Subject: RE: What is folk ? - OFFICIAL
From:
The Shambles
Date: 26 May 02 - 04:37 PM
This letter to Michael Portillo MP from Dr Howells, makes a new and rather important observation (in bold).
Thank you for your letter of 17 February, enclosing one from your constituent, ………….. of ……………………, who is the licensee of the 606 Club. Mr …… has expressed concern over the current public entertainment licensing laws.
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the adjournment debate in the Commons as I had to be in the United States of America to promote Britain's hospitality, leisure and tourist industries in the Golden Jubilee year. However, I am aware of what was discussed at the debate.
Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases, I would like to take the opportunity to explain the relevant law. There is no current restriction on the number of musicians or dancers who may perform together in licensed premises if the licensee has first obtained an appropriate public entertainment licence from the local authority. However, under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 a public entertainment licence is not required if music or dancing is performed by less than three performers on licensed premises i.e. the 'two in a bar rule'. The rule is intended to apply to public performances put on by a public house to entertain the public and should not prevent ordinary people singing together or dancing in public houses.
The purpose of licence conditions is to ensure safety, minimise nuisance and prevent crime and disorder, and we would expect local authorities to take these factors into consideration when considering applications for public entertainment licenses, particularly during special occasions such as the Golden Jubilee.
Local councils have considerable discretion under the existing system for public entertainment licensing with regard to conditions and fees, and it is acknowledged that there are inconsistencies which must be addressed. The councils have been formally advised that their conditions should be relevant the venues, and that the replication of regulations which may contribute towards higher fees being charged should be avoided. My Department is continuing to liase with the councils and is looking into the possibility of offering further guidance on public entertainment licenses in the near future.
As you know we are planning a comprehensive reform of the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws. Details of the proposals can be found in the White Paper "Time for Reform" published in April 2000, which can be read or downloaded from our web-site address (www.culture.gov.uk/new-responsibilities/liquor-index.html). The new proposals will provide a more flexible and simplified system of licensing for alcohol and public entertainment and promote greater opportunities for musicians and other performers. In order to ensure consistency and fairness across the country, close controls will be placed on the powers of local authorities who will administer the proposed new streamlined licensing system. It is my intention to bring forward a reform Bill as soon as Parliamentary time is available.
I should end by mentioning that we are marking the Golden Jubilee by placing before Parliament a proposal to relax the alcohol licensing hours, which will allow public houses, nightclubs, restaurants, registered members' clubs and bars, to open for an additional two hours on the evening of 3 June until 1am. I am confident that this proposal will be enthusiastically welcomed by industry and the general public, allowing a greater freedom to choose when and where to celebrate.
Dr Kim Howells MP
The following is a letter to Dr Howells (via my MP) and his reply dated 02/05/02.
04/04/02
Dear Mr Knight
Despite all this proposed major reform we still seem to be stuck with the definition of public entertainment, for purposes of licensing, as music and dancing. The proposed changes will not be a reform without a new and more sensible definition of what is or is not public entertainment.
That one form of art or expression should alone be singled out as only permissible after a fee is paid by a third party to a local authority is an unfair disincentive to music making, and not specifically addressing the stated goal of the licensing.
Ensuring the public's interests and making premises safe for whatever activity is to take place, or whatever future form this may take, can probably best be done with a general statement of that requirement, rather than attempting to specify exactly the nature of every activity.
If (some) music related activities are seen to present a specific problem, not presented by other forms of public entertainment, such as noise this is the area that needs to be (and is), addressed by other legislation.
The standard conditions applied to the current licences, and which I assume will still apply to the premises licence, apply to non-musical entertainment like hypnotism or pyrotechnics.
Many forms of musical activity do not in fact present any appreciable noise concern, but the current and proposed law makes no distinction. A licence refused or conditions made on the grounds of noise, will also prevent or affect music not presenting this.
Many forms of musical activity taking place in pubs, many of them provided by and for customers, not only do not present any additional safety concerns or appreciable noise concerns, but should not even be considered as conventional public entertainment. The current and proposed law makes no distinction.
Other non-musical forms of entertainment provided in pubs by licensees or by and for fellow customers are not subject to any unfair disincentive or to a third party obtaining an additional licence. Examples are quiz nights, darts and so on. Satellite TV, is also currently exempt from this requirement. As it is not music or dancing, will it remain so?
The current public entertainment licence is a tax or a music licence. If one art form or expression is to continue to be considered differently to others under reform, then this element should be honestly referred to as a music and dancing element (or tax). For that is what it is to be in effect.
Many of the 95% of licensed premises that do not hold PELs, are also currently providing safe premises, on a regular and on a casual basis, for small-scale musical activities. It will act as a disincentive for these premises to continue proving this, if they have to submit specific operating plans, make additional payments to enable music making to continue and are also subject to more official inspections and are then subject to pay for any alterations required. Many of which relating to noise, may not be necessary or applicable, as not all music presents noise concerns.
It could well prove to be that musical entertainment will still take place, unadvertised and on a casual basis, being driven underground and presenting more problems for the public and enforcement officers. A situation that will not be in anybody's interests, for making music is not a criminal activity, musical expression is a right.
It must be recognised that other existing legislation has made these musical activities safe and ensured the interests of the public. And that as in Scotland, no additional licence is required in pubs and bars.
Musical expression should not continued to be singled out and placed at risk by being used as a scapegoat, when the issues and concerns are noise, crime and other social problems.
The actions taken by many local authorities, to the detriment of musical expression, in strictly interpreting and enforcing current legislation, does not fill one with much confidence, when the whole responsibility for licensing is to be handed over to them. For the present Government has made it clear that the current rule should no be used to prevent ordinary people from singing and dancing in pubs but the Government is just watching while many councils, including mine, are doing just that.
The Government's intention can be overridden currently and also under the proposed legislation by councils declaring such music making to be public entertainment.
The DCMS's Ronnie Bridgett made the follow reply to Weymouth and Portland Borough Council on 04/02/02.
It is not planned that the new system will give an exemption to any forms of entertainment. The proposal is that all activities to be held on a Premises Licence (including non-amplified music) would need to be revealed in the operating plan put for approval to the licensing authority. The authority could only impose conditions on the Premises Licence which protect public safety and prevent disorder, crime and public nuisance.
The following question from is from Hamish Birchall and the more recent (03/04/02) reply from Mr Bridgett is of interest.
But the Government now proposes that, in addition to the risk assessments employers have a statutory duty to undertake (taking into account all activities in the workplace), 'all activities to be held on a Premises Licence including non-amplified music would need to be revealed in the operating plan put for approval to the local authority'.
Do you envisage licensees being required to declare whether or not customers will sing - unamplified - for their own amusement?
We do not anticipate that premises licences would have to include such an element
.
This does seem to contradict Mr Bridgett's earlier reply given to my council. If it is the latest thinking it should be welcomed but needs to appear and be set in the Government's proposals. The problem being that without the principle, of the right to make music being established in the legislation, it still only needs one of our officials to claim the activity is public entertainment, for us to have go to court to fight it, exactly the same as now.
I accept that this Government is sincere in its wish to reform and improve the current system and its current failures and excesses. I would be most grateful if you could comment on and pass on this letter to Dr Howells for his comments.
From Kim Howells 02/05/02
I share your constituent's concern about the current restrictions relating to the provision of entertainment in public places and can assure him that the Government's far-reaching licensing reform proposals will simplify and integrate the licensing regimes so that it is easier and less expensive for public houses to obtain the necessary permission to stage musical performances. As Mr Gall has rightly remarked, the main purpose of licensing legislation is to ensure public safety on premises, whatever the nature of the event may be, and to prevent undue disturbance to local residents. It is the statutory duty of local councils to take these factors into consideration when determining applications for public entertainment licenses. The current exemption from the normal requirement for a public entertainment licence, i.e. the "two in a bar rule" has widely been recognized as ineffective in preventing noise nuisance.
The Government would not accept that it is the case that certain types of music, for example acoustic, are never "noisy" and should be excluded from the new licensing regime. We would also expect other factors, such as public safety and the time of day or night that a musical performance takes place, to influence the decisions of local authorities on licence conditions. We believe that, under a truly fair system of licensing, local councils must take individual circumstances into consideration when determining public entertainment licence applications.
However, to ensure consistency across the country, there will be clear and transparent procedures which regulate the licensing authorities activities, and licensing fees will be set centrally to prevent the excesses which have occurred in some local authority areas.
I can confirm that my Department has consistently stated that our intention is to properly regulate public performances put on by licensed premises to entertain the public. We do not anticipate that spontaneous singing which does not constitute a "performance" under the terms of a licensing bill, or is not undertaken or organised for "reward" as defined in the Bill, will be within the range of the licensing regime. The Government is aware of the importance of properly defining what constitutes a public performance and will ensure clarity on this point.
Finally, you may wish to know what the Association of British Jazz had to say about the Government's proposals:-
"Remarkably, these reforms could benefit everyone: the brewers and landlords, as well as the present and future employees in the industry; and of course there will be increased opportunities for entertainers, particularly musicians. The reduction in legislation, with consequent savings to brewers and individual licensees, should also mean that there will be more money in the system for the payment of entertainers at a proper level."
As you know, it is my intention to bring forward a licensing reform Bill as soon as Parliamentary time is available.
| 
sj
