UK Government to license Morris Dancing

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: DMcG
Date: 07 May 03 - 07:58 AM

You're clearly not a civil servant ET - you don't seem to realise words mean what they want them to mean! "The Government does not intend to require the licensing of any type of entertainment ..." That's enough of a loophole for them, because Morris inside pubs now does require a licence.
:-(

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 03 - 09:20 AM

Standing Committee May 8

Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 383,
in clause 98, page 55, line 28, at end insert 'except where the licensable activities involve folk music or folk dance performed in the vicinity of the premises in the open air,'.


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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 03 - 09:32 AM

Read the next exciting instalment in full.

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

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 03 - 02:45 PM

Mr Turner (snip)
- They go in for short events—in some cases, the shorter, the better—
Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham): Especially with morris dancing.

Mr. Turner: I want the hon. Gentleman's deprecatory remarks about morris dancing put on record.

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 03 - 03:57 AM

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

I cannot believe the dishonesty here.

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,
Mark.

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

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 03 - 05:51 AM

Standing Committee 8 May 2003

Judge for yourself if Dr Howells actually answered the following question or just whittled away (and was allowed to), yet more precious time.

Mr Moss: Can the Minister say that, having explained the Bill and its implications to various groups, in the main they are now satisfied that the requirements are not too onerous and expensive, that they can live with them and that they will not curtail their activities, which are an important part of rural life?

To go back to something that I said this morning, if we are to make new law, let us make sure that it improves the situation, rather than it imposing more regulation and making life more difficult. That will lead fewer people to say that the new law is too much hassle and they cannot be bothered with it.

I speak sincerely about the rural community. I know more about it than about the urban community. A great deal goes on in the rural community—we will come to that in the next series of amendments—and if the requirements of the Bill are too heavy, they will impinge on the day-to-day activities of many people in the rural environment, to the detriment of our culture and our society.

I tabled the amendment as a probing amendment to ascertain whether there had been contact with those who will be affected by the Bill. Such contact has indeed taken place, and I am grateful to the Minister for talking to those people. I know that in any event he has an open-door policy for anyone who wants to talk to him, and that is a good thing. I also sought clarification of the implications for various groups in the event of a non-advertised situation.
(snip)

Dr. Howells: I shall come to that. I am sure the Committee would want to know that it was this Government who ended the ban on dancing on Sunday, which had been in place for 200 years. So there is an upside, and we are not intending to crush culture in every respect.

Amendment No. 383 would not exempt folk music and dance from the requirement for an authorisation under the temporary event notice system. Instead, it would remove the requirement for the person giving the temporary event notice to provide information about the licensable activities to be carried on at the event in question, where those activities involve
''folk music or folk dance performed in the vicinity of the premises in the open air''.
Column Number: 447
The only benefit to be derived from the amendment would be a negligible reduction in the effort required of the person giving the notice. That must be measured against the potential for larger-scale activities that could give rise to concerns relating to the licensing objectives. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is right to point out that that would not always be the case, but he mentioned an example in his constituency. The amendment would deprive the police of the information necessary for them to judge the implications of an event for crime prevention.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. One of them was about morris dancers stopping off at locations that they may decide on as they go along. During my conversation with morris dancing groups, I was told that they drive around in their minibuses and when they see a good spot—it may be by a beautiful oak tree or where there are lots of people—they stop and dance. It would be extremely difficult, if not absurd, for them to have to seek some kind of permission to do that, and we are not saying that they should do so.

The onus will be on the premises user to ensure that he or she possesses the necessary authorisation for activities to be carried out. For example, that would apply to the festival in the village that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the name of which I missed.

Mr. Moss: Whittlesey.

Dr. Howells: On the main evening of that festival, several thousand more people than usual may be in Whittlesey. Special permissions may have been sought for extensions, and events may be taking place at pubs and other places. It is important that the organisers of such events and the performers are well versed in what is required of them, that they are able to do those things well and that they have a good relationship with each other. As I tried to explain to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), common sense is required, and I am sure that there have been examples of festivals that have been blighted by the lack of it, but I am unsure whether we can legislate for that in every respect. Often, sheer bloody-mindedness can damage an event that may be enjoyed by 75 per cent. of the town.

When morris dancers decide to perform on a particular day, I am reliably informed by them that it is likely that they will alert the authorities to the vicinity where they will be, especially if their performance is likely to be a big event that draws lots of people.

There is nothing to stop the local authority from licensing large stretches of public space such as streets, roads or greens so that entertainment can be performed there. During my conversation with the morris dancers, I discovered that many local authorities have done just that.

There has never been a problem with that, and we do not envisage that any will arise in the future. Morris dancers who perform on roads may be providing regulated entertainment, but the expectation is that in many such cases the local authority will have obtained a premises licence, which will enable them to undertake those activities, and even to enjoy a drink.

Mr. Turner: I fear that the Minister is going back slightly towards his brief. He has been generous in expecting local authorities to exercise common sense, but now he is saying that he would expect the local authority to have obtained a premises licence.

If a carnival is held in Ryde, is the local authority expected to obtain a premises licence for the route of the carnival—first, because there will be a marching band and, secondly, because the marching band will collect money and, therefore, be marching for profit?

Dr. Howells: The local authority will almost certainly have ensured that it was acting within the law in giving permission for the carnival to take place. That may have involved several different actions.

The hon. Gentleman will have to find out from the Isle of Wight authority precisely what it does to accommodate the carnival.

Different demands are put on different areas. For example, Europe's biggest carnival, which takes place in Notting Hill, is an enormous event that involves many different actions by various authorities. The carnival that I go to every year is the Pewsey carnival in Wiltshire—a wonderful event. It is a much simpler business, but it is not easy to organise, either. For a start, it goes on for three days and sometimes even longer, but the local authorities are well used to it. As I have tried to explain to the Committee, we are not about to do anything to discourage local authorities from understanding the importance of such cultural events, not simply as an expression of cultural identity but because they are often economically important to the area.

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 May 03 - 07:37 PM

hELoo, i stiol think theyn should fubc off and get lost, if morriiss dancing was gageroius then i under stand there moaning, but it isent.john
ps, i will do some morriss dancing rifght now, and if the goberment peoplol domnt like it , then thgey can just kiss my fat arse.jihn
aniother ps=i am morris dancing right now.john

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 May 03 - 07:05 AM

The following from Mark Gibbens.

I apologise for the length of this, but I hope it will be useful.

In summary, Kim Howells recently wrote to John Bacon of the Morris Federation with the intention of addressing some of the concerns about morris dancing and the Licensing Bill. What The Minister declines to mention in his letter is that it was also agreed at our meeting (on the 4th April) that he would answer any other questions we left with his civil servant, Dominic Tambling. We submitted several such questions, which were all repeated from earlier representations dating back to February. We're still waiting for the reply to those.

But before the Minister's letter, I have forwarded a response on it from Hamish Birchall.

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

From: "Hamish Birchall" Subject: Morris dancing - open spaces - Minister's latest letter

The Minister's arguments for extending criminal law sanctions over Morris dancing in the open on public land - unless licensed - are utter drivel.

It is ridiculous for him to suggest that 'issues of safety etc ... are no different to those on private land or indoors'. Of course the safety issues are different: on a village green or public park there is unlikely to be any risk of structural weakness in the dance floor, the risk of fire is virtually nil, and at all but the biggest events there is little or no risk of inadequate emergency exits.

Contrast the Minister's arguments with the Government exemption for big screen broadcast entertainment: a pub (or any building or open space) can be packed with boisterous crowds jumping up and down - no entertainment licensing required. Remember also that the performance of dance is exempt from entertainment licensing in places of religious worship, at non-profit-making garden fetes and similar functions.

During last year's World Cup, Bar Oz in Corn Street, Bristol, had to conduct an emergency evacuation because exuberant fans watching a match on the first floor caused ceiling plaster to rain down on customers in the ground floor bar. This was reported in the licensed trade press at the time. The government is aware of this and has concluded that separate safety legislation covers such risks.

The DCMS has also received written representations from the Association of Chief Police Officers who wanted televised sporting events to be included as licensable public entertainment on crime and disorder grounds. The Government rejected ACPO's recommendation. With that in mind, the Minister's suggestion that Morris dancing should be licensable because it carries public nuisance and safety risks would be hilarious if it was not clear that, on this occasion, it is not one of his famous jokes. I would suggest that the Government has no evidence that small-scale dancing on public land warrants increased criminal law sanctions.

It is preposterous that the licensing of village greens and similar places for such activity should be at local authority discretion, and indeed that even if they do licence them, a further permission from the local authority would be required by Morris sides before any non-spontaneous performance. As for spontaneous dancing being exempt, on 24 April I raised this with a legal adviser at the DCMS and the Local Government Association. The DCMS did not reply to my email, but Trish O'Flynn of the LGA did.

The LGA's view, of course, is more relevant than the Minister's since LGA's members are responsible for enforcement. Here is the relevant section of the exchange:

HB:    '... Let's assume that under the new regime the landlord of a typical small pub had been granted an authorisation on his premises licence to continue to host the solo and duo musicians that he has been putting on for years without a PEL. However, he did not seek permission for "a performance of dance" because he believes this
only applies to the sort of performance described by the Minister [i.e. not spontaneous - also in Committee Howells specifically stated that people dancing for their own amusement did not fall within the definition of a 'performance of dance']. Does this mean that this landlord would not be committing an offence to allow pub
customers to clear away the chairs for an impromptu boogie to a CD playing on a jukebox, or one musician playing a song?...'

LGA:    '... my understanding is that he would be committing an offence as Sch.1 para 3 provides that the provision of facilities for public dancing i.e. the cleared dance area would require a licence.'

Since 1976 the Government has had a duty under Article 15 the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to take progressive steps to ensure that everyone can participate in the cultural life of the community. It is impossible to reconcile that principle and obligation with the increased regulation of live music and dancing in the Licensing Bill. I think it also likely that over-regulation of public dancing, as with live music, is incompatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention.

Hamish Birchall

From: Kim Howells
To: John Bacon, President, Morris Federation
Dated: May 2003

Thank you for coming to meet me with your colleagues from the other Morris dancing organisations, the English Folk Dance and Song Society and other folk groups. We agreed that it would be helpful for me to set out the general position in relation to Morris dancing and other folk activities under the Bill.

Public performances outdoors are of course already licensable in Greater London and in some other places where certain legislation has been adopted or applies or byelaws have been made. The Bill will introduce consistency throughout England and Wales and this does mean that in some areas activities which are not currently subject to licensing will be caught.

The Government does not believe that there is any justification for treating public land outdoors in a different manner to other places since the issues of safety etc for performers and spectators are no different to those on private land or indoors. Ministers have always been clear that the Bill is deregulatory in some ways and regulatory in others but that the overall effect is deregulatory. What the Government wants to achieve is better regulation.

The Government will be encouraging local authorities to obtain premises licences authorizing the provision of regulated entertainment for public open spaces on which many performances take place where they are able to do this. No additional licence would need to be obtained by the organisers of the entertainment for the provision by them of regulated entertainment on premises covered by such a licence for the entertainment it authorises, although the consent of the local authority holding the licence would probably be required. Local authorities would, however, be able to refuse permission for example to performers who might cause nuisance to local residents if that was considered appropriate.

I think that there is an important part to be played by the folk arts community here in encouraging local authorities to think now about the areas of public land for which they might obtain a premises licence and how they might make these available to performers.   I suggest that your members should contact their own local authorities, and those in areas where they regularly perform to discuss this with them. You might also consider talking to the Local Government Association about how they think your aims might best be achieved.

It was suggested that the exemption for incidental live music which the Bill now includes could apply to dance and theatre but an exemption cannot apply where these activities are put on specifically to entertain the public and are not therefore incidental. The live music exemption will work in situations such as a piano player in a corner of a restaurant playing background music, but if the public are attending with the intention of being entertained by musicians then the entertainment is not incidental. Spontaneous dancing will be excluded from the new regime so a group of Morris dancers who spontaneously decide to dance at a pub will not be subject to the licensing laws.

If, however, it is arranged in advance with a publican, for example, that Morris dancers will be performing at the pub for the entertainment of the public, or Morris dancing becomes a regular event at the pub, then this will be a licensable activity. It is appropriate for Morris dancing to be a licensable activity in the same way as other similar types of entertainment because it can raise similar issues of for example public nuisance and safety.

I think that your main concern in this area was that there are many premises where you believe performances currently take place without public entertainment licences even though they are probably required. You are worried that in future these premises will not agree to host such performances, either because they do not want to apply for a premises licence to authorise the provision of regulated entertainment because of potential costs or because they will not be aware that they need to do so.

We would, of course, expect premises where folk activities such as Morris dancing happen regularly, such as pubs, to apply for the appropriate authorisations when converting their existing licence with variations, if necessary, to a premises licence.   The Department intends to take steps to ensure that existing licensees are aware that they will need to apply for an authorisation to provide regulated entertainment under the Bill, perhaps by means of a leaflet.

We would be happy to talk to you to help inform our thinking about what such a leaflet might say in respect of entertainment and folk performances more specifically and how best to raise awareness of the requirements for authorisations. We will also make clear that licensing authorities will only be able to attach conditions to licences, following relevant representations, where these are necessary to promote the licensing objectives, including public safety, and will not be able to attach swathes of standard, and sometimes costly, conditions as some do at present. Including in an application for a premises licence to authorise the supply of alcohol an application to authorise occasional performances by folk groups such as Morris dancers should not therefore lead to increased costs for a licensee.

I think that your members also have a role to play here in talking to the licensees of pubs where they regularly perform and making them aware of what the Bill will require in relation to regulated entertainment and what they would need to do to ensure the activities you carry out and the places in which you perform (such as the pub garden or car park) are included in the application for a premises licence.

The system for permitted temporary activities will also be of benefit to your members if they are performing in places which do not have premises licences or club premises certificates authorising the provision of regulated entertainment of the type you provide.

Temporary event notices can be given for one off events such as traditional fairs. This is a light touch system that requires no more than a notification to the local authority and the police so long as the limits provided for in Part 5 of the Bill are complied with and the police do not raise an objection, which they can only do on the basis that the event would undermine the crime prevention objective.   

These notices can cover events lasting for up to 72 hours where a maximum of 499 people attend at any one time. Non-personal licence holders will be able to give five such notices in a year and personal licence holders fifty (a personal licence is a licence granted by a licensing authority which authorises an individual to supply alcohol in accordance with a premises licence). Only five notices may be given in respect of any particular premises within a year, though I have agreed to consider an amendment tabled in Committee in the House of Commons which would increase this limit.

There is no limit to the size of the area that can be covered by a temporary event notice or premises licence and a notice or licence can cover, for example, a town square, part of a park, one street or a number of streets. The precise area covered by a licence or notice will depend on the details of the place to be used given by the applicant or premises user when making the application or notification.

Finally, I encourage you to continue to discuss the Bill's statutory guidance with officials if you have further concerns regarding Morris dancing and other folk activities.

I am copying this letter to those who attended our meeting.

Dr Kim Howells

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 May 03 - 07:16 AM

I thought it may be an idea and timely - to bring these up again, to remind us that Dr Howells is a man of many words - non of them very reliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

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

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 May 03 - 12:47 PM

I think that your members also have a role to play here in talking to the licensees of pubs where they regularly perform and making them aware of what the Bill will require in relation to regulated entertainment and what they would need to do to ensure the activities you carry out and the places in which you perform (such as the pub garden or car park) are included in the application for a premises licence.

I rather like the bare-faced cheek of the buck passing on this one.

For no good reason except the Government's pride and stupidity, the Bill prevents the culture, Howells claims to encourage and the responsibility is passed to the dancers.........

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 May 03 - 09:16 AM

The following is about dance anyway.

Not an uncommon story this one. Another live music venue is lost for reasons nothing to do with the reasons claimed for preventing the application.

Will the Bill change this?

Dorset Evening Echo 14 May 2003
By Emily Pykett [e-mail]

Pub boss says she will appeal rejection of licence application.

LAPDANCE LANDADY IN VOW TO BATTLE ON.

Controversy over lapdancers and strippers performing in a rural pub is rumbling on. The landlady of the Royal Oak in Bere Regis, Elizabeth Jayne, vowed to appeal against Purbeck District Council's decision not to grant her a public entertainment licence after an outcry from local residents.

Around 60 people, including clergymen, protested at a heated meeting of the licensing committee in the Drax hall yesterday, and produced a petition bearing 503 signatures opposing the plans.

The council, which received 11 letters of objection, also heard that the West Street pub, was not high enough, the stairwell was not wide enough and the car park too small for a public entertainment venue.

After councillors voted unanimously not to grant the licence, Mrs Jayne. 55, said she would not give up the fight.

She added, I'm going to appeal to the magistrates courts to overturn the decision because I am not applying for a licence for lap dancers and strippers, I am applying for a public entertainment licence. "Lap dancing was just something I thought might be required for hen and stag nights, and I would not be holding more than six of these a year."

Mrs Jayne, who has the support of a rival petition signed by 230 sympathetic customers, said "It is very frustrating that the villagers are being so bloody-minded about it. They claim I am bringing the village into disrepute. "Sleepy old Bere Regis wants to stay in the 16th century."

But villagers also said they would dispute any appeal. Mum-of-three Alison Bennet, 40 who runs a community drop-in centre opposite the Royal Oak, said: We are very pleased with the result. "We realise there will be an appeal butt we won't just leave it at that.

"We are a village in the heart of Thomas Hardy country where people side by side, year in year out, with great community spirit. "It could damage village life forever and people won't stand for it. "The pub already advertises sexual cocktail drinks called things like Multiple Orgasm and Sex On The Beach. "It is simply not acceptable."
   
No one from Purbeck District Council was available to comment.

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 May 03 - 12:59 PM

I sent the Echo story to my MP and received the following:

Message subject: Just a very common story

This is to advise you that your email has been blocked and will be deleted by the Houses of Parliament in due course since we believe it has inappropriate content. The intended recipient has not received the email.

In the event that you believe the email has been blocked incorrectly please contact the intended recipient directly to discuss its release.

This action rather makes my point, I think. *Smiles*

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 May 03 - 02:02 AM

The following from Mark Gibbens.

Again - sorry for the length of this!

EFDSS has now written to all 16 MPs on the Standing Committee discussing the Licensing Bill, to set the record straight after Kim Howells implied we were now happier with it. The letter (text pasted below) has also been sent to key members of the House of Lords, a few other MPs not on the Committee, and the Joint Commission on Human Rights.

Please feel free (read "strongly encouraged") to use the text of this in letters to local MPs.

Best wishes,
Mark.

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

Sent to: Bob Blizzard MP, David Crausby MP, Mark Field MP, Jane Griffiths MP, John Grogan MP, Nick Harvey MP, Mark Hoban MP, Kim Howells MP, Kevan Jones MP, Fraser Kemp MP, Jim Knight MP, Martin Linton MP, Malcolm Moss MP, Adrian Sanders MP, Graham Stringer MP, Andrew Turner MP, Lord Redesdale, Baroness Buscombe, Viscount Falkland, John Bercow MP, Peter Pike MP, Mark Hendrick MP, Barry Sheerman MP, Hugo Swire MP, Jean Corston MP & Professor Feldman.


RE: Folk Arts and the Licensing Bill

I am writing in response to some comments voiced in the House of Commons Committee which is currently discussing the Licensing Bill. The implication seems to have been made that somehow the Government has eased the fears of the folk arts community concerning the Bill.

The English Folk Dance & Song Society (EFDSS) has been engaged in talks with the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) for several weeks, but to date we have had very few of our concerns addressed by the Department, and many of our questions have been left unanswered. It is for this reason that we are concerned we are being misrepresented to a certain degree in the House of Commons debate.

Dr. Howells was reported in the 8 May Hansard to have said, "I have had lengthy meetings with representatives of all the large morris, folk song and dance groups, including wassailers, storytellers and mummers. I took them through the Bill and they were much happier at the end of it than they were when we began."

As far as EFDSS is concerned, this is absolutely not the case. We were very grateful to the Minister for a meeting with us on the 3rd April, and that he has opened the door to further discussions between ourselves and the DCMS. But in reality, we remain worried by the legislation and have not received adequate answers to the specific questions we raised.

I would therefore like to reiterate our principal concerns to assist discussions in the remaining few days of committee stage.

*Folk Dance in the Open on Public Land*

As EFDSS understands it, folk dancing in the open on public land is not currently licensable, except in Greater London. Under the Licensing Bill, regulations will be extended to cover folk dance on public land - in fact in "any place", according to the Bill's definition of a premises.

We have had great difficulty in trying to make this simple point to the DCMS, who have supplied us with somewhat misleading responses.

A DCMS statement made to us on 24 April asserted,

"Folk dance in the open on public land is already licensable in Greater London and in the parts of the country where the local authority has adopted the appropriate parts of Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982."

However, when EFDSS sought the advice of independent licensing experts, Chris Hepher and Dr. Colin Manchester, we found that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 extends only to those entertainments held on private land. Furthermore, our attention was drawn to a statement made by the 1982 Home Office Minister, Mr Timothy Raison, who remarked that "the controls extend only to entertainments on private land, because in practice there are already means of controlling events which take place on land which is not in private ownership".

Dr. Howells painted a very different picture to the House of Commons to that which he painted for EFDSS at our meeting with him. The House of Commons was told,

"They [EFDSS et al] were worried that they would suddenly have to apply for licences for performances that take place in public on the side of roads and so on. Such activities are not licensable. They will not be affected."

However, when EFDSS met with the Minister on the 4th April, we were told that such activities will be licensable and that our only recourse would be to work with the DCMS to encourage local authorities to ensure that all public spaces are licensed. Certainly, our own reading of the Licensing Bill is that folk dance taking place on public land is caught, though it seems that even the DCMS are unsure of exactly what the reality is likely to be.

To clarify our position, we still feel strongly that the Government has not made an adequate case for extending entertainments licensing to cover folk arts on public land. This position seems to be strongly supported by Mr Timothy Raison's 1982 statement, above. As a result, we feel that to work with the DCMS to encourage Local Authorities to licence all public spaces for folk dance would be at best an exercise in damage limitation, but would not do much to address the fundamental problems posed by the legislation.

*Folk Club*

EFDSS has warned the Government that many folk music and song clubs which are currently not covered by entertainments licensing might become so under the new Bill.

Many such clubs currently operate as private, members only clubs where attendees have to join at least 48 hours before benefiting from any entertainment. By doing so, we believe there is no requirement for them to have a Public Entertainments Licence. Under the proposed Licensing Bill, there will be no such get-out, and the majority of England's 400 folk clubs could become licensable.

I am sorry to have to say that since first submitting this concern to the DCMS in February, EFDSS has had no answer. In view of this lack of response, EFDSS can only reiterate its earlier questions:

As we understand it, the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, and the Environmental Protection Act all currently provide adequate controls for small scale music and dance performances.

1.How does the Government feel that folk clubs will be affected by the Licensing Bill?

2.Why is current, subsisting legislation deficient with regard to folk clubs?

3.What is the pressing social need to extend entertainments licensing regulations to cover folk clubs when broadcast football matches and loud recorded music in pubs remains exempt?

4.Does the Government feel that folk clubs are an acceptable casualty in the pursuit of its other licensing objectives?


*Recommendations*

*Automatic Small-Scale Entertainment Permission Included with Premises Licence.*

EFDSS feels that if an automatic permission to host small-scale entertainment was included with a Premises Licence, then such activities could be covered by a degree of Local Authority control without requiring additional costs or conditions on the part of the premises owner. We believe that a definition of "small-scale entertainment" shouldn't be difficult to draw up, but should certainly include unamplified music and song, as well as folk dance which is accompanied by acoustic music.

This is not so much an attempt at making folk arts a special case, but more a recognition that there is no evidence to suggest that such activities pose a greater risk to the public than the normal business of a premises.

As with the "two-in-a-bar" permission, the DCMS has argued that such a rule would encourage the majority of venues to stick at the "ceiling" created by a permission with any kind of "cut-off point". In other words, if venues had an automatic permission to host, say, 6 unamplified performers included with their Premises Licence, why would they ever bother asking for more?

Of course, this argument is contradicted by the DCMS's other mantra, that it will be free and easy for venues to "tick the box" and get full permission for public entertainments.

But more importantly, the Government does not appear to have supported it's argument against an automatic permission with any evidence about the likely behaviour of venue owners. It is unlikely that all venues will ask to host entertainment at the time when they apply for their premises licenses, or if they do some might be asked to make improvements to the venue which they can't afford. An automatic permission would allow a balanced level of cultural activity to take place at any venue which is open to the public, not because there is never a risk to the public, but because there is no evidence of risk beyond that posed by the normal running of a premises.

*Exemption for Folk Dance and Drama in the Open Air*

Small-scale folk dance in the open does not require licensing as public entertainment any more than an informal cricket or football game in the open. Moreover, it is likely to be significantly damaged by being made "regulated entertainment".

EFDSS cannot accept the argument, made by Dr. Howells in a recent letter to the Morris Federation, that there is ... [no] justification for treating public land outdoors in a different manner to other places since the issues of safety etc for performers and spectators are no different to those on private land or indoors. Of course the safety issues are different: on a village green or public park there is unlikely to be any risk of structural weakness in the dance floor, the risk of fire is practically nil, and at all but the biggest events there is little or no risk of inadequate emergency exits.

We also note with some disappointment that whilst discussing amendment No. 383 on 8th April, the House of Commons Standing Committee decided that it was impossible to create a definition of folk dance that could cause it to be exempt from entertainments licensing. Dr. Howells said, "Defining this sort of activity is fraught with difficulty and provides grounds by itself for rejecting amendment No. 383."

We feel that it would be quite possible to arrive at an exemption for folk dance and drama which would reflect the fact that such activities pose little or no risk to the public. If the Government feels strongly the need to extend entertainments licensing to cover public as well as private land, an exemption for folk dance could use as a basis the fact that it is almost always accompanied by unamplified instruments.

An exemption worded along the lines of 'a performance of dance in the open air which is accompanied by live, unamplified music', would seem to address many of the concerns of all sides. Without amplified music, any dancing in the open is necessarily limited to the immediate area of the musicians, and is highly unlikely to cause a public nuisance.

Likewise, an exemption for folk drama such as mummers' plays and pace-egging could easily focus on their non-amplified and non-staged nature, without the need to define "what is folk" - something even EFDSS finds tricky!

It is also possible to imagine amendments which would focus on measured noise levels, or the number of people present in the audience. Either or even a combination of these factors could easily be used to distinguish between folk dance in the open and other forms of entertainment which the Government has said it wants to licence, such as the "rock concert on a village green".

As long as any exemption avoids treating folk arts as a special case, and focuses on the the fact that there are some activities which simply do not require licensing control, exemptions for small-scale community dance and drama in the open should not prove impossible to the Government's skilled legislators.

*Ability for Local Authorities not to require licenses where inappropriate*

The majority of folk arts events in England are small-scale and simply do not require licensing as forms of public entertainment. The Government has shown absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and anybody who has seen a morris team performing in a town square, or has been at a pub while a folk session is taking place, would understand that the only purpose that entertainments licensing can serve in such situations is to generate revenue for local authorities.

However, it is our experience that local authorities do not pick and choose when it comes to legislation. In fact, it is surely their duty to apply the law to the letter. We believe that local authorities will be extremely unlikely to allow folk arts events which they know about to go unlicensed. Mummers who have traditionally performed at the Red Lion in Cerne Abbas found last year that they were not allowed to stage their play in the pub because the local authority had become aware of the event and had to enforce the letter of the law. The suggestion that the authority might have been able to turn a blind eye to small-scale events that should not need licensing was dismissed by Jill Haines, chairwoman of the West Dorset District Council. On the Radio 4 Today programme, she stressed that the authority "could not turn a blind eye" to any licensable events.

Given the difficulties clearly faced by Local Authorities in interpreting legislation, coupled with the "one size fits all" approach which the Licensing Bill takes, EFDSS would like to suggest an amendment to the Licensing Bill which allowed local authorities, where appropriate, to decide that a particular event, though technically licensable, could be given discretionary exemption from entertainments licensing on the grounds that it clearly doesn't need licensing. Local Authorities may well want to seek the advice of local fire and police services before taking such a decision, but if they were allowed by law to rule in this way, many small-scale folk arts events could be protected from being licensed out of existence.


In summary, I must stress that EFDSS remains very concerned about the effects of the Licensing Bill on the folk arts. The DCMS has provided practically no reassurance to date, nor have they explained why any of the activities we are concerned about will not be affected by the Bill. Furthermore, they have provided no evidence to support their case for extending entertainments licensing to catch most folk arts activities.

I hope this letter has provided you with some helpful advice as regards amending the Bill to ensure that England's traditional arts are not adversely affected by it.

I am of course available should you have any further questions.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Gibbens
Development Officer, EFDSS

'Phone:      [phone]
Email:      [e-mail]

--- Letter Ends ---

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 May 03 - 07:42 AM

The English Folk Dance and Song Society are hardly the most radical body in the land, things must be indeed serious if they are permitted to issue such a letter.

Can those that have them, please also ensure that our MPs all receive a copy of the above letter from EFDSS?

And that they receive a satisfactory reply or continue writing to our MPs until they do?

I think this is our only chance.

Please do something before it is too late.

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 03 - 05:47 PM

How about a massed Morris demo?

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 09:34 AM

The full Lords debate on 19 June 2003 can now be seen on the following.

http://tinyurl.com/et2l

Is the following the best that the Government can offer?

>Snip<

19 Jun 2003 : Column 951

Lord Redesdale: I gave the Minister notice earlier of a particular question about the provision of folk dance. I know that it falls outside this amendment. However, I have had a large number of representations from the folk dance world. Kim Howells, his right honourable friend in another place has definite views on folk dance. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister could give some indication over how temporary event notices will work in relation to Morris men so that they may be reassured in carrying on their activities.

>Snip<

19 Jun 2003 : Column 951

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can say something nice to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about morris dancing. He will have heard, as I have, the moral law that only two things are absolutely forbidden incest and morris dancing.

I want to make it clear that when morris dancers arrive at a pub unannounced for example, on the way back from another event and have a pint in a pub garden, and start dancing, there is no need for an authorisation of this kind.

They would not be providing entertainment that fell within the definition of the provision of regulated entertainment. No genuinely spontaneous activity I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, as well whether it is singing, dancing, or playing a musical instrument, will be caught by the Bill.

So if a coachload of lap-dancers and stippers stopped off in your local on their way home, and proceeded to perform - they would not be caught by the Bill either. Or presumably drugged-up young dancers on their way home from their rave?

I am not sure how you can ever genuinely claim it is spontaneous, to get all the members of a Morris side dressed-up with musicians ready to play. But should you advise in advance that you are to perform anywhere - this will be illegal without a licence.......

Where are the words and the word spontaneous - in the Bill that support what the Noble Lord says is the case?

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 12:21 PM

The following is a plain-text version of a joint letter which EFDSS, the Morris Federation and the The Society for International Folk Dancing sent to all Labour MPs yesterday.

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




**Licensing Bill - small events exemption - live music

As the national representatives of folk dance and music in England and Wales, we ask that you support the small events licensing exemption for the performance of live music reinstated by the House of Lords on Thursday 19 June 2003.

If the DCMS and the Government have concerns about any negative implications of the exemption we would ask that they seek to work constructively with the Opposition to improve it, rather than simply overturning the amendment.

The principle of the exemption is to encourage live performance in venues of all kinds, and to restore proportionality to the Bill. If any place can be fitted with big screens and a PA to provide broadcast entertainment, or a stage, lighting and PA for stand-up comedy, without licensing under this Bill, there is no justification in requiring the licensing of almost all public performance of live music. These apparently arbitrary exemptions are one reason why 12th Report of the Joint Committee of Human Rights, published on 13 June, has warned again that the Bill is potentially incompatible with the right to freedom of expression.

The Government has yet to take this fully into account, and in our view a small events exemption is the best way forward.

**Folk dance and drama

From remarks made by the Government in the House of Lords last Thursday, it is clear that the Licensing Bill will do nothing to protect traditional dance and drama from unnecessary regulation and red-tape - in fact it adds the disincentive of criminal prosecution for the organisers of unlicensed performances.

Current legislation provides grey areas which in effect allow small-scale and informal folk arts activities to take place at the discretion of the landowner or local authority. However, the Licensing Bill makes it very clear that entertainments licensing is required for any public 'performance of dance' or a 'performance of a play', in 'any place'. The Bill also adds criminal liability for anybody organising such activity which is not licensed.

Government assurances that spontaneous performances will not be licensable and that Local Authorities will be encouraged to license public spaces for entertainment ring hollow. Nearly all folk dance displays which take place are a regular, planned and vital part of peoples' cultural experience, which will not be considered spontaneous by Licensing Authorities. To suggest that thousands of public spaces at which small-scale folk dance and drama take place each year be covered by Premises Licenses makes a mockery of the Government's stated aim to remove unnecessary red tape and it is likely that organising folk dance will become a criminal offence in many of these spaces.

The Licensing Bill needs amending as soon as possible to ensure that folk dance in England and Wales does not require unnecessary entertainment's licensing, and we urge the Government to consider the following amendment:

Unamplified community dance and theatre in the open
[XX] (1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of a play or a performance of dance is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act where:
(a) the entertainment takes place wholly in the open air, and
(b) the entertainment itself, or accompanying music is not provided in whole or part by means of, or with the assistance of, electrical or electronic amplification, or made more readily audible by such amplification either in the place where the performance is occurring or in any other place, and
(c) the entertainment ceases no later than 11.30pm.
(2) Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place.

Please do all you can to ensure that the Government makes the most of this opportunity for increasing access to and participation in the arts, and that the Licensing Bill serves to support our traditional art-forms and not undermine them.

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 06:41 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Government has defeated the small events exemption proposed by Opposition Peers.

The Lib Dem/Conservative alliance crumbled in the House of Lords this afternoon. The Government won by 145 votes to 75. The reason for the turnaround was that during behind the scenes horse trading late last night, the Government offered an outright exemption to morris dancing, and a marginal concession for unamplified live music.

This appeared to satisfy the Lib Dems who decided to vote with the Government. The letters to all Peers from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government Association opposing the exemption were also influential.

There were powerful speeches in support of the exemption from Baroness Buscombe, who led for the Conservatives, and Lord Colwyn. Significantly, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the guru of human rights law, also spoke out strongly against the Government position. He warned that it was, in his view, disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention.

He contrasted the level of licensing control with the exemption for big screen entertainment (as did Lord Colwyn, and Baroness Buscombe). He speculated whether Lord McIntosh, the Government spokesman, would in a court of law still say that the Government's position was proportionate.

Lord McIntosh did not answer that point, but said the Government had made a commitment to review the new Licensing Act 6-12 months after the Transition Period - which means in about 2 years' time. He also announced that a 'live music forum' would be set up by the DCMS to encourage maximum take-up of live music under the new rules.

As a formality, the Commons will ratify the Government amendments (probably next Tuesday 08 July) and the Bill should receive Royal Assent by 17 July.

So what will the Bill mean for live music?
It is anyone's guess whether it really will lead to a significant increase in employment opportunities for MU members, and/or new venues allowing amateur performance. A positive outcome will depend to a great extent on the proactive efforts of musicians, performers unions, and the music industry, to make the best of the new law.

What has been achieved?
When the Bill was published it proposed a blanket licensing requirement for almost all public performance and much private performance. All performers were potentially liable to criminal prosecution unless taking all reasonable precautions to ensure venues were licensed for their performance.

Lobbying has led to:

A complete exemption from any licensing requirement for regulated entertainment provided in a public place of religious worship.

A similar exemption for garden fetes and similar functions, provided they are not for private gain.

An exemption from licence fees for village halls and community premises, schools and sixth form colleges.

An exemption for the performance of live music (amplified or unamplified) anywhere, if it is 'incidental' to other activities such as eating and drinking (but not dancing, or another licensable entertainment).

An exemption from licence conditions (but NOT the licence itself) for unamplified live music in places such as bars, pubs, clubs, restaurants (i.e. where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises) between 8am and midnight (subject to review, if, for example, this gives rise to problems for local residents).

A limitation on licence conditions for amplified music in pubs, bars etc (subject to the same review procedure above), restricting those conditions to public safety, crime and disorder only.

A complete exemption for morris dancing and similar, and any unamplified live music that is 'integral' to the performance.

An exemption from possible criminal prosecution for ordinary performers playing in unlicensed premises or at unlicensed events. Now only those responsible for organising such a performance are liable, this includes a bandleader or possibly a member of a band who brings an instrument for another player to use. There remains a 'due diligence' defence, however (taking all reasonable precautions first etc).

A clarification that at private events, where musicians are directly engaged by those putting on the event, this no longer triggers licensing (however there remains an ambiguity that if entertainment agents are engaged to provide the band, this does fall within the licensing regime).


In spite of all this, the Bill does mean 'none in a bar' is the starting point of the new licensing regime. Any public performance of live music provided to attract custom or make a profit, amplified or not, whether by one musician or more, is illegal unless licensed (other than in public places of religious worship or garden fetes etc).

In the opinion of leading human rights lawyers, like Lord Lester, this remains a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression - whatever the Government may say about how easy or cheap it is to get the licence. The point being that there is and never has been evidence of a problem sufficient to justify such interference. Why add new rules where there are enough already?

The Bill for the first time extends entertainment licensing across all private members clubs, and registered members clubs. It also captures private events, such as charity concerts, if they seek to make a profit - even for a good cause.

The Bill creates a new category of offence for the provision of unlicensed 'entertainment facilities', which would include musical instruments provided to members of the public for the purpose of entertaining themselves, let alone an audience.

However, the 'incidental' exemption could prove to be quite powerful, but that will depend to a great extent on how local authorities choose to interpret the provision. The Guidance that will accompany the Bill may become particularly important on that point, and others.

This is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the Bill's provisions for live music, but should serve as a summary.

My sincere thanks to all who have kept pace with these developments and lobbied their MPs, Peers and the press.

My thanks to Hamish.