Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: vectis
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 03:57 PM

This whole Bill appears to me to a real shambles (sorry The Shambles, no offence intended). Why don't they just chuck the bloody mess out and get someone who knows what s/he is doing to re-write it from scratch? That way there is a better chance of a bill that will be workable, less complicated and will have fewer loopholes that will enable greedy officials to extract money for alleged breaches or close long running and harmless events.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 06:16 PM

The live music incidentals need to make sure that incidental permits advertising etc. Otherwise advertised sessions may be in jeopardy.

All the incidentals (except for teh acoustic one) need to make sure that amplification is restricted, or there will be a breach of Art 8 and then we have no idea what will follow.

Have I clarified?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 08:07 PM

Why can't the 'incidentals' get around article 8, the same way as the 'two-in-a-bar-rule' did and all the exemptions for church concerts and music from the back of a moving road vehicle will? As there was and will be no amplification restrictions on these.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 01:03 AM

The plans for the Standing Committee, this week in the Commons.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmwib/ahead.htm

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 02:48 AM

Interestingly still no amendments listed on parliament website.

All the old and new exemptions that did not recognise the impact of amplification on home and private life were, I have now to say, not compliant with Art 8 ECHR.

Therefore those relying on tehm as a safeguard might easily find the effect of them changed by intervening Human RIghts legislation.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 04:24 AM

Then why on earth can't we not have a Bill that gives the public safeguards where there may be a problem and doe not insist on imposing them where there clearly is not?

The JCHR and everyone else will support such a Bill, but it does not appear to be this one, and I really can't see that tinkering with it by amendments, is going to acheive that end.......

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: vectis
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 05:41 AM

WELL SAID.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 02:45 PM

LICENSING BILL IS INNOCENT;OK?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 03:06 PM

Surely an exemption from a need for licensing is just that. It doesn't mean that the activity which doesn't need to be licensed is legal, if the way that it is exercised offends against other legal requirements, by interfering with the rights of people living next door and so forth.

In the same way an activity that is duly licensed might be illegal, if on any occasion it involves excessive noise and so forth.

The fact that someone has a driving licence doesn't mean they have a right to drive dangerously - and the fact that you don't need a licence to ride a pushbike doesn't make it legal to run down pedestrians with it.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 01:05 AM

If you accept that some form of licensing is necessary for "full-on" public entertainment (which I think most people do) then the probelm becomes deciding what can be exempted and what cannot. If you accept that some things need regulating then you have to decide whather a licensing regime is necessary or whether something else will do.

If the other methods do not produce effective regulation then you are bound to go for licensing. But the law relating to noise is not an effective control for (for example) juke box noise emanating from pubs. First the Environmental protection Act duties on a local autority may very well be unenforceable if the local autority has not got sufficient resources to impliment them. Second the law on public and private nuisance is far from clear or instant. THird, most pubs make most racket over the weekend when the local authority is shut and unless you ahve already been given a "noise hotline" emergency number and permission to access that service you can't get anything done until Monday. If the pub next door has a 5 kilowatt juke disco in the garden with kids also screaming on a bouncy castle, a fat lot of use that is.

I ahve, however drafted a partial defintion of "incidental" which might go some way to helping if teh government decides to take it on board and polish it up. Here it is: -

1        For the purposes of paragraphs 7, 10 and [(the new one for partly electric music if adopted)] of this Schedule 1, in determining whether a performance is incidental to another activity or not: -
(1)        subject to sub-paragraphs (2) (3) (4) and (5) below, a performance shall be regarded as incidental to another activity if it is carried on in conjunction with that other activity (whether before, during, or after that other activity), but is subordinate to that other activity;
(2)        a performance or performances may be regarded as incidental to another activity despite the frequency regularity advertisement or promotion of performances of that or another type at the same place or in conjunction with that other activity, but regard may be had to the numbers typically attending;
(3)        a performance of live music may be regarded as incidental to another activity even though the provision of that music is a substantial part of the purposes of the use at that time of the premises at or in which the respective performance occurs
(4)        a performance of recorded music shall not be regarded as incidental to another activity if the provision of that music is a substantial part of such purposes;
(5)        subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) above regard may be had to the extent to which music is amplified in determining whether or not it is incidental to another activity.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:05 AM

If the other methods do not produce effective regulation then you are bound to go for licensing.

They are not effective because they are not currently used by local authorities, who prefer PELs as they then get both control and revenue, so no one really knows if they are effective against noise, or not

But the law relating to noise is not an effective control for (for example) juke box noise emanating from pubs.

This is crazy reasoning, because it is not used and as there is currently running alongside entertainment licensing which actually legalises some noise and legally exempts others (i.e. juke box noise), as the Bill will just continue to do.

Control of excess noise by licensing it is never necesary. When it proves to be necesary, the laws to protect the public from damage from exessive noise should be enforced or improved. For example this Bill gives me no protection from my neighbours noisy firework displays as this excessive noise, is not covered.

Large gatherings, like Glastonbury may require special measures to ensure the public's safety but these should only 'kick-in' when a specified number of people are catered for, rather blanket licensing and exemptions for events for less than 250.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:42 AM

Thanks to Ric Spencer for this evidence of trouble at TV sports events in pubs, that Dr Howells claims he has not seen.

Portsmouth News 31 March 2003

Court: Prison sentences of between eight months and a year handed out to thugs who brought terror to town.   

Six men are jailed after World Cup street brawl.
By Kushwant Sachdave The News

Six thugs who got involved in drunken brawl after an England victory in the World Cup last year have been jailed. The men ended up in a mass punch-up in the streets of Havant after England beat Argentina.

Fighting first irrupted outside the Six Bells pub in North St Havant, shortly after the match, which took place on June 7. The violence spilled into nearby streets and more and more people got caught up in the clashes. Police were called but they were attacked as they tried to arrest those at the centre of the trouble.

One officer described the fight as the most frightening incident he had encountered during his many years of service. Other witnesses described how they were left terrified for their safety by the violent scenes.

Now six men – Raymond Green 28, Jonathon Japp 28, Derek Benfield 30, Roger Carroll 32, Paul Hughes 21 and Lee Brough 31 have been jailed for their part in the trouble.

All six men were described by their barristers as hard-working, decent individuals who had made a mistake in getting involved. At Portsmouth Crown Court Judge Tom MacKean told them he had no choice but to send them to prison to show the public that street violence was not acceptable.

But handing them their sentence for violent disorder, Judge MacKean condemned their behaviour. He told the six men: "After a successful World Cup football match you all celebrated by drinking large amounts of alcohol in public houses in Havant and there were incidents of public violence in which you were all heavily involved. "Members of the public were left frightened for their safety. "The violent behaviour was unacceptable and the matter is so serious that I must impose custodial sentences upon each of you as a clear message that violence in public places will not be tolerated."

Two of the men sentenced have been found guilty after a jury after a seven-week trial earlier this year. A third changed his plea from not guilty to guilty half way through the trial. The jury failed to reach a verdict on three other men. They will have to face a fresh trial in front of a new jury. The new trial is likely to take place in the autumn.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:58 AM

Amendments for the Common's Standing Committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmbills/073/amend/cmam073.htm

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 09:44 AM

Are they accepting the Lord's amendment for exempting unamplified music ? I wonder also if they would agree to the small events clause if the number was lower ie 150.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Rambling Boy
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 06:22 AM

Any News from yesterday ??

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 08:34 AM

This from ET.

Have now applied the amendments to the bill as it comes from the Lords

Some of the amendments do not make sense and conflict with others but
in the main provisions one amendment changes "regulated entertainment" to "premises for public gatherings".
Another removes Schedule 1 (the dreaded "entertainment" schedule - Well done Andew Turner MP but doubt if this will hold)
Another removes enterainment Facilites from licensing (handled by Tory Lead on this Malcolm Moss MP.

Many changes to list of entertainments, adding martial arts to boxing and comedy not a play.

Playing of live music becomes perforamnce of live music (don't understand this) - its from Kim Howells so bound to be dodgy!
Howells seeks to strike out the entire amendments from the Lords on unamplified music incidental to other matters (fearing Japanese Drummers at Morris Dancing no doubt) and also seeks to strike out all the small premises exemptions.

Others seek to limit this to 200 (not 250) and to make sure the entertainment is within a building and not outside
Another attempt to exempt schools and educational establishment providing there is a direct connection between the entertainment and the establishment (presumably school concerts ok but not visiting meetings of pipers etc).

I gather that whatever is agreed or not goes to the Commons for a vote, but only on the amendments. The bill then is returned to the lords who by tradition, only deal with amendments.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 10:39 AM

"Playing of live music becomes performance of live music" - that would presumably open up the old issue of what constitutes "a performance", which nobody has ever determined.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 04:23 PM

See the following thread for more idiotic comments from Dr Howells in the commons. Read and dispair....

E Petiton etc

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 05:05 PM

The full proceedings here.

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

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:46 AM

More evidence from Ric.

Social Worker Hit Officer.
By Victoria Taylor The News.

A Social Worker who hit a police officer in a brawl after a World Cup match has been given a conditional discharge. Alison Carter lunged at PC Gary Jones as he tried to arrest her boyfriend Neil Mitchell in the disturbance outside a Porchester pub.

The 39 year-old ran to the aid of Mr Mitchell who was being arrested for allegedly assaulting fellow police officer Peter Parkes by squeezing his testicles and biting his hand.

Fareham magistrates had been told that Carter has slapped Fareham PC Jones and jumped on his back as he restrained Mr Mitchell outside the Wilcor pub in White Hart Lane, Porchester last June.

Carter, of Kingfishers Fareham was then arrested after the brawl following England's match against Denmark. Carter was given a 12 month suspended sentence for 12 months after she was convicted of assault.

Mr Mitchell, 36 of Olive Cresent, Porchester was earlier aquatinted of assault after magistrates had found flaws with the policeman's evidence.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 08:41 AM

The difference now is Playing to Performance. Its is bit subtle and may be around the question of playing to the audience - a performance - and playing for yourself - playing.

If so sessions maybe ok. One reading of Howells idiotic comments is that "Iam important and get taken out to freebies in posh restaurants which have jazz "in the corner". I like this and want it to continue hence music which is "incidental" being exempt. Its a vague sort of word. Howells had a "pop" at its definition - not advertised, not too loud to become the main event etc. Stuff that sounds alright but its not Howells who will do the testing.

There is likely to be a mjaor cabinet re-shuffle in Jule, July. Suggestions for Howells on a postcard please to Tony..

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 12:27 PM

Typo of the week: "Mr Mitchell, 36 of Olive Cresent, Porchester was earlier aquatinted of assault after magistrates had found flaws with the policeman's evidence".

I love spellcheckers sometimes...

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 12:51 PM

There is likely to be a major cabinet re-shuffle in Jule, July. Suggestions for Howells on a postcard please to Tony..

If he stays a minister, I would regretfully have to leave him where he is. The thought of what he could do in education, the home office, the foreign office, etc, fills me with dread!

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 03:43 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 03:21 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall - Please circulate

Last Thursday, 03 April, the Commons Licensing Bill Committee concluded its debate of Schedule 1 that deals with definitions and exemptions for 'regulated entertainment' and 'entertainment facilities'. As predicted, Culture Minister Kim Howells and fellow Labour MPs on the Committee have voted to remove the Opposition Peers' exemption for educational establishments (paragraph 14). The Committee now moves on to other parts of the Bill, a process that must be finished by 20 May.

Given that the Government can simply reverse anything the Lords have changed, people understandably ask: 'what is the point of continuing to lobby MPs?'. This circular attempts to explain why it is not just important but essential to continue lobbying MPs, particularly Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs. Part of the reason is that the show-down, if you like, is yet to come. The other part concerns Parliamentary process, and how this can work in our favour with the Licensing Bill.

Schedule 1 will not be debated again until the entire Bill as amended by the Committee receives its Report/3rd Reading in the Commons. Unlike the Lords, Report and 3rd Reading debates will be on the same day, back to back. The precise date has yet to be fixed, but is likely to be some time in the fortnight commencing 2nd June. Further amendments can be put at Report stage, but these will be limited in number, and for that reason carefully chosen. More on that later.

It suprised me that a Commons Committee of only 16 MPs can change an entire Bill, but that is the way the process works. The Committee votes on amendments of their own, and these can be put down by any of the MPs on the Committee. The composition of the Committee reflects the proportion of MPs by Party: 10 Labour, 4 Conservative, and 2 Lib Dem. So if the Labour MPs vote with the Whip, i.e. they toe the Party line, then the Government can do what it likes to the Bill at this stage. That is what is happening at the moment.

However, if Committee amendments change or reverse amendments that were introduced by the House of Lords, that has to be approved by the Lords. So once the Bill completes Report/3rd Reading, it goes back to the Lords. At that point the Lords may reintroduce Clauses they originally inserted but which were subsequently removed in the Commons, or amend any or all of the Clauses they first amended, but which were changed again by the Commons. The Bill must then return to the Commons, the idea being that the Bill cannot become law until its content is agreed by both Houses.

The Conservatives have promised to revisit the small events exemption when the Bill goes back to the Lords. Provided the Lib Dems support the Conservatives (as they did when that particular amendment was voted through on 11 March), there is a serious risk that the Government's timetable will be delayed. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrat Peers combined outnumber the Government in the Lords. Opposition Lords could therefore start a game of 'ping pong' between the two Houses.

Now comes the crucial bit: the Government cannot force the Bill through using the Parliament Act. For some reason I don't fully understand, Bills that have been introduced in the Lords are immune from the Parliament Act - only Bills introduced in the Commons can be forced through by that means. The Government are extremely anxious for the Bill to receive Royal Assent by July. So it is entirely possible that, faced with a solid opposition in the Lords, they might make a concession on the entertainment licensing side. So we are definitely still in with a chance of the Lords amendments on small events and educational establishments, or variations of these amendments.

It is also possible that a version of these amendments will be introduced by Opposition MPs during Report/3rd Reading in the Commons, before the Bill goes back to the Lords. Not all Labour MPs are against the ideas in principle by any means: indeed both Bob Blizzard and Jim Knight have argued in favour of some kind of exemption.

Public pressure will determine to a great extent whether Labour MPs are receptive to the arguments for a 'de minimis' exemption permitting a limited amount of entertainment/live music before entertainment licensing kicks in. That is why it is extremely important for the MU and musicians to keep lobbying and talking to their constituency MPs.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 07:42 PM

The 3rd April debate is now on the following site.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030403/am/30403s09.htm#end

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 08:09 AM

The 8th April debate is now also on the following site.

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

The following from Gerry Milne is interesting -

Bills introduced by the Government in the House of Commons are usually part of their election manifesto. In other words, this is what they were elected to do and such Bills cannot be blocked by the non-elected House of Lords.

However, the Government cannot claim that Bills introduced by the House of Lords were part of that manifesto. The Parliament Act was introduced to prevent the Lords obstructing the will of the elected Commons. That was the priority: the Act does not allow for the Commons obstructing the will of the Lords, possibly because the Lords would never have approved the Parliament Act if it did.


--
Gerry Milne
Folk London:

href=www.grove-cottage.demon.co.uk/folklon/

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 11:38 AM

The following From Hamish Birchall

Please circulate

I must apologise for a misunderstanding on my part concerning the Government's intentions for private events that provide 'regulated entertainment' in order to raise money for good causes. I thought the Government had amended the Bill to ensure they were not caught. This is not the case. The Government intends that these events will be illegal unless licensed, except where the intention is simply to recover costs. The MU website will be updated accordingly as soon as possible.

When the Bill was in the Lords, the Government withdrew the Bill's sub-paragraph that defined 'with a view to profit' as including 'any case where that entertainment is, or those [entertainment] facilities are, provided with a view to raising money for the benefit of a charity. However, this did not alter the section of the Bill that renders private events licensable where regulated entertainment is provided if the event is 'for consideration and with a view to profit'.

At last week's first meeting of the new music advisory group for the DCMS, clarification on this subject was sought from Andrew Cunningham, who chaired the meeting. His explanation went something like this: if people sold tickets for a private event with the intention of making a profit or surplus (even if this is for a charity or good cause), then the event is licensable. However, if people were not charged with the intention to make a profit, i.e. they were simply asked to chuck some cash in a bucket if they felt like it, then the event would not be licensable.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 04:25 AM

Some latest gems from the Standing Committee.

Dr. Howells: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the further we go from London into the sticks, the thicker the councillors are?

Mr. Turner: I accept that challenge, because it is sensible. I was talking about metropolitan areas, because I accept that near Newcastle, for example, there may be areas that are fairly metropolitan and influenced by metropolitan good practice.

Jim Knight (South Dorset): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Turner: Wait a moment, or I will forget what I wanted to say.

We find a tendency in some areas for people to be a bit more lax about the details of legislation. For example, morris dancing is not licensed in my authority area.

Mr. Jones: It should be.

Mr. Turner: My local councillors and officers have adopted a sensible and sane approach by not bothering about every detail of the legislation concernedbut I would not recommend that, because they should ensure that legislation is applied properly.

I shall now give way to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight).

Jim Knight: I think that the hon. Gentleman is digging well enough on his own.
own.

Any members of (currently illegal) Morris sides in Mr Jones's Durham constituency wish to vote for him?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 08:46 AM

More gems, I like this one..Dr Howells - We should be slow to impose additional burdens without justification.*Smiles*

Standing Committee - 10 April:
Dr. Howells: The knife falls at 5 o'clock and we want to make progress on other matters. However, this issue is important and I want to make one thing clear: we have no objection to the concept of capacity limits. Indeed, the Bill will allow a capacity limit to be imposed if, in the view of the licensing authority after receiving representations from the expertsthe police, fire and health and safety authoritiesit is necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
The idea that a capacity limit is useful or necessary in all cases is wrong. I understand that capacity limits can be useful for nightclubs or the large pubs about which the hon. Gentleman has been waxing lyrical. I have no problem with that.

As Dr Howells should be aware, his department have been advising us all that PELs are the ONLY way a safe capacity can be imposed on premises. It is also a fact that a safe capacity is currently imposed on PEL application in all premises, whatever their size. In an extraordinary and major departure, he now saying that this practice is wrong!

How is he going to ensure that local authorities do not continue to do it wrong and impose a safe capacity as a condition on only, and every entertainment permission application, as I am sure is their intention? At this point to save us all grief, perhaps he could be asked to establish if this is their understanding and intention and that fight can take place now?

Imposing safe capacities for every PEL issued is currently standard practice, even for small country premises, and I see no reason that it will not continue as a condition for ALL entertainment permissions, as it is the main safety argument used in favour of blanket entertainment licensing (the reason in the White Paper being that large numbers of people can be attracted).

In fact when the MU have pointed out that this is current practice for some liquor licence applications, the Government have up to now, wrongly argued that magistrates do not apply safe capacities for liquor licence applications and this limit can only be imposed on premises via PELs. The following conversion is welcome , if late.

Dr Howells Much has been made of the so-called vertical drinking establishment as the Bill has progressed. Indeed, capacity limits are often imposed through the existing licensing system on premises of that nature, which is only right and proper.

We firmly believe that there is no need for a quiet restaurant, small country pub or countless other premises to have a mandatory capacity limit in all cases. If a mandatory capacity limit is imposed, the inevitable consequence will be increased costs to those running such venues as they would have to employ staff to count people in and out. That would be a big burden to impose on nightclubs. We should be slow to impose additional burdens without justification.

This is welcome but inconsistent nonsense, if the Government continue to maintain and support, as they have, the additional burden (with little justification) that all premises holding public entertainment must have safe capacities imposed as part of their application, and if they do not in the Bill, regulate the local authority to prevent this standard practice, justified on public safety grounds from continuing on the 'ticking' of the now famous box.

Currently ALL premises with PELs have imposed safe capacities, whatever their size, and this is managed without 'bouncers' being on the door of every village hall or country pub, to count people in and out.

However, it seems to have been accepted that the only way to enforce safe capacities, is by having 'bouncers'. So if you don't want 'bouncers' at your pub or club, you don't want a safe capacity.

This is a backward scare tactic and a dangerous approach to public safety. All premises may not have a pressing NEED for a safe capacity imposed by our experts, but it would be difficult for the Government to argue against , in the light of the two recent US incidents that it may well be a sensible precaution. In truth it is difficult to see it as any additional burden, when all Premises Licences applications, requiring entertainment or not, will require inspections anyway.

As Dr Howells considers that all premises now do not require this, and distinctions can be made between nightclubs and small country pubs for alcohol consumption, then the Government's justification of making all live music in all premises subject to blanket entertainment licensing on the grounds of public safety is clearly ill-conceived, illogical and dangerous. Safe capacities are sensible measure to ensure the public's safety, and should not be picked up, and later dropped for the sake of expediency , like a political rugby ball.

Dr Howells The amendments would strip the new system of much of its in-built flexibility to tailor itself to individual circumstances. When it is necessary to have a capacity limit, the Bill allows that to happen and when it is not necessarythis is for the expertsthe Bill does not require one to be imposed.

We are keen on greater flexibility for licensed premises and for capacity limits to be imposed only when necessary. That is why the Bill reflects the current system.

Entertainment or not, the problem is ensuring the safety of large numbers of people.

If Dr Howells considers that safe capacities can be introduced only where necessary, then logically the same approach MUST be taken, and would be applauded by most of us, for the regulation, only where necessary - of live music.

If this logic is not accepted, then the only other fair route is to have the experts impose safe capacities on ALL Premises Licence applications at the time of their first inspection, irrespective of whether regulated entertainment is provided.

This would make all our public buildings safe and have the advantage that no one would be ever be required to specify was or was not regulated (or public entertainment). The Bill's problematic Schedule 1 can be disposed of and the vital issue of safety can cease to be devalued by being used by some local authority officers as an excuse for official oppression.

Then a single musician will never have to establish if they were playing the same instrument for demonstration purposes - for educational purposes - with a view to making a profit - as part of a religious service - if they were sufficiently in the corner of the premises - or if they needed a licence when the moving vehicle they were playing from, stopped at traffic lights......................

If this Bill deregulates entertainment licensing - then I have never written a long-winded E mail, letter or message, in all my life.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 03:33 AM

The full Standing Committee debates and voting so far, can be read in full on the Parliament site.

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

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 02:00 AM

I have sent the following to my MP who is on the Standing Committee.

Back to the myths for a moment. Perhaps you could find in the Bill, and before the 'incidental' bit was imposed by the Lord's - the 'Happy Birthday' exemption? For every other song would be illegal to perform without advanced local authority licensing permission, save this one.

Dr Howells' favourite word spontaneous, although still not appearing or defined in the Bill would hardly cover renditions this song. As it could be argued (and would be argued by the Mr Locke's of the world), that you would have always had twelve months to rehearse this song.

Before you placed it before your expected audience accompanied by as many Japanese drummers and amplified whistling postman as you could muster, as you drove them all into the restaurant on the back of your moving road vehicle (just to be on the safe side).

Where is the 'Happy Birthday' exemption in the Bill?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 02:51 PM

This from Hamish Birchall

Please circulate

Anyone concerned about the Licensing Bill can now lobby their MP and local press directly from the Musicians' Union website:
http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/welcome.shtml

In addition to a pre-prepared text that can be sent automatically to your MP and the press, the site is running a Poll and a new petition highlighting the findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Like 'faxyourmp.com' the MU site automatically identifies MPs from post codes.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 02:16 AM

The latest from our friends at the DCMS.

Thank you for your e-mail of 13 March to Dr Kim Howells, about the Licensing Bill. I am replying on his behalf.

The definition of regulated entertainment can be found in the Licensing Bill, Schedule 1. The Bill, along with explanatory notes, can now be read or downloaded from our web site (www.culture.gov.uk ) under New Responsibilities; news; the parliament website.

As you may know spontaneous performance is not licensable. Where a public house has advertised that Morris dancers would be in attendance, a licence would then be necessary. However, this should not prevent dancing from taking place as the pub owner, who has to obtain the new licence to sell alcohol, can simultaneously apply for permission to provide any amount of entertainment at no extra cost.

Outdoor events would benefit from the more informal system of permitted temporary activities under the Bill that requires only a simple notification to the licensing authority and the police and a small fee of around £20.

Although outdoor events would be licensable under the Bill, we will be
encouraging local authorities to licence public open spaces, such as village greens, on which many performances take place. No additional licence would need to be obtained by dancers or anyone else carrying out licensable activities covered by such a licence, although the consent of the local authority holding the licence would be required.

Also, under the Bill the provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities at a garden fete, or at a function or event of a similar character, is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment. This, however, does not apply if the fete, function or event is promoted with a view to applying the whole or part of its proceeds for purposes of private gain.

You may be interested to learn that Dr Howells recently held a meeting with representatives of the English Folk Dance and Song Society and the Morris Federation, among other Morris dancing organisations, to discuss their concerns.

I enclose, for your information, an updated copy of the fact sheet that explains how the Licensing Bill would affect public entertainment. This incorporates the amendment to the Licensing Bill to exempt the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities at places of public religious worship from the need for an authorisation under the Bill and our decision to exempt village, parish and community halls from the need to pay a licence
fee in respect of the provision of regulated entertainment.

It also refers to the Government's commitment to exempt schools and sixth form colleges where the entertainment or facilities are provided by the school from the fees associated with the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities under the Bill.

The fact sheet also contains the amendment to the Bill that clarifies that regulated entertainment would not be provided for consideration and with a view to profit in circumstances where a charity intended simply to cover the costs of a private event. Events that were not intended to make a profit but only to cover costs would not be licensable only because consideration was involved.

Furthermore, we have incorporated in the fact sheet the amendment to the Bill which makes it clear that entertainers who performed at unlicensed venues and did nothing else in relation to the provision of regulated entertainment would not be committing an offence.

There is also a reference to the amendment that was made to the Bill in the House of Lords but resisted by the Government, which provided an exemption for the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities at events attended by no more than 250 people at one time and which finish before 11.30pm. The Government has overturned this amendment because, in addition to the small-scale events intended to be covered by the exemption, a great deal of potentially undesirable activity would be without any kind of regulatory control whatsoever. It would, for instance, completely undermine the film classification system. Film classifications are currently enforced through conditions on licences. This amendment would mean that any film
showing attended by fewer than 250 people could not have a classification imposed, potentially allowing young children to watch violent or pornographic films with no restriction or control. It would also remove the right of the police to object on grounds of protection of children from harm if an unsuitable person - perhaps someone involved with drugs - tried to organise a musical event for up to local children.

We will be working with musicians' representatives, local authorities and industry, to inform the drawing up by us of statutory guidance for licensing authorities with the aim that venues can put on live music more easily, while protecting the rights of local residents. This follows concerns expressed by musicians that licensees will be discouraged from putting on entertainment by a fear that licensing authorities will impose unnecessary and costly conditions to their licences, such as requesting expensive alterations to venues. The guidance will recommend for licensing authorities what would be appropriate conditions.

The Government has also accepted the principle that the performance of live music which is incidental to activities which are not themselves entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, along with the playing of recorded music which is incidental to activities which are not themselves entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities.

We believe that the Bill will make it more affordable than now to stage live entertainment in the vast majority of cases and increase opportunities for musicians and other artists to perform. In short, entertainers have nothing to fear from this Bill, but much to gain from it.   I hope this letter reassures you.

<>

Yours sincerely,
Claire Vickers
Policy Administrator

Claire Vickers
Alcohol & Entertainment Licensing Branch
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
3rd Floor
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]
www.culture.gov.uk

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 02:30 AM

heloo, this is a big load of shit, and the goverment people are just lying all the time, and this is starting to realy piss me off now, we are talking about music traditions, not drug dealing, they are just exagerating and making stuff uo, anyway i have been to loads og sessions where kids have been there, ie,, mr and mrs ducks kids, liz the squeeks kids, mandoln malcoms daughteer, deanmisters sons etc and no drug dealers went and offeered them drugs, thhis is jus a load of bullshit, because they cant think of any better reasons to object to sessions, they saying we have to ban live music because kids are at risk from perverts and drug dealers, what a load of crap, anyway, after a certain time, i think 8 pm but not sure, kids not allowed in pubs anyway, so its got nothing to do with it. if i had a big garden [i dont] , and decide to hold a traditional session with a few freinds playing accoustic music, and the pel people came and said this is illegal, i would tell them to fuck off out of my garden and piss off and mind there one buisiness.goverment are stupid and bunch of arseholes .john

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 02:38 AM

i think i spelled busines wrong, but you now waht i meant.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 07:26 AM

Summary in The Publican.

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=9344&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 06:41 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall
Please circulate.

More Licensing Bill propaganda from the Culture Minister.

Kim Howells has written again to Labour MPs 'to explain why we licence live music':

'The Government does not accept that existing health and safety and noise legislation provides sufficient safeguards where premises are used for public entertainment. Health and safety assessments relate to premises in normal use. Their use for entertainment often gives rise to particular issues, such as temporary cabling and staging and the blocking of fire exits'. [letter to MPs 09 April 2003]

Contrast that with the Government u-turn two months ago exempting places of religious worship from entertainment licensing: 'Kim Howells said: "The exemption I am announcing today will enable religious institutions and music societies to flourish."' [DCMS press release, 03 February 2003]

Note the implication in Howells' letter that providing entertainment is an abnormal use of premises.

And what of the other exemptions, such as broadcast entertainment for excitable crowds jumping up and down in front of big screens in any place, or comedy nights in a pub that provides a PA, lights, and a stage?

In fact, risk assessments are mandatory for employers and the self-employed alike, and are meant to cover all activities. Failure to conduct risk assessments, blocking of fire exits etc can already lead to criminal prosecution under separate safety legislation.

Even the Government Whip in the Lords, Andrew McIntosh, conceded this during the Lords' Licensing Bill debate of 24 February 2003:
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that blocking a fire exit is an offence under the fire Acts?
Lord McIntosh: My Lords, I believe so.

If writing to your MP emphasise the Government's contradictory position on these issues.

Most MPs will not be aware of the significance of the Bill's entertainment exemptions (apart from churches and non-profit-making garden fetes), or the scope of public safety, noise nuisance and crime and disorder legislation.

Nor will they be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has specifically warned that the exemption for places of religious worship is a potential discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention, and a possible violation of Article 9. Howells also left that out of his letter.

For further information about the JCHR findings, refer MPs to the MU website: www.musiciansunion.org.uk/articles/article_10.shtml#committee

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: GUEST,John Barden
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 06:58 AM

With despair I just read this, although the news is two weeks old. It's taken from 'The Publican' and disproves Kim Howell's tick the box and it'll cost no more - How many more lies will we get!!

HMG Liars
When oh when are the trade going to wake up. HGM, through the DCMS have repeatably said the fees would be National, now they are going to be based on Turnover/rates. If you do not currenly have a PEL you are going to pay more. Some with PEL's will be better off but that would have happened with a flat fee. It's the classic divide and conquer. The Westminster Pirates seem to have won the day again. I call on all my fellow BII members to demand that our executive withdraw from the fiasco before we lose members in droves, because it will be the BII and NFLV who will be seen to have sold out it's members. At a regional level we have been saying since this started that we as licensees were being conned, this is the clearest evidence yet of it.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:36 PM

Trade split on Licence fees.

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=9283&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: ET
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 06:29 AM

From: Hamish Birchall [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 23 April 2003 18:35
To: Hamish Birchall
Subject: Licensing and public safety: Government double standards


Please circulate

More Licensing Bill propaganda from the Culture Minister. Kim Howells has written again to Labour MPs 'to explain why we licence live music': 'The Government does not accept that existing health and safety and noise legislation provides sufficient safeguards where premises are used for public entertainment. Health and safety assessments relate to premises in normal use. Their use for entertainment often gives rise to particular issues, such as temporary cabling and staging and the blocking of fire exits'. [letter to MPs 09 April 2003]

Contrast that with the Government u-turn two months ago exempting places of religious worship from entertainment licensing: 'Kim Howells said: "The exemption I am announcing today will enable religious institutions and music societies to flourish."' [DCMS press release, 03 February 2003]

Note the implication in Howells' letter that providing entertainment is an abnormal use of premises. And what of the other exemptions, such as broadcast entertainment for excitable crowds jumping up and down in front of big screens in any place, or comedy nights in a pub that provides a PA, lights, and a stage? In fact, risk assessments are mandatory for employers and the self-employed alike, and are meant to cover all activities. Failure to conduct risk assessments, blocking of fire exits etc can already lead to criminal prosecution under separate safety legislation. Even the Government Whip in the Lords, Andrew McIntosh, conceded this during the Lords' Licensing Bill debate of 24 February 2003:

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that blocking a fire exit is an offence under the fire Acts?
Lord McIntosh: My Lords, I believe so.

If writing to your MP emphasise the Government's contradictory position on these issues. Most MPs will not be aware of the significance of the Bill's entertainment exemptions (apart from churches and non-profit-making garden fetes), or the scope of public safety, noise nuisance and crime and disorder legislation. Nor will they be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has specifically warned that the exemption for places of religious worship is a potential discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention, and a possible violation of Article 9. Howells also left that out of his letter. For further information about the JCHR findings, refer MPs to the MU website: www.musiciansunion.org.uk/articles/article_10.shtml#committee

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 12:46 PM

From The DCMS.

Outdoor events would benefit from the more informal system of permitted temporary activities under the Bill that requires only a simple notification to the licensing authority and the police and a small fee of around £20.

Although outdoor events would be licensable under the Bill, we will be
encouraging local authorities to licence public open spaces, such as village greens, on which many performances take place. No additional licence would need to be obtained by dancers or anyone else carrying out licensable activities covered by such a licence, although the consent of the local authority holding the licence would be required.

Also, under the Bill the provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities at a garden fete, or at a function or event of a similar character, is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment. This, however, does not apply if the fete, function or event is promoted with a view to applying the whole or part of its proceeds for purposes of private gain.

Dr Howells - Standing Committee -10 April

The idea that a capacity limit is useful or necessary in all cases is wrong. I understand that capacity limits can be useful for nightclubs or the large pubs about which the hon. Gentleman has been waxing lyrical. I have no problem with that. And later

Dr Howells Much has been made of the so-called vertical drinking establishment as the Bill has progressed. Indeed, capacity limits are often imposed through the existing licensing system on premises of that nature, which is only right and proper.

We firmly believe that there is no need for a quiet restaurant, small country pub or countless other premises to have a mandatory capacity limit in all cases. If a mandatory capacity limit is imposed, the inevitable consequence will be increased costs to those running such venues as they would have to employ staff to count people in and out. That would be a big burden to impose on nightclubs. We should be slow to impose additional burdens without justification.

If my understanding is correct, these temporary outdoor events are limited to less than 500 people. Given that bouncers are considered as the only way numbers of attendees can be counted, does it then follow that every one of these which - "would benefit from the more informal system of permitted temporary activities under the Bill", would then have to include bouncers?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 02:19 AM

I have pretty well finalised a "flier" for Rochester Sweeps Fest. It features a short summary and a "fill in the blanks" letter to send to MPs - hitting them while the bill is still in the Commons. The Morris chaps will be using it at other impending festivals.

Alas I cannot get any funding from the usual suspects to get it photocopied and am unable to fund this myself by-and-large, although I will somehow get a few hundred together.

A few people have offered to copy a few hundred each and send or post them to me to arrive by Friday this week. Thanks to them.

If anyone here can do likewise please PM or email me and I will send over the "word" document by email.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: GUEST,ET
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 03:25 PM

The flyer. Copy, and complete leter to MP

FOLK ILLEGAL UNLESS LICENSED

The Government still plans to make virtually ALL folk dance and folk music illegal without a local authority licence. Government propaganda and letters are not the whole truth. Write to your MP NOW. A letter is on the back. Please address it to your MP from you, sign it and send it.

The Licensing Bill is in the House of Commons NOW. A licence will be demanded for ANY live music or dance or drama (with few exceptions), in any place made available for the purpose – if it is to entertain any audience, or even if just for the enjoyment of musicians or dancers. This applies if the entertainment is public, OR in a private club, OR if any charge is made (not just an entry charge) by any organiser to anyone entertained. It will apply to Morris and other folk dance, even in the open air, possibly even in the street. It will apply to mumming and wassailing. It will apply to even one unamplified singer or player.

The licence fee may be about £500. An application at the same time as for a liquor licence will be no extra. The local authority will lay down conditions to protect the public interest anyway– and we all know what that means. "Temporary event notices" will be cheaper but these are restricted. The government says this will make it EASIER to present live events!! But at present performances in private clubs, one or two musicians in pubs, and dance in the open air outside London are not restricted.

The government says fire exits might be blocked or capacity limits needed (what, in the open air?) or dangerous stages or wires used (all covered by other laws): so licensing is essential, even if no amplifiers are used!! This is madness.

But big-screen TVs, and "incidental" music (in practice juke boxes and DJs without dancing) will be exempt, and will not need a licence, no matter how loud. Nor will they be subjected to "conditions" (like soundproofing or new lavatories or air conditioning, or obligatory bouncers) at the pub's expense. And the government says that live music will not be exempt as "incidental" if it is advertised – even if unamplified. Guess what a landlord will prefer to do if his alcohol licence may be held up until he complies with "conditions"?

The government denies that the folk arts need any special protection or consideration, or are unlikely to impact safety or order. But it accepted it should exempt ALL events in places of worship – even if the events are not religious. Why are these, big screen TVs, and juke boxes exempt, but not folk ?

Richard McD. Bridge Email [e-mail]
To…………………………….

MP for ………………….

House of Commons,

London SW1A 1AA

From: ……………………………
…………………………………
………………………………
……………………………
…………………………
………………………

Date……………….

Dear…………………………….

I am writing about the Licensing Bill. It is obviously wrong to treat folk music – usually unamplified – as if it were amplified. It is obviously wrong to treat folk dance – performed by a small side to unamplified music – as if it were a rave or disco. These folk arts do not cause the same noise or disturbance. These do not cause the same behaviour. These do not carry electrical hazards.

Worse, it is irrational to ignore the special needs of our cultural heritage. These things deserve government support, not regulation to extinction.

Worse still, it seems to be intentional discrimination, and an intentional and unjustifiable interference with freedom of expression, to pretend that these things must be regulated because of noise disturbance and safety risks (when, being unamplified, they create no such risks) but to exempt other entertainments which obviously do pose all or some of such risks.

By all means regulate the things that need regulating. But there is no case at all to regulate folk dance, folk music, or acoustic music. It is frankly foolish to pretend that subjecting them to local authority regulation will make them easier to put on. This regulation does the image of the government no good at all. It will do tourism no good at all. It will do the music industry, which draws so much of its real talent from folk club roots, no good at all.

Please examine the arguments the government is using. Do not take their reply uncritically. Compare their words to the actual words of the Bill, and vote against the Bill unless these faults are fixed.

Yours truly,

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 03:29 AM

Standing Committee D will meet on Tuesday 29th April at 8.55 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. further to consider the Licensing Bill [Lords].

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 02:48 AM

What was said at that Standing Committee D meeting on 29 April (and all the other meetings) can be read here.

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

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: nickp
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 04:36 AM

Well it reads as if they had a cheerful old time chatting but I'm not sure I recognised anything relevant to our cause unless anyone wants to do morris dancing on a prison ship on the Solent *grin*.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 05:13 PM

I think the last post must have been written before the 29th of April's meeting appeared on the site as there was some interesting stuff on fees.........

I have sent the following to my MP. It is an attempt to try and simply explain to MPs and the media, what the result of passing this Bill will be. Please feel free to circulate these examples, if you think this will help to bypass the spin and get the message over.

Is the Government justified in claiming that the Licensing Bill is compatible with the ECHR, and is a deregulated and fair licensing system' that will encourage music making?

Commercial considerations form no part of the four stated licensing objectives although it was claims for the financial burden presented to church concerts that led to the Government making changes in the Bill. Now all churches are exempt from additional permissions and possible conditions or modifications in order to provide licensable live entertainment.

Looking for the moment at conventional paid entertainment only, let us question the differences and the possible effects of the following four examples of premises competing to provide a commercial jazz concert every week. For the sake of argument let us assume the premises are all in the same street:

1:   A place of religious worship (i.e. any church):
No requirement for additional permissions and possible conditions or modifications in order to provide licensable live entertainment.
No requirement for a Premises Licence.
No requirement for the one-off Premises Licence application fee.
No requirement for an Annual Inspection.
No requirement for Annual inspection Charges.
* See note below - re Personal Licenses and application fee.

2;   A church or village hall:
A requirement for additional permissions and possible conditions or modifications in order to provide licensable live entertainment.
A requirement for a Premises Licence.
No requirement for the one-off Premises Licence application fee.
A requirement for an Annual Inspection.
No requirement for Annual Inspection Charges.
*See note below - re Personal Licenses and application fee.

3:   A coffee bar or other premises not serving alcohol:
A requirement for additional permissions and possible conditions or modifications in order to provide licensable live entertainment.
A requirement for a Premises Licence.
A requirement for the one-off Premises Licence application fee.
A requirement for an Annual Inspection.
A requirement for Annual Inspection Charges.
*No requirement every ten years for a Personal Licence or the fee.

4:   A pub or other premises serving alcohol.
A requirement for additional permissions and possible conditions or modifications in order to provide licensable live entertainment.
A requirement for a Premises Licence.
A requirement for or the one-off Premises Licence application fee.
A requirement for an Annual Inspection.
A requirement for Annual Inspection Charges.
*A requirement every ten years for a Personal Licence and the fee.

*Note that the licensing exemption for places of religious worship is only for regulated entertainment, not alcohol. Anyone selling alcohol must pay to hold a licence: either a Temporary Event Notice, or a Personal Licence valid for 10-years.

**Note also the word 'licensable' before 'live entertainment' (because there is popular live entertainment that is not licensable regulated entertainment under the Bill, like stand-up comedy (and TV sport).

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 03 - 09:54 AM

This argument was interesting as was the idea we were being asked to swallow is that the currently high PEL charging London councils managed to make a loss!

MR FIELD (snip)My main concern with the Bill is that it is centralising in its authority. There is not the flexibility to take account of the fact that, without doubt, areas such as Soho and Covent Garden are sui generis in so far as two areas can be. The regime for central London should be considered differently from how the regime is considered elsewhere. Problems might arise from a set and centralised scheme for licensing and fees.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said that some of the fee income of Westminster city council is disproportionate to the costs of administration and enforcement. The implied conclusion was that Westminster was making a surplus income from the public entertainment licensing regime. Nothing could be further from the truth. I apologise in advance for boring the Committee with statistics that apply to a relatively small number of authorities—none the less, they make the point that we should not be overly prescriptive.

Column Number: 318

There are about 372 public entertainment licences in Westminster as a whole, two thirds of which are issued at a cost of £2,188 or less. About 31 per cent. of those PELs cost only £1,067 or less and only four venues in Westminster out of the 372 premises pay in excess of £20,000 for their PEL; we could all play a parlour game of guessing which they are, but I shall tell Committee members that they are the Royal Lancaster hotel, Westminster Central hall, the Hilton Metropole hotel and the Royal Albert hall.

All those venues have extremely large capacities, and a frequency and variety of events that require robust enforcement. The notion that a set fee ceiling of about £2,000 or £3,000 would cover their costs flies in the face of fact. For instance, last year the Royal Albert hall paid the highest public entertainment licence fee of some £31,000, but for next year the licensing sub-committee of Westminster city council has reduced that to £18,000, having received various representations.

The Royal Albert hall has a capacity of 5,200, in excess of 1 million attendees to events annually and each year hosts 320 to 330 different events—almost one event per day on average. To ensure public safety, this world-renowned venue requires engineers from Westminster city council and licensing officers to visit at least weekly because of significant changes to scenery, stage and seating. Each visit usually requires a full day of officers' time, including at least four hours on site.

I have Westminster's statistics for the financial year just ended, on 5 April. It anticipates that public entertainment licences will provide a fee income of about £1,473,800 with expenditure of £1,794,300; in other words, there will be an operating loss of in excess of £300,000. The levels of fees are determined at present by a relatively straightforward formula that takes into account the capacity of the venue and the terminal hour.

The same sort of regime applies in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and similar statistics exist. The income fees of the tax year 2001–02 brought in £353,800, with expenditure of £376,000, so the deficit was in excess of £20,000. That local authority provided me with copious details to make it clear that the great costs incurred in officer time mean that although the fee regime might appear extremely generous compared with many other local authorities, it is not.(snip)

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 03 - 03:01 PM

The 6 May proceedings can now be found on the following site.

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

The 7 May proceedings will be on tomorrow.