Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 03 - 12:56 PM

Sorry - make that the 8 May proceedings will be on on Friday 9 May.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 03 - 09:17 AM

May 8

Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 383, in


clause 98, page 55, line 28, at end insert
'except where the licensable activities involve folk music or folk dance performed in the vicinity of the premises in the open air,'.


This is an attempt to revisit some of the discussion under schedule 1 on certain forms of entertainment, in particular morris dancing, folk music and the like. Clause 98 seemed to provide an opportunity to slip in an exemption from the licensable activities referred to in the first line of the clause.

The Minister has already made it clear that licensable activities include not just alcohol, but entertainment and late-night refreshment. I wondered whether we could exempt folk music and/or folk dance performed in the vicinity of the premises and in the open air from the details that need to be part of a statement of a temporary event notice. That might get round some of the difficulties that we are still being told about by those who are involved in such activities.

Dr. Howells: I shall tread carefully, given the adult and fascinating debates that I have had with representatives of the folk music industry. I have thought a great deal about the matter over the intervening period, and I always worry about the definition of folk music. Does some kid singing about the fact that he can't get no satisfaction in the late 20th century constitute a reflection on the quality of his life at a certain point in history? Is that any less valid than somebody who sings about canal boatmen, and the problems that they suffer because they cannot reach their sweethearts, in the 19th century? I always worry about such distinctions, not because I am doubtful of the validity and beauty of folk music—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 03 - 09:34 AM

Read the next exciting instalment in full.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030508/pm/30508s01.htm

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 03 - 04:02 AM

The following from Mark Gibbens, posted on the EFDSS list.

I cannot believe the dishonesty here.

On Thursday 8 May 2003, in the Standing Committee, Kim Howells said:
I have had lengthy meetings with representatives of all the large morris, folk song and dance groups, including wassailers, storytellers and mummers. I took them through the Bill and they were much happier at the end of it than they were when we began. They were worried that they would suddenly have to apply for licences for performances that take place in public on the side of roads and so on. Such activities are not licensable. They will not be affected.

In the meeting between EFDSS and the three morris organisations, Howells and his legal advisors said that folk dance in the open outside pubs is already licensable (which is itself not true) and that our only recourse is to work with the DCMS to ensure that local authorities license public spaces (something which can only be considered damage limitation with no guarantees).

EFDSS was certainly not reassured by Howells' meeting with us, though I cannot speak for the morris organisations. Rather, we got the feeling that he was very skilled at whittling away our precious hour by waxing lyrical about the Government's intentions - in other words, not much substance but plenty of spin.

I'm glad that Howells seems to have got over his former habit of ridiculing English folk arts at every possible opportunity, but it is at best a huge exaggeration to claim that he has addressed our concerns. For the record, EFDSS has had not even a formal acknowledgement of our report, Regulating the Folk Arts (submitted in February) by the DCMS, let alone an attempt to answer the questions it raised.

I shall be writing to the Standing Committee at the earliest possible opportunity to let them know the extent to which we have been misrepresented.

Best wishes,
Mark.

Mark Gibbens, Development Officer, English Folk Dance & Song Society
[ Tel [phone] | Web www.efdss.org ]

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 May 03 - 03:08 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

It is correct that Howells met the new MU Gen Sec on 4 March. Afterwards the DCMS drafted a joint press release hoping that the MU would toe the Party line.

However, we did not accept the original draft and reworded it (a copy should be available from the DCMS press office on request). No further discussions have taken place, or are scheduled, for any work on a joint leaflet.

You will recall that in January Howells accused the MU of running a
'pernicious lying campaign' in the Daily Telegraph. To the best of my
knowledge Howells has yet to respond to a letter John Smith sent asking Howells to identify where the MU had misrepresented the Bill.

I also understand that Howells has declined an MU invitation to speak at the MU conference in July.

The MU continues vigorously to oppose the abolition of the two-performer entertainment licensing exemption, and continues to lobby for an automatic permission for live music in pubs and bars, subject to certain constraints such as numbers attending and performance times.

It is likely that the House of Lords will attempt to reintroduce a small events exemption when the Bill returns to the Lords after the Commons Report/3rd Reading debate in June.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 May 03 - 05:51 PM

Jin Knight MP 1st May 2003

I am a member of the Standing Committee considering the Licensing Bill, and indeed I would be there now if I did not have to address the House instead. What a shame.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 03 - 02:30 AM

And from the same speech:

I remind the House that it is the most marginal Labour constituency and that it decides the fate of the Tory leadership. I have a poster in my office from the Dorset Evening Echo from the day of the last general election, which reads:

"Labour gains South Dorset—Hague quits"

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 May 03 - 01:57 AM

See the latest proceedings of the Standing Committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/cmlicen.htm

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 May 03 - 05:38 AM

I thought it may be an idea and timely - to bring these up again?

From a letter of 04/09/02 from Dr Howells to Rt Hon Chris Smith MP.

We recognise the importance of having a reliable definition of what constitutes a public performance and it is clear that if a musician or other performer is accepting money for a performance then it would be regarded as a public performance.

Similarly, it can be argued that any performance by unpaid performers, which was publicised with the expectation of bringing in extra customers and consequently extra revenue to the licensee would meet the definition of public performance.

If a member of the public engaged in a spontaneous rendition of a song on the piano, inviting a sing-a-long [sic], it would not be considered public entertainment.

I must reiterate, however, that even where a performance is regarded as public, the main current deterrent of an exorbitantly set licensing fee would no longer be available and there should therefore be greater freedom for all musicians and singers.

[Of course the statement that a 'spontaneous' redition of a song (even Happy Birthday) on a piano, would not be considered as public (or regulated) entertainment is totally wrong AND misleading.

A piano (that can be played) is a entertainment facilty requiring advanced permission as part of a Premises Licence.

So despite this incorrect and misleading statement made to a fellow MP, under the Bill the traditional piano singalong is now not possible.

AND

Mike Harding: No, just sessions and singarounds, people just playing for their own fun.

Dr Howells: No, they certainly wouldn't and I'm very keen that we should make sure that that facility is there. There shouldn't be a problem. As long as money isn't changing hands, then there's no /reason why they should have to have a licence.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 May 03 - 01:46 PM

The final word - from the Licensing Bill Standing Committee 20 May 2003.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 298, in
schedule 8, page 156, line 45, after second 'to', insert 'existing'.

Mr. Moss: The amendments deal with what one might call grandfather rights for two in a bar and we have approached the issue from two angles. Amendment No. 297 would delete paragraph 1(2)(a), which refers to performers and to section 182 of the 1964 Act, which deals with the ''relaxation of law relating to music and dancing licences''.
Amendment No. 298 would interpose the word ''existing'' in sub-paragraph (2)(a), which would then refer to section 182 as being ''disregarded so far as it relates to existing public entertainment by way of music and singing provided by not more than two performers''.

Unless the Government have a massive change of heart, or agree to some of the amendments and new clauses that we may table on Report, the generally accepted view will remain that the Bill requires live musical entertainment to be provided in line with licensing objectives and irrespective of the number of musicians involved.

However—we have been over these arguments many times—if such entertainment takes place regularly and without problems, there is no reason why it should not continue under the principle of keeping current permissions. In other words, we should give premises—and, indirectly, the performers involved—grandfather rights if they have two-in-a-bar provision at present and there are no problems. The Government should give some thought to allowing such premises to continue in the same way. Anything new would have to come under the new licensing regime.
The amendments would certainly take some of the heat out of the situation with the Musicians Union, and if the Minister is looking for a way out, they might provide him with one.

Dr. Howells: Indeed, the parts of the Bill to which the amendments refer have generated huge controversy. Many very colourful stories have been peddled about the Bill. Some have caused great upset and many performers have come close to undermining the Bill's positive effects on the provision of entertainment.

The tale that takes the top prize, however, is the one about the two-in-a-bar rule. I am glad that we have had an almost nationwide debate on the issue, at least among music aficionados because, to paraphrase Michael Caine, not a lot of people knew about it. Yet, it was there, and it determined much of the shape of live music in this country. I will try to explain the case for doing away with it and removing that distortion in live music in England and Wales.

Column Number: 660
It might be helpful if I also set out what the two-in-a-bar rule is, what we are putting in its place and why that will result in a vast increase in the opportunities for artists of all types—not just one or two musicians—to perform.

The two-in-a-bar rule is an exemption in the Licensing Act 1964 that allows two performers—two all night, not two and then another two and then another two—to perform live music in licensed premises such as pubs without needing a public entertainment licence. That is the current system.

It is easy to see why the rule is popular with some musicians and publicans. There are inconsistencies in the ways that local authorities set fees for public entertainment licences. We have heard that there are a variety of reasons—some more credible than others—why in some areas, particularly in London, those fees can rise as high as many thousands of pounds. They are the reasons why many pubs are put off from applying for an entertainment licence: their fall-back position is to rely on the two-in-a-bar rule.

The Bill will abolish that rule for a number of sound reasons, none of which are to do with a wish to restrict opportunities for performers to perform—indeed, the opposite is the case. The effect of the rule is restrictive: it drastically restricts the forms of entertainment that may be carried out in licensed premises where a justices' licence is in force—only entertainment consisting of one or two performers of live music is exempt.

I hope that Committee members can immediately see that the perverse effect of the rule is that many types of music and other forms of entertainment are discouraged. Furthermore, that means that the range of cultural experience available to the general public is severely narrowed—what about two guitars, a drum and bass, or a chamber quartet? Under the present rules, the licensee must have an entertainment licence and that can be very expensive.

Mr. Moss: I have been closely following the Minister's argument and it seems to me that he is saying that the Bill will open up opportunities for musicians and the music industry rather than discourage them. ''Discourage'' is the word that he used, but why will they be discouraged if the two-in-a-bar rule is retained under grandfather rights? It is a concession that has worked well. Why would others—three in a bar—be discouraged if that is not in the Bill? They would be discouraged because they would have to apply for a licence, with all the associated costs.


Dr. Howells: That is a good point and I will try to deal with it soon. I wrestled with this matter for a long time. The basis of my argument is that businesses—particularly small businesses—often feel more comfortable with retaining what they have than with exploring the possibility of something new. I hope that I will be able to explain my reason for resisting the hon. Gentleman's good argument.
Column Number: 661

We are not alone in wishing to see an end to the two-in-a-bar rule. On 8 April, the Association of British Jazz Musicians issued a briefing note—the tone of which, I must admit, is critical of the Bill. I believe that it was sent to a number of Committee members. It states:
''The current legislation concerning live music in pubs, bars and other liquor licensed premises, commonly referred to as the 'two in a bar rule', already makes it extremely difficult for musicians to find work''.

That is where I have started from on this matter. The problem is how to proceed. We believe that the right way forward is to abolish the two-in-a-bar rule. We are putting in its place a simple, cheap and streamlined licensing system that should encourage—if industry makes full use of the reforms—a huge opening up of the opportunities for performing many sorts of regulated entertainment.

To encourage pubs and other venues to take maximum advantage of the new system, we have agreed to work with the Musicians Union and other organisations representing performers and artists to develop a leaflet that their members can hand out to local licensees to persuade them to apply to put on live music. That is an important undertaking. There will be a steep learning curve for many of us, including the Musicians Union and other organisations, which realise that we must engage with the holders of premises licences to ensure that they know that they can put on live entertainment and that they do not have to pay the earth for it.

Let us focus on pubs, as that is where the current exemption applies. Pubs will need a premises licence to sell alcohol. They will have to go through the application procedure and pay the fee applicable if they want to sell alcohol. It will cost them nothing extra to seek at the same time authorisation in the premises licence to put on regulated entertainment in any of its diverse forms. The situation is as simple as that. Where no relevant representations are received on the application, it will be granted automatically.

Let us compare that with the current system, in which huge fees for a public entertainment licence—many thousands of pounds in some areas—act as a considerable deterrent to pubs obtaining such licences. The Government are firm in our belief that the combination of the abolition of the two-in-a-bar rule with the much simpler and cheaper licensing system under the Bill should open up opportunities for entertainers to perform.

Amendment No. 297 would allow the continuation of a form of the two-in-a-bar rule in the converted new licences issued during the transitional period. Automatically permitting the provision of entertainment in the form currently exempted by the two-in-a-bar rule would simply perpetuate the current restrictive framework by placing a disincentive on businesses to apply to vary their existing licences on transition to extend the range of entertainment that they are permitted to provide.
Column Number: 662

Amendment No. 298 appears intended to have the same purpose as amendment No. 297. It, too, is flawed and would fail to provide any benefit to performers. Again, the intention appears to be to perpetuate the exemption for two in a bar by converting schedule 8, so that the existing provision of live music, albeit in a slightly amended way, would appear as an authorisation on the new premises licence.

However, the amendment would not achieve that. Paragraph 1(2)(a) of schedule 8 provides that the exemption in section 182 of the 1964 Act is to be disregarded in determining what existing licensable activities can be converted. Adding the word ''existing'' before the words ''public entertainment'' would do nothing to change the fact that the activity is to be disregarded.

I hope that the Committee accepts that the amendments pose a threat to amateur and professional musicians of all shapes and sizes. I trust that the amendments will not be pressed because I have great hopes that the regime that we are putting in place will mean a great change for the better in the organisation of live music.

Mr. Moss: We seem to have had this argument several times already. The Minister repeats his case that this is simply about a tick in the box. That has been said to the representatives of the music industry more than once in the past few months, if not years, but they are not reassured that this is simply about ticking the box at no extra cost.

They accept that there is a simple procedure to go through at the time of application. However, they say from their experience, which admittedly is of the current regime, that when the local authority gets involved in applications for entertainment licences it all starts to go wrong. As the Minister said, unless there are representations, the application will go through fairly smoothly. If the Government set the fees for the application—we still do not know what those will be—we may see that it will not be terribly onerous in some or even many cases. I accept the Minister's argument that if there are grandfather rights, licensees or publicans may say, ''I'm not going to bother extending the licence; I'll just keep to two in a bar'', and the opportunities for more musicians to take part will be reduced.

Jim Knight: Thinking about the transitional period, does the hon. Gentleman accept that a temporary event notice would be a useful way for those who felt some reluctance about taking risks, in terms of ticking a box, to test out entertainment with more than two in a bar? They would have much more flexibility and far less regulation at a nominal cost. A temporary event notice is a useful form of transitional arrangement to encourage people to go the whole hog with public entertainment.

Column Number: 663
Mr. Moss: That is an interesting idea that will perhaps be explored. Of course, the limit in that case is 499 people. There may well be representations when such applications are made on the basis that the number of people attracted to a certain event would be far too great and the restrictions would then come in. We are still not getting away from representations. The people making them, whether concerned with health and safety or fire, will say that unless certain changes are made to the premises, the licence should not be allowed. That is where the problem arises.

I have been to pubs in my constituency and have talked to my local brewer. My local authority has told that brewery, as well as local publicans and tenants, what they would have to do to gain a public entertainment licence, and it would cost a lot of money. Those changes involve, for example, making structural changes to the premises for obvious fire and health and safety reasons.

One would not say that that was unnecessary; however, it is slightly misleading to harp on about the tick in the box and the fact that there are no costs. There are real costs, particularly for the many old pubs that lend themselves to a small combo in the corner, but where there would be fairly serious implications if they wanted to extend beyond that.

As the hon. Member for South Dorset said, TENs—temporary event notices—may provide a way around that problem for the transitional period. Although the limit of 499 people would give room to manoeuvre to some, there is no way that the local police or whoever will allow 499 people into a couple of bars in a pub. There will be obvious restrictions that we must not overlook.

Dr. Howells: May I give the hon. Gentleman and the Committee some reassurances? Under the Bill, the local authority, as the licensing authority, would be operating under a different regime. That regime would include checks and balances designed to ensure that an authority could not impose conditions, other than those necessary to promote the licensing objectives, without breaching its statutory duty.

I want to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined to ensure that under no circumstances will frivolous conditions be imposed on licensees, such as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, who want music or other entertainment allowed at present to continue. We want to ensure that that will not require the addition of another fire door or whatever.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that if there is to be a huge change—if a big band were to play at the premises, or if many more people were to be attracted—then of course the authority will have to take cognisance of that and must require the premises to make whatever changes are necessary to ensure that public safety is paramount and is maintained.

Mr. Moss: I do not disagree with the Minister; obviously, even if the music is incidental in the final analysis the safety of the public should be paramount. It is all a matter of scale. In the majority of pubs and clubs, there are small groups of musicians—more than two, but not in many cases an orchestra—and fewer than 499 people are attending. How can we ensure that such events and opportunities take place? I hear the Minister saying that he wants a system that encourages greater participation, with more musicians involved. We concur. However, can we be certain, in the light of the Bill's wording, that that will happen?
Column Number: 664

Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being patient and giving way to me again. We have convened a working group that includes representatives from the local authorities and the performers to explore what might or might not constitute appropriate conditions for various scales and various kinds of music. The statutory guidance, to which the licensing authorities must have regard, will contain model conditions.

Mr. Moss: That is a positive way forward. I thank the Minister for alerting the Committee to it.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the limited role of the licensing authority in terms of the licensing objectives—it cannot go beyond its remit. However, the authority may receive an application for an entertainment licence and make that known to the fire officers locally. If a fire officer returned a report to the local authority insisting that major changes had to take place, that would surely have a bearing on whether the licence was issued and on the cost implications for the premises licence holder. That is true, is it not?

Dr. Howells: All those things would, of course, be costs. However, the hon. Gentleman would have to concede that in most cases there would not be great changes. He talked about two musicians becoming three, for example, or two becoming four. I hope that the model working practices in the statutory guidance will not involve much expenditure for those who own or maintain the venues. As the hon. Gentleman has hinted, my saying that that will not happen is, in some respects, a statement of faith. That is, however, a consequence of my extensive discussions with all the parties involved and my saying that that is the best way forward, if we are to change the way live music is staged.

Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying some of those issues. It is a pity that we do not have the guidance—I do not suppose that it will be available before Report and Third Reading. I know, however, that there is still concern out there that will not go away. Perhaps when the Bill returns to another place there will be a strongly defended rearguard action to tackle the issues yet again.

Jim Knight: I am looking at the draft guidance the Committee has received. Section 4.45 says:
''In determining what conditions should be attached to licences and certificates . . . licensing authorities should be aware of the need to avoid measures which deter live music, dancing and theatre by imposing direct costs of a substantial nature''.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the fire authority imposing substantial costs. Those would be imposed for public safety. I am sure that none of the applicants would want to put on events that were unsafe. There is, however, a concern that unnecessary conditions would be placed upon them, and the guidance suggests that that should be avoided.
11 am
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The key word there is ''substantial'', as in substantial costs. Costs of any degree are unwelcome, particularly for people running small businesses. We heard what the hon. Gentleman and the Minister have said. We take on board his assurances that he is working closely with the people involved to find good working practices.

The Minister used the word ''model'', which is a useful one. We need clear guidance on those matters so that the fears that are still being expressed are fully allayed. We shall return to the matter on Report and I am sure that it will be returned to in the other place. The sooner that the Minister can issue his detailed guidance and have his consultation the better for all concerned. We wish him luck in that and hope that he achieves it sooner rather than later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Column Number: 665

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 May 03 - 03:56 PM

Please circulate the following from Hamish Birchall.

Howells rejects call for automatic two-performer permission to continue in new regime.

The Commons Standing Committee of 16 MPs finished considering the Licensing Bill yesterday (Tue 20 May). Culture Minister Kim Howells rejected a Conservative amendment that would have allowed pubs, bars etc to keep the automatic two-performer permission in the change-over to the new regime (the Bill already allows for the provision of jukeboxes and big screens to continue automatically).

The Minister's argument was, in essence, that the none-in-a-bar rule will be better for live music and musicians when combined with the Guidance for local authorities over conditions. Later in the debate, however, he conceded that it was 'in some respects a statement of faith' on his part that conditions would not prove costly.

The Hansard transcript of the debate is available online:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030520/am/30520s01.htm

Parliamentary timetable
The next Licensing Bill debate is Report/3rd Reading. This involves the whole House of Commons and is likely to take place in the week commencing 9 June.

A limited number of amendments can be put down at Report. After that, the Bill will return to the House of Lords (late June?).

Realistically, it is unlikely that there will be a large-scale revolt of backbench Labour MPs over the live music issue. Many have bought heavily into the Minister's spin, most will not defy the Whip.

However, it seems Peers have the power not only to reinstate their own amendments (where these have been taken out by MPs, i.e. the small events exemption), but they may also redraft them. MU lobbying therefore remains focussed on a redrafted small events exemption put down in the Lords. Opposition Peers have confirmed they will support this.

Petition presentation
It is hoped that the online petition, which has over 82,000 signatures, can be presented to 10 Downing Street on the morning of the Report/3rd Reading. The press, MPs, Peers, and - with luck - some high-profile MU members, will attend. Further details will follow as soon as the actual date of Report is known.

Lawyers concludes Licensing Bill remains incompatible with European Convention ...
Robin Allen QC and Schona Jolly have provided a further written Opinion for the Musicians' Union on the Bill as amended by the Lords and in Commons Committee. They support the MU position that live music should be automatically allowed if secondary to the main business [of bars, pubs etc] and finishing at a reasonable hour:

'This simple approach is self-evidently consistent with Article 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] and proportional. All the other controls in relation to the venue would remain in place. It would avoid the need for exceptions and it would recognise what is the logic of the Government's acceptance of such exceptions that there is no case of pressing social need for additional regulation outside the exceptions.' [Exceptions include places of public religious worship, non-profit-making garden fetes and similar functions, and entertainments such as jukeboxes and big screen broadcasts].

They also write: 'The Musicians' Union have been the object of some very fierce polemic in relation to the stance that they have made over this Bill. Yet, they have been clearly justified in pointing out the overbearing nature of the regulation in the first draft and in supporting the questioning aimed on identifying the true reasons for the legislation that is proposed.'

They conclude: '... the Licensing Bill, even as amended, is a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression and as such, it cannot be considered to be necessary in a democratic society... the Licensing Bill in its present form, in relation to live music, is incompatible with the Convention' [i.e. the European Convention on Human Rights].

... and private functions still caught - if entertainment agencies are paid to organise entertainment.
The Government has repeatedly stated that live music at private functions, such as wedding receptions, is not licensable under the Bill (provided guests are not charged).

In fact, in the Bill as originally published, payment to a performer was of itself sufficient to trigger licensing, and indeed the Government tacitly admitted as much by amending the relevant part of Schedule 1, so that such an arrangement was explicitly exempt.

However, this new exemption (para 1(6) of Schedule 1), does not extend to entertainment or corporate hospitality agents. In the Opinion, Robin Allen and Schona Jolly state: 'In our view, many private functions remain caught if musicians are engaged by way of a professional entertainment or corporate hospitality agency. That is because such agents unequivocally are "concerned in the organisation or management" of the entertainment, they charge for the service and the charge is paid "by or on behalf of some or all of the persons" being entertained'.

The Opinion has been copied to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and other interested parties, including MPs and Peers. It remains to be seen what action, if any, the Government may take. But there is no doubt that the Opinion carries weight, and will assist MU lobbying particularly when the Bill returns to the Lords.

Lobbying the Lords as important as lobbying MPs.
Letters, emails or faxes to their Lordships will be essential. However, timing is crucial and it is best to wait until after Commons Report/3rd Reading before sending anything off. I will circulate a note closer to the time, listing Peers with an interest in the issue.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 22 May 03 - 02:44 AM

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Kaleea
Date: 22 May 03 - 03:31 AM

Why is it that no matter where one lives on this planet, there is always somebody out there dedicated to ruining (taking away) the ordinary, good pleasures of life? A few people want to enhance their enjoyment of food music by getting up & dancing, and right away somebody has to start regulating it. The few people can no longer feel free to get up & dance a bit because their feet just want to move to the music. The dance police--"them durn revenoors"--have to police every little pub or bar in every little hamlet or town in the world. How will the laws/regulations be fair to the average little spot in an average little pub in a little village? Do the dance police ask the little people what will actually be helpful? Is it possible that the average folks in an average little spot in a little hamlet somewhere can use "common sense" and not have a need for the dance police? How much regulating/lawmaking/censoring/banning is enough? Or too much? Perhaps a few people want to bring their instruments & play some good music for an hour or two, and people get together at their local coffee/whatever shop or local pub & begin to have a good little session, and somebody just has to regulate that. Laws are written, music is licensed, regulated, censored, banned. The few people can no longer enjoy an impromptu session, singing/playing of a good song or tune because it is regulated, and some of "them durn revenoors" have to police every little pub or bar in every little hamlet or town in the world to be certain that nobody is violating the new so-called laws--they follow the letter of the law, forgetting the intent of the law. Yes, of course there must be laws--anybody understands that, but when the laws keep the average person from enjoying normal freedoms because some busybodies just have to regulate/censor/ban because they love to tell others what to do--even if the new law makes no sense----how does this help the people whom the laws are supposed to "help"? How does a copyright law put money in the pocket of a composer who is dead generations ago by not allowing a handful of people to sing or play a song or tune in a small, intimate setting? When & where does it all end? How much law is too much law? How much regulating/lawmaking/censoring/banning/ is too much? Who profits from all of this?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 22 May 03 - 12:47 PM

Please read and ACT

To: Hamish Birchall
Subject: Licensing Bill - live music: 138 sympathetic Labour MPs?


Please circulate

Last year 138 Labour MPs (out of a total of 233) signed Early Day Motion 1182, by David Heath, which condemned the current PEL regime as 'archaic and just plain daft'. At the time MPs did not realise that the Government planned to replace the current laws with a modern but still plain daft regime as far as live music is concerned.

See below for a list of those Labour MPs, their constituencies and email addresses (where available). Is one of them your MP? If so, please consider sending them an email, fax or letter, asking that they think twice before voting in support of the Licensing Bill when it comes up for Commons debate in June. It is possible to fax most MPs direct from www.faxyourmp.com (the site automatically identifies MPs from post codes). The snail mail address is House of Commons, London SW1A OAA.

It is always better to choose your own form of words, but here is a draft which may help:

~ ~ ~

Dear ..........

Licensing Bill - live music

As a constituent I am very concerned that, in spite of Government amendments, the Bill is fundamentally flawed. I would urge you to think very carefully before voting in support of the Licensing Bill at Report/3rd Reading.

You were among 233 MPs who signed EDM 1182 during the last Parliamentary session. EDM 1182 stressed the cultural and economic value of live music, and condemned the two in a bar rule and the present PEL regime as 'archaic and just plain daft'. Clearly, legislation which automatically criminalises the provision of unlicensed small-scale performance in every case is daft when compared with the entertainment licensing exemption for jukeboxes and big screen broadcasts, no matter how powerfully amplified. This is arbitrary and unjustified discrimination against live music.

How much better is the Government's new regime, set out in the Licensing Bill? It proposes to criminalise the provision of an advertised performance in a bar even by one unknown musician, performing without amplification, unless this activity is explicitly authorised under the new premises licence, or covered by a Temporary Event licence. Providing a piano for public entertainment use in a bar becomes a criminal offence, unless similarly licensed. The maximum penalty is still a £20,000 fine and six months in prison. The Government says this is essential for safety and noise reasons.

However, the provision of jukeboxes and big screen broadcast entertainment remains exempt, no matter how powerfully amplified or widely advertised, or that those who attend broadcast entertainment are prone to spill out onto the street afterwards looking for a fight. Just before the Licensing Bill was published, the Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to the Department for Culture warning that televised sporting events 'are quite frequently a source of disorder'.

Instead of seizing the historic opportunity to rethink entertainment licensing, the 'new' regime repeats and extends the present arbitrary and unjustified discrimination against live music, and the unduly harsh penalty. The Government appears to believe that, having accepted the principle of an 'incidental' music exemption, musicians should be content. But the Culture Minister has announced in Committee that anything advertised would be unlikely to fall within the exemption. Most solo and duo performances in bars and restaurants, currently exempt, are advertised and will therefore become a criminal offence (for landlords) unless licensed under the new regime. Most acoustic folk and jazz sessions are also advertised, and they too would become illegal unless licensed.

The Musicians' Union, and other performers' organisations, believe that some form of small events exemption for the performing arts would restore proportionality. This view is shared by lawyers who also conclude that, even as amended, the Bill remains incompatible with musicians' right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention. The new Licensing Act is likely to be on the statute books for a very long time. Don't let the new legislation repeat the injustice of the old. I would be grateful if you would urge the Government to reconsider its position on this very important issue.

Yours etc

~ ~ ~

List of Labour MPs who signed EDM 1182:

Diane Abbott, Hackney North & Stoke Newington, [e-mail]
Janet Anderson, Rossendale & Darwen, [e-mail]
Candy Atherton, Falmouth & Camborne, [e-mail]
Tony Banks, West Ham, [no email]
Hugh Bayley, City of York, [e-mail]
Roger Berry, Kingswood, [e-mail]
Harold Best, Leeds North West, [e-mail]
Clive Betts, Sheffield Attercliffe, [e-mail]
Liz Blackman, Erewash, [e-mail]
Keith Bradley, Manchester Withington, [e-mail]
Kevin Brennan, Carfiff West, [e-mail]
Russell Brown, Dumfries, [e-mail]
Chris Bryant, Rhondda, [e-mail]
Karen Buck, Regent's Park & Kensington North, [e-mail]
Colin Burgon, Elmet, [e-mail]
Andy Burnham, Leigh, [e-mail]
Ronnie Campbell, Blyth Valley, [e-mail]
Roger Casale, Wimbledon, [e-mail]
Martin Caton, Gower, [e-mail]
Colin Challen, Morley & Rothwell, [e-mail]
David Chaytor, Bury North, [e-mail]
Michael Clapham, Barnsley West & Penistone, [e-mail]
Helen Clark, Peterborough, [e-mail]
Harry Cohen, Leyton & Wanstead, [e-mail]
Iain Coleman, Hammersmith & Fulham, [e-mail]
Tony Colman, Putney, [e-mail]
Michael Connarty, Falkirk East, [e-mail]
Frank Cook, Stockton North, [e-mail]
Jeremy Corbyn, Islington North, [e-mail]
John Cruddas, Dagenham, [no email]
Ann Cryer, Keighley, [e-mail]
John Cummings, Easington, [e-mail]
Jim Cunningham, Coventry South, [no email]
Paul Daisley, Brent East, [e-mail]
Tam Dalyell, Linlithgow, [no email]
Valerie Davey, Bristol West, [e-mail]
Wayne David, Caerphilly, [e-mail]
Geraint Davies, Croydon Central, [e-mail]
Janet Dean, Burton, [e-mail]
Parmjit Dhanda, Gloucester, [e-mail]
Andrew Dismore, Hendon, [e-mail]
Jim Dobbin, Heywood & Middleton, [e-mail]
Frank Dobson, Holborn & St Pancras, [e-mail]
Jim Dowd, Lewisham West, [e-mail]
David Drew, Stroud, [e-mail]
Julia Drown, South Swindon, [e-mail]
Gwyneth Dunwoody, Crewe & Nantwich, [e-mail]
Angela Eagle, Wallasey, [e-mail]
Huw Edwards, Monmouth, [e-mail]
Jeff Ennis, Barnsley East & Mexborough, [e-mail]
Bill Etherington, Sunderland North, [no email]
Paul Farrelly, Newcastle-under-Lyme, [e-mail]
Frank Field, Birkenhead, [e-mail]
Mark Fisher, Stoke-on-Trent Central, [e-mail]
Paul Flynn, Newport West, [e-mail]
Barbara Follett, Stevenage, [e-mail]
Dr Hywel Francis, Aberavon, [e-mail]
Mike Gapes, Ilford South, [e-mail]
Bruce George, Walsall South, [e-mail]
Dr Ian Gibson, Norwich North, [e-mail]
Roger Godsiff, Birmingham, Sparkbrook & Small Heath, [no email]
John Grogan, Selby, [e-mail]
David Hamilton, Midlothian, [e-mail]
Mark Hendrick, Preston, [e-mail]
Stephen Hepburn, Jarrow, [e-mail]
David Heyes, Ashton-under-Lyne, [e-mail]
Kate Hoey, Vauxhall, [e-mail]
Kelvin Hopkins, Luton North, [e-mail]
Lindsay Hoyle, Chorley, [e-mail]
Joan Humble, Blackpool North & Fleetwood, [e-mail]
Alan Hurst, Braintree, [no email]
Dr Brian Iddon, Bolton South East, [e-mail]
Helen Jackson, Sheffield, Hillsborough, [e-mail]
Brian Jenkins, Tamworth, [e-mail]
Kevan Jones, North Durham, [e-mail]
Martyn Jones, Clwyd South, [e-mail]
Alan Keen, Brentford & Isleworth, [e-mail]
Piara S Khabra, Ealing Southall, [e-mail]
Jim Knight, South Dorset, [e-mail] or [e-mail]
David Lepper, Brighton, Pavilion, [e-mail]
Tony Lloyd, Manchester Central, [e-mail]
Ian Lucas, Wrexham, [e-mail]
John Mann, Bassetlaw, [e-mail]
Rob Marris, Wolverhampton South West, [e-mail]
Andrew Mackinlay, Thurrock, [e-mail]
Gordon Marsden, Blackpool South, [e-mail]
Bob Marshall-Andrews QC, Medway, [e-mail]
Siobhain McDonagh, Mitcham & Morden, [e-mail]
Kevin McNamara, Kingston upon Hull North, [e-mail]
Tony McWalter, Hemel Hempstead, [e-mail]
Austin Mitchell, Great Grimsby, [e-mail]
Laura Moffatt, Crawley, [e-mail]
Chris Mole, Ipswich, [e-mail]
Julie Morgan, Cardiff North, [e-mail]
Meg Munn, Sheffield, Heeley, [e-mail]
Dr Doug Naysmith, Bristol North West, [e-mail]
Martin O'Neill, Ochil, [e-mail]
Diana Organ, Forest of Dean, [e-mail]
Peter L Pike, Burnley, [e-mail]
Kerry Pollard, St Albans, [e-mail]
Greg Pope, Hyndburn, [e-mail]
Stephen Pound, Ealing North, [e-mail]
Gwyn Prosser, Dover, [e-mail]
James Purnell, Stalybridge & Hyde, [e-mail]
Syd Rapson, Portsmouth North, [e-mail]
John Robertson, Glasgow Anniesland, [e-mail]
Geoffrey Robinson, Coventry North West, [e-mail]
Chris Ruane, Vale of Clwyd, [e-mail]
Joan Ruddock, Lewisham, Deptford, [e-mail]
Christine Russell, City of Chester, [e-mail]
Phil Sawford, Kettering, [e-mail]
Brian Sedgemore, Hackney South & Shoreditch, [e-mail]
Jonathan R Shaw, Chatham & Aylesford, [e-mail]
Barry Sheerman, Huddersfield, [e-mail]
Sion Simon, Birmingham, Erdington, [e-mail]
Alan Simpson, Nottingham South, [e-mail]
Dennis Skinner, Bolsover, [no email]
Chris Smith, Islington South & Finsbury, [e-mail]
Geraldine Smith, Morecambe & Lunesdale, [no email]
John P Smith, Vale of Glamorgan, [e-mail]
Gerry Steinberg, City of Durham, [no email]
David Stewart, Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber, [e-mail]
Paul Stinchcombe, Wellingborough, [e-mail]
Gavin Strang, Edinburgh East & Musselburgh, [e-mail]
David Taylor, North West Leicestershire, [e-mail]
Mark Todd, South Derbyshire, [e-mail]
Dennis Turner, Wolverhampton South East, [no email]
Dr Desmond Turner, Brighton, Kemptown, [e-mail]
Bill Tynan, Hamilton South, [e-mail]
Dr Rudi Vis, Finchley & Golders Green, [e-mail]
Brian White, North East Milton Keynes, [e-mail]
Betty Williams, Conwy, [e-mail]
Mike Wood, Batley & Spen, [e-mail]
Tony Worthington, Clydebank & Milngavie, [e-mail]
James Wray, Glasgow Baillieston, [e-mail]
David Wright, Telford, [e-mail]
Derek Wyatt, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 22 May 03 - 12:52 PM

A neat comment from a colleague

No sign of Tony Blair I notice. I thought he liked a few licks on the guitar. Perhaps he prefers a few licks on his arse from the 300 other MPs.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 May 03 - 04:40 PM

Someone once told me his agent was a bit of a folkie.

Anyone else heard that?

Dave

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Jun 03 - 05:22 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Some Labour MPs are saying that Early Day Motion 331 is 'no longer relevant because it has been superseded by events' (i.e. it was issued prior to Government amendments such as the churches exemption). This is nonsense. EDM 331 continues to be completely relevant. Here's why:

Apart from places of public religious worship, ALL the other venues, activities and people mentioned in EDM 331 continue to be affected by the Licensing Bill: schools, colleges, community centres, parish halls, private homes and gardens, private parties and weddings, music shops, music and dance studios and teachers.

When the Government announced the churches' exemption the online petition site was updated advising people of the u-turn. That didn't stop people signing. The petition text was adapted from EDM 331.

School performances will be licensable if they are to any extent public (except if part of a garden fete, or similar function, that is not for private gain). The Government only exempted schools from licence fees (but colleges and universities will have to pay licence fees).

Music teachers may have to obtain the licence if they are organising a performance, i.e. public master classes, pupils' concerts etc. Similarly, private performances will be licensable if for private gain.

Music shops will be licensable if they host public performances (as they regularly do, often by high-profile performers). If the performances are private, they will be licensable if the intention is to make a profit.

Wedding receptions, private parties and corporate functions, remain caught if live music is provided by professional entertainment or corporate hospitality agents. The has been confirmed by Robin Allen QC and independent lawyers, including experts in licensing. Only a direct arrangement between the event organiser and a musician is exempt following Government amendments.

Rehearsal studios: a licence will be required for showcase performances in professional rehearsal studios.

Also the hiring out of space for people to make music for their own enjoyment is licensable. The space counts as a facility for making music and where music-making facilities are concerned there is no requirement for an audience to be present (see paragraphs 1 and 3 of Sch. 1). Some lawyers argue that rehearsing in professional rehearsal rooms will be licensable in any case because the rehearsal is, at least in part, often purely for the personal enjoyment of the participants and the premises are made available for that purpose and for profit.

Criminal liability: if those organising the performance, or providing a facility for making music, do not obtain a licence they will be comitting a criminal offence for which the maximum penalty remains a £20,000 fine and six months in prison.

Lastly, it is important to recognise that Guidance published by the Government for local authorities cannot disapply offences created by the Bill. The Guidance explicitly states that 'the interpretation of the [Licensing] Act is a matter for the Courts'.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 03 - 05:25 AM

Commons Early Day Motion 331

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jun 03 - 12:56 PM

Please circulate the following.

See below for the text of a joint press release issued on Monday 2 June 2003 by the Musicians' Union, English Folk Dance and Song Society and the Association of British Jazz Musicians. It incorporates the text of their joint letter sent to all MPs on Friday 30 May 2003:

Musicians warn MPs: Licensing Bill 'will be a disaster for the performing arts'

The Musicians' Union (MU), English Folk Dance and Song Society (EFDSS), and the Association of British Jazz Musicians (ABJM) have sent a joint letter to MPs warning that the Licensing Bill 'will be a disaster for the performing arts' unless the Government makes further amendments.

MPs are due to debate the Bill in two weeks' time, but in an unusual move Culture Minister Kim Howells has invited all MPs to a briefing on Tuesday 3rd June specifically to address entertainment licensing issues.

The Minister has claimed that concerns are based on 'misinformation' being circulated about the Bill. However, the MU's legal advisers have concluded that the Licensing Bill remains incompatible with musicians' right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The problem stems from the arbitrary licensing requirements. For example, under the Bill a pub landlord who is not licensed for 'regulated entertainment' would be guilty of a criminal offence if providing a piano for public use or for one unamplified performer.

However, jukeboxes, big screen broadcast entertainment, and powerful sound systems are automatically allowed anywhere. The maximum penalty for unlicensed entertainment is a £20,000 fine and six months in prison.

The text of the joint letter follows:

Dear Sir/Madam
LICENSING BILL - RESTRICTING THE PERFORMING ARTS

The Government's new Licensing Bill will be a disaster for the performing arts. Indeed, going against its own much-heralded 'inclusivity' banner, this draft legislation is perhaps the most 'exclusive' piece of legislation drafted by a Labour government. Hailed as an 'improvement', this hodge-podge of proposals actually extends the arbitrary discriminations of the old licensing regime. For example:

It allows a full-scale stand-up comedy show with stage, lighting and amplification, but insists that you must have a licence to perform a play (and 'play' could include Punch & Judy);
It allows 'big screen' broadcasts and amplified jukeboxes anywhere, but insists that live performance is licensed (unless so much in the background it might as well be muzak);
It allows a play, dance, disco or musical performance in a place of worship or garden fete, but insists on a licence when the same events are held in a school or restaurant.
It allows the above, but insists that traditional song and dance on village greens should be licensed.

We need your support to prevent a bad old law being replaced by a bad new one. To help restore the balance, the Government should take the following action:

Remove licensing control over small-scale events in the open air, whether on public or private land;
Re-introduce a small events exemption covering music, dance and plays in premises where events cease at a reasonable hour;
Exempt un-amplified live music;
Drop the proposal which would prevent a piano for public use in a pub unless licensed, but would allow 'big screen' music and sport as well as amplified jukeboxes.

We hope that you will help us to help Ministers see the error of their ways and prevent England and Wales becoming a juke-box driven monoculture of mass entertainment. Scotland? Well, if you cross the border, none of these nonsenses apply!

Yours sincerely...

~ ~ ~

The Musicians' Union (MU)
The MU was established in 1893 and represents over 31,000 musicians working in all sectors of the music business. As well as negotiating on its member's behalf with all the major employers in the industry, the MU offers a range of services tailored for the self-employed by providing assistance for full-time professional, semi-pro and student musicians of all ages. Contact: John F Smith, General Secretary, on 020 7840 5502
Website: www.musiciansunion.org.uk

English Folk Dance and Song Society (EFDSS)
EFDSS is the key national body working to support, promote and develop the folk arts in England. It represents the interests of all folk artforms, with a particular focus on music, dance and song. EFDSS maintains the nation's principal library and archive for folk arts and customs, the Vaughan Williams Memorial Library and operates a range of advisory, educational and support services for folk groups, the general public and over 4500 active members.
Contact: Mark Gibbens, Development Officer: 020 7485 2206; email: this into your post:

[e-mail]


Website: www.efdss.org

Association of British Jazz Musicians (ABJM)
Founded in 1987, the ABJM is a pressure group representing the interests of jazz musicians in the UK.
Contact: Chris Hodgkins on 07950 522 041
Website: www.abjm.org.uk

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: BanjoRay
Date: 06 Jun 03 - 06:56 AM

That letter's great - it's in English and short enough to allow the thickest MP to get somewhere near the end before binning it.
Cheers
Ray

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jun 03 - 07:24 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall. Please pass this on.

The live music music petition will be presented to 10 Downing Street on Monday 16 June at 12.30pm.

Leading the presentation will be folk club organiser Graham Dixon, who created the online petition, adapting the text of Shadow Culture Secretary John Whittingdale's Early Day Motion 331*. Mr Whittingdale and other MPs and Peers will also attend. The presentation is being organised by the Musicians' Union, who will be joined by the English Folk Dance and Song Society, and the Association of British Jazz Musicians, in the presentation group.

An MU press release will be issued next week with further details.

* EDM 331 now has 161 MPs signatures and stands at No.32 in the current list of 1,533 EDMs

This is the EDM text (note that only churches and other places of public religious worship are no longer affected by the Bill):

That this House expresses concern that the Licensing Bill proposals to make the performance of live music licensable in pubs and clubs, in places where alcohol is served, in churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship, in schools and colleges, in community centres and village and parish halls, and in private homes and gardens where private parties and weddings may be held will have an enormously detrimental effect on musicians and live music performances; fears that the raising of money for charities by musicians will be seriously compromised; considers it will seriously impinge on the folk community including folk music and traditional folk activities such as morris dancing, wassailing, &c; believes that the penalties for breaking the law of a six month jail sentence of a £20,000 fine are far too draconian; considers it grossly unfair and inconsistent that live music will not be licensable in Scotland but will be in England and Wales; regrets that the Government has decided to replace the anomalous two in a bar rule with a none in a bar rule which will catch all live music performances; believes that the requirement for the provision of entertainment facilities to become licensable which will ensnare music shops, music and dance studios and teachers, represents a totally unacceptable regulatory intrusion into mainstream activities; and calls on the Government to amend the relevant parts of bill in order to remove the iniquities faced by musicians and the music industry as a whole.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jun 03 - 05:47 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Even Labour MPs who are members of jazz and other music appreciation societies are saying they will not vote against the Government over the Licensing Bill.

Unless the Government makes further amendments during the next debate on Monday 16 June, these MPs will be voting in support of a new criminal offence: the provision of unlicensed entertainment facilities, which include musical instruments:

'An antique piano in a pub that was only provided for decorative effect would not give rise to the need for a licence. And a licence would not be required if the pub operator did not provide it for the public to play. A licence would only be required if it was used to entertain people at the premises or by people on the premises to entertain themselves.'
[Department for Culture, 'Regulation of Entertainment under the Licensing Bill', revised April 2003, p4, para 2.8]

Why is the Government doing this? Perhaps the 18th century French philospher and mathematician D'Alembert had the answer:

'I am amazed that in a century when so many pens write about the liberty of commerce, the liberty of marriages, the liberty of the press, or the liberty of painting, no one has yet written about THE LIBERTY OF MUSIC . . .
Our great statesmen reply: "You are being short-sighted, for all liberties are interrelated and are all equally dangerous. The liberty of music presupposes liberty to feel, the liberty to feel involves liberty of thought, and liberty of thought involves liberty of action, and the liberty of action is the ruination of states. So let us keep the Opera as it is, if we wish to preserve the kingdom; and let us put a brake on the liberty of singing if we don't wish to see the liberty of talking following hard on its heels . . ."'

['On the liberty of music', essay, 1759. Jean le Rond D'Alembert, 1717-1783]

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jun 03 - 06:17 PM

Performer-Lawyer-Group will be represented at the press casllbefore the handing in of the petition, too

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Jun 03 - 12:23 PM

Another one is this quote from Segovia, used in 1992 for an advert for Spanish tourism.

[Playing music must be like life itself: an explosion of liberty........]

This was the quote in context.
The Guitar had a long and difficult birth. From its Baroque beginnings, the instrument passed into Spanish hands. And its passionate nature emerged with a Spanish style of playing, the 'Rasguado', a rhythmic and simultaneous beating of all the strings. From this point, the instrument took on a feeling for life which is peculiarly Spanish.

The vitality of 'Flamenco', laid bare the emotions like no other music. And to this day, it remains the true tone of Spanish passion. later still, in the hands of Segovia, the guitar took on a more controlled beauty.

Stawinski opined, "Segovia's guitar doesn't sound loud, but it travels far". But through recognised as a fully fledged concert instrument, it retained its freedom of spirit. As the Maestro himself observed, "playing music must be like life itself: an explosion of liberty."

Today in Spain, the visitor can drink deep from the cup of the country's guitar playing tradition, in the concert halls or local bar. Either way, the experience can be magical. For when Spanish hands caress the strings of a guitar, it takes on human form.

This went out under the slogan - Espana, passion for life!

Our slogan...England and Wales, passion for bureaucracy?

The new licensing criterion 'Entertainment Facilities', paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, would even render the provision of a piano in a bar a criminal offence without a licence.

That is because it would be a facility for enabling persons to take part in music-making for purposes which include the purpose of being entertained. There is no requirement for anyone actually to be playing the piano, nor for the presence of an audience. The maximum penalty for unlicensed performance, or music-making facilities, is a £20,000 fine and six months in prison.

As both alcohol and entertainment licensing are to be combined under the Bill, the general term - unlicensed activities - will make no distinction between the selling of alcohol or making music without the very same licence, as if the risks presented by two different activities were the same.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 12:54 PM

The following from the Radio 2 Folk message board. Did anyone else hear the details of this?

re: PEL - Petition to be presented - ruaridh 11th post - 11 Jun 2003 13:25
Good to hear Kim Howells being made to appear a pratt on the Today Programme this morning. He was windbagging on about how wonderful Welsh artists are and was then unable to name one thus demonstrating that he did not know what he was talking about. A bit like his performance on the Mike Harding Show except that on that occasion he was given a soft ride and allowed to get away with talking rubbish.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 01:05 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/

More to do with Wales than Licensing - but interesting to hear someone challemge the good Dr. Still got his (useful cough) and waffle.

When really pushed to answer the question: "No I can't think of one". Before passing the buck back to the Welsh Assembly.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 01:19 PM

This eedjit is trying to defend the fact that the artists representing Wales are either not Welsh or living in Wales.
This man who can't adequately defend his own culture, is trying to destroy the culture of others. There are times when I miss the Tories,remember John Redwood mouthing the words of the Welsh national anthem?
The only person who entered the houses of parliament with good intentions, was Guy Fawkes......Giok

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jun 03 - 05:08 AM

24hr pubs chaos fear.
By Nig Cecil
The Sun 12 June 2003

Ibiza- style drinking, sex and violence could break out in Britain under new licensing laws, MPs are to warn.

They fear plans to allow bars to serve booze 24 hours a day will cause an explosion of new bars that will blight towns and cities.

The Commons Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee is to publish a hard-hitting report on "The Evening Economy".

One senior committee member warned : "There is a risk of Ibiza-style culture in towns and cities across Britain."

But the Culture Department played down fears. It stressed police would have greater powers to close rowdy pubs, licenses would be reviewed and closing times will be spread through the night.

THE SUN SAY – Page Eight


Lighten up

IBIZA – style drinking round the clock? Sounds alright to us.

Po-faced MPs disagree. They don't think people are responsible enough to handle it. They warn that new licensing laws could turn town centres into violent night-time no-go areas.

We've got news for them: The current laws, with most pubs chucking out at 11pm and clubs closing at 2am, haven't exactly made our towns a place to take your maiden aunt.

But spreading closing times so people don't have to drink against the clock should reduce trouble.

People in power should give ordinary folk more credit.

The vast majority of drinkers just want fun, not trouble.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jun 03 - 07:03 AM

I must confess that I rather enjoyed listening and writing this out.

Kim Howells on Radio 4 Today - Wednesday 11 June 2003

It does seem a bit odd that Wales is being represented by two artist who were not born in Wales and the other two artists don't live there?

KH: Well God forbid, Sarah, that artists should only be able to represent somewhere they either live in or work in, if they were born there. It is a bit like the terrible quandary of Welsh Rugby Union, that you, it almost got to the stake now where if your mother when she was pregnant actually could see Wales from the M6, that you could be picked for Wales.

It is an interesting argument this one. Neil Howells critique is very important because he is clearly worried about what he perceives to be the lack of quality of art in Wales. I disagree with him profoundly, I think there are lots of very interesting artists working in Wales.

Point at some?

KH: Some of whom are Welsh.

Point at some then?

KH: Should Gauguin not have been called French because he painted in Tahiti?

Well point us at some Welsh artists we should be looking at – who are not involved, not these four?

KH: Pope for example…

Who IS one of these and was born in England, what about outside of these?

KH: Well I don't know artists who ought to be picked to go, I'm always very wary about a …

I'm not asking whether they are going or not – just Welsh artists who we could/should be looking at and who represent the thriving Welsh visual arts scene, that this is meant to be promoting?

KH: I go down to Cardiff and I look at the galleries down there and there are plenty of young Welsh artists
on display, I don't think that it's a .......

Well give us a name?

KH: Well no, I'm not going to say there is one artist above all....

Laughs - Well you can give us more than one name if you like. My point was just can you think of one?

KH: No – I can't at the moment…….you've got the …………..[indistict?].

That is a problem, isn't it?

KH: Well, listen it's very difficult to that in England, outside of a small coterie of people who have been chosen by, by, - an even smaller group of art critics and art experts as being great.

But Neil Howlls's point here is that if you have to go outside Wales, people either born or live outside Wales, what does it say about those who remain?

KH: Well maybe it says something about the way we teach art and we present art. Visual art in Wales has been very much the poor cousin. You are asking me – you have got to ask Alan Pugh. This is a devolved issue for the Welsh Assembly.

I'm telling you - as somebody who lives in Wales, artists feel quite strongly that they are the poor relation. The big money goes to the Welsh National Opera – it goes very much to those great establishments of creativity in Wales.

And good enough, they are great institutions but visual artists have always suffered from a lack of support and I am very glad to see that now at least we are taking people who are working in Wales, or come form Wales and saying this is good enough, we feel confident enough to have work represented at the Venice […….,] which is one of the great art exhibitions of the world. I mean what could be wrong with that? I mean art should be international, should have no frontiers and operate as openly as possible.

Kim Howells, thank you.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jun 03 - 01:55 PM

From The Times 16 June 2003.

Lord Macintosh of Haringay, 70, becomes Parlimentary Under-Secretary of State at the DCMS on .....£65,936.

Dr Kim Howells ,56, becomes Minister of Transport at ........£93,413!!!!!!!

The 'wages of sin' are not at all bad.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jun 03 - 03:46 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Please circulate

Today's petition presentation to 10 Downing Street went well, but the press stayed away this time, in spite of our best efforts to engage their interest. The lack of a celebrity performer may have been a factor. There is no question, however, that the 110,000 signatures, and the coalition of performers' organisations and the music industry backing the MU campaign, has made a big impact behind the scenes with the Department for Culture, MPs and Peers.

Pressure on the Government is also being maintained by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR). Their latest Report, published on 13 June, is scathing. The exemption for places of public religious worship remains a potential discrimination (against people doing the same thing in premises used for secular purposes), but the Report also concludes that the Bill might

'...leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime for public entertainment, and so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10.2'.
[JCHR, 'Scrutiny of Bills: Further Progress Report, Twelfth Report of Session 2002-03, HL Paper 119, HC 765, p17, para 3.4]

This is strong stuff, and it will be raised by MPs in this evening's Commons debate of the Bill (although it is unlikely that anything other than Government amendments will be accepted).

However, the petition and the JCHR Report has been on the agenda earlier today during behind the scenes discussions between Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell and key Opposition Peers.

The discussions are a sign that the Government recognises they are in difficulty. This could be good news, but I do not want to raise hopes prematurely. A last round of letters to Peers may yet be required.

When the Bill goes back to the Lords on Thursday (19th), Opposition Peers could delay the Bill by refusing to accept Commons changes to the first round of House of Lords amendments - unless the Government can agree some compromise behind the scenes.

What further letters to Peers might say depends to a great extend this evening's debate in the Commons. Even though the Government should have no difficulty getting the Bill through in the Commons tonight, Ministers may give clues as to the nature of any further concession being considered. As soon as I have had a chance to read the Hansard record tomorrow I will circulate another note.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jun 03 - 05:10 PM

The relevance of the following may escape you at first but please read on to the last two paras which may ring a bell or two.

Nude sunbathing continues at county's isolated beaches.

NUDISTS CELEBRATE U-TURN ON SEX LAW
Dorset Echo 16 June 2003
By Harry Walton

Dorset nudists are celebrating after the Government scrapped plans to ban their pursuit. A new law would have made it illegal for Britain's five million naturists to bathe nude on secluded beaches or bare all in their gardens.

But pressure from British Naturism has seen the Government abandon plans for the curb.

This leaves naturists free to take their clothes off and enjoy around 24 unofficial nudists beaches in the South West, including five in Dorset which also has an official naturist beach at Studland.

Now naturists can take their clothes off at county sites including Burton Bradstock, Swyre, Ringstead Bay, Durdle Door and Hengistbury Head.

British Naturism regional spokesman Mike Berridge said: "This is a victory for all nudists across the South West. "The Government has seen sense, having recognised that nudists are an integral part of society. We have a right to this lifestyle and it would have been a huge blow if the legislation had not been amended."

The U-turn means that the contentious section – Clause 70 of the Sexual Offences Bill – has been replaced by Clause 69, which has allowed nudists to strip off without the intent to 'cause fear, alarm or distress'. The Government accepted that 'exposure' would have been deemed a criminal offence which would have outlawed nudism.

Dorset County Council cabinet environment spokeswomen Coun Hilary Cox said today that the Government decision reflected a common sense approach to an aspect of tourism which could not be ignored.

She added: "It is recognition of people's right to a pastime, provided it gives no offence to others."

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 05:43 AM

Western Morning News June 17 2003
MPs reject calls for music Bill amendment

The Government remained defiant last night over proposed changes to the licensing laws, By rejecting the call for small premises to be exempt from the new regime.

The controversial Licensing Bill was put through its third and final reading in the commons, with MPs throwing out an amendment tabled by peers allowing pubs holding less than 200 people to have live music without a licence.

If the Bill becomes law, anyone staging live music will be forced to require a licence from their local authority. Campaigners had hoped that smaller venues would be made exempt.

The vote prompted fierce criticism from opponents who claimed it would be a "disaster" for the performing arts.

Shadow culture, media and sport minister Malcolm Moss said ministers would have to bring forward "sensible and practical" proposals to deal with concerns over live music in small venues or else the law would not get through all its remaining parliamentary stages. He said it would have to be altered before it was acceptable to the entertainment or licensed trade industry.

"Many interested parties and groups have not had the consultation they need or deserve," he told the Commons.
"There is a sizeable number of people faced with the impact of this legislation on their lives and businesses who are, to put it mildly, distinctly unimpressed."

The Licensing Bill, which could be law by next year, would make virtually all kinds of music illegal unless licensed.

The two-in-a-bar rule, which allows a landlord to have one or two musicians play in a pub without needing an entertainment licence, would also be abolished.

A landlord would need to apply to their local authority for a new premises licence to stage any musical performance. But because of the expensive conditions which may be insisted upon by health and safety authorities, there are fears that pubs will simply abandon live music altogether.

But Culture Minister Kim Howells last night issued reassurances that local authorities will not be able to be heavy-handed in their approach to the new licenses. He said: "Cultural expression is a very important part of the life of every single local authority and they will be expected to encourage it everywhere."

Opponents to the Bill – who include musicians, landlords and more than 11,000 WMN readers – have vowed to fight on to ensure an exemption for small premises is reinstated.

The Bill will now pass back to the Lords on Thursday, and peers are expected to vote the amendment back in. Hamish Birchall, a spokesman for the Musicians' Union, said: "This is of no real surprise. The campaign will remain centred on small events and opposition peers have confirmed that they will support this."

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 06:23 AM

The June 16 2003 Licensing Bill debate.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/cm030616/debtext/30616-22.htm#30616-22_head0

http://tinyurl.com/eii8

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 11:23 AM

The following from Terry Redmond.

From Hansard, 16th June

"A Punch and Judy show is "a performance of a play" under paragraph 2(1)(a)of schedule 1. It "takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience."

That is why Punch and Judy shows take place, and they will, therefore, be a licensable activity. They will have to be licensed. "

When the Government are so desperate to 'protect children' from 'anti-social behaviour ' that they can't tell the difference between a puppet and a performer we are in deep trouble. If they really wanted to 'protect children' from 'anti-social behaviour' they may have done better to avoid the kind of images broadcast every day as a result of this same Governments actions in Iraq

The amendments to exempt Mr. Punch and friends (144 for, 295 against), and the exemptions for small scale live performance (146 for, 284) against were defeated by such similar margins one has to ask - WHO ARE THE PUPPETS?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 12:10 PM

Please circulate the following that this Government seems determined to ignore.

Hansard 16 Jun 2003 : Column 95

Mr. Moss: Who mentioned the Brecon jazz festival in the first place? I have not been, I am sure that it is administered and organised absolutely to the letter of the law, and I want to move on.

Let me end by quoting from a report published today or yesterday by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, entitled "Scrutiny of Bills Further Progress".

Page 17 contains a couple of short paragraphs in heavy type which deal with the wonderful Bill that we are discussing. The Committee says

"We take the view that there is a significant risk that the proposed system of exemptions from the licensing requirements and from the applicable fees as currently set out in the Licensing Bill might: give rise to an incompatibility with the right to be free of discrimination in respect of the enjoyment of the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief under ECHR Articles 9 and 14 in so far as the exemption is given to premises used principally for the purposes of religion , or occupied by people or organisations on account of their religious beliefs or practices, and is denied to premises used principally for secular purposes, or occupied by people or organisations without a religious affiliation; and"

this bit is wonderful: it should be on the front pages of all tomorrow's newspapers

"leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime for public entertainment, and so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10.2. We draw these concerns to the attention of each House."

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 02:32 PM

So the Cerne Abbas giant is going to be ok now, unless he starts singing...

That last sentence quoted from the Joint Coimmittee on Human Rights - "We draw these concerns to the attention of each House" is interesting. I'd take it as a direct invitation to the House of Lords to refuse to accept the deletion of their amendments which addressed these points.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 04:10 PM

Howells true to form - right to the end, in the Licensing Bill debate 16 June 2003.

Dr. Howells:
Every example about which we have heard tonight is of a civilised group playing quiet music with moderate amplification. No one mentioned the fact that if we take away the two-in-a-bar rule—which I am entirely in favour of doing—there is nothing to stop a suddenly unregulated venue from putting on music that might have huge amplification.

Were that to happen, I can guarantee that the welter of letters that some right hon. and hon. Members have received from some constituents, mostly those in the Musicians Union, will appear as a mere trickle compared with the letters that they will start to get from residents who will have no defence whatever from bands playing in unregulated venues at such volume that they are blown into next week. If we are to be honest, we should mention that.

If Dr Howells were honest he would not try to belittle the public concern or mention this at all. But he is not honest for he still tries to inflict this complete rubbish upon us all.

The non - regulated senario 'fairy tale' he describes above, is exactly the same as now. For fear of this huge amplification in currently exempt premises is the justification he has given for taking away the S182 exemption in the first place!

And of course even without a entertainment licensing requirement - or an exemption from it - there is plenty of legislation to prevent the 'horror story' he describes, as he full well knows.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 04:34 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Please circulate

The Government will only reconsider a small events exemption if the Lords vote to reintroduce it on Thursday 19th June. Lobbying the Lords tomorrow is probably the last chance you have to change the final form of the Licensing Bill.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat Peers are well aware of performers' concerns and are backing this exemption. Crucially, the principle of a small events exemption now also has the unequivocal backing of the whole music industry, as well as performers' unions and a broad range of arts organisations.

However, Labour and Cross Bench Peers who take an interest in music could still make a valuable contribution to the debate on Thursday.

It is too late to post a letter, and Peers' emails are not published as widely as MPs'. But there is a generic fax number for the House of Lords: 020 7219 5979. This is the Peers' Lobby. Note that they only accept a maximum of six Peers' names on any one fax.

As ever, your own form of words is best, but here is a draft if you are short of time (it is almost the same as a letter sent today to Cross Benchers by the Musicians' Union):

~ ~ ~

My Lords

Licensing Bill - live music

The Licensing Bill returns to the Lords on Thursday 19th June at 11am for Lords Consideration of Commons Amendments. I would be most grateful if you could attend this debate.

On Monday 16th June, the Bill had its 3rd Reading and Report debates in the Commons. Unfortunately, the Government reversed some key amendments made by the Lords earlier this year relating to the performance of music. I feel strongly that one amendment in particular should be reinstated: the small events exemption for the performance of live music.

As currently worded, the Licensing Bill will make it an offence for premises, other than churches, to host any regular public performance unless first licensed. Even providing a piano for the public to use for their own amusement will be an offence unless licensed, a new offence that is a consequence of the 'entertainment facility' licensing requirement. However, jukeboxes in bars, or big screen broadcast entertainment anywhere, remain exempt. This is clearly disproportionate and a discrimination against live music.

Local authorities and the police already have wide-ranging statutory powers to deal with public safety, noise and crime and disorder. The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill will give local authorities even greater power to clamp down on noisy premises. Imposing an additional licensing requirement at this level is unnecessary and will stifle live performance that is already struggling to survive.

I hope you will consider supporting the small events exemption on Thursday 19th June.

Yours faithfully


LABOUR PEERS with an interest in music:

Rt Hon The Lord Archer of Sandwell QC

Lord Attenborough CBE

Lord Bach

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Lord Currie of Marylebone

Rt Hon The Lord Diamond

Lord Donoughue

Lord Dormand of Easington

Lord Evans of Watford

Lord Gallacher

Lord Gladwin of Clee CBE JP

Lord Haskel

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld

Lord Howie of Troon

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Baroness Lockwood DL

Lord Macaulay of Bragar QC

Rt Hon the Lord Macdonald of Tradeston CBE

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate OBE

Rt Hon The Lord Murray of Epping Forest OBE

Lord Rea

Rt Hon The Lord Richard QC

Rt Hon The Lord Varley DL

Lord Williams of Elvel CBE

Lord Winston

Baroness Howells of St Davids OBE

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall

Lord Filkin OBE

Lord Harrison

Lord King of West Bromwich

Lord Lea of Crondall OBE

Lord Fyfe of Fairfield

Lord Morgan

Professor The Lord Parekh

Lord Jones

CROSS BENCHERS with an interest in music:

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

Rt Hon Lord Cameron of Lochbroom QC

Rt Hon Lord Chalfont OBE MC

Rt Hon Lord Clyde

Lord Elis-Thomas AM

Lord Flowers FRS

Lord Freyberg

Lord Gibson

Rt Hon Lord Hope

Field-Marshall Lord Inge GCB DL

Prof Lord Lewis of Newnham FRS

Earl of Listowel

Rt Hon Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Lord Neill of Bladen QC

Rt Hon Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Rt Hon Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

Lord Roll of Ipsden KCMG CB

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

Viscount Tenby

Lord Tombs

Lord Walton of Detchant TD

Baroness Warnock DBE

Lord Wright of Richmond GCMG FRCM

Baroness Prashar CBE

Baroness Greengross

Lord Adebowale

Lord Adebowale

Lord Moser

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 06:49 PM

I've just written a modified version of this, and I'll fax it tomorrow - unfortunately I haven't got a fax facility on my computer at present.

Hee's my version (I think that these things work best if they aren't all identical:

My Lords

Licensing Bill - live music

As I am sure you are aware, the Licensing Bill returns to the Lords on Thursday 19th June at 11am for Lords Consideration of Commons Amendments. I would be most grateful if you could attend this debate.

The last time this Bill came to the House of Lords some very sensible amendments were introduced relating to the performance of music, which went a long way to undo the danger feared from this legislation as originally drafted. Unfortunately, these have been reversed in the Commons.

I hope very much that the House of Lords will refuse to accept this, and will insist on them being restored. Most especially one amendment should be reinstated: the small events exemption for the performance of live music.

Like many people, I enjoy taking part in informal music sessions in public houses, together with friends. As currently worded, the Licensing Bill will make it an offence for any premises, other than churches, to host any regular public "performance", unless it has a licence covering such performances. Even providing a piano for the public to use for their own amusement will be an offence unless licensed, a new offence that is a consequence of the 'entertainment facility' licensing requirement. However, jukeboxes in bars, or big screen broadcast entertainment anywhere, remain exempt. This is clearly disproportionate and a discrimination against live music.

It also goes clearly against a firm "promise" made in a BBC broadcast by the then minister of culture, Dr Kim Howells, that "so long as money was not changing hands" no licence would be needed for such events.

Local authorities and the police already have wide-ranging statutory powers to deal with public safety, noise and crime and disorder. The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill will give local authorities even greater power to clamp down on noisy premises. Imposing an additional licensing requirement at this level is unnecessary and will stifle live performance that is already struggling to survive. Over 80,000 people have signed a petition objecting to the clampdown on our freedom to make music. The amendments introduced in the Lords reflected our worries. When these amendments were summarily thrown out it felt as if we were being kicked in the teeth.

I would point out that since this Bill was introduced in the House of Lords the final say on what it includes is yours, since the Parliament Act does not apply.

I hope very much that you will insist on restoring the small premises exemption - and also the exemption for non-amplified music.

Yours faithfully etc

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 07:01 PM

I've just found this site which allows you to send faxes via the net - http://www.networks-id.co.uk/tpc.htm - and I've sent it. Hope it gets through.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 08:39 PM

Thanks for the link.

http://www.networks-id.co.uk/tpc.htm

This was the opposition's final comments on the Bill.

Mr. Whittingdale:
The Government have got many aspects of the Bill wrong, but the provisions that caused the most problems and which most closely resemble a dog's breakfast are those on entertainments licensing.

At every stage of the Bill, when objections were raised they were dismissed out of hand by Ministers as nothing but scaremongering, yet time and again, Ministers were forced to accept that they were wrong and have had to propose new amendments to overcome specific weaknesses; for example, on the requirement that churches should be licensed for the performance of secular entertainment.

The Government surrendered early on that issue. The removal of licence fees for schools and sixth-form colleges quickly followed. Since then, Ministers have repeatedly had to return with further amendments, even as late as this afternoon.

Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): I wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ask about an event that my wife and I hold regularly, when 80 people pay about £10 for a glass wine and contribute to entertainment in our family room to raise money for a good cause, either the Church or the Tory party. I asked whether I should need a temporary entertainment licence, but I have received no response. I assume that, as the number is about 80 rather than 250, the answer will be yes, because the Government resisted the amendment. If that kind of public-spirited entertainment requires a licence, the Bill, in that detail, must be wrong.

Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend's example is typical of hundreds that are being presented by organisations throughout the country. They all believe that they will have to meet an additional tier of regulation and bureaucracy as a result of the Bill. The Minister has assured the House that the provisions will not cover some events, but the organisations that presented evidence to us had obtained professional legal advice in each case.

Their advice shows very clearly that the Bill, as amended, will cover events of that kind. That is part of the problem. Examples, such as that cited by my hon. Friend, have been given repeatedly, and we have got into the most obscure debate, for instance, about whether or not a marquee with a wooden floor would be exempt from licensing, whereas a dance that took place inside a house with a wooden floor would require licensing. That is complete madness.

Dr. Howells: Would the hon. Gentleman like to cite that debate?

Mr. Whittingdale: We discussed such things in a debate on an amendment this evening, and the Historic Houses Association has given that exact example. [Interruption.] Well, earlier this evening, we debated an amendment, suggested by the Historic Houses Association, that was designed precisely to put right that kind of objection, but the problem has arisen because of the Government's decision to insist on a licensing requirement for all public performances of live music.

All of us agree that the law, as it stood previously, was arcane and unjust, but no one believed that the Government's response to the campaign to remove the two-in-a-bar rule would not be to abolish the licensing requirement, but to extend it to all public performances.

No convincing explanation has been given about why live music poses risks and problems that broadcast entertainment, however loudly amplified, does not. No explanation has been given about why the system in Scotland, which has no requirement for entertainment licences, would not be appropriate in England, too. It is hardly any wonder that musicians across the land, from morris dancers to metal bands, are united in opposing the Bill.

This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and I joined members of the Musicians Union in delivering an electronic petition, containing 110,000 signatures, to No. 10 in protest against the Bill. Those signatures were attached to the early-day motion that I tabled a few months ago. Indeed, I suspect that it is a record for an early-day motion to have 110,000 signatures associated with it.

I draw the Minister's attention, once more, to the finding of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published on Friday, in which it said that there is a significant risk that the Bill is now incompatible with the European convention on human rights.

Associated with the Bill is an assurance from the Secretary of State that, in her view, the provisions are compatible with the convention rights, but the Joint Committee now tells us that the Bill, as amended, will leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements, without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime, so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under the European convention on human rights.

The solution is very simple. If the Government were to accept the amendment passed in the House of Lords exempting performances attended by fewer than 250 people from needing a licence, almost all that opposition would melt away. I realise that the Government have so far been unwilling to do so, but I predict that the House will have to consider this matter again very soon, and I hope that, if the House of Lords insists on reinserting that amendment, the Government will listen and think again.

The work done by the House of Lords on all the issues that I have mentioned led to a greatly improved Bill. For that reason, the Conservative party did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading.

Sadly, nearly all the good work done in the House of Lords has been undone by the Government in Committee. The result is a Bill that is riddled with anomalies, that imposes more regulation rather than less and that will lead to the loss of thousands of venues at which it is currently possible to enjoy live music.

The Bar Entertainment and Dance Association said:
"Like almost every organisation involved with the development of the Licensing Bill, BEDA remains extremely concerned at the omissions, over elaborations and ill thought through proposals that remain within the legislation at this late stage."

The Musicians Union, the English Folk Dance and Song Society and the Association of British Jazz Musicians wrote a joint letter, saying that the Bill
"will be a disaster for the performing arts".

The Government presented a bad Bill. It was improved by the House of Lords, but it has been made worse again by the Government. For that reason, I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.



Nick Harvey: When the Bill was brought before Parliament, there was a general view across the political spectrum that legislation on such matters was long overdue. Indeed, there was general goodwill toward the prospect of legislation. The Government headlined the Bill by saying that it would allow more relaxed drinking hours and perhaps 24-hour drinking in some areas. That measure appeared to be popular and they must have believed that they were on to a winner.

Although the Bill's aim was to be simple and deregulatory, it has ended up being surprisingly complex. Each time a problem has arisen, the solution found has added to the Bill's complexity and produced further problems. Solutions to those problems have created a Bill that has become increasingly cumbersome. I agree that it would have benefited in no small way from pre-legislative scrutiny.

The former Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting handled the Bill's passage with panache and deftness—we congratulate him on his promotion but he will be sorely missed as he moves to his new job—but publicans, musicians, performers and residents remain significantly unhappy. I acknowledge that some of the campaigning outside the House has inflated concerns to an extent that is not entirely proportionate and that the perception of several aspects of the Bill is worse than the reality.

Publicans fear possible costs. They do not fear the licence fee but the cost of meeting conditions that they believe that they will have to fulfil to be granted licences. Not unreasonably, their perception is that the new system will be more bureaucratic than the one that it replaces. They think that they will have to engage advisers and consultants to help them to put together complex operating plans and that there is more far more red tape inherent in the new system than in previous systems.

If publicans want to change their operating schedule or the names of their designated premises' supervisors, the system is more cumbersome and complicated than it used to be. In addition to the concerns of individual publicans, we know that chains of pubs are unhappy that they cannot register their interest in designated premises. We may also come to regret that shortcoming.

The biggest controversy surrounds live performances and entertainment licensing. Despite everything that the Government and the Minister have said, live performers still believe that fewer venues will be available for live music and performance after the Bill is enacted, and their fears may be well founded.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said that we can all accept the shortcomings of the two-in-a-bar rule in the previous set-up, but that there is a desperate need for a de minimis provision. The Government's biggest mistake is not finding an alternative de minimis provision to replace the two-in-a-bar rule.

Although the figure of 250 that was suggested in the other place as constituting a small event is on the high side, I sincerely believe that something along those lines is necessary to avoid small entertainments becoming encumbered by a new licensing regime.

It is hard to resist the conclusion that that will reduce the number of live performances. Aside from those considerations, it appears that performers such as morris dancers who move around and perform at a variety of venues in quick succession will be caught up in many more licensing provisions than they were in the past.

The third interest group is the residents who will understandably be aggrieved that residential amenity has not been included in the Bill alongside the other licensing objectives as something that licensing authorities have to take into account when they make their decisions.

As we heard, they will also be aggrieved that undertakings from the old regime are not to be carried forward. The ability of a ward councillor to make representations was something that we—myself included—were wrong to exclude when we sensibly wrote out the provision for MPs and MEPs to be able to do so.

On other concerns, we heard that the Joint Committee on Human Rights thinks that there are possible breaches of human rights. I am equally uncomfortable about the statutory guidance. Although it will need parliamentary approval at the outset, it will not need it when the Government want to change it.

I have concluded that, regrettably, the Government have taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Much of the Minister's response to specific points came down to existing law already covering various aspects but not, in truth, being implemented. We might have done better to set about implementing existing laws before seeking new legislation.

People will look at the Bill and wonder why the Government concluded, for example, that Punch and Judy shows need to be licensed for public entertainment. They will want to know what motivated them to include that in legislation in 2003. Is it because Punch and Judy is sexist, cruel to crocodiles or shows a lack of respect for law and order?

Whatever it is, it is an example of the Government putting too much in the Bill and attempting to do too much. With a heavy heart, I conclude that it should not be given a Third Reading.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: alanww
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 06:54 AM

Some very sensible points have been made in those final comments of the Opposition - pity the Government doesn't listen and has just followed its instincts to regulate everything!

As a musician, singer, morris dancer and mummer, I can only look forward to either:-

1 being stopped from performing in some instances, even some traditions which have gone back for hundreds of years; OR
2 having to spend a lot more (unnecessary!) time finding my way through the bureaucracy and applying for a multitude of licences; OR
3 ignoring it all and running the risk of a fine and becoming a criminal!

Brilliant! What a wonderfully reformist Government we have!

" ... in England's green and pleasant land ...?"
Alan

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 05:19 PM

Regrettably there is still a problem about amplified music. It is obvious to everyone (except most politicians) that unamplified music (and dance to the same) do not need regulation. But amplified music, recorded or live, seriously damages the amenity of areas. Hamish and I part company here. He says the law provides for control of such noise. I say that in part it does but the law of "public nuisance" is arcane and impenetrable. Moreover local authorities do not in practice enforce it.   Note the exchange below (about naff amplified music in the pub opposite my house, which has been granted a PEL despite my objections, a history of disturbance, and a multiple stabbing - and which makes the middle of the village a no go area on Saturday nights unless you are 9 feet tall and covered in green fur.

There is NO effective control of the noise from amplified music. I would love to run a folk session in the other village pub - but who would be able to hear it over the amplifiers from the other other one?

From the Council (in responce to one of my complaints)

"Dear Mr
In response to your last E Mails to
Mr ********regarding the ************** public house at ***********, I am now
dealing with this matter as an enforcement issue. If the noise levels are
excessive, that is a matter for the Environmental Protection team and the
Out of Hours service to investigate.

.......
                                     In answer to your question about "our
statutory duty to patrol",the Council have no obligation to "patrol" the
area, looking for noisy premises or locations.

                                     The Environmental Protection team are
discharging their "statutory duty" by operating the out of hours service,
which you are aware of.
............."

My reply:

"Dear Mr *********

Thank you for your email.

Please see sections 79 to 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and in particular the words in section 79

"and it shall be the duty of every local authority to cause its area to be inspected from time to time to detect any statutory nuisances which ought to be dealt with under section 80 below and, where a complaint of a statutory nuisance is made to it by a person living within its area, to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint."

I may point out that if ********* and other authorities do not take this sort of obligation seriously, then the regime being put in place under the Licensing Bill for public entertainment, which does assume that local authorities will control noise that constitutes statutory nuisance, is sadly flawed. I am copying our MP, Mr ***************, who has definite and well informed views in this area

Please reply.

Yours, etc,"

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 07:52 AM

It all comes down to this - today!

60
Page 111, line 23, leave out "playing of" and insert "performance of live music or the playing of recorded"

61
Page 112, line 13, leave out paragraph 11

62
Page 112, line 31, leave out paragraph 12

62A
The Baroness Buscombe to move, as an amendment to the motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62, leave out the words from "that" to the end and insert "the House do disagree with the Commons in their amendment but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof"—

Page 112   , line 30, at end insert—

"Small events: live music

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

                (a)             the number of listeners or spectators present does not exceed 200 at any one time, and

                (b)             the entertainment ceases no later than 11.30pm.

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

            (2)      Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment, the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place."

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 10:18 AM

THANK THE LORDS!!!

We live to fight another day - difficult to see where we could have gone from here - if this vote had not been won. Unfortunately there is still work to be done and a long way to go yet.

I suggest that we use the little time we have to write and thank the peers who voted for the amendment. At the same time ask them to persuade others to join them in the next vote.

The Bill will go back to the Commons next week and no doubt the New Labour puppets will vote the amendment out again. Then the Government will threaten the Lords with a tax on ermine robes or other dire things, if they still insist on listening and voting on reasoned arguments.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 01:07 PM

For the reasons I have just set out I do not see how the government can leave it in these words, but if it starts a sensible dialogue it will be a vote well won.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 01:45 PM

In the last resort surely it isn't down to the Gvernment to decide on this, sinmce they haven't got a built-in majority in the House of Lords at this point.

I agree with Richard that the exemption on non-amplified music would have been a very sensible one for the House of Lords to restore. Did they get to vote on that?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 01:45 PM

I know what you are saying Richard but in truth there are so many words in this Bill that should not be there. These few more will not make any difference. But this amendment is only damage limitation after all.

Western Morning News 19 June 2003 [Morning]

MUSIC BILL SET FOR 'PING PONG'

Controversial legislation affecting live pub music reaches another crucial stage today, as peers decide whether to reinstate an exemption for small venues.

The Government's Licensing Bill – which has caused outrage from musicians, landlords and more than 11,000 WMN readers – seeks to make virtually all forms of live performance illegal unless licensed through the local authority.

Earlier this year, peers voted to include an amendment in the Bill's policies which would exclude premises holding fewer than 250 people from the new regime. But after a lengthy committee stage in the Commons, MPs voted on Monday to throw out the amendment.

The Bill now passes back to the Lords, and campaigners are hoping they will decide to re-install the exemption. If they do, the proposed legislation will be passed back to the Commons – as early as next week – and another review by a committee of MPs.

Hamish Birchall, a spokesman for the Musicians' Union, said: "It is likely that Lords will reintroduce a small events exemption and the Government will then have to decide whether to agree a compromise, or perhaps try to head off opposition with points. If the Lords and the Commons dig their heels in, the Bill will be caught in a 'ping pong' situation, passed back and forth between the two houses, the last thing the Government wants."

If the Bill becomes law, the two-in-a-bar rule, which allows a landlord to have one or two musicians play in a pub without needing an entertainment licence, would also be abolished.

A landlord would need to apply to the local authority for a new premises licence to stage any musical performance.

But because of the expensive conditions which may be insisted upon by health and safety, there are fears that live music will become too costly for many pubs.

MP for North Devon and Lib-Dem spokesman for culture Nick Harvey said: ""Some kind of small premises exemption is necessary to avoid live music becoming encumbered by this regime."


Dorset Echo 19 June 2003 [Evening]
Campaigning musician travels to Downing Street

Pub music protest is taken to the top
By Matt Pitman
[e-mail]

A musician who spearheaded a campaign against controversial changes to licensing laws went to the top in protest.

Roger Gall, from Portland, has been instrumental in the battle against plans to introduce licensing at pubs providing entertainment for two or more people.

Now Mr Gall has taken a petition signed by 110,000 people nationwide, which he began on the internet, to Downing Street with members of the Musicians' Union and other musical organisations.

The group wants small premises to be exempt from the new regime, which if it becomes law would mean live music must then be licensed by their local authority.

The two-in-a-bar rule, which currently allows a landlord to have one or two musicians play in a pub without needing an entertainment licence, would also be abolished.

Mr Gall said there are fears pubs will simply abandon live music altogether rather than pay for the licence. He said: "It was nice to present the petition and show the Government just how strong people feel about this issue. "It is a crazy situation which we will continue to fight until the Government sees sense. "As it stands, the Bill makes no distinction between something like the Glastonbury Festival and Punch and Judy on Weymouth Beach."

The Bill is currently being debated in the House of Commons and Lords and could come into force later this year.

West Dorset singer Billy Bragg, who lives near Burton Bradstock, added: "People not only get pleasure from listening to music, many enjoy playing once a month at their local pub or club. This Bill, if implemented as it stands, will severely curtail that enjoyment."

Musicians' Union general secretary John Dixon said: This petition, established by folk musicians Graham Dixon and Roger Gall, has demonstrated the degree of public support for live music. "We welcomed the Government's decision in February to exempt churches and garden fetes from the entertainment licensing requirements, but a great deal of live performance remains unnecessarily caught in the licensing net."

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 02:02 PM

With our beloved Kim Howells translated to the Ministry of Transport, do we know who is going to be in the hot seat now when it comes to trying to sort this out? And does this make any difference?