24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jul 02 - 04:11 PM

If I was a minister and someone drafted me as ill-thought out letter as that, I'd want them replaced. No competent civil servant could ever ask his minister to sign a direct falsehood, and he does here. So in the letter poor old Howells puts his name to the bald and unambiguous assertion: "We do not currently intend to provide for the licensing...of any public entertainment which is not already covered in the existing public entertainment licensing laws."

But in fact the intention is that the bill will completely remove the two-in-a-bar exemption, rather than extending it, which means that a lot of public entertainment that is not currently required to have a licence will have to have one.

In other words a howelling falsehood.

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Jul 02 - 05:38 PM

Letter to my MP from Dr Howells 17/07/02.

Thank you for your letter of 24 June, enclosing a letter from your constituent Roger Gall..........., in connection with our proposals for public entertainment licensing reform.

Your constituent has asked if live satellite screening of sporting events will remain uncovered by the entertainment element of the proposed premises licence. I can confirm that we do not currently intend to provide for the licensing (and therefore inclusion in the operating plan) of any public entertainment which is not already covered in the existing public entertainment licensing laws. In the context of alcohol and public entertainment, we are proposing a deregulatory and not a regulatory Bill. If it is the considered position of the Musician's Union nationally that the definition of public entertainment should be expanded, we will certainly consider it.

Mr Gall believes that existing legislation dealing with noise nuisance makes redundant the need to license music, dancing and entertainment of a like kind. So far as I am aware there is no law in this country which addresses public nuisance generally, although there are some by-laws which can be made by local authorities, but in many parts of the country they have not been created. The powers under Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Noise Act 1996 are relatively limited. While a local resident who is disturbed by excessive noise from commercial or private premises can ask the local authority to serve a Noise Abatement Notice, the act limits the enforcement powers of the authority. Premises must be given time in which to comply, which is not ideal for the local resident. Although there are some powers to seize equipment that is generating unacceptable noise levels, there is no immediate power to stop the people who are making the noise unless it can be said in law that they are causing a breach of the peace. However, the Licensing Act 1964 provides powers for the police to close down licensed premises instantly which are excessively noisy for up to twenty four hours if that is necessary to prevent disturbance to the public. Furthermore, under current public entertainment licensing law, there is no requirement for a warning to be given when any conditions attached to the licence are breached. The local authority is entitled to prosecute the operator of the premises without further ado. This places a significant pressure on the holder of the licence to ensure its conditions are complied with. In both cases, whether under the 1964 Act or under public entertainment licensing law, both the liquor and public entertainment licence could be forfeited.

It should be noted that public safety is an equally important consideration under public entertainment licensing law. At present, there is no provision under health and safety legislation which obliges premises just selling alcohol to which the public are admitted to have a safe capacity. There is therefore no capacity limit for the vast majority of public houses in England and Wales. Similarly, there is nothing in health and safety and safety law which requires most venues (other than stadia in certain contexts) providing music and dancing to have safety capacities. Accordingly, it is only through public entertainment licensing that a safe capacity limit can be imposed on venues or places at which music or dancing is taking place.

No health and safety legislation can require that free water should be available at a discotheque where there are fears that drug use and prolonged dancing could result in serious dehydration, nor is there a provision for clubs to provide a 'chill out" room for hyperactive dancers to allow them to calm down when they may be injuring their bodies while under the influence of drugs. Licensing law conditions provide the mechanism for these requirements. These types of condition cannot be imposed by magistrates in connection with a liquor licence as they would be deemed unreasonable and therefore unlawful.

In brief, there is no complete duplication between the requirements of health and safety legislation and noise legislation and existing licensing law. Where there is duplication, we intend to eliminate it under the new regime.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain that the alcohol and entertainment licensing reforms would require local authorities to follow rules and procedures. They would have no discretion to refuse a licence or impose any condition unless a reasonable objection to the operating plan based on valid evidence had been raised by the police, an environmental health officer, the fire authority or local residents.

This would give the professional officers greater influence than they currently have. In granting or refusing licenses, or imposing any conditions, which would be proportionate and tailored to the venue, the local council would also be legally bound to take into account guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Departure from this guidance, without a good or valid reason, would provide grounds for an appeal to the courts.

In response to Me Gall's concern that a premises licence might somehow prevent music which is not considered a noise nuisance from being performed in licensed premises I must point out that the new system will allow for variation. Also, as I have pointed out in previous correspondence the fee for a premises licence would be no different whether the public house sought permission solely to sell alcohol or decided to go for multiple permissions, including the provision of public entertainment.

Finally, to address the human rights issue, I must reiterate that licensing legislation must take into consideration the rights of local residents as well as musicians. It is essential that the greater freedom and opportunities which would be available to licensees and performers under the new regime are balanced with powers to deal with the small minority who might abuse such freedom, damage communities and bring the industry into disrepute.

Dr Kim Howells

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Jul 02 - 07:53 PM

It should be noted that public safety is an equally important consideration under public entertainment licensing law. At present, there is no provision under health and safety legislation which obliges premises just selling alcohol to which the public are admitted to have a safe capacity. There is therefore no capacity limit for the vast majority of public houses in England and Wales. Similarly, there is nothing in health and safety and safety law which requires most venues (other than stadia in certain contexts) providing music and dancing to have safety capacities. Accordingly, it is only through public entertainment licensing that a safe capacity limit can be imposed on venues or places at which music or dancing is taking place.

So the 95% of pubs, venues or places where a PEL is not present and in those where no music or dancing is taking place, are unsafe then? As according to Dr Howells, there is now no means and of placing a safe capacity on them.........without music or dancing taking place, and thus creating a need for a public entertainment licence!

Are this people mad, or do they just think that we are?

All these public premises need to be made safe for whatever activity is to take place. If a maximum capacity is required to make them all safe, then introduce measures (a maximum capacity) under health and safety legislation that will ensure that they all are safe, irrespective of whether music or dancing or juggling or knife throwing is to take place? .............Or is that far too simple?

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jul 02 - 08:06 PM

"No health and safety legislation can require that free water should be available at a discotheque" - that's absolutely rubbish, and the man must know it. There's absolutely no reason there couldn't be a legal requirement on any place which sells any drink at all to provide free water on request.

That's always been normal practice in any case, until these bastards who run some of these events got into the act.

Sending a sentence like that to an MP is a downright insult. And any minister who could write it, or even sign it, is clearly not up to a job in government at any level.

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Jul 02 - 08:32 PM

What he is referring to is the recent (well intended)addition to the PEL standard conditions. If you remember there was a thread on the subject. The licensee of the Black Dog here in Broadmayne was complaining when it was adopted by the council here. He did not like the condition being imposed on his small country pub, when it was only applicible to raves and dancing.

I tried to dig the thread up but I couldn't remember its name........ Anyone?

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Jul 02 - 05:37 AM

The public's safety (overcrowding) is such a pressing current concern for our Government that in the more than 2 years of these reforms being in the White Paper, no 'safe capacity' has been required for live TV showing of sports events in pubs!

What Dr Howells does not say is that the new premises licence - that all premises have to obtain, even if they are not providing music or dancing and applying for the optional 'entertainment element' - will incorporate operating conditions in the application's operating plan.

The White Paper states that this will cover, (e.g. hours, noise, fire exits, capacity) limited to crime and disorder/public safety/nuisance factors, and set locally on basis of the balance of operators requirements/residents views/police and fire authority assessments.

It would appear from this that all premises, whether or not they choose the entertainment option, will have a safe capacity set. A very good thing. There is no reason why premises providing entertainment could not have two, one for when entertainment is not taking place and one when it is not.

So why the continued pretence that continuing the blanket licensing of music making is the only means of providing a safe capacity?

So there really is no need for a separate and optional entertainment element, which without the exact nature of the entertainment being specified well in advance, no music making can take place. How many of the 95% of licensees who do not have the current PEL, will not choose the additional red tape of the optional entertainment element?

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 02 - 11:02 AM

If the landlord of the Black Dog in Broadmayne, or anywhere else, won't give you a free glass of plain water when you ask for it, he isn't fit to be a landlord, and the pub ought to be boycotted.

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Jul 02 - 07:00 PM

The following quote from Val Weedon, from the UK Noise Association, in the Times article 25 July 2002.

"Its rare that we ever receive complaints about live music in pubs and bars. In fact, its fair to say that more complaints arrive about the noise levels of amplified pre-recorded music."

Dr. Howells: I am very much in favour of live music in pubs, but I am not in favour of any Minister in Parliament trying to define what constitutes jazz, folk music or any other kind of music. I have been the victim of one man with an amplifier that nearly blew my head off.

I wonder if Tony Blair is aware that Dr Howells is referring to his Prime Minister's attempts at guitar playing, in such terms?

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 02 - 07:51 PM

I don't suppose anybody out there has a bootleg tape of Ugly Rumours, the group Tony Blair played in? Or photos of our lad in action?

I think that might be the best way of spurring him into giving us back our right to sing and make music.

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 Jul 02 - 02:13 AM

No competent civil servant could ever ask his minister to sign a direct falsehood

Well here's your problem.

Firstly, at certain levels there is no such thing as a competent civil servant (I know, I am a civil servant - all the sensible ones are at the bottom grades where they do the work and can't get promoted because no-one else would do it, the exception is in IT)

And secondly, he may not feel able to ask, but the minister would sign it regardless, if it meant another term in office.

LTS

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 02 - 09:25 AM

I should have said "a direct direct and demonstrable falsehood" - those are the sort that are embarrassing. And it is so easy to write letters that avoid that kind of thing whilst being equally misleading. That is the supreme skill of the Sir Humphreys - and whoever put that shoddy letter together is no Sir Humphrey.

Perhaps the direct fibs were the bits actually inserted by Kim Howells? Thinking it over, that seems much more likely. I know people always say that politicians habitually lie, but they mostly aren't actually very good at doing so.

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jul 02 - 01:40 PM

The 'Jazzers' present on Wednesday have organised the following event.

You are invited to attend a gathering of like-minded souls to advance

THE FUTURE FOR LICENSED PERFORMANCE IN LICENSED PREMISES

On Wednesday 23rd October 2002- from 2 pm.

THE TRAFALGAR TAVERN, PARK ROW GREENWICH LONDON SE10

Positive forward-looking statements will be encouraged from a wide range of contributors including:-

Hamish Birchall (Musicians Union)
Louise Denny (Eloquent Activist)
Chris Wroe (Greenwich Council)
and representatives from the licensed trade and the media.

THERE WILL BE MUSIC FROM RIVERFRONT JAZZ AND A LICENSED BAR AFTER THE BREAK.

The business should conclude around 5.30pm. The revelry may continue.

David Silk 01689 875683

More details on this and other 'two in a bar' activity to be found on www.jazznights.co.uk (music issues)

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 02 - 01:55 PM

And the guy who has set that up indicated that other musicians turning up will likely get a chance to have a bit of a session too.

(Actually what he said at the Red Lion thing was "You lot come with your band" and when we said "We're not a band, we've never played together before", he said "You're playing together now anyway, that means you're a band.")

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: GUEST,Neil the goblin
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 06:53 AM

Dear McGrath of Harlow, Where can I find the words to the PEL song you sang last wednesday?I would love to learn it and perform it if it's ok with you. cheers Neil. ps.see you at Sidmouth

Subject: Lyr Add - A Licence to Sing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 08:48 AM

Great - I'll be very happy to have you sing it. Or pass it on as well. See you at Sidmouth.

Here is a link to it on my songs website, with a streaming RealAudio file as well.

But just in case that doesn't work, here are the words anyway:

Well I went into a public house, and ordered up my beer,
and the barman says, I'm sorry mate, you cannot sing in here.
A fellow from the council, he came on very strong,
says I haven't got the licence that will let you sing your songs.
Sing a song of freedom, sing it while you may,
rules and regulations are taking it away
So sing a song of freedom, better sing it very quiet,
If anyone joins the chorus, then a licence is required.

One of you or two of you, well that could be allowed -
But if anyone joined the chorus, well, three would make a crowd. If I let you sing your songs, then I 'd be sorry if I did, For that could mean a fine for me of twenty thousand quid. Sing a song of freedom, sing it while you may,
rules and regulations are taking it away
So sing a song of freedom, better sing it very quiet,
If anyone joins the chorus, then a licence is required.

Football on the telly that can make the rafters ring -
But if you want to sing a song, that's quite a different thing.
Folk or Jazz or Rock and Roll, any old kind of sound,
Reggae, punk, or Mozart, they do not want us round.
Sing a song of freedom, sing it while you may,
rules and regulations are taking it away
So sing a song of freedom, better sing it very quiet,
If anyone joins the chorus, then a licence is required.

Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free
If you keep your head down, they just might let you be.
Land of Hope and Glory - excuse me if I laugh.
If you want to sing a song, best sing it in the bath.
Sing a song of freedom, sing it while you may,
rules and regulations are taking it away
So sing a song of freedom, better sing it very quiet,
If anyone joins the chorus, then a licence is required.

Sing a song of freedom, sing it while you may,
Though their rules and regulations may be standing in the way,
Sing a song of freedom, sing it loud and clear,
Sing a song of freedom, let them know that you are here.

Sometimes I do it with the chorus every four lines, sometimes every eight, or varied. The tune varies a bit. Sort of in between Click Go the Shears and Morningtown Ride.

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 06:00 AM

If I may say so, this ia a far better song than one about fighting the law and the law winning.

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 09:41 AM

Has anyone had any joy with the TV sport issue?

I have sent the following to the 'top knobs' of my local police area.

I would be most grateful if you could please confirm that there have never been - locally - any complaints from the public, overcrowding, noise nuisance, or disorder problems associated with pubs providing live TV sport and football matches?

Perhaps you could do the same? Re the following-

1. Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden): If she will make a statement on her policy towards the licensing of televising of sport in public houses under the terms of the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill. [68956]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): As is the case with existing legislation, the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill will not include the licensing of the televising of sport in public houses in its definition of public entertainment. A publican, of course, already requires and will continue to require a normal domestic television licence.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, given the licensing disparity between televised football and live music in pubs—the former is subject to no regulation but the latter is subject to a complicated regulation mechanism—will he encourage members of the Cabinet to look at introducing legislation in the Queen's Speech that will reform the public entertainment licence system and encourage live music and particularly young musicians in small venues?

Dr. Howells: We will certainly look at getting rid of the absurd two in a bar rule. I have looked long and hard at the evidence, but we have never received any to suggest that watching television in a pub causes the kinds of scenes that have sometimes occurred in pubs with live music. Nor, indeed, have we had any reports of disturbances caused by watching television in a pub—we have certainly received some reports of incidents following the playing of live music in pubs. Generally speaking, however, pubs are excellent venues for live music. We want to make sure that that continues to be the case and that there are more venues for live music, not fewer.

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 04:59 PM

The letter from Howells is really poor. "Excessively noisy" is such an ambiguous term that any storm trooper could do almost anything he wanted. Any good lawyer (American style, anyway) could knock it right back down. The catch, of course, is that the publican could be out of business by the time it all gets resolved.

As a folkie on this side of the pond, I find it difficult to believe that 'free' people cannot sing where they wish. I also find it difficult to believe that you have to be a union member to sing in public. (I am a union activist here.) Anyone who has seen older movies with pub scenes can recall seeing people singing together in all sorts of communal situations.

It has been said that people get the government they deserve. Tom Jefferson said that it is the right and duty of citizens to change the government every so often (not that we have been that successful doing that here).

I have real problems with the concept that a group of my friends and I cannot get together in a bar or pub or park and just start playing for our own and passersby's pleasure.

Am I crazy or is the world?

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 06:28 PM

I am beginning to believe that it is us that is crazy.

Thanks for your support. However, I think that I may have given you the wrong impression.

I also find it difficult to believe that you have to be a union member to sing in public. (I am a union activist here.)

That is not the case. It was just that on that day the MU had organised the event and hired the bar (to prevent problems to the licensee) for a publicity stunt. The MU considered that the musicians there (other than Billy Bragg) were just not really required. It was their party after all.......

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 07:45 PM

"I also find it difficult to believe that you have to be a union member to sing in public." Some thing that are difficult to believe aren't actually true, and that is one of them. (And it wouldn't have made any diffeence if we'd all been members of the MU at that press stunt. Which for all I know some of us were.)

Mind I tend to think that anyone who isn't a member of some union is probably opting out of a civic duty, but that's a different matter.

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 03:37 PM

I agree that everyone should be a union member if a union covers your main source or a major source of your income. If, however, your interest in performing is as an amateur (in the sense of one who does it for the joy it gives) it does not necessarily make sense to pay for the pleasure of lifting your voice.

I also found it disturbing that people who were playing on the sidewalk were treated like vagrants and, essentially, threatened with the choice of running along or being run in. We are not talking of major performances here.

ps, although I now work as a capitalist, I continue my union activities as an "active retired" member both locally and on the statewide level. My former bosses have real problems with this as they now have no control at all over my activities except to have me barred from the facility, which they cannot do because that would be anti-union activity and actionable.

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 05:34 PM

We are not talking of major performances here.

Err we did a pretty good 'Click Goes The Shears Boys'!*Smiles*

It was a funny event, with a few wires crossed and as I said, it was the MU's party......... We will just have to do a better one ourselves?

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 02 - 06:16 AM

To the DCMS from Hamish Birchall.

Dear Ronnie

I am sorry to have to draw your attention again to inaccuracies and misleading statements made in recent letters to MPs signed by Kim Howells relating to PELs, live television, safe capacities in pubs, noise and public safety. The cumulative effect is to imply, wrongly, that in respect of any live music in pubs bars etc, existing public safety and noise legislation is inadequate to regulate the attendant risks.

This in turn creates the impression that problems associated with live music in this context are driving the Government's PEL reforms, which is, of course, complete nonsense.

Firstly, as Andrew Cunningham acknowledged in an email to me dated 15 May 2002, the Musicians Union had already made representations to the Government about live television and their view that its exemption from licensing as public entertainment was an anomaly (response to Licensing White Paper, July 2000). It is therefore entirely wrong for the Minister to imply that the Union has not yet made such representations (Howells to Jim Knight MP, 17 July 2002, ref: CO2/07524/02434/pa).

Secondly, it is not the case that 'only through public entertainment licensing that a safe capacity limit can be imposed on venues or places at which music or dancing is taking place'. Licensing justices can and regularly do impose a capacity limit on the grant of liquor on licences. The Magistrates Courts, and John Murphy of the Magistrates Association confirmed that this is common in London. Licensing lawyer Jeremy Phillips, co-editor of Pattersons, confirmed that it is also common practice in Birmingham. Such premises may not have dancing without a PEL but they can have music (the reproduction of recorded sound or performed by one or two live musicians).

Thirdly, it is untrue to suggest that local authorities cannot enforce Noise Abatement Notices quickly (ref: as above). The noise policy unit at DEFRA confirmed to me on the phone that local authorities can suspend rights of appeal and enforce these Notices almost immediately, and that all local authorities have the power to seize noisy equipment. Incidentally, you may also have read in last week's Times the comment by Val Weedon of the UK Noise Association: 'It's rare that we receive complaints about live music in pubs and bars. In fact, it's fair to say that more complaints arrive about the noise levels of amplified pre-recorded music'(Billy Bragg leads lament for grassroots music, Dalya Alberge and Richard Ford, 25 July 2002)

I asked those I spoke to at DEFRA and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health whether, in their view, the present legislation was inadequate to deal with noise emanating from premises. Their answer was 'no'. This is reinforced by the DEFRA review of the 1996 Noise Act which found that the majority of local authorities did not feel there was a need to change that legislation, although there may be a need for more resources to underwrite enforcement.
Yours sincerely Hamish Birchall

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 02 - 07:04 AM

Live music making should be encouraged for people of all ages, culture and religion and no single musician should ever in the future be considered to be involved in criminal activity, just for making live music.

Dear Mr Knight

Thank you for the letter from Dr Howells 17/06/01. I would be grateful if you would consider, advise and pass on to Dr Howells the following serious concerns about the accuracy of that letter and the subsequent weakness of the argument contained in that letter, for future legislation? A badly flawed argument that has more holes in it than my old gig bag, one based entirely on these inaccuracies and misinformation, that will continue with legislation that discriminates against and makes criminals of all musicians, for just making live music.

What is required from the Government, is for it to simply ensure that there are safe public premises to enable and encourage as many people as possible to participate in, be exposed to and enjoy the magic and proven benefits of live music making.

Live music making that is a vital element of this nation's culture and identity but has for far too long been subject to interference from unsympathetic, antiquated and unnecessary bureaucratic controls, which are currently making this nation an international laughing stock. For this to be continued under a Government department with a major remit to encourage and protect this culture, and a wonderful opportunity to do so, is totally inexcusable. But of course the Home Office roots of these so-called cultural 'reforms', are still showing. Perhaps if these roots can be grown out, more sensible and forward-looking thinking can yet be demonstrated by the DCMS?

Deregulatory or a regulatory Bill?
Dr Howells makes an incorrect and misleading statement. "I can confirm that we do not currently intend to provide for the licensing (and therefore inclusion in the operating plan) of any public entertainment which is not already covered in the existing public entertainment licensing laws."

As he well knows, there is much public entertainment that is currently exempt from this licensing requirement taking place (quite safely), in some of the 95% of licensed premises that do not have Public Entertainment Licenses. Under the proposals, this live music making is now to be exposed to the current definition of public entertainment. All of this live music making will now be illegal without the premises applying for the entertainment element of the proposed premises licence, specifying the exact nature of this live music making, in an operating plan well in advance. Then this will be subject to local authority approval and conditions being placed on this previously exempt public entertainment. Under this so-called deregulatory Bill, any single musician making music on premises without this entertainment element will be taking part in, what local authorities refer to now, as a criminal offence. This is simply not good enough and does not deserve support.

As the "two in a bar rule" was introduced as a liberalising deregulatory measure, how can the scrapping of this exemption and the exposure of all live music making to the unchanged definition of public entertainment in the proposed Bill, be described by Dr Howells as a deregulatory Bill? Justification given for exposing all live music to the new licensing requirement is - noise. [Ronnie Bridgett on behalf of Dr Howells 07/06/02."The "two in a bar" exemption will be abolished for the perfectly sound reason that one musician with modern amplification or simply microphones can make as much noise as three without, -"]. Does all music making present this concern?

Live TV screening of sports events in pubs.
"If it is the considered position of the Musician's Union nationally that the definition of public entertainment should be expanded, we will certainly consider it."
Why does Dr Howells wrongly imply that the Musicians Union has not already questioned the Government's view that live television should not require licensing as public entertainment in the context of the Government's proposed reforms? Is he really uninformed and unaware that they have? Are written responses to the White Paper, as I have also made, not worth making?

Could he confirm that the Musicians Union raised precisely this point as long ago as July 2000 with the Home Office when that department had PEL responsibility? The MU position was set out in its written response to the licensing White Paper 'It seems from the White Paper that the provision of terrestrial and satellite TV sport in licensed premises will not come under the definition of 'entertainment'. The Union believes that it should, particularly as large, and often rowdy, crowds are involved. We consider it an anomaly that an entertainment licence is not currently required for this type of entertainment'. In the light of this perhaps Dr Howells could explain his statement, and why he has not considered the MU's point, in over 2 years?

The definition of Public Entertainment.

Whatever the views of the Musicians Union may be, it is a matter for them. My view is that to proceed with a long overdue, so-called reform of licensing legislation, without mention of the problems incurred to unpaid traditional folk activities, by the present unsatisfactory definition of public entertainment is unacceptable. To make no attempt in the White Paper to address this definition, demonstrates the unsatisfactory lack of attention given to public entertainment licensing in these proposals. Only made worse by Ministers and Civil Servants making additional and conflicting proposals and statements that do not appear in the White Paper (and being unaware of written responses made to the White Paper). Giving the impression that these statements are an afterthought made up by them as they go along, and adding to the confusion about what exactly is proposed.

"As long as money isn't changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence". Following this reassurance given 17/07/02 on BBC Radio 2. Can Dr Howells explain exactly how, without any proposals in the White Paper about changing the current definition of public entertainment, traditional folk sessions, dancing and singarounds (referred to above), are to be considered as not requiring the entertainment element of the premises licence?

Perhaps he could clarify conflicting statements from Ronnie Bridgett of the DCMS? 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." And 08/04/02 "we do not anticipate that spontaneous singing which does not constitute a "performance" under the terms of the Bill or is not undertaken or organised for "reward" as defined in the Bill, will be within the range of the licensing regime. Whereas a musical "performance" as defined in the Bill by a single musician undertaken for "reward" (either his own or the organiser's) will be subject to the licensing regime."

Could Dr Howells confirm that if ordinary people take part in a totally spontaneous outburst of live music making in a pub where "money isn't changing hands", this will not be considered as public entertainment and licensable? What is the situation, if everyone has a great time and with the permission of the licensee, they decide to meet again and repeat it every week? As presumably the element of spontaneity will not apply, will this then become public entertainment, and illegal in premises without the optional entertainment element of the premises licence? Could Dr Howells please explain the additional risk to the public' interest and safety (which necessitates an additional licence), presented to such a non rewarded, live music making activity, with say only four participants - when a reward is made? Or indeed when payment is made to a four-piece folk band making live music in a pub?

Current noise legislation and Noise Abatement Notices.
It is also untrue for Dr Howells to suggest that local authorities cannot enforce Noise Abatement Notices quickly and that these powers "are relatively limited". The noise policy unit at DEFRA has confirmed that local authorities can suspend rights of appeal and enforce these Notices almost immediately, and that all local authorities have the power to seize noisy equipment.
Could Dr Howells confirm that DEFRA and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, when asked recently whether, in their view the present legislation was inadequate to deal with noise emanating from premises, that their answer was 'no'? This is reinforced by the DEFRA review of the 1996 Noise Act which found that the majority of local authorities did not feel there was a need to change that legislation, although there may be a need for more resources to underwrite enforcement.

Can Dr Howell please confirm that where some music may sometimes present a noise concern, all noise concerns do not emanate from music, or indeed exclusively from live music making?

Other existing legislation.
. Why does Dr Howells make the absurd claim that blanket entertainment licensing and the optional entertainment element, covering of all live music making, and live music making only, should be stretched to cover, and must be relied on, to deal with general public nuisance? Reform or introduction of that legislation, surely best addresses any shortfalls in legislation designed to deal with the public's safety in general or with criminal activities in particular?

The present public entertainment licensing legislation already favours the same few residents who always seem to complain about activities that benefit the majority. If health and safety legislation and measures to make premises safe, and to deal with public nuisance generally is considered by the Government to be limited or deficient then surely it is this legislation that should be reformed?

I can't help but think the DCMS is getting desperate here in their attempts to try and justify the continuing of unjustifiable blanket licensing of all but only live music making. Because you may always have tried to paint the Forth Bridge by applying the paint with a toothbrush, does it mean that you have to continue to do this, when other more efficient means become available?

Safe capacity and overcrowding.
Will Dr Howells accept that he is quite wrong to claim that a capacity limit can only be set in pubs via a PEL? Will he accept that imposing safe capacity is a regular occurrence where the fire service, who must attend these Court sessions, make a recommendation that a safe capacity should be fixed? The justices use s 4 (1) of the Licensing Act 1964, allowing them to impose conditions that are 'in the public interest'. Such premises may not have dancing without a PEL but they can have music (the reproduction of recorded sound or performed by one or two live musicians).

Is Dr Howells aware that recently, the Magistrates Courts, and John Murphy of the Magistrates Association confirmed that this is common in London, and that licensing lawyer Jeremy Phillips, co-editor of Pattersons, has confirmed that it is also common practice in Birmingham.

Is Dr Howells really saying here that the 95% of liquor licensed premises where a PEL is not present are currently unsafe?
And those premises where no live music or dancing is takes place cannot be made safe now?

Is Dr Howells saying (in a fine example of Catch 22), that there is now no means of placing a safe capacity on them - without music or dancing taking place, and thus creating a need for a blanket public entertainment licence or optional entertainment element.

Ensuring the public's safety in this regard does not seem to have been of pressing concern for this Government as the safe capacity issue has been identified by them for well over two years!

Should it be of some more urgent concern to Dr Howells, if he really believes that the public's safety, in the matter of overcrowding at live TV sports events in pubs cannot currently be dealt with by ensuring a safe capacity?

Can he confirm if a safe capacity is to be imposed on all premises, as an automatic condition of the new premises licence?

Or is a safe capacity only to be imposed if the premises apply for the optional entertainment element?

If the issue is really safety, can overcrowding in licensed and other premises ever be considered by this Government as an optional concern?

Duplication and purpose of entertainment licensing legislation.
The introduction to the White Paper demonstrates the doubt and clear duplication inherent in proposals intended to reform legislation - the purposes for which for which, it is admitted, are not expressly stated in the legislation!
So the people drafting the proposals make them up, despite the considerable duplication involved, in particular for the entertainment aspect and never question if there is actually still a real need for blanket entertainment licensing legislation, on liquor licensed premises especially.

There is very little thought given to premises that just want to provide live music making and do not wish to serve alcohol. Understandably, as this is clearly a reform of liquor licensing arrangements, with entertainment licensing only being tagged-on as an afterthought. The rather strange point made for assuring public safety under Public Entertainment Licensing, is that (because events can attract large numbers of people). Is overcrowding a concern only limited to all, but only live music making events?

4. The purposes of the current arrangements for licensing leisure and entertainment outlets are not expressly stated in the legislation: this itself is a drawback. They should, we think, be judged against the following main objectives:
Alcohol protecting the public from crime and disorder
protecting children from too early an exposure to alcohol
preventing nuisance and disturbance to the public

Public Entertainment Licensing (including theatres and cinemas)
protecting the public and minimising nuisance as above
assuring public safety (because events can attract large numbers of people)

Night Cafe/Late Night Refreshment Houses
protecting the public and minimising nuisance as above
health and safety relating to night-time operation

Cultural effects of permanently linking alcohol consumption and live music making.
It is the unnecessary and permanent linking together of two quite separate elements, alcohol consumption and live music making, for no positive reason, that make these proposals so counter-productive. Live music making should be encouraged for people of all ages, culture and religion. Alcohol consumption on the other hand, is illegal for the young and not encouraged by many cultures and religions and presents many health and social concerns.

Scottish public entertainment licensing legislation.
The unnecessary combination of quite distinct issues also makes it difficult to follow the sensible approach shown in Scotland, where other existing legislation (the same as in England and Wales), is thought sufficient to ensure the interests and safety of the public.
Where during normal opening hours, liquor licensed premises in Scotland do not need additional licenses or permission for any live music making. By linking together alcohol consumption and live music making in these proposals and effectively doing away with 'permitted opening hours'. The sensible approach shown by our fellow EEC neighbour cannot easily be followed. It is not too late surely, to seriously look at this approach? Perhaps Dr Howells could finally detail the reasons why this excellent example for encouraging all live music making cannot, be adopted in England and Wales?

Government control of the power of local authorities.
As for the past two years, the Government has been unable to control or even issue guidance to local authorities when these indulge in enforcement actions that are criticised by the Government. It is difficult to see, without some concrete measures being detailed, how for example local authority employed, environmental health officers who are to be given even 'greater influence', will be constrained to any degree of proportionality. Why, if local authorities do not show this, is it necessary for those affected to have to take expensive legal action? For at present it is enough for a council employee to claim that a live music making event is a public entertainment. Thus its participants are involved in criminal activity and the onus is then on the participants to go to Court to try and prove that they are not, a situation that is set to continue under the proposals. The presumption of innocence does not appear to be a factor in entertainment licensing.

Preventing music making that is not presenting a noise nuisance.

Has Dr Howells seen in last week's Times, the comment by Val Weedon of the UK Noise Association? 'It's rare that we receive complaints about live music in pubs and bars. In fact, it's fair to say that more complaints arrive about the noise levels of amplified pre-recorded music' [Billy Bragg leads lament for grassroots music, Dalya Alberge and Richard Ford, 25 July 2002]

Does Dr Howells accept that many complaints to noise levels of late night establishments using only amplified pre-recorded sound and strangely absolutely no live music, will perversely already have the Public Entertainment Licence. A measure that he claims to be the answer to noise from all live music making! [A PEL is required now for these premises operating out of 'permitted hours".]

I would be grateful if Dr Howells could detail the extent to which the 'variation' he refers to, can be enabled without re-definition of what is licensable, and for its effect on the following?
Can Dr Howells confirm that no current live music making (presenting a noise concern or not), will be prevented on introduction of this proposed legislation? I refer to the live music making taking place in the 95% of liquor licensed premises currently without PELs, if the licensees of these premises do not choose to, with the additional red tape, apply for the optional entertainment element of the compulsory premises licence?

Even if live music making is prevented in only one place, for this reason, it is not acceptable to many. Is this risk acceptable for Dr Howells?

Alternative suggestions.
All premises should be made safe for whatever activity is to take place. As they will be paying the same fee, whether the optional entertainment element is applied for or not, why not make all premises safe initially, in the premises licence, for whatever activity may take place, including live music making? The licensee would then have the flexibility to operate this or not and would not have to obtain permission, if they later decided to operate some form of live music making. For example when approached by a folk club looking for a home. The local authority would only need to specifically address any resulting and specific noise or public safety problems, if or when these occurred.

Premises where the main function was dancing, could have any existing legislation and conditions, thought necessary to these particular concerns, imposed on their premises licence. This would not result in other premises where live music making was just additional to their main purpose (and having to choose the entertainment element to enable some live music making), then having standard conditions imposed that did not apply. This would prevent small country pubs continuing to have conditions imposed on them, like having to provide free drinking water for prolonged dancing or 'chill-out' rooms for non existent drug use and hyperactive dancers.

Non-liquor licensed premises.
Is it safe to assume under these proposals that premises which do not wish to serve alcohol but do wish to provide any form of live music making, will still have to specify the exact nature of this in an operating plan? Will have to gain local authority permission for this, but will not have to pay any fee to make their premises safe for live music making?

Human rights.
Licensing legislation should first take into consideration the Human Rights legislation. If there is a real and specific public safety issue, the right to free musical expression can quite correctly be prevented. If there is no such issue, no music making can or should be prevented. That is the current law.

What industry?

It is difficult for many to see the 'greater freedoms and opportunities' or indeed much 'balance' in measures proposed by a department set up to look after culture. I have no idea exactly what 'industry' Dr Howells is referring to. Is it the selling of drink industry or the music industry? Either way it does not seem to have much relevance to ordinary people who just wish to continue, with the licensee's permission, the tradition of making some music together in a country pub. [Evidence of this long tradition can be supplied.]

Summary.
I am reminded of the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. On discovery, which option is the sillier? To continue to strut about naked, or to try and recover some dignity, put some clothes on and try to really improve an unfortunate situation for everyone? Dr Howells may find that if he stopped dismissing every genuine concern and sensible suggestion that is made to him, or stopped using these as an excuse for a light hearted comment, he may find some support, rather than continued to be attacked on all fronts. Many supporters of this Government, who trusted that this reform would address the many difficulties presented by the outdated concept and enforcement of blanket licensing of all but, only live music making, feel their trust was misplaced. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE OPTIONAL ENTERTAINMENT ELEMENT FOR ALL, BUT ONLY LIVE MUSIC.

 Whatever the law is now, about noise, and effective measures to control it, the new law can perfectly well apply, whatever rules the Government requires about noise for all licensed premises (whether or not they provide live music making). It is a complete non-sequitur (or worse) for Dr Howells to try and maintain a reform of entertainment licensing legislation on the basis that a licence for all but only live music making is needed to control noise.

 Whatever the law is now, about capacity limits, the new law can perfectly well apply whatever rules the Government requires about capacity for all licensed premises (whether or not they provide live music making). It is a complete non-sequitur (or worse) for Dr Howells to try and maintain a reform of entertainment licensing legislation on the basis that a licence for all but only live music making is needed to control overcrowding.

 Whatever requirements in entertainment licensing there might be to control noise (or public safety), they simply do not apply to all live music making, taking place in all premises. On introduction of this legislation, even if only one licensee providing currently exempt live music making, not presenting a noise concern, did not apply for the optional entertainment element, this legislation, and its spurious basis for justification, would have been directly responsible for preventing live music making. Thus the right of freedom of cultural expression would have been prevented, where there were no specific grounds to do so, by the department of this Government set up to promote culture,

Yours sincerely

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 02 - 08:31 AM

This from the 'Letters to important folk' thread.

Here is the interesting comment by Justice Munby, made during his judicial review of emergency contraception (in case you have not already seen it):

"There would in my judgment be something very seriously wrong, indeed grievously wrong with our system - by which I mean not just our legal system but the entire system by which our policy is governed - if a judge in 2002 were to be compelled by a statute 141 years old to hold that what thousands, hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of ordinary honest, decent, law abiding citizens have been doing day in day out for so many years is and always has been criminal.'

Like making folk music together in pub?

For the full context go to: http://www.doh.gov.uk/ehc/judicialreview.htm

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Aug 02 - 06:26 AM

Reply from my local police.

"I cannot say there have been no complaints in respect of licensed premises. However I can advise that Police have not had to deal with any significant problems at a time, when as far as we were aware, any sporting events were being televised live and in connection with such broadcasts."

Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 02 - 12:11 PM

The tune is onr that the Yetties use for one of their songs about 'muck' - 'Fling it here. fling it there'. I must confess that I am struggling to remember the original song title. Can anyone help?

Sing It Elswhere

Important to us, is to be able to sing
And thought by many, to be very fine thing
But councils officials, who can count up to three
Are making outlaws of you and me

Sing it here
Sing it there
For the sake of the landlord
Please sing it elsewhere

I bring you news of a terrible fact
Singing in pubs is a criminal act
At the moment you're safe if there's only two
But there's even worse news, in the Parliament due

Sing it here etc

The two in a bar rule is to be taken away
Now no one will be able to play
Folk songs from England or music from France
Without official permission sought well in advance

Sing it here etc

You can't sing, "pubic safety I'm afraid"
It would seem be fine, if your not paid?
It is only the Minister that understands
How the pub is unsafe, when 'money changes hands'

Sing it here etc

And the lads can crowd in, watch their team on TV
Need no, permission or a safe capacity
Can shout all they wish and nothing is wrong
Only, needing permission to burst into song

Sing it here etc

Football supporters with money to burn
Can wake up the neighbours, with no apparent concern
But you and the 'missus', you'd better beware
When you quietly burst into 'Scarborough Fair'

Sing it here etc

I would like you all to write your MP
Its time that they listened to you and to me
I don't know about you but I think this a farce
To hear politicians speak out of their (dispatch box)

Sing it here
Sing it there
For the sake of the landlord
Please sing it elsewhere

http://www.faxyourmp.com/>