PELs: Are we over-reacting?

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:51 AM

Dave? That was me with the 30 pubs. Even if the fee was £1,000 a pub that doesn't add up to a significant income stream for a town with a good few millions in its budget.

This isn't a question of public versus private - it's public at present, with magistrates doing the licencing. Public can be very cost efective indeed, just as private can mean ripping evewryone off (think of the contracts for not cleaning the hospitals properly). If there's any licensing to be done, some kind of public or voluntary sector makes more sense to me. But there are good ways of doing it and bad ways.

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: JudeL
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:07 PM

Whilst the figure of 30 pubs was you Kevin; the remark about public costing more than private was Dave in his post on 29th Jan 5.25am

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 03:53 PM

As was pointed out, fees for the Premises Licence will now be in many more places than just pubs, so there will be more premises paying the one off fee for the life of the business, plus also paying the above inspection charge every year. There will be more money overall.

As I said numbers are not my thing but is it not about time we knew the real figures and how and why the regional variations and bands are arrived at?

There is still a lot of difference between £50 and £100 and this is not the fee but just the annual inspection charge.

But if you take a basic pub, currently paying £30 annually and providing no entertainment, all these in England and Wales will be paying £20 more or £70 more than now. And for what? Can this annual inspection charge be justified? The current licensee of the New Star will not be carrying on and I wonder how many more of the smaller pubs we are set to lose? This is without paying for any alterations to enable entertainment.

Then there is the additional money from all the new personal licenses, which last ten years.

Whilst I accept that individual authorities will not be receiving the current PEL revenue from the few premises that have to pay very hig fees, and that is a good thing, there is still being created overall, a pretty large finicial bovine.

Plus the small pubs providing no (conventional) entertainment and perhaps not able to, and who are finacially stretched, would seem to be paying more and subsidising the larger ones, which can provide entertainment and who may be paying less? Until we know how the bands are set, it will not be possible to decide.

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 04:09 PM

It's a bore and a nuisance and anther nail in the coffin of the pubs, true enough. The real pain is that it is going to drive more pubs into the hands of companies running chains of pubs, and as well as wrecking the places they are going to hand down to their managers strict rules based on their interpretation of the law.

And that is going to mean that, regardless of what the courts might actually decide, and of anything Kim Howells might say, unless there are firm and unambigious written exemptions for live music, there won't be any live msic in these pubs, except where there are entertainment licences built-in.

And if there are entertainment licences built-in (involving expensive alterations in proper pubs) the companies are going to want it all done on business lines, and that won't mean our kind of music.

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 04:43 PM

Just a mo.

100,000 or so pubs at the moent have no PELS (Public Entertainment Licences).

£150 per year inspection fees=£1.5 million a year.

I'll have that please.

Oh, yes, Camden already saying the fees are too low and will have to go up...

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 08:57 PM

The key thing is, over-react to something like that and all you risk doing is waste a bit of time and energy; under-react and you risk losing something you value a great deal more than a little time and energy.

When in doubt err on the side of over-reacting every time.

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:38 AM

McGrath, I try not to ake "me too" posts but this time I will...

I also think that the pubs with character are going to lose out to the boring chains if this law goes through. Our choice may become a bit like deciding whether to eat at McDonalds or Burger King!

Jon

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:50 AM

One way in which we could be over-reacting it that we can see the damage this bill could do, but maybe there are positives we are ignoring. Picking up something McGrath said a few days back, there is no coffee-house culture of folk in the UK any more, and this is linked to the introduction of the 2-in-a-bar exemption in pubs. Is it at all feasible that having a standard licence everywhere could actually encourage the revival of non-pub folk in Starbucks/Costa et al?

(I think it most unlikely, but it does at least seem possible.)

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: clansfolk
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:07 AM

Making Money ----

Blackpool Lancashire England

at present 200 Licences issued

If proposed changes take place the town hall is gearing up for 4,000 licences......

Details from the Licensing officers Blackpool Town Hall - don't mention the extra revenue to a council that have just upped the council tax by nearly 13% !!!!!!!!

Off to Fleetwood now to "over react"

If we do something and get a result - Great
If we do something and don't get a result - Sad
If we do nothing - We're to blame!

Take care - Pete

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: treewind
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:10 AM

Not if the Starbucks/Costa etc will have to have a PEL too!

Anahata

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:51 AM

Does anyone know how often a PEL will have to be renewed or the premises re-inspected ? I believe the current £30 pub license lasts for 3 years, which only works out to a tenner per year.

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 07:23 AM

An example of law enforcement by local Government being a nice little earner.
Manchester City Council made £80 MILLION from parking fines last year.
Yes £80 MILLION
The PEL system could be turned into another Council scam.
PP

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:22 PM

The Stage front page headline for 30 January 2003

NCA CONFRONTS LICENSING CRITICS
By Sally Bramley

National Campaign for the Arts director Victoria Todd has attacked the "unhelpful misinformation and hysteria" which she alleges is being whipped up by some critics of the new entertainment licensing bill. Todd, who has been involved in drafting amendments to the legislation currently going through the Lords, said exaggeration the problems would lead ministers to "close their ears" to legitimate criticism of the reforms.

She said: "it is not helpful when people come up with apocryphal stories. We've got to make sure our facts ate accurate. If not, the government can turn round and say that it is a load of rubbish. "There is no point in taking it to an exaggerated conclusion. It will get you press coverage but it is absolute drivel. You have to study the bill and go through it."

Todd did not refer to any particular critic of the bill in her comments. By contrast, the government has been particularly scathing about the involvement of the Musician's Union in particular. The MU has played a leading role in opposition to the planned legislation. Last week Kim Howells, the minister responsible for overseeing the bill, delivered a vociferous defence of the reforms in a feature in The Stage. He has also gone on record to accuse the MU of running a "pernicious and lying campaign".

Howells added: 2Claims that activities like rehearsing in a rehearsal studio, carol singing on someone's door step or trying out a guitar in a music shop will be licensable are pure fantasy. "I hope the Musicians Union will acknowledge this and that we can work together from here to address any genuine concerns they have about the content of the bill that are based on fact not fiction."

But this week a furious John Smith, general secretary of the MU, hit back, challenging the minister to prove the union wrong: "We have had a good relationship with the culture minister but this marks a low point. I find his comments extremely insulting. "if we are wrong we will be glad to climb down, These are issues of great concern to our members. We hope it won't as we suspect, kill some aspects of live music."

In a letter to The Stage this week, the MU leader repeated claims that the bill was imprecisely worded and would unfairly affect thousands of unintended victims insisting that "what the minister says and what the bill means are two different things".

A spokesman from Equity appeared to echo Todd's criticism, saying it had been working with closely with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to discuss the proposed legislation. But he added: "We have not been helped by some of the claims which we believe are not acurate".


Letter to The Stage 30 January 2003
[e-mail]

From John Smith General Secretary
Musicians' Union
Clapham Rd
London SW8

Whatever Kim Howells says in his piece 'Fitting the Bill' (Leader, January 23, page 8), for musicians the licensing bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. If enacted without amendment it will render almost all public performance a criminal offence unless licensed.

Whether you are a harpist playing in a hotel lobby, or a music teacher arranging a small public concert with your pupils, all musicians become liable to criminal prosecution unless they 'take all reasonable precautions' to ensure that the performance holds the 'appropriate authorisation'.

Premises is defined as 'any place' and could include your home, garden, village green, park or street. The new 'facilities' criterion for licensing would make a landlord guilty of a criminal offence for providing an unlicensed piano in a bar – unless it was kept locked.

These undisputed facts account for the outrage and indignation of the press and public alike. No wonder more than 50,000 have signed an online petition opposing the government's bid for almost total state control of live performance.

Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has severely criticised the licensing bill as a potential violation of musicians' right to freedom of expression and many eminent lawyers, some of them musicians, share this concern.

It is true that the proposal to standardise fees will mean that 5% of pubs and bars currently holding public entertainment licenses will save money, However, for many licensees the process of obtaining the 'necessary authorisation' for live music will be time-consuming and laborious. The result may be a small increase in the number of premises allowing more than two musicians but there would be a larger number where even one acoustic performance would be a criminal offence.

The Musicians' Union has long recognised that the particularly stringent controls of licensing may be necessary for certain types of premises where the public safety risk and potential for local disturbance is high. But we know that existing health and safety and noise legislation is perfectly adequate to address small-scale performance, especially where the music is secondary to the main business of premises such as restaurants and bars.

In Scotland no specific permission is required for live music in this context during permitted hours. Public safety and noise is regulated by UK-wide legislation.

The minister's argument that licensing is necessary because he does not accept that acoustic music is never noisy is ludicrous when set against the bill's exemptions for broadcast entertainment and jukebox music. However powerful the amplification for these forms of public entertainment, neither are licensable under the bill.

We welcome the minister's statement that certain specific examples will not be caught by the legislation . However, what the minister says and what the bill means are two different things. Beyond the ivory tower of the department the legal consensus is that carol singers and church bell-ringers are within the scope of the bill's definitions.

We cannot understand why his department will not amend the proposals so that the bill clearly and unambiguously states what the minister says it states. At the moment it is too loosely worded and will be open to all sorts of interpretation once it is on the statute book. To give some headline points:

Why does the DCMS not tighten up the definition of 'premises' so that private dwellings and functions are clearly removed?

Why will a performer be guilty of a criminal offence if he/she does not find out, prior to the engagement, whether it is licensed or not?

Why not make it clear that 'for profit' refers exclusively to commercial promoters and not to musicians who charge a fee at private events?

The above is just a snapshot of the concerns. A few well drafted amendments could go a long way towards allaying our fears and mean that we can move forward together.

Why is the DCMS so arrogant and intransigent over this issue?

John Smith

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: GUEST,BusbitterfraeScotland
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 11:38 PM

I have asked this question before and yet not person has gave me an answer,
All I want to know is what is PEL?
Thank you, then once I know then I'll be able to understand what the hell you lot are writing about.
Tam

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: GUEST,busbitterfraeScotland
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 11:41 PM

P.S.
I know it's sounds rude but if anyone does answer please could you tell me in a way that I can understand.
Because I'm a bit slow and I can't understand big words.

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 03:06 AM

GUEST,busbitterfraeScotland

PEL= Public Entertainment Licence [England & Wales]

Have a look at www.musiclovers.ukart.com
for more information

also see http://www.hobgoblin.com/hobnob/licensing.htm

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 03:17 AM

sorry one of those links don't work, try this one.

http://www.musiclovers.ukart.com/

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 04:53 AM

We have a major fight on our hands, when we have won it, we can then have our personal spats, which have little or nothing to do with the issue. And then have them off of the public forums, preferably.

Can we not just forget the small personal differences with each other, as none of us are perfect, and be positive and concentrate on the rather large difference between us and those in power?

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: GUEST,BusbitterfraeScotland
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:46 PM

Thank you Mr Happy

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 07:00 PM

As I understand it the licence is a "lifetime" licences (with an annual update fee). I think "lifetime" means so long as the licensee continues to be in charge, so only if they if they sell up or move on, or die, does it need to be reewed. But I'm not sure about that.

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: GUEST,BusbitterfraeScotland
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 07:06 PM

All I can say is that I'm glad that I live in Scotland.
I mean inmagine going to jail or paying a big fine just because you're playing music, ah well that's what you get for voting Labour.
Maybe next time vote for another party excpet the Tories for God sake.
I don't want to start a troll please It's only a joke.

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 02:43 AM

This was Dr Howells on Radio 3 (the whole thing is in the 'exemptions' 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, 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.

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: GUEST,tara kelly'
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 06:55 PM

help me

Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
From: ET
Date: 15 Jul 04 - 04:15 AM

Try looking at the new guidance. Issued by Tessa Jowells its on www.culture.gov.uk - the section on live music is easy to find but its full of platitudes, most of which I think will be ignored by local authorities, who in my opinion, have presided over the death of culture over many years.