Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 01:25 PM

My reading of the letter and the date - when most of us were not even aware of the wording Government's counter amendment - is slightly different.

The letter is a carve-up. Pitching only for the Goverment's last minute so-called concession and a pure scare-mongering exercise, by referring to the small events exemption as an exemption from all licensing controls. When of course it was nothing of the sort.

Also ignoring that the Government themselves had in fact taken away ALL entertainment licensing controls on any entertainment in any place of public worship, not based on safety but purely on the money burden placed on these establishments.

But this was only an opinion - from a body that does not have the responsibilty for all the aspects

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 02:14 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

See below for a copy of the Local Government Association briefing paper for Peers dated 01 July 2003. It was sent with a short covering letter from LGA Chief Executive Sir Brian Briscoe.

Note that the LGA view differs markedly from the police. The LGA objects to the Government concession suspending licence conditions for live music, adding: 'This is unnecessarily complicated and will be difficult to monitor and enforce.'

Note also that the examples of local authority prosecution of public safety abuse at licensed premises or venues would have been offences under safety or fire legislation and could have been undertaken irrespective of entertainment licensing:

~ ~ ~

Introduction

Local Government Association members are very concerned at the ongoing attempts to exempt or otherwise concede controls on small premises. We have received evidence from local authorities about the real and serious safety and nuisance problems to be found in small premises.

The majority of premises licensed for entertainment currently are "small" premises and the effect of the Lords and government amendments would be to deregulate community protection to a degree where effective sanctions are not available to local authorities to deal with licence holders who abuse the new freedoms.

We believe that these are needless amendments. The Bill already ensures that conditions attached to licences will be appropriate and proportionate to the activity taking place. We believe the risk to live music is much exaggerated and based upon an inaccurate view of local authority approaches to licensing.

LGA key messages

Small premises

There appears to be a rather naive assumption that an event which attracts less than 200 or 250 people, or 500 in the case of a Temporary Event Notice, is insignificant and as such incapable of causing a disturbance or a risk to those attending. Our evidence indicates otherwise. We do not accept that small premises are inherently safer in fact it is our experience that small businesses and community groups are more likely to lack the expertise and resource to put effective safety and nuisance management systems in place.

Local authorities are not against live music

The assumption in much of the debate on the Bill so far is that if local councils are in charge of licensing, they will stifle culture and creativity. However local authorities are major promoters, facilitators and funders of community arts and culture. It is merely scaremongering and misinformation about local authority approaches to licensing that has led to these dangerous amendments.

Local authorities want to continue to be able to deal proactively with safety and nuisance issues. We believe that existing legislation the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 does not provide sufficient protection for people attending events or nearby residents. The remedies available under the Licensing Bill will be effective and make the most efficient use of local authority resources, which are already under pressure as a result of this Bill.

Local authorities recognise that licence conditions must be commensurate to the risk presented by the activity. Last year, in response to local opinion, the London Borough of Camden launched its 'Unplugged music and dance licence'. This licence is aimed at encouraging small scale live music within a sensible regulatory framework. For musical entertainment with no amplification whatsoever in small premises (capacity 100) up to midnight, usual standard conditions are waived and alternative noise and technical requirements substituted. After midnight the usual conditions apply.

The Musicians Union has described it as a best practice precedent for all local authorities and the proposal was welcomed by the Arts Council. It is clearly possible for premises to be subject to all the licensing objectives without detriment to art and culture.

Local authority regulatory services are governed by Best Value performance indicators and 96% of local authorities have signed up to the Enforcement Concordat. This is a Cabinet Office initiative setting out what businesses and others being regulated can expect from enforcement officers. The Concordat commits enforcers to follow the principles of good enforcement: having clear standards of service and performance, being open and approachable, being helpful in advising on and assisting compliance, having an accessible complaints procedure, making enforcement action proportionate and consistent.

Local authorities are committed to taking forward this approach into the new regime and LGA has brought on board the national body LACORS Local Authority Co-ordination of Regulatory Services to provide guidance and advice to authorities to ensure consistency and efficiency in implementation, administration and enforcement.

Public safety

The recent tragic incident in New York at the Station Night Club where 97 people died at a live music event may seem remote. Unfortunately we have received examples of home grown dangerous behaviour by licensees of small premises that could have produced a similar outcome. Some of the examples are listed below:

In the last two weeks, despite previous warnings, the licensee of a pub in Stockton on Tees was prosecuted for exceeding the occupancy level of 100 persons set by the Council by 75%;

The London Borough of Islington recently prosecuted a basement nightclub for exceeding its licensed capacity of 100 by over 100%;

In July 2002 Swansea City Council prosecuted a venue for breaches related to overcrowding and inadequate means of escape. The premises were licensed for 92 persons and it was estimated that 250 persons were present on the night, mainly as a result of poor management, stewarding and supervision;

In 2002 Wychavon DC prosecuted a public entertainment licensee for keeping an emergency exit locked whilst members of the public were on the premises (capacity190). The prosecution was undertaken by the Council after the licensee had received earlier warnings;

In March 2002 West Wiltshire DC prosecuted a premises licensed for entertainment for 200 people. The licensee pleaded guilty to a locked fire exit and failure to count numbers in breach of conditions of the licence. The Magistrates in sentencing made the point that health and safety had been at risk and the consequences could have been dreadful.

The arrangements for ensuring public safety under the Bill are already complex. Exempting small premises from the full range of public safety issues means that matters such as the provision of drinking water, First Aid, aspects of drug control that are not covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, are not covered.

Such amendments will also mean that in some licensed premises members of the public will not be covered by fire and safety legislation at all, for example where there is no work activity taking place or using unpaid volunteers.

Noise and nuisance

Small premises are more likely to be located in close proximity to noise sensitive properties in residential areas than larger venues. These premises are usually constructed from traditional materials and the sound mitigation properties of the structure are more or less non-existent.

Environmental Health Officers from around the country have told us that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is simply not adequate to deal with noise from premises like these.

The procedures are lengthy and require a significant input of enforcement resource. Licence conditions are a transparent, challengeable way to prevent a problem before more serious sanctions are required.

Where this approach fails there remains the option to prosecute for breach of licence conditions. The use of the prosecution sanction is relatively common against licensees who do not take action to prevent noise nuisance. For example in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea two branches of the same chain were prosecuted within a year for breach of noise conditions.

Many authorities, such as Horsham DC and Ipswich BC, report that unlicensed entertainment events are generally brought to local authority attention as a result of complaints about the noise disturbance they have created.

Ryedale DC make specific mention of noise problems from premises without entertainment licences making use of the existing "2 in a bar" exemption. These amendments create a new anomaly - "200 in a Bar" or "250 in a Bar" rather than "2 in a Bar" that imposes a new enforcement burden for local authorities and reduces the protection of local residents.

The prevention of nuisance in the vicinity of premises a major source of complaint nationally cannot be dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The ability of local authorities to attach conditions relating to public nuisance is key to ensuring local residents are not unduly disturbed by patrons leaving licensed premises.

The Lords original amendment

The original Lordsamendment to Part 2 of Schedule 1 allowed an exemption from the licensing regime in respect of the provision of regulated entertainment for entertainment attended by fewer than 250 people provided it finishes by 11.30 pm.

The effect of this amendment was to exempt all forms of entertainment from folk music to cinema to lap-dancing with significant implications for the licensing objectives and local authority policies. In particular, relating to public safety, this amendment seems to have learned nothing from recent disasters in the United States.

The Government amendment

The government amendment relaxes conditions relating to public nuisance and the protection of children from harm for "music entertainment" in defined circumstances. The definition of music entertainment is very wide, beyond live music, and includes karaoke and striptease.

Any problems that arise, for example children being present at adult entertainment or severe noise nuisance late at night, can only be dealt with by way of review a process that could be lengthy and does not prevent the problem in the first place. The evidence above indicates that this will not be a rare occurrence. Licence reviews, rightly, do not attract a licence fee and this mechanism will increase the pressure on local authority resources unless the fee levels are suitably adjusted.

The relaxation of conditions only applies when the music entertainment is taking place and the premises open for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises. This is unnecessarily complicated and will be difficult to monitor and enforce.

Relaxing public nuisance conditions in premises where the supply of alcohol is the primary use is deeply flawed - alcohol tends to change the behaviour of customers leading to an increased likelihood of noise and nuisance in the area matters which cannot be dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act 1990

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:06 AM

The letter from the Local Government Association [LGA] can be seen on the link to the following site - where the format has changed and I had to post it there in installments.

This is an interesting snippet - It is clearly possible for premises to be subject to all the licensing objectives without detriment to art and culture.

The Government obviously do not agree - as only conditions relating to two of the Bill's objectives can now actually come into effect for non amplified music in small premises - those of public safety and crime and disorder.

http://pub22.bravenet.com/forum/fetch.php?usernum=1824620545&msgid=36887&mode=

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 01:49 PM

Beware of MP's misinformation.

The following posted on uk.music.folk

Just received this reply from my MP Helen Jackson. I am printing it in its entirety.

'9th July 2003

Dear Hilary Spencer

You will be pleased to hear that Parliament last night accepted the
Lords Amendment in the Licensing Bill, which will exempt small venues.

Your fears have been listened to, and let us hope there is now no danger of our carollers (Sheffield Carols) or morris dancers being arrested on criminal charges!

Thank you for your concern. It has been a good debate and the
legislation is sound. For your interest I enclose a copy of the opening remarks of the debate.

Please do not hesitate' etc etc

Hilary Spencer
Sheffield

(see Hansard)
--
Hilary Spencer
http://www.hilaryspencer.com
http://www.quicksilver.uk.net

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 02:32 PM

After the Lords let the small premises amendment drop, because the Liberal Democrats changed sides, I sent Lord Redesdale, their leader in the Lords, a somewhat sarcy comment - and it clearly upset him, because he sent me back a response indicating he thought it was unfair.

And then Hamish Birchall of the Musician's Union (clearly having heard from Redesdale in similar terms) sent me an email outlining the situation, and pointing out that Redesdale has had some useful input into the campaign, which I have no doubt is true.

Anyway I thought it should be posted here, so I asked Hamish's permission first (because you shouldn't pass on emails without doing that).

And here is what Hamish wrote back-

"It's OK with me if you post my email about Redesdale's role on the Mudcat. It is clear to me now that on Thursday 03 July neither Peers or MPs understood how that last minute amendment of an amendment worked. This is not surprising - it is genuinely difficult. Peers voted it through trusting the advice they had been given by civil servants, which subsequently turned out to have been not quite the whole picture - as usual."

I think this helps explain why it is that there have been newspaper stories talking about how the government have amended the bill so that un-amplified music is exempted. They have been printing what they thought was the truth, on the basis of misleading Government briefing - and Members of parliament and Peers appear to have gone along with the Government under the same mistaken impression.

So it's maybe a matter of naivety rather than treachery. But you really would think that they'd have learnt by now. You cannot afford to take anything on trust from the Government.

Anyway, here is Hamish's piece about the naive but not intentionally treacherous Lord Redesdale:

I understand from Lord Redesdale that you (and others) feel betrayed by his decision to vote with the Government last Thursday, rather than support the Conservative small events exemption amendment.

I know why you feel very strongly about this - I do myself - but it would grossly unfair to focus blame on Lord Redesdale for the loss of this exemption and, in doing so, disregard what he has achieved over several years. He has done more work on this Bill in support of musicians than anyone else in the Lords. Without his support we would not have kicked off the campaign in 2001 with successful media events. None of the benefits won in the Lords could have been won without the backing of the Lib Dems. We would not have the 'incidental' exemption, which now seems to be wider than at first thought, nor would we have had any of the concessions for unamplified music, or folk dance.

The consensus in support of Baroness Buscombe's small events exemption had begun to waver before Lord Redesdale was put under considerable pressure by the Government to agree a compromise. The letters predicting virtual anarchy if the exemption were to succeed sent to all Peers by the police and Local Government Association played a significant part in undermining support for the exemption. By last Thursday, the general feeling in the Lords was that a compromise should be reached. This was, of course, all meticulously orchestrated by the Government and its officials. The person ultimately responsible for this and the illogical and in some cases absurd provisions in the Licensing Bill, is the Secretary of State at the DCMS, Tessa Jowell.

Ironically enough, the last minute concessions strengthen the human rights case against the Bill. The Secretary of State must make a declaration on the face of the new Act to the effect that it is compatible with the European Convention. But the new concessions give rise to further obvious incompatibilities. For example, it would be a criminal offence to organise an unlicensed public piano recital in a library, or even your own home, but a concert of folk dance with accompanying live unamplified music would be exempt.

Indeed, having now checked with the DCMS, it seems Lord Phillips of Sudbury was correct in pointing out that the concession for amplified and unamplified live music in pubs is totally contradictory. A pub licensed for amplified live music will not, initially, be subject to noise conditions and the music could go on all night. This quite clearly incompatible with residents' rights to a quiet night's sleep under Article 8 of the ECHR. However, a pub licensed only for unamplified live music may not allow a performance between midnight and 8am.

The reality is that in order to save face with this Bill, Ministers and officials have continually shifted the goal posts in order to justify the unjustifiable. They have misrepresented safety law on the basis of uncorroborated assertions by unqualified officials, misquoted unpublished reports about noise, failed to disclose important representations made by the police, and misrepresented the powers available under existing alcohol licensing law. This cynical disregard for truth, and contempt for the democratic process, is where the real problem lies.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 04:22 PM

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 04:25 PM

And here is an email I have just sent to the correction editor at The Guardian, pointing out the mistake they made in their story a few days ago. Maybe a few more letters making the same request might get through to them:

On 3rd July I sent an email asking pointing out a serious error in a
Guardian story, and asking for it to be corrected. I haven't seen a
correction yet, either in the corrections column, or in the rest of the
paper. So I thought I'd have another go.

Here is the quote I was complaining about, in a story by Sarah Hall about
the Licensing Bill in the Lords
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,991269,00.html)

"...unamplified ensembles such as string quartets will not have to overcome
this bureaucratic hurdle."

That is, they will not have to apply for entertainment licences in order to
be able to to permit unamplified music.

Well, it's a pretty confusing piece of legislation, with last minute
amendments, and highly misleading Government press statements   at various
times - but Sarah Hall (or possibly whoever subbed her copy) has got it
completely wrong on this point, and I think the Guardian needs to correct
it.

The Guardian is not alone in this mistake - it seems highly likely that
Peers and MPs actually thought that the last-minute Government amendment did
mean that there will be no need for any kind of music licence to allow
unamplified music in sessions in pubs and so forth. I presume that there
may well have been Government briefings to that effect.

BUT IT IS NOT TRUE What the amendment allows is that, where there is a
licence permitting music, and this contains various requirements - such as
bouncers on the door etc. - these additional conditions will not apply to
events where the music is unamplified and stops by midnight. But if there
is no licence covering music, as is the case at present in 95% of pubs, any
performance of unamplified music will be illegal. And that also applies in
cafes, restaurants and in any other public place, apart from churches.

It's complicated and confusing. But the version the Guardian printed was
misleading, and that needs to be set right.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 04:57 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Dear Ms Jackson

A folk musicians' website has posted a letter from you in which you claim that as a result of Lords' amendments, small venues are now exempt from licensing and that in your view the legislation is now 'sound'.

Firstly, a factual correction: the Lords did not exempt small venues. Any featured public performance of live music remains illegal unless licensed, amplified or unamplified, unless it takes place in a public place of religious worship, a non-profit-making garden fete, or non amplified music only as an integral part of a performance of Morris dancing, or dancing of a similar nature.

The effect of the Lords' amendment is simply that licence conditions may be 'suspended' in certain circumstances. It is a difficult provision to interpret, it was opposed by the Local Government Association, and we will not know for some time whether it will have any significant beneficial effect.

Secondly, can you fairly claim that this legislation is sound when it exempts unamplified live music performance if accompanying folk dancers, but if you take the dancers away the event is illegal unless licensed? Can you claim it is sound if organising a piano recital in a library is a criminal offence unless licensed, but the provision of big screen entertainment, plus amplification would be exempt at any time, no matter how many people attend?

Lord Lester, the authority on human rights law, spoke during the Lords debate that resulted in the Govermment amendment going through. He said:

'I find the distinction drawn between live music in pubs and dead music or dead entertainment on mass television in pubs arbitrary and somewhat discriminatory. Perhaps it reflects some kind of cultural bias. I believe that it shows a complete lack of proportion to insist on unnecessary regulation in licensing.

I should be interested to know how the Minister [Lord McIntosh], for whom I have such high regard, would explain, if he had to do so in a court of law, how this kind of regulation is proportionate and how it satisfies the basic principle of proportionality. Are the means being used really necessary to achieve the Government's legitimate aims, or would some lesser sacrifice of free expression be proportionate?'

Lord McIntosh did not respond to Lord Lester's questions.

Where live music is concerned the Licensing Act 2003 is much more complex than the old legislation. Thankfully it does abolish high annual entertainment licence fees, but it ensnares far more live music events than I think any previous entertainment licensing regime. Worse, it maintains the perverse elevation of what Lord Lester describes as dead music over live music in places where live music should be a normal activity.

Pragmatically, the music industry will now have to make the best of the new law. I hope you will do anything you can to encourage the Government to its best to counterbalance the cultural bias inherent in the new law.

Yours sincerely
Hamish Birchall
MU adviser - PEL reform
020 7267 7700

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 05:53 PM

It would appear that our MPs obtain the information they give to their constituents from fellow back-benchers (even when they themselves have taken part in the Committee stages), from the Guardian or from the bloke down the pub.

Many MPs may honestly want to believe they can and are eager give their constituents good news, but it is important that they are given the correct information by us - before the whole country is under impression that small events and non amplified music is exempt from the licensing requirement.

It is also important to establish if this misinformation is coming from an official source - if it is just a case of yet more incompetence from our elected representitives.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:20 PM

I have written to the Guardian in similar terms, I have ciruclated it to al on my mailing list.

It is really offensive that the governemtn was preapred to lie so widely in support of its case, and disappointing if not more that Redesdale was misled.

It is sadly to be expected that the LGA nad the ACP should lie lie and lie again in thier last minute briefings - we can learn from this. If a lie, well timed, should serve our case better than the truth, so be it.

It is rahter worse that the government, by failing to allow any oportunity for the refutation of these falsehooods should knowingly permit legislation to be passed on the basis of misinformation - but that woudl seem to be sounding familiar by now.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:41 PM

It occurs to me that when Teresa Jowell states that this legislation is consistent with Human Rights requirements, if untrue this would be some kind of contempt of Parliament, and a matter for the Speaker to deal with.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 10:20 PM

We learn from all this - that reputable advice from a presumed disreputable lobby is worth far less than disreputable advice from presumed reputable lobby like the LGA.

The MU should have and still should sue Dr Howells. The damage the 'pernicicous lying campaign' smear has done to music and musicians - is now rather clear to see.

For example - the solicitor on today's 'Law in Action' programme was rather selective in the so-called 'myths', by including Howells' own invention of the whistling postman, and did not detail all the areas where the singing of 'Happy Birthday' would be illegal and in fact had been found so under current legislation. The clear and gaping holes in the Government's illogical arguments for the Bill, were not really mentioned in any detail.

I don't think we should excuse solicitors like this one for being fooled by this tactic.   

This to my MP re the LGA letter.

This letter is extraordinary.

Perhaps you could establish from the LGA and Mr Caborn why this letter was not sent earlier? Why the points in it were not raised and challenged in the Committee stages and only surfaced at the 11th hour, when the points raised clearly relate equally to the Government's own and earlier amendment?

Can you ask Mr Caborn to ensure that the total exemption of all commercial entertainment in all churches is quickly re-examined in the light of the very serious safety and crime and disorder concerns expressed by this body in this letter?

Roger

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 05:15 AM

For details of the Law in Action show - click on the following link to the Mudcat thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=61073&messages=17

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: GUEST,ET
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 07:22 AM

The problem is that the Act will be headed by a statement that in the opinion of the minister the Act is compliant, not that it is compliant.

I have no doubts but that those who voted for the Morris Dancing Amendment thought it meant acoustic music was excempt - but as any lawyer or any one carefully reading the English Language, wouuld tell you - it says no such thing. The whole thing is a travasity and a disgrace. I read recently that since coming into power crime solving by the police has reduced to a pathetic level but new offences created exceed 500 including selling tomatoes by imperial measure!

If it helps I don't think Local Authorities are particularly clear on what needs a licence and what does not but the real enforcers could be publicans fearful for their licences. They need to understand how to fill in their local business plans when they apply to the new bodies for licences.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 07:31 AM

But these days it all too often isn't even the publicans. It's the executives of the conglomerate that owns the pub.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 07:39 AM

I also think that the Morris exemption was less of a consession drawn from the Govenment - but a last minute and reluctant acceptance that providing advanced licensing permission for every event i.e. for every piece of ground that ever needed to be danced on - was going to prove to be impossible in practice.

The Bill did just not fit these activities and the arguments presented by Mark Gibbens, EFDSS and Co, I think had finally persuaded the DCMS Civil Servants of this.

I greatly fear that the Government got very much the best out of this particular piece of horse trading. It was a bit like someone giving you a good price for horse that you were only going to have to put down anyway...........

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 08:36 AM

I don't think it's necessary to ascribe malevolent motives to the Government over all this, or any particular antagonism towards folk music.

Incompetence and an arrogant reluctance to admit mistakes are an adequate explanation. As with most things.

One of the unintended consequences of all this could be to give folk dance a much more central role in what goes on. I'm sure that the "Morris or similar" but is practice to extend to all types of folk dance, and I can envisage a situation where there are going to be a lot more step dancers around, as a way of giving us a legal fig leaf.

Quirks in the drafting of laws have that kind of effect - the "club members" loophole gave us the folk clubs, the "two in a bar" exemption gave us, for example, "Show of Hands". I anticipate that this is going to give us Social Morris and so forth.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 10:02 AM

I anticipate that this is going to give us Social Morris and so forth.

Or Morris will prosper as a very popular public paid entertainment in pubs? Where girls (and men) - naked except for flowered hats, bells and hankies dance on tables to non amplified music. A movie called 'The Full Morris' will also be a great success........

The problem was that the Government were too slow to do the hard work required to deliver what they wanted to but far too quick to react to largely constructive and informed concern by playing Party political games or making macho gestures to the House of Lords.

The Committee stage gave the Government the time and the opportunity to improve the Bill but sadly Howell's and Co choose - and were allowed to just use this stage to bluster on and muscle out the sensible amendments from the Lords.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 10:19 AM

Quirks in the drafting of laws have that kind of effect - the "club members" loophole gave us the folk clubs, the "two in a bar" exemption gave us, for example, "Show of Hands".

By way of explanation...
Western Morning News 12 Feb 2003

One band who have graduated from the Westcountry pub circuit are Show of Hands. The Exeter-based duo who have played all over the world and twice sold out the Albert Hall, believe the Bill would deny young musicians the chance to break through.

Singer-songwriter Steve Knightley said: " The grass-roots level is crucial to young talent. When you start out you need any gig at all, and it might be the only chance you will get. The two-in-a- bar rule provided us with that chance."

" If your set works in a small pub, where you are face to face with unforgiving audiences, it will work anywhere. You can't hide, so you learn to handle a crowd and build up a rapport."

"The Irish and the Scots have a living musical culture, they play at their own weddings and parties. The English don't really have that. So we are dependent on music-loving landlords who want to offer people an alternative."

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Jul 03 - 05:58 PM

From Hamish Birchall

The Licensing Act 2003 has now been published on the web:
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030017.pdf

I couldn't find a link to the Explanatory Notes that are supposed to accompany the Act. Note that the last minute amendment relating to 'suspended' licence conditions for live music in certain small premises is in Section 177, p100 of the Act (p111 in the PDF), not in the entertainment schedule (Schedule 1).

Interestingly, there appears to be no 'Declaration of Compatibility' with the European Convention on Human Rights by DCMS Secretary of State Tessa Jowell.

Previous printings of the Bill as it went through Parliament did have this Declaration of Compatibility on the front page.

The office of the Joint Committee on Human Rights today confirmed that the Committee did consider the Licensing Act at its weekly meeting yesterday (Monday 14 July 2003). There was some doubt whether the Committee could consider an Act that had already received Royal Assent. But apparently the JCHR will report its findings perhaps as early as next week. So those submissions to the JCHR were not wasted.

It is hard to know at this stage whether the missing 'Declaration of Compatibility' and the JCHR's final consideration of the Act are in any way connected.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 03:03 AM

What's the SP on the guidance?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 05:43 AM

Guidance due in September. Trouble is likely to be selectively applied by local authorities?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Barden of England
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 05:46 AM

I see the dopey bleeders have shot themselves in the foot. It's something that Richard Bridge pointed out and is now confirmed for according to page 118 of the act (page 129 of Acrobat) indoor sports will need licensing, so any pub which is going to hold a contest of the dart should seriously think about including live music, as they're going to have to tick the box for darts anyway. Aren't our lawmakers wonderful people

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 07:17 AM

I've no doubt (*GRIN*) Kim Howells Mark II will say this is deliberate and is one of the ways the Government is trying to ensure as many places as possible are licenced for music ...

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 09:04 AM

How soon will the legislation be fully introduced. Will it only really affect a pub when it's current license needs renewing ?

We've been told that applying for a PEL would only mean ticking a box on the form, but if a pub license has two more years to run, will this mean that they would have to wait until then to apply.

Have we any idea if many local authorities are going to force pubs to make great changes if they do want a PEL. I believe that the PEL is supposed to be free if it is applied for with the pub license, will this encourage LAs to try and deter pubs by insisting on lots of changes so that they can make a charge for a later application.

What about pubs which are already paying for a PEL like "The Cricketers" at Greenwich. They've had to fork out £400 odd for a license that covers them for music two nights a week. Will they have to continue to pay this rate and still be limited to only two evenings a week ?

Now that the rates for licenses are going to be capped, will LAs be so keen to insist on them.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Snuffy
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 09:16 AM

My understanding is that pub licences are renewed annually by the Licensing Justices, traditionally in February

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 10:13 AM

We do not know when the new act will commence. There is a lot of sorting for local authorities to do. My guess is not before 2 years, maybe not until 3.

We do know that the local authorities are furiously lobbying for higher charges. Their charges will be set centrally, but have not been set yet. My guess is that they are likely to be double the propaganda figures of £500 for the first new licence under the act.

The guidelies will be incorporated in statutory instrument so it will be harder for the local authorities to ignore these guidelines than some others in the past. The guidelines are still in flux, it seeems, and we must press (I have spoken to Hamish in the interim) for it to be clear that local authiorities should not use licences to impose requirements to comply with existing other laws - particularly health and safety.

It may also be appropriate to seek to have it made express that if an operating plan specifies unamplified music only, the licence must not contain conditions directed to amplified music, adn more essentially, that if an application os for general music and dancing, any conditions in the licences do NOT have effect unless there is music or dancing - this way the moronic semi-exemption has a chance of being slightly useful instead of wholy useless.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 10:18 AM

Is the £500 (or double) the cost of a basic pub license. My understanding of the new law was that there would be no extra charge for a PEL if it was applied for with the basic license. If the basic license went up to £1,000, it wouldn't just folk clubs that would go - it would be a large number of pubs themselves.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Barden of England
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 10:38 AM

Forgot to mention in my earlier missive that Pool, Skittles, maybe even shove ha'penny seem to me to be licensable as they are games in which physical skill is the predominant factor and they are also physical recreation which are also engaged for competition or display - however petanque doesn't seem to be as that is not an indoor event. How crazy is that? Roger Gall is right to point out the omission of the last minute amendment relating to 'suspended' licence conditions for live music in certain small premises which is in Section 177, p100 of the Act (p111 in the PDF), but is not in the entertainment schedule (Schedule 1). Where does that leave us if the act is signed in its present form?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 01:01 PM

Dave. Applying for licence will be same cost whatever you apply for. But we don't knowthe cost yet. Local authorities are lobbying hard...

You see the ones like Camden that charged £20,000 for a PEL have to make it up somewhere or put it on the community charge, or cut services. Turd, swimming pool, you get the picture!

John, the small premises condition suspension, and the unamplified music condition suspension are now in the right place, because by law they suspend conditions, rather than dealing with the definition of or exemption from the status of, regulated entertainment. They have such effect as they have - whatever the wordingmeans.

I'm a bit boggled by the thought that a piano (not on the operating plan) is illegal until you start to have unamplified music, butthen becomes legal, and then becoes illegal again when the music stops.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 04:20 AM

What is the cost of a current license and how long does it last ?
How long will the new license last ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: cockney
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:48 AM

Current License from Magistrate costs £30 and lasts 3 years! So you are right Dave this new Licence costing maybe up to £1000 pa could put a lot of small pubs out of business anyway as it represents a 1000% increase That's even before the poor landlord has to start jumping through crooked hoops to try and facilitate entertainment for his punters by means of a bit of homegrown music or a game of darts!

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 10:51 AM

The cost of the actually Premises Licence is a one-off charge, valid for the life of the business - in the form first applied for. The cost of this will vary.

In addition to this there will be the annual cost of the inspection charge.

And for every ten years for the Personal Licence.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 11:11 AM

But if you want to apply for a variation there will be another charge

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 11:54 AM

This thread has got much too long, now that the Licensing Bill has been passed, I think that we could do with a new one.

I have therefore started one called Licensing Bill - How will it work ?. in which we can try and work out the best practical way to deal with this messy bit of legislation.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 09:58 AM

From Hamish Birchall

On Monday 21 July the Joint Committee on Human Rights will publish a further report incorporating their conclusions about the Licensing Act 2003 and live music.

The JCHR website is: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/hrhome.htm