:52 PM My Live Music Bill amends the Licensing Act 2003 in five main respects, including an exemption for live music in small venues for audiences of up to 200 that are licensed under that Act. This exemption is conditional on a new Section 177, which could be triggered to review a licence and make live music in that venue licensable if complaints by local residents are made. The Bill reinforces the rights of residents by allowing conditions to be placed on the premises' licences, following complaints upheld under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Unamplified live music is exempted anywhere between 8 am and midnight on the same day, but this can be disapplied in alcohol-licensed premises if complaints are upheld. Conditions could then be applied. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/05.htm |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 06 Mar 11 - 02:46 PM This is certainly better news. However, I am concerned at the thinking behind the strange idea, proposed to address noise, that at some point in the day, whether at 11.30pm or at midnight, all non-amplified live music requires Additional Entertainment Permission, which it does not require earlier in the same day........... As this cannot give permission to make noise pollution but only give Additional Entertainment Permission - what is the point of having such a curfew? 1. For if the non-amplified live music is not judged to be noise pollution prior to wherever the curfew time is placed - then it will not automatically become noise pollution after this time. 2. If this or indeed any form of music is judged to be noise pollution after this curfew time - then it must have been noise pollution prior to this curfew time. 3. If anything is noise pollution at any time of the day - then the correct legislation must be used to deal with it. I am also concerned that it is our side which is making the proposal. I can understand the wish to take away the opposition's wind but this measure would create a situation where all non-amplified music automatically becomes noise pollution at a certain time of day. This is plainly nonsense. It is encouraging the opposition's (The LGA Group lobby) continuing pretence that additional entertainment permission is a method of dealing with noise pollution. As it can only apply if the noise pollution is emanating from some form of Regulated Entertainment, it cannot be this. For example, if a license decided to operate a chain-saw or some other noisy equipment at any time of the day - this would have to dealt with by the correct noise pollution legislation. Things like when live music ends should not be a licensing matter. They do not currently need licensing conditions imposed for what time they start or stop other pub activities. If they wish to stop serving food at 9.00, it is and should be a matter for them. If they decide to carry on to the time when they have to stop serving alcohol and this leads to complaints - then the validity of those complaints can be assessed at that point. I can see that there might be view that this may not be the right time to examine the whole noise/permission issue - but this debate should have been conducted some time ago...... ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 06 Mar 11 - 12:55 PM http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/31478/grade-uses-first-speech-in-house-of-lords-to [Lord] Grade said that under the current act, anyone who plays without a licence "can tune up and get banged up" and added that acts such as Gilbert and Sullivan and the Beatles would not have been so successful had they been forced to operate under the act. "They all had to start somewhere, and I am certain that wherever they did start, they were not burdened with the redundant bureaucracy of filling out forms to apply for a licence for a harmless pursuit," he said. Grade also said that in an "iPod and headphone world" more should be done to "encourage and promote live performance". He also claimed the act "threatens musical life in our nations at its most fragile point – grassroots level". |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 06 Mar 11 - 12:51 PM http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=69168 Lord Clement-Jones said he was "delighted" the Bill had received such a "positive reception". He later added: "The Live Music Bill will benefit hundreds of small pubs, restaurants and church and community halls who want live music at their venue by generally removing the need to apply for a complicated licence. "I'm glad the government has responded so positively to this Bill and I look forward to working with them to fulfil the coalition agreement's pledge to put an end to red tape and bureaucracy." The coalition had committed to cutting red trap on small scale live music, but so far stalled on announcing its plans on how to tackle this. Earlier, the Bill received plenty of support from peers, including Michael Grade, the former ITV chairman, who was making his maiden speech in the Lords. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST Date: 06 Mar 11 - 12:42 PM The following form Hamish Birchall In a surprise and welcome move, the government yesterday announced its support for Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, subject to certain conditions. Government support significantly increases the bill's chances of success. The conditions include an 11pm cut-off time for performances of live music exempt from entertainment licensing, and a full impact assessment before the bill could become law. Speaking for the government in yesterday's 2nd reading, Baroness Rawlings said: 'I offer my congratulations once again to my noble friend on his Bill, and reiterate the Government's general support, qualified as I have outlined earlier for the measures. We wish to see the Bill amended to take account of the 11 pm noise cut-off for unlicensed live music performance, to make certain that he has continued support. We would like to explore consequential drafting and other amendments with my noble friend in Committee. We are delighted to see that the Bill retains the key protections from the Licensing Act 2003, while making certain that low-risk community events are no longer prevented, or overburdened, by red tape and bureaucracy. The consequences of the Licensing Act 2003 have been to disadvantage many of the cornerstones of local life. It should not be the role of government to restrict creativity and community interaction, but to promote it.' She concluded: 'I congratulate my noble friend once again and wish the Bill a safe and swift passage.' The bill now moves to Committee stage in the Lords, probably within a month. There its provisions will be put under detailed scrutiny, and the government is likely to table its own amendments. Eloquent and passionate support for the bill came in speeches from a number of Peers, including Michael Grade (Conservative, maiden speech), Jenny Randerson (Liberal Democrat - maiden speech), Robin Teverson (Liberal Democrat), Anthony Colwyn (Conservative), Joan Bakewell (Labour), Floella Benjamin (Liberal Democrat), Rupert Redesdale (Liberal Democrat), Merlin Hay (Earl of Erroll, Cross-bencher) and of course the bill's sponsor, Tim Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat). Opposition Labour spokesperson Lord Stevenson of Balmacara admitted that his government had 'got it wrong' with the Licensing Act and live music. Winding up the debate, Lord Clement-Jones thanked his colleagues for their contributions and for the government's 'encouraging words': 'We have been inspired during this debate by the description of the key role played by live music in all our lives and how we want it to make an even bigger impact on them. The Live Music Bill aims to rebalance the Licensing Act and restore some fairness to the treatment of live music and musicians by the licensing authorities. I hope that noble Lords will support it as it goes through the House and I request that it be given a Second Reading. ' Full Hansard text of the debate: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/05.htm Media coverage includes this morning's BBC Radio 4 'Today', with a clip of Lord Clement-Jones' opening speech (from about 2'30" to 3'20"): http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9415000/9415587.stm '... we had the ridiculous situation where Westminster City Council told Tate Britain to get an entertainment licence for Susan Philipsz's Turner Prize-winning sound installation. Ms Philipsz's prize-winning exhibit features a recording of her singing "Lowlands Away", a traditional folk song, played through two loudspeakers. Westminster's legal department ruled that the Act's incidental music exemption could not apply in this case.' The Publican 4th March, 'Live music bill gets government backing': http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=69168&c=1 and the same story in Music Week, 4th March: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044422 The Stage 4th March: 'Grade uses first speech in the Lords to back live music bill': http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/31478/grade-uses-first-speech-in-house-of-lords-to The Incorporated Society of Musicians welcomed the government's backing for the bill. ISM Chief Executive Deborah Annetts said: 'We're delighted that the Live Music Bill has passed its first parliamentary test and has received the support of the government. It's vital that we demolish the bureaucratic barriers of the current licensing regime and allow live music to thrive. Live music-making is a crucial part of our creative economy and many musicians receive their first break by performing in a small venue. We will continue urging peers and MPs to support the Bill as it progresses through Parliament.' http://www.ism.org/news_campaigns/article/leap_forward_in_lords_for_live_music/ Watch the debate on the Parliament website: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/march/live-music-bill-2nd-reading/ Debate text with hyperlinks from theyworkforyou.com http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2011-03-04a.1313.2&s=votes ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 11 - 03:10 AM You can find out who your MP is and ask them to sign EDM 1456 on the following site. www.theyworkforyou.com |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 03 Mar 11 - 09:19 AM http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42496&SESSION=905 28 MPs have now signed this EDM - has your MP signed? |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 03 Mar 11 - 08:43 AM http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044397&c=1 If the Bill passes through this stage it will be moved to the committee stage in the Lords in a few weeks time, where amendments – either proposed by opponents or Clement-Jones' himself – can be debated. If that is successful it can pass to a third reading before moving to the Commons where it will have to be sponsored by an MP. It is likely Lib Dem MP Don Foster, who pushed the Bill under the last parliamentary session, would again support it. Kiehl added that unlike the last parliamentary session, this time around the Bill has plenty of time to be debated. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 11 - 07:52 AM The following from Hamish Birchall New Conservative Peer Michael Grade will use his maiden speech in the House of Lords tomorrow, Friday 4th March, to back Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, reports Robert Ashton in Music Week: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044397&c=1 Other notable speakers include broadcaster and journalist Joan Bakewell (Labour), and former Playschool presenter Floella Benjamin (Lib Dem). Both were made Baronesses last year. In the past week, public support for the bill has also been voiced by the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the Music Industry Association, and the National Campaign for the Arts: Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the ISM, said: 'So many musicians rely on performing live during their career but the current licensing regime is causing opportunities to dry up. In these testing economic times, removing these unfair restrictions can only help musicians. Live music is a vital part of our culture and the House of Lords has a real opportunity to begin the process of reducing the bureaucracy which is crippling the small live music event industry and hampering fledgling careers.' See: http://bit.ly/dSCLnV Paul McManus, chief executive of MIA, said: 'We offer our full support to Lord Clement-Jones on these vital amendments... live music is the lifeblood of the music industry and small venues are often the first chance a young or new musician gets to perform and we must do all we can to ensure government legislation does not frustrate this.' See: http://www.mi-pro.co.uk/news/32017/MIA-backs-live-music-Bill NCA statement: 'The NCA has given its full support to the Bill, which is also backed by Equity, the Musicians Union, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the Live Music Forum, UK Music, and the Publican. We hope to see the bill clear its Lords stages, as it has done previously, and the NCA will be pressing for the Government to allow the Commons time to debate the bill and support its passage into law.' See: http://bit.ly/ejXtjw [Note that their reference to a reintroduction of the two performer exemption is a mistake. It was included in the first live music bill last year, but is not included in the bill to be debated tomorrow, which imposes no limit on the number limit of performers]. The bill has also received consistent and high profile support from UK Music, the lobbying agency for the music industry, and its Chief Executive Feargal Sharkey: http://bit.ly/hZeJB1 See Sharkey also in The Independent, 'The Act killing live music', 20 September 2010: http://ind.pn/algz0c The Publican, a leading licensing trade paper, has been campaigning in support of the bill for over a year: http://www.thepublican.com/section.asp?navcode=399 ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 02 Mar 11 - 10:05 AM The legislation itself is of course a problem to be addressed but mainly because the expectation from those who make the legislation is that those who are paid to enforce it, will do so sensibly and that they are impartial. The LGA Group lobby has shown this not to be the reality. for it was never sensible or impartial for them to interpret the exemption that was the old 'two-in-a-bar' rule, to mean that any form of live music made by more than two people was automatically a licensable performance had had to be paid for or urgently prevented. Live music has to be taken out of the hands of these vandals who have proved that they only look after their own self-interests, whilst hiding behind fine words about protecting the public. I am a member of that public and have had no protection from the LGA Group lobby but I and all live music and culture do need protection from them. One can only hope that this Govt will finally provide this protection........ |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 02 Mar 11 - 09:58 AM *Correction* The NCA referred in error to the original live music bill, not the revised one (which doesn't seek to reintroduce the 'two in a bar rule'). Attention has been drawn to this and they are going to correct and update that webpage. http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=413%3Alive-music-bill-to-have-second-reading-in-the- |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 02 Mar 11 - 04:20 AM http://www.mi-pro.co.uk/news/32017/MIA-backs-live-music-Bill Paul McManus, the chief executive of the MIA, urged peers to back the Bill. "We offer our full support to Lord Clement-Jones on these vital amendments," he said. "Live music is the lifeblood of the music industry and small venues are often the first chance a young or new musician gets to perform and we must do all we can to ensure government legislation does not frustrate this." |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 01 Mar 11 - 01:41 PM http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2011-02-28a.96.1 John King comments: Live music licensing gets several mentions in the Big Society debate |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 01 Mar 11 - 04:20 AM http://www.thisislichfield.co.uk/news/City-pub-faces-music-noise-complaint/article-3260878-detail/article.html Mr Rackham, who also hosts Lichfield Folk Club singing sea shanties once a fortnight, says he is aiming to meet the demand for live music in Lichfield and has been organising acts for the past six years. He said: "It is important for the city. And there is a good atmosphere at the King's Head. There's no trouble – people just come along to enjoy themselves." One fan is Lichfield MP Michael Fabricant who, after attending an open mic night, declared the King's Head his "very favourite pub". But Mr Rackham is under no illusions – losing his music licence would have a serious effect John King comments: ONE anonymous complaint and Lichfield Council start proceeding to ban live music. It's time for the LGA 'Culture' spokesman to step down. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 01 Mar 11 - 04:14 AM http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=413%3Alive-music-bill-to-have-second-reading-in-the- The Live Music Bill seeks to amend the Licensing Act in four ways: An exemption for live music in small venues that are licensed under the Licensing Act 2003, conditional on a new Section 177 A reintroduction of the "two-in-a-bar" rule An amended Section 177, which will act as an effective licence review mechanism for complaints about live music in licensed premises A total exemption for hospitals, schools and colleges from the requirement to obtain a licence for live music when providing entertainment where alcohol is not sold, and the entertainment involves no more than 200 people The NCA has given its full support to the Bill, which is also backed by Equity, the Musicians Union, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the Live Music Forum, UK Music, and the Publican. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 25 Feb 11 - 06:00 AM http://www.ism.org/news_campaigns/article/first_debate_on_the_live_music_bill_friday_4_march/ Deborah Annetts, Chief Executive of the Incorporated Society of Musicians, urged peers to back the Bill saying: 'So many musicians rely on performing live during their career but the current licensing regime is causing opportunities to dry up. In these testing economic times, removing these unfair restrictions can only help musicians. 'Live music is a vital part of our culture and the House of Lords has a real opportunity to begin the process of reducing the bureaucracy which is crippling the small live music event industry and hampering fledgling careers.' |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 25 Feb 11 - 05:56 AM http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/guy-ritchie-drops-bid-for-live-gigs-at-pub_1203935 Locals worried about noise levels were outraged by his proposal, while Father William Pearsall at the nearby Jesuit Church of the Immaculate Conception claimed nightly gigs would "contribute" to nuisance. Ritchie dropped his bid on Wednesday (23Feb11), a day before his application was due to be considered by Westminster Council's licensing sub-committee on Thursday (24Feb11). It is believed the request was withdrawn with a view to reapplying later this year (11), after Ritchie has consulted residents. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Feb 11 - 09:46 AM http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=102752489786607&ref=search CAMPAIGN FOR THE FREEDOM OF MUSIC After winning a groundbreaking court case against Manchester City Council for cancelling a Bob Marley Tribute Festival in Manchester, Mike Forrester from Gold National Events now wants a public enquiry into the practices of Councils and the Police in their procedures towards urban music so that other promoters, festival organisers and club owners can give the public the freedom of music without the bureaucracy and bias. Please sign this petition that you agree that an enquiry should be held, we want to get 250,000 signatures. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Feb 11 - 09:41 AM http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=69113&c=1 Culture committee chairman John Whittingdale adds to pressure on DCMS to reveal its hand An influential Tory MP has called on the government to introduce a licence exemption on small pub gigs "without delay". John Whittingdale, chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee, has increased the pressure on the coalition to act by tabling a parliamentary motion on the long-running issue around live music. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Feb 11 - 09:28 AM The following from Hamish Birchall An Early Day Motion calling on the government to introduce an entertainment licence exemption for small gigs 'without delay' was tabled last week by John Whittingdale: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42496&SESSION=905 'EDM 1465: That this House notes that it is now more than 12 months since the Department for Culture, Media and Sport launched a consultation to exempt small live music events from the bureaucracy of the Licensing Act 2007; further notes that an exemption has not yet been granted despite the commitment to cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music in the Coalition Agreement; and calls on the Government to introduce an exemption without delay.' 2007 is a misprint and should read 2003. Mr Whittingdale is the Conservative chair of the all party Culture, Media and Sport select committee. In 2008/9 the committee held a public inquiry into the Licensing Act. After taking evidence from all stakeholders, including local government representatives and the police, it recommended, among other things, an exemption for gigs in venues up to 200 capacity: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/492/492.pdf To date the new EDM has 15 MPs' signatures in support. But it needs to do much better if it is to have any significant influence on the government. Please ask your MP to sign. You can send them a message using this website: www.theyworkforyou.com Support for this EDM is particularly important in view of the 2nd reading of Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill on Friday 4th March, and the announcement on entertainment licensing deregulation promised 'shortly' by DCMS minister John Penrose on 31st January. The bill, and Penrose's imminent announcement, represent the best opportunity in many years for real improvement and modernisation of the way performances of live music are regulated. ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: sian, west wales Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:28 AM I've had a call from a researcher working for Jenny Randerson, a LibDem Welsh Assembly Member who (apparently) has 'gone up' to the House of Lords recently. She's making her maiden speech in the Licensing Debate in the Lords, the morning of March 4th. I sent her trac's response to the last consultation plus a variety of market stats and other background info on traditonal music. Wait and see, I guess. sian |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:52 AM http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Police-opposition-to-later-licence-for-restaurant.htm John King comments: How much crime is caused by entertainment in Chinese restaurants? Probably zero. The police are objecting to this licence because they have forgotten how to serve the community that pays their wages. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:47 AM http://blog.musicroom.com/music-news/mia-supports-live-music-venue-amendments Paul McManus, chief executive officer of the MIA, explained: "While it is encouraging that the Bill will be debated, the fact that it remains unclear whether the government will provide the necessary support is of concern. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:43 AM http://bluesmatters.com/magazine/2011/02/an-end-in-sight-to-the-damage-caused-to-live-music-by-the-last-government%E2%80%99s-ill AN END IN SIGHT TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO LIVE MUSIC BY THE LAST GOVERNMENT'S ILL ADVISED LICENSING LAWS? Posted on February 17, 2011 |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:38 AM http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12505772 Is live music under threat in the UK? John King comments: Apparently Feargal Sharkey is only 'fairly convinced' that the Licensing Act is causing problems. Is he about to let the side down again? |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:32 AM http://www.newstatesman.com/pdf/20110221socialising.pdf Feargal Sharkey's New Statesman article on page 6. '...our less progressive councils insist on viewing live music as a potential threat to the fabric of society' |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 21 Feb 11 - 07:01 AM Meanwhile................. It is likely that licensing minister James Brokenshire will consider last week's committee stage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill something of a triumph: very few banana-skin moments, lots of unsubstantiated waffle which was not challenged and a completely unscathed licensing section. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/89817?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:18 AM The ways to contact your MP and ask them to support EDM 1465. http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-your-mp/ |
| Share Thread: |