PELs: Exemptions?

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 02:51 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The small events licensing exemption won on Tuesday 11 March in the Lords has provoked extreme comment from the Government. BBC News Online quotes Lord McIntosh: 'They have voted for eight-year-olds to watch the unexpurgated Texas Chainsaw Massacre.' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2842595.stm)

In fact, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was broadcast on Channel 4, at 11.45pm, on 28 October 2000 and such a broadcast falls within the Government's own exemption for broadcast entertainment in the Licensing Bill. (For further broadcasts to date, available to pay to view customers, see below).

Cinema operators are also worried about the Lords' small events exemption. They argue it could create an unfair commercial advantage, and a public safety risk. Interestingly, major cinema operators are in any case already exploring the possibilities of digital broadcasts. This would be not only film into their own cinemas, but also music and sport more widely via satellite or webcasts. It is possible that such transmissions could fall within the broadcast entertainment exemption in the Licensing Bill (which could be in 'any place', and imposes no limit on numbers attending or amplification).

As far as safety is concerned (which in cinemas particularly relates to fire safety and means of escape) a radical new fire safety regime is due to become law in the Spring of 2004 (well within the Transition period for the Licensing Bill). Called the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, it will replace the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997. This will create one simple regime that applies to all workplaces including pubs, theatres or cinemas. It is risk-assessment based, with responsibility for fire safety resting with the person responsible for the premises. It will apply to entertainment irrespective of any licensing requirement.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister oversees this reform. A consultation document is available online: www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/fire/consult/legislate/

The report states in relation to cinema: 'The safety provisions of the licensing arrangement for cinemas [meaning Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations 1955] include fire safety. To the extent that we wish to remove fire from licensing, the fire provisions of all cinema licensing could be removed.' [my emphasis]

Indeed this is what will happen; the repeal of this legislation is acknowledged in the Licensing Bill's accompanying Guidance. Paragraph 8.25 states: 'The 2003 [Licensing] Act repealed the Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations 1955 which contained a significant number of regulations in respect of fire safety provision at cinemas.'

~ ~ ~

Texas Chainsaw Massacre - Channel Four broadcasts on pay to view to date:
Film Four or Film Four Extreme (asterisk indicates Film Four Extreme) on: 16 June 2000, 00.05am; 1 July 2000, 2.45am; 10 July 2000, 00.20am; 29 Aug 2000, 2.15am; 28 October 2000, 11.35pm; 15 November 2000, 10.05pm; 29 November 2000, 1.35am; 13 April 2001, 10pm; 18 June 2001, 10pm; 14 September 2001*, 00.05; 15 March 2002, 0025am; 12 May 2002*, 10.05pm (repeated at 2.05am); 10 July 2002*, 00.05am; 9 August 2002*, 2.05am; 28 August 2002*, 00.05am; 9 March 2003*, 2.35am;

Film Four and Film Four Extreme (also Film Four Plus One and Film Four World) are subscription film channels only available for home use. Applicants must subscribe to a digital platform, such as Sky as NTL, and then pay to view as a premium service.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 05:13 AM

To no more than two 'performers'? *Smiles*

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: IanC
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 04:08 AM

No

It's actually all to do with compromise. My reading of the debate is that the 250 people limit was deliberately set high so as to give the Gov. some leeway to lower it.

:-)

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 09:30 PM

I imagie it all depends who's there on the day. They are mostly part timers, after all.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 01:40 PM

However bear in mind that because the bill started in the Lords the government cannot use the Parliament Acts to force its passage, and if the lords stick to thier guns (and risk a constitutional crisis) the only way for the govt to force the bill through in their terms will be to withdraw it and re-start it in the Commons, so disrputing thier legislative timetable.

Why would the Lords not stick to their guns? They have honestly debated, voted on and passed these amendments, are they to be asked to now vote against them?

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 01:31 PM

That's interesting about the Parliament Act not being applicable here...

I still haven't worked out how it is possible to lobby Peers.

Excessive noise is prohibited in any case, from any place, as I understand it. The problem being that the people with responsibility for enforcing that have never got their act together.

How does this all work in Scotland where the situation is more or less as it would be with if the small premises amendment were to stand? Any reason to think there would be any more problem than there is with amplified TV and suchlike?

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 01:07 PM

Two of the Lords amendments are actually dangerous, becuase they fail to protect (I think) the Article 8 ECHR rights. Exempting ALL incidental music (and, incidentally, in my opinion music is "incidental" if it is not the primary but a subsidiary purpose of the business or event) is dangerous because it does not effectively enable the nearby householders to protect themselves.

The various duties on local authorities are not absolutely obligatory. If resources are inadequate, some shortfall in observance of the duties is permissible.

Consequently the government can point to this to justify reversal of some Lords amendments, and will try of course to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Therefore, I submit, the only way to provide both for article 8 and the more familiar article 10 freedom of expression) is properly in the bill to distinguish between the things that need regulating (generally amplified music) and those that do not (generally unamplified music) and to provide for schemes involving noise monitoring equipent in between.

However bear in mind that because the bill started in the Lords the government cannot use the Parliament Acts to force its passage, and if the lords stick to thier guns (and risk a constitutional crisis) the only way for the govt to force the bill through in their terms will be to withdraw it and re-start it in the Commons, so disrputing thier legislative timetable.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 11:17 AM

From that document.

From comments made during the debate, it appears that the Government will now support previous live music amendments. However, it is highly likely that they will attempt to overturn the Small Premises exemption (less than 250 people and before 11.30pm) in the House of Commons.

I don't think we should rely on this asumption that the Government will support any amendments, other than their own, when the Bill goes to the Commons. It would be far safer to assume that they will wish to leave the Bill as they proposed it. Unless they specifically state otherwise..........

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Admiral
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 10:42 AM

I've just received this update from EFDSS EFDSS Update

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 09:20 AM

The details from the Lords.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30311-14.htm#30311-14_sp

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:18 PM

Breaking news

The abave amendment has been passed in the Lords, Another big embarrassment for the Government.....Details to follow.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 04:03 PM

From Hamish Birchall

Many Musicians' Unionmembers had understandable reservations
about theincidental and unamplifiedlive music licensing exemptions
won in the Lords on 24 February. While encouraging, the amendments
would not have exempted featured entertainments in pubs or anywhere
else.

These concerns will be now be addressed during the 3rd Reading
debate on Tuesday 11 March.OppositionPeers will propose a
furtheramendment that would exempt small events or premises
altogether from the requirement to be licensedas public entertainment.
The conditions are that the entertainment ceases no later
than11.30pm, andan audience of no more than 250 people are
present at any one time. See text below, or go to:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/

This amendmentwould allow not only featured live music, but also
plays, the playing of recorded music,and dancing. Premises selling
alcohol would of course already hold a premises licence; but the
amendmentwould also permit premises that do not usually sell alcohol,
such aslibraries, hospitals, prisons, village halls and other workplaces, to hold regular events without the need to obtaina premises licence.

The main reason Peers have decided to back such a radical amendment is due to a briefing by a lawyer,organised and jointly funded by the MU and the Arts Council of England.The lawyer in question has expertise in licensing, safety and noise nuisance legislation.

Opposition Peers at least now accept that this legislation is sufficient to address public safety and noise nuisance issues that may arise in connection with small-scale entertainment.

THE BARONESS BUSCOMBE
THE LORD LUKE
THE LORD REDESDALE
THE VISCOUNT FALKLAND
Page 112, line 25, at end insert—
"Small premises

(1)The provision of entertainment is not to be regarded as the provision
of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act, where—

    (a)the number of persons attending the entertainment at any one
time does not exceed 250, and

    (b)the entertainment terminates no later than 11.30 pm on the same day.

(2)The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of the entertainment in sub-paragraph (1) above is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act."

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Sarah the flute
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 03:37 AM

So where do "callers" stand on this .... just don't organise the band???? or anyone else????? that would make life easier!!!!

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 02:15 AM

This from Hamish Birchall.

Yesterday's Report Stage debate of the Licensing Bill saw opposition Peers defeat the Government over key live music provisions.

The Lib Dems teamed up with the Conservatives, winning amendments to the Bill that would exempt certain categories of live performance (incidental, acoustic), and certain categories of premises (educational establishments). For reference, these amendments were 8, 12 and 13 respectively. Press coverage today included 'Lords pull plug on rule for unamplified music', Daily Telegraph 25.02.03, p10.

View the Marshalled list of amendments online at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldbills/021/amend/ml021-i.htm

And read the debate: [See above link]

This is good news, but it is not the end of campaigning. Why? The reason is clearly stated in the Daily Telegraph report: 'When the Bill is returned to the Commons, MPs will be asked by the Government to throw out the amendment approved in the Lords' (specifically refering to the unamplified music amendment).

Direct lobbying of MPs continues to be essential. Encourage them to support the Lords' amendments. If they decline, ask why. If they say licensing is necessary for safety or noise reasons, ask them to explain in detail what licensing achieves in terms of safety and noise control that cannot be achieved by subsisting legislation. Ask them why subsisting legislation is good enough for Scotland but not for England and Wales. Ask whether the government has evidence that live music in England and Wales is a greater noise or safety risk than in Scotland. Ask them what data for noise complaints does the government rely on. Ask whether the statistics discrimate between complaints caused by live or recorded music. No doubt you can think of better questions.

If enacted, the Lords amendments would mean that live music 'incidental to other activities' (i.e. not featured entertainment), amplified or acoustic, would be exempt. Folk sessions would be exempt, as would a jazz trio or solo pianist playing background music in a restaurant.

However, I think it is debateable whether the amendments would exempt a pub that made live gigs an advertised feature. So, while falling short of a total exemption for small-scale performance in this type of premises, the amendments would bring the licensing regime very close to the Scottish example for which the MU has been lobbying.

The Government also introduced two of its own amendments that would:
1) limit the potential criminal liability of performers to those organising their own events (Amendment 218, applies to Clause 134), and
2) Amendment 2 (and 3) clarifies, in their view, the following circumstances:

'Amendment No. 2 makes clear in Schedule 1 that for private functions, an individual who simply makes facilities available, but is not concerned with the management or organisation of the entertainment for which the facilities are used, is not to be considered as doing so for a charge.

In practical terms, that means that an individual—perhaps someone who owns or manages an historic house or other suitable venue—will not be subject to the licensing regime simply because he hires out the venue to a third party, perhaps for a wedding or other function, and that third party then chooses to provide regulated entertainment using the venue's facilities unless the person hiring out the room becomes concerned with the organisation and management of the entertainment.'

And '...A private wedding would have to be a rather peculiar wedding to be licensable, anyway. It would have to be open to the general public, and there would have to be an entry charge. I am not aware of any private weddings that do that. So, that would be exempted to start with. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked me about band leaders who negotiate with the organisers. They would not be responsible, and the amendments cover that point. '

However, a close reading of Amendments 2 and 3 (which are somewhat convoluted I'm afraid), does not yet, in my unqualified opinion, make it unambiguously clear that private functions are exempt where musicians are closely involved in the organisation of the entertainment and providing a service for which they charge a fee paid for by those being entertained. The Performer-Lawyer Group will no doubt offer an opinion.
Any considered comments welcome.

The performer-lawyer group offered an opinion when the governemnt amendments were first canvassed.

They do not exempt the captain of the darts team, or the bandleader who tells others how to play, or (maybe) the band member who lends equipment to another band member, and the result is also that where this happened otherwise unregulated entertainment (for example the wedding party where the band does not organise anything, just turns up and plays) into regulated entertainment.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:55 AM

The whole debate here.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/monday/index.htm

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 05:44 AM

Western Morning News

25 February 2003

Plans to allow around-the-clock drinking in pubs, clubs and other licensed premises suffered a setback when the House of Lords voted against the moves.

Peers also defeated the Government by voting to continue to allow live music to be played in pubs.

Ministers are expected to overturn all last night's defeats when the Licensing Bill returns to the Commons.
In the first setback, peers voted by 151 to 115, majority 36, to exempt most unamplified live music in pubs from restrictions in the Licensing Bill.

Ministers suffered a second defeat when Opposition peers backed a call to exempt schools from what they regard as an over regulated entertainment licensing regime. Voting was 169 to 107, majority 62.

In a third defeat for the Government, peers backed a Liberal Democrat move to set up a central authority to vet licensees' applications to sell alcohol. Voting was 143 to 111, majority 32.

The Government suffered a fourth defeat when peers approved an Opposition move to put a new duty on the licensing authority to protect the "amenity and environment" of local residents.

A spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: "As part of the normal parliamentary process we will consider the applications of the Bill and whether we need to take any further action."

Many of the current licensing restrictions on pubs date back to the First World War and the Bill is seen as the most radical reform for almost 90 years

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=115989&command=displayContent&sourceNode=115987&contentPK=4359341

And for their campaign articles against the Bill.

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=116762&command=newPage

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 04:32 PM

That is about right. They agreed the second one to avoid losing that one too.

Details to follow.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 04:05 PM

It seemed like the government was defeated on the first and AGREED the second - at least that's what I heard.

Anyway confirm it? Shambles?

Dave Eyre
www.collectorsfolk.co.uk
www.holmfirthfestival.com

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 11:44 AM

There's apparently going to be a piece on this on tonights Radio 5 'Drive' programme. Sometime between now and 7pm. Don't have anything more specfic, I'm afraid. (just caught the end of a trail)

Ed

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 10:47 AM

This is a copy of a press release issued by the Musicians' Union this morning (Mon 24 Feb). Note that today is not the last day on which amendments can be proposed. There is a final '3rd Reading' debate scheduled for early March. The Bill will go to the House of Commons in mid- or late-March:

Members of the House of Lords are expected to vote today on a series of live music amendments to the Licensing Bill. Opposition Peers are hoping to defeat the Government's proposed legislation that would make even solo acoustic performance illegal unless licensed, abolishing a long-standing exemption for up to two live performers. The Government claims reform is necessary to control potential noise nuisance.

General Secretary John F Smith said: "Given the Bill's exemptions for big screen broadcasts or pub jukeboxes, no matter how powerful the amplification, we have never understood the Government's position. There is plenty of legislation that already covers both noise and public safety. It applies across the UK, and in Scotland no licence is required for live music that is secondary to the main business of restaurants and bars. Similarly liberal regimes work well in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe.

"We accept that licensing may be necessary to control premises that specialise in music or music and dancing. But where live music is secondary to the main business, licensing is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There are many hoops to jump through, including public consultation. Being exempt, jukeboxes and big screens will be the easy option for many licensees.

"Now more than ever we need to stimulate the grass roots of the music industry. Most of our 32,000 members will seek work in this sector at some time in their careers, but never have there been fewer places to play.

"Many Peers have spoken eloquently on our behalf. I would like to thank all of them, particularly Lord Redesdale and Baroness Buscombe. I only hope their amendments succeed today".

The Marshalled List of Amendments is available at the Parliament website:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldbills/021/amend/ml021-i.htm

A number of Lords have put down amendments relating to live music, including Baroness Buscombe and Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Lord Redesdale's Amendments 8 and 12 provide exemptions for the playing of live music that is incidental to other activities (giving parity with the Government exemption for the playing of recorded music in this context), and an exemption for acoustic or minimally amplified live music.

ENDS

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 02:26 PM

Errrr...........what religion are they?..........sounds like a good one to me............clearly unlikely to be Methodists!!

And away, away with rum by gum.........

I'll get mi coat.

Dave

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 08:14 PM

Bishops Stortford the Thursday Folk Club is in the church vestry (with a bar too!)

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 07:41 PM

We need to persuade the C of E and others that a church is a good place to hold a folk session..........

Dave

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:37 PM

But the wording of the church exempiton amendment is so wide (a place of public worship) tht there might be an idea in that....

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 02:34 PM

No it aint

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 10:15 PM

based on the success of the big petition so far, could not singearounds & music seshes in pubs have all the inmates sign a petition to state that no-one is being entertained & they are definitely not enjoying themselves, to be presented to folk music police if raided.

is this a loo phole?

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 07:33 AM

A libel writ could easily stifle debate at the critical time.

One implication of this could be that Kim Howells might be intentionally saying things thta could be construed as libellous towards the Musicians' Union and Hamish Birchall, in the hope of achieving this. And that they are putting up with the libel so as to avoid this effect.

Another is that people and newspapers need be wary of saying things about Kim Howells in case he pulls this trick.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 09:35 AM

The trouble is that the bare facts can sound like scaremongeriong.

Take the one about pub pianos having to be locked if there is no music licence. That sounds like an urban legend. Or that a comedian can tell jokes, but if he or she opens his mouth to sing, that needs a licence. You wouldn't believe it, and yet its true.

Tell people those ones and they think you are going over the top with daft exaggerations. But they are cold sober crazy truth.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 09:22 AM

See the new PEL thread for my refutation of some of Howells' errors as to the effect of the bill.


A libel writ could easily stifle debate at the critical time. It's what Robert Maxwell used to do. My then partner Anthony Julius used to act for Maxwell at the time, as many people knew. Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 11:50 AM

14/03 3 February 2003

Government announces licence exemption for entertainment in churches

The Government today announced it will amend its Licensing Bill so that places of public worship across the country will not need a licence to put on entertainment performances of any kind.

The announcement follows concerns that the Government's original proposal - to make performance of secular music in places of public worship licensable throughout the country - would threaten the future of church music.

Kim Howells said:

"The exemption I am announcing today will enable religious institutions and music societies to flourish.

"It will bolster the measures already contained in the Bill that are
designed to foster live music, by opening up greater opportunities for
musicians to perform.

"Concerns were raised about our original proposals for licensing regulated entertainment in places of worship by a range of groups. We have listened to their concerns and taken them on board. I would like to thank them for their input which has helped make this a better Bill."

Kim Howells also announced that the Government intends to exempt village and community halls from fees associated with the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities under the licensing regime.

He said: "I recognise that church and community halls are integral to community life and provide a social hub in a great many rural and urban areas. I am determined to enable them to continue to play this essential role."

Notes to editors

1 Under current public entertainment licensing law, outside London, music (only) in "a place of public religious worship or performed as an incident of a religious meeting or service" is exempt from needing a licence. "A place of public worship" means only a place of public religious worship which belongs to the Church of England or to the Church of Wales or which is for the time being certified as required by law as a place of religious worship. Inside Greater London, churches enjoy no exemption.

2 Under current public entertainment licensing law, any premises in a London Borough or the City of London putting on public dancing or music and any other public entertainment of the like kind, needs a licence. There are no exemptions for community or church halls. Outside London, community or church halls need a licence, but are exempted from having to pay for it.

3 The exemptions were announced through Parliamentary statement. The text is as follows: Licensing Bill: Exemption for secular music in places of worship

Following further consideration and consultation with faith groups, the Government has tabled an amendment to the Licensing Bill that would exempt secular entertainment provided in places of public religious worship and the provision of entertainment facilities in such places from the need to obtain a licence under the Bill when it is enacted. Music for the purposes of or incidental to a religious service or meeting is already exempt.

The exemption reflects the current position outside Greater London. Within Greater London, the provision of secular entertainment at places of public worship has for many years been licensable. The amendment the Government has tabled will add further to the deregulatory measures already contained in the Bill.

The Government also wishes to make plain its intention to exempt church halls, chapel halls or other similar buildings occupied in connection with a place of public religious worship, and village halls, parish or community halls or other similar buildings from the fees associated with the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities under the licensing regime.

Use of such premises to put on entertainment will still require a licence as such provision can and does give rise to issues of nuisance, public safety and crime and disorder. However, the Bill provides for a streamlined and straightforward licensing scheme with minimum bureaucracy.

In addition, the Guidance to be issued by my Right Honourable Friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, under the Bill will make it clear that conditions attached to any licences for such premises must be proportionate to the risks involved, which are likely to be minimal in most cases.

Where a premises licence authorises the sale of alcohol in premises of this nature, however, the normal licence fee will be payable. This is entirely in line with existing arrangements.

In addition, those wishing to use village, church and parish halls, and other community buildings will all be able to take advantage of the simple and easy notification procedure that the Bill provides for temporary events.

The precise details of the fee structure will be the subject of consultation with interested parties.


The Government hopes that religious institutions, music societies and other community groups will derive great benefit from the exemptions and that the initiative will further strengthen our drive to increase the diversity of cultural experience available to people and communities throughout England and Wales.

Furthermore, the exemptions will bolster the measures already
contained in the Bill that are designed to foster live music by opening up even further the opportunities for musicians to perform.

Press Enquiries: 0207 211 6267 Out of hours telephone pager no: 07699 751153
Public Enquiries: 0207 211 6200 Internet: http://www.culture.gov.uk

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:00 AM

Letter to the Daily Telegraph 10 Jan 2003

Does Licensing Bill threaten freedom?

SIR- Your report (Jan 7) suggests that the future of the Three Choirs Festival will be jeopardised by changes to public entertainment licensing contained in the Government's Licensing Bill.

The last thing any of us would want is to threaten this country's great traditions of church music, which is epitomised by this rich and vibrant festival. Your readers can rest assured that, as minister with responsibility for licensing, I won't let this happen.

If an unintentional result of the Licensing Bill is that the future of church music is threatened, then we will amend it. As I told the House of Commons on December 16, we are reconsidering our position on this issue and we will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

The report also stated that the Bill would mean that singing Happy Birthday in a restaurant would be illegal without a licence.

This is absolute nonsense. It is just one of a flurry of myths being put about by the Musicians' Union and others, who would be much better advised to work with the licensed trade to stimulate maximum take-up of the highly deregulatory reforms that the Licensing Bill offers.

Kim Howells
Minister for Licensing
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
London SW1

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:53 AM

Don't forget the phrase that they have adopted from the legal profession- 'it could be argued'.

Agreed they did say, 'in so far as it is possible' but it was a clearly stated intention. If it was not possible, the reasons why it was not, should be made available.

We have Howells, in one of his letters to the papers, saying that to include all the churches in the final Bill was an unintentional effect of the drafting.

I will look up the actual words of this Howells statement, unless someone can beat me to it.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 07:33 PM

"...in so far as it is possible" - that's a traditional poltician's escape hatch, along with "we have no plans to..."

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 05:39 PM

For the 'Happy Birthday' story.....................

http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/trg/SCoFF/session.htm#hacked


I think we may have to ask Howells for the source of the 'whistling postman'?

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 05:07 PM

Given the effect of the new Licensing Bill, as regards concerts in churches, I thought the following information would be of interest.

Being concerned about this issue, I wrote on the 3rd May 2002, to Dr Kim Howells at the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS).

On 7th June 2002, I received reassurance in a letter from the DCMS, replying of behalf of Dr Howells. This letter explained that under current legislation, church concerts outside of London did not require additional licensing.

The letter further explained that intention for the new legislation was to address this anomaly and I quote. "It is currently the Government's intention to make all places of religious worship exempt from the requirement for permission to stage a public entertainment in so far as it is possible."

Having been pleasantly reassured by this information, and being unpleasantly surprised on reading the final Bill, I pose the question:

What factors have caused the final Bill to propose the very opposite of this stated intention, and to require all churches to obtain and pay for additional licensing permission?

Or is the 'exemption/fudge' that The DCMS are now 'working' on to free churches, always the original intention?

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 03:42 PM

I wonder what the source of the scaremongrering is?

Had anyone heard, of this 'whistling postman' story, before Dr Howells himself mentioned it and rubbished it?

It was certainly the first time that I saw it.........

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 02:54 PM

Perhaps the bizarre thing of all is that comedians are exempt in a place that is not licensed for entertainment, so long as they are just telling jokes. But if they break into song, in the same place, with the same audience, in the very same performance, they are breaking the criminal law.

I'm sure if that were put to Kim Howells he would immediately break into one of his "scaremongering" raps, saying it's not true. But in doing so he would be completely ignoring the actual provisions of the Bill.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 02:53 PM

Perhaps the bizarre thing of all is that comedians is exempt in a place that is not licensed for entertainment, so long as they are just telling jokes. But if they break into song, in the same place, with the same audience, in the very same performance, they are breaking the criminal law.

I'm sure if that were put to Kim Howells he would immediately break into one of his "scaremongering" raps, saying it's not true. But in doing so he would be completely ignoring the actual provisions of the Bill.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 08:22 AM

I'm sure that we do agree, especially about the safe capacity on public places, whatever activity. It is such basic common sense and would do away with all of the public safety concerns, and leave the only concern to music making to be one of noise. So why is it not part of the Bill?

Portsmouth Evening News 30 January 2003-
On the day England sent Denmark packing in their second-round World Cup tie police were called to 24 football related incidents. Within hours of the June 15 win a brawl spilled out of the White Hart pub and a series of disturbances broke out across Havant and Waterlooville - despite a voluntary two hour pub closure.
The violence came eight days after 50 fans fought in North Street outside the Five Bells following England's win over Argentina.

Perhaps the above could be passed on to our MPs, in the light of the extract from the following Common's exchange?

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: 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: PELs: Exemptions?
From: clansfolk
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 08:15 AM

Re above real audio clip - it was highly edited by the BBC to fit a 3 min pre run up slot to the show that went out from 4.05pm - my audio links to the petition and fax your MP were left out likewise information on who set-up the petition (Graham actually came along during the day but had to leave prior to the live show when he along with everyone else who attended would have had an oppertunity to speak on air) also included on the day was an excellent interview with Alan Belldirector of The Fylde Folk Festival and an interview with the local licensing officer I will add these to the above link when I obtain copies...

Pete

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: clansfolk
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 08:06 AM

Fleetwood Friendly demo 30.01.2003 BBC Pre show transmission

I'm sure we basically agree!

Pete

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 04:19 AM

First off Pete I agree that we should be careful about the claims that are made. For the simple reason that they will provide ammunition to fuel the only defence Howells and Co have, that of claiming that the Bill is not as bad as it is claimed.

But this speculation is the Governments own making by trying to catch everything in the licensing net. They can prevent this simply by making the Bill say what they are claiming for it.

But, this is politics, it is rough and if we are really serious about fighting HM Government, we will just have to do what we must. That means finding a way to make more people care about being lied to.

This was Dr Howells on Radio 3 (the whole thing is in this thread).

But of course many of the venues will say that they simply can't afford this, so what are they supposed to do?

KH Well at the moment of course, we've head horror stories of venues, especially in central London who have to pay thousands of pounds for an entertainments licence. Now we're gonna set a fee that is going to be between £100 and £500, which is a lifetime fee for a premises licence and a annual charge, if you like of £100 - £150, so these are hugely reduced costs. And it should put the whole thing on an even keel, people will know where they are and there will be real consistency there.

He is trying to give the impression that the one-off fee is a lifetime fee for the building, when it is only for the lifetime of the business, in that building.

Fact: The only licensees who may initially be paying less under the Bill overall, are some the 5% who currently pay for PELs in the areas where councils are over-charging, many of these not providing any live music at all.

Everyone else will be paying more per year. For all pubs without PEL now, even the £100 annual inspection charge is an increase.

The 'hugely reduced costs' are only for the larger establishments, who had rather a large input into wording the Bill. The ones who can best afford to pay. The smaller places, like The New Star, whose licensee have said they will give-up, get little real encouragement to provide live music, under this Bill.

Me
snip.....As know well, the simple tick box idea is nonsense and of course none of the three licenses is free. And the idea that singing in a pub without the entertainment licence is illegal and makes the premises unsafe is dangerous and completely unacceptable, when TV sport crowds are exempt..........

Hamish Birchall interview transcript.............

HB: Yeah, but this is a none-in-a-bar rule, and contrary to what the
minister claimed, of course, there is an exemption in the schedule - it's Paragraph 8 - for the provision of broadcast entertainment. And this Bill applies to any place, it's not just pubs.
[New PARA]
We've welcomed the (proposal?) and we accept that on the point of application, later on this year, if the Bill is enacted, it will be no additional cost in applying for permission we know the way local authorities operate, they've already said to us that they'd like to stipulate the maximum number of musicians, where in the premises, when they're to perform, and making - treating all live music in that special way when you've created an exemption for a pub to be crammed with people watching a big match just seems disproportionate to us............

Fact: The tick box just triggers exactly the same process as the current PEL. Despite Howells keep making reference to one licence. There are two (including the personal licence), required to provide alcohol, and the optional entertainment licence, for which a one off fee and annual inspection charge are payable for premises not proving alcohol. For those providing alcohol, the one-off fee and the annual inspection charge are payable, even if the premises does not wish to provide entertainment.

Accepting that there is no additional cost for a pub applying to provide entertainment, is not the same as accepting that they is no overall cost increase. You don't need to tax moving, if you increase the tax on just standing still. Hamish did of course go on the explain that the disincentives for pubs wishing to provide entertainment were not just the level of the fee.

If under the Bill there was no cost to provide entertainment, why are the places that don't wish to serve alcohol complaining about paying for? And Kim Howells accepting that for the Church of England alone, it is a lot of money and NOW, trying to ensure that they don't have to pay it? Possibly the tax on just standing still will have to be increased to cover the shortfall? Or perhaps now, a tax on moving?

We do indeed know the way local authorities operate and the LGA have said those things and Hamish's Council, Camden have already said that the fees are too low and will lobby to get them set locally.

The truth they say is stranger than fiction.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 08:07 PM

It all depends what is meant by "a performance" and "an audience" and "provided for purposes ...which include the purpose of entertaining".

There seems to me every reason to understand that "an audience" just means anyone who is in earshot, "a performance" takes place whenever a tune is played or a sung is sung, and "include the purpose of entertaining" applies if you try to play music which listeners might enjoy - as evidenced for example if someone asks for a song and you sing it. And as is only good manners, when you are playing in a room in which other people have as much right to be as you, as is the case in a bar in a public house, by definition.

Those meanings may not be the intention of the drafters of the Bill - but if so, this needs to be made clear in the Bill before it becomes an Act. There is a section on definitions, but it doesn't contain the more limited and commonsense definitions we all might prefer. (I fact that is the place where "premises" is defined as "any place" - which is not exactly a limited definition - in fact, when you think of it, it is a pretty breathtaking definition in its scope. )

If all those assertions about what is not covered by the requirements of the Bill were included in the Bill, a lot of the dangers which have been descibed as "scaremongering" would indeed cease to apply. But they have not been, and there appears no intention that they will be.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 06:18 PM

is there a specific reason that Hamish & Richard B haven't yet challenged lying bastard Howells & co for libel, slander etc?

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 06:12 PM

I am working on the Minister's standard letter and attachment.

May of the assertions about things that will NOT (the minister syas) be licenseable are false.

But it will take me soem time to finish nailing it all - maybe the rest of the week.

When I do, I will circulate all on my mailing list and post it here.

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: clansfolk
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 05:07 PM

I agree - I never except anything from the house as gospel - like wise I would also not accept anything from a union or such a body at face value more so information posted on the internet would be under close scrutiny......

My view (which is as much as I feel entitles to say...)

At present (correct me if you can show me different) the proposals apply to

         a performance of a play,
         a performance of live music,
         any playing of recorded music,
         a performance of dance,
         entertainment of a similar description,

where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience or spectators and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes    which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience or spectators

The proposals carry on from the current license and are there to protect the entertainer and the public I'm also amazed that comedians (amongst others) are not included unless the comedian carries a deadly weapon e.g. a guitar.

At present a public house doesn't have a "capacity limit" if it doesn't apply for a PEL.


----- what I would like to see........

Removal of the inclusions of the above sections of entertainment totally from the licensing law

An inclusion of a "capacity limit" for all public venues.


- and may I add I am amazed in the amount of hackles that have been raise by me simply trying to inform readers of the PEL threads that a new tactic was being implemented by MPs in responses to the request to sign EDM 331 - Don't shoot the messenger et al.....


bye..........

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 03:55 PM

Sorry, but this is a longish post. It's a complicated issue - and at least I have broken it up into paragraphs to make it easier to read.

The trouble is when you read the actual Bill - and here it is - pretty well all those things actually are open to prosecution. We keep on getting airy announcements that of course "this" isn't going to happen, and "that" isn't going to happen. But the words of the Bill are what counts, and the words of the Bill are, at the very least, open to those interpretations.

It would be very easy indeed for Howells and company to put exemptions in the Bill that would make certain that the activities which they say should not be adversely affected will not be adversely affected. But so far they have refused to do so - except in the case of churches, where they upset too many of the wrong people. (Having initially dismissed their objections as nonsensical scaremongering.)

And even when they have come out with what look like firm promises, we then find them twisting round the meaning of the English language to allow them to escape. For example read this post which I made on another thread. It shows how what looked like an "absolutely" firm promise to exempt sessions and so forth from licensing requirments has been turned into the reverse by means of a thoroughly dishonest quasi-logical trick of the department's devising.

As for whether it will really make things worse in practice, we'll find out. But this is the "reform" that was supposed to make a pretty unsatisfactory situation better, and it could so easily have done this - still could with a few simple amendments. But instead, here we are worrying over how far it's going to be worse.

And there are real reasons for thinking it will make things worse. Up until now a lot of the stuff we have been doing has been in a grey area. All right, we were going over the two-in-a-bar limit in pubs often enough - but then that was an exemption, not a limit. Two-in-a-bar meant that two-in-a-bar was defintely legal, but it has never been too clear what under what circumstances more than two was illegal, and the same went for Morris Dancers and so forth, and for activities in other places than pubs.

But now the law is frighteningly clear - virtually any musical or dramatic performance anywhere which is open to the public which is not covered by a licence is going to be defined in law as a criminal offence. And that is not exaggeration, it is what the Bill says, and what the Act will say if it is not altered.

And when I say that you need to be naive to believe that letter from MPs, I'm not suggesting that everybody ought to know the ins and outs of these strange things we go in for. But I am perhaps implying that anyone who lives in our society should surely know by now that you cannot just trust the people we employ to govern us, and assume they are telling the truth. You always have to check and double check, and look out for the omissions and the ambiguities.

The journalist Claude Cockburn used to say the basic rule for interviewing anyone important was "Why is this lying
bastard lying to me?" (Jeremy Paxman is said to have tghsi as a favourite maxim, which is why I wish so much he could get Kim Howells in front of him.) I think we should all have that question in mind any time we get a letter from a government department or from a minister, or read an article or a press release or hear a broadcast.

No hard feelings, but - "Why is this lying bastard lying to us?"

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: clansfolk
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 03:16 PM

snip.....As know well, the simple tick box idea is nonsense and of course none of the three licenses is free. And the idea that singing in a pub without the entertainment licence is illegal and makes the premises unsafe is dangerous and completely unacceptable, when TV sport crowds are exempt..........


Hamish Birchall interview transcript.............

HB: Yeah, but this is a none-in-a-bar rule, and contrary to what the
minister claimed, of course, there is an exemption in the schedule - it's Paragraph 8 - for the provision of broadcast entertainment. And this Bill applies to any place, it's not just pubs. We've welcomed the (proposal?) and we accept that on the point of application, later on this year, if the Bill is enacted, it will be no additional cost in applying for permission we know the way local authorities operate, they've already said to us that they'd like to stipulate the maximum number of musicians, where in the premises, when they're to perform, and making - treating all live music in that special way when you've created an exemption for a pub to be crammed with people watching a big match just seems disproportionate to us............

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: clansfolk
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 02:59 PM

http://www.irishinbritain.com/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=358

IrishinBritain


reference for last entry....

Subject: RE: PELs: Exemptions?
From: clansfolk
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 02:54 PM

...............??? QED - Scaremongering


Hi All

Many of you may be aware of the Government's proposed Licensing Bill which, if passed in its current form would be extremely detrimental to live music, in particular, it would outlaw the traditional music session, music teaching, rehearsals and fundraising events in any unlicensed premises, with a fine of up to £20,000 and possible imprisonment - It really is that ridiculous! It is very important that we all register our opposition to the bill. The following examples which have been forwarded on to me should illustrate some outrageous implications of the proposed Bill being passed, some of it is already happening:

As an example, if you put up a marquee in your garden for your daughter's wedding, and hire a band to play, you will be a criminal if you don't have a licence. The bandleader will be a criminal too. Both of you may go to jail, and gain a criminal record. Other soon to be illegal activities: Busking, Music Teaching, Selling musical instruments, Rehearsing, Hospital concerts, Fundraiser in the village hall, and much more. Many authorities enforce the current laws very zealously at present. A landlord has recently been fined a considerable amount for allowing four customers to sing Happy Birthday. Many other pub based folk clubs and sessions have been shut down. We must expect this over zealous interpretation to be applied to any new law, so it is very important that no ambiguity is there for the local authorities to exploit.

I have just received notification about the following and hope that in the first instance (if you read this before noon on the morning of 9 January) that you will contact your local councillor as soon as possible to encourage them to attend tomorrow's meeting regarding the bill and after that it would be ideal if each one of us could write letters to register our opposition to the bill. (Much more information below, please do read ).

Best wishes

Karen