PELs: Exemptions?

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 05:13 AM

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

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.