Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 08:26 PM

And those links on Shambles post include a list of which MPs voted which way. Relevant to know that, when you are writing to them, more especially if the Lords do the decent thing and insist on the exemption amendment.

But at this stage it's the Lords who need the letters.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 04:24 PM

The full Commons debate on the Licensing Bill 24 June 2003 - can be read on the following site. The Government's arguments are enough to enrage anyone who cares about music - so please feel free to circulate these links widely, as we need all the help we can muster.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/cm030624/debtext/30624-41.htm

or

http://tinyurl.com/f9ei

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 06:04 AM

The alternative is for them to decide to cut out both the live music and the TV shows, like the Wetherspoons chain. Either way live music loses out.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 05:52 AM

If pubs are disuaded from having live music by the possibility of having to make extensive structural alterations if they apply for a license, many of them will decide on the easy route of installing large screen television and video jukeboxes instead. This will result in much more disturbance and "Yob Culture". Have any members of the government ever tried to find a relatively quiet pub in a town on a Friday or Saturday night ?

The extra bit of trade that the odd Folk or Jazz evening brings in, is often just enough to enable some publicans to keep their more traditional pubs in business. I could name quite a few pubs in my area which have followed the following scenario.

Taken over by new landlords, who've ripped out all the comfortable fittings, painted the place some dark uniform colour, installed large-screen TV / Jukeboxes etc, and tried to attract the young/"sports" trade. The pub then gets a worse and worse crowd, bouncers are needed, police cars always seem to be outside. Eventually the clientele decide to go elsewhere and the pub closes down. It then either stays as an empty eyesore or becomes a fast-food outlet, office, private home or is knocked down and replaced by something else. Not all of the following pubs went through a disreputable phase, but they've all gone.

The Plough, Bromley Common - now wine warehouse
The Sawyers Arms, Bromley Common - now McDonalds
The Crossways, Eltham - now Burger King
King & Queen, Mottingham - demolished
Chinbrook, Grove Park - demolished
Northover, Grove Park - demolished
Garden Gate, Downham - now McDonalds
Castle, Eltham - now KFC
Yorkshire Grey, Eltham - now McDonalds
The King's Arms, Brastead - now offices
The Star, Brasted Chart - now private house
The Royal Oak, Shoreham (Kent) - now private house

How many more pubs will we lose, both as musical venues and as pubs if this legislation goes through - and how many of the remaining pubs will be worth drinking in ?

They're knocking them down, the old pubs . . . . . . . .

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 05:43 AM

"I have a difficulty.... Not knowing any Lords and not being the constituent of one who the hell does one write to? "

Read that last post I made and follow through on the links and inmformation contained, and you get a list of some relevant peers, and how to get in touch with them.

Lords don't have this convention MPs do about not dealing with letters except from constituents - Lords don't have "constituents" - anyone anywhere is entitled to lobby them. (That doesn't mean they necessarily take any notice of the letters, but I suspect they might actually be quite chuffed to get faxes from Texas about the adverse impact on tourism the Government's proposals will have.)

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Barden of England
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 04:46 AM

Here is some more reasoned argument being totally ignored:-

Nick Harvey (North Devon): In some ways I am rather saddened that we are still debating this vexed issue even at such a late stage, although I am not especially surprised. It is the aspect of the entire Bill that has caused the most controversy and anxiety in the country. As the weeks and months have gone by, it is remarkable that the Government have shown no serious intent to address the issue. It has been raised on a wide front throughout the country, and the result of the Government's reluctance to sit down and examine the issue seriously is that we are still debating it at this late stage. The problem goes back to the fundamental question of why it is necessary to license public entertainment at all. I listened to the Minister's predictions of doom, disaster and calamities for public safety if we do not have entertainment licensing for all events, however modest their scale. I cast my mind north of the border to Scotland where there is no public entertainment licensing, yet I see no signs of the death, disaster, disease and pestilence that the Minister anticipates if we do not operate the regime in England. The Government have raised a completely false spectre.

Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham): The hon. Gentleman says that there is no control on public entertainment in Scotland, but a licensing authority must put a condition on what covers public entertainment.

Nick Harvey: I say most emphatically that I did not claim that there was no control on public entertainment in Scotland. The point that has been made consistently during the passage of the Bill is that there are plenty of other controls on public entertainment, so there is no need to add the licensing regime that the Bill will implement. It is precisely because there are so many other ways to control public entertainments and public safety at them that the provision is so unnecessary.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Barden of England
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 04:15 AM

Quite right Richard. Can you believe a Government when it comes up with this drivel??
=========================================
Mr. Whittingdale: The Minister puts great stress on public safety and, of course, we share his concern that nothing must be done that would endanger the public. However, will he explain the point already raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)? Why do the same considerations not apply in the case of a pub where 200 people may be watching a World cup final on a large screen? Surely, the same public safety issues would arise, yet they are not covered by the Bill.

Mr. Caborn: We do not take that judgment. Our judgment is laid out in the amendment. It is as simple as that.

And later on this:-

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I have just been mulling over what the Minister said about the great fire risk incurred when music is being played. Would the risk be any less if the same people were watching a widescreen television, or simply drinking on the premises?

Mr. Caborn: No. We are talking about a licence that covers any equipment that is used.
======================================

So, a piano in the corner of a bar, or my acoustic guitar, somebody's violin or a bodhran are going to somehow spontaneously combust then are they? How can you help a drowning man?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 04:10 AM

The two "leaders" on our part in the Lords are Baroness Buscombe and Lord Redesdale. You might also try Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve, who is a sympathiser but did not support the last exemption in the Lords because of drafting concerns - as likewise others. Lord Monson is another possible.

I may also point out that the "churches" exemption includes all places of public worship - of any religion - (by which I think I mean recognised religions so don't start silly ideas about Jedi Knights or founding religions that happen to run folk clubs, or worship beer). Accordingly if there were any religion that was likely to rectuiting terrorists, or threatening to invade events at the places of worship of other religions, the "church" exemption might very well also exempt some nasty activities. I also view goverment concerns about events organised by corrupters of youth with some cynicism, in the context of the church exemption, given the record of organised religion in such regards. But I am doubtful whether arguments based on such premises would be well received!

I would however point out that the thrust of the latest ACPO letter may add to the argument that acoustic music should be wholly exempt - acoustic versions of "Cradle of Filth" songs are rare indeed, as are goths at folk clubs - not that I would mind either, in moderation (mustn't drive out too many traddies) but if the argument is that metal corrupts, so gigs must be policed, then gigs that are not metal do not need to be policed.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Admiral
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 03:32 AM

Ooops! Sorry! That was me! Seriously tho', having held a running battle with my MP without raising even an inkling of doubt in her supreme 'rightness'. I don't want to give up now particularly as this is the brink. Is there a Lords music committee or something?

Tony

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 03:21 AM

I have a difficulty.... Not knowing any Lords and not being the constituent of one who the hell does one write to?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 02:39 AM

One reason for the Government's position was a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) sent to Secretary of State Tessa Jowell on 20 June urging Jowell to reverse the exemption. However, ACPO's focus was not pubs, but on events in premises where they have no powers of closure - in other words, places without a premises licence for alcohol.

ACPO's letter included this comment: 'The differences [between heavy metal and string quartets] extend not only to the level of noise emanating from the venue (which could be a venue outdoors) but also to the type of clientele attending the event and which therefore may give rise to concerns regarding crime, disorder and nuisance and also issues surrounding the protection of children from harm'. Arguable perhaps, but just because heavy metal exists, why should that justify a blanket licensing requirement on string quartets and solo pianists?

Talk about shooting one's self in the foot. So the Government ignore ACPO's letter with their concerns for TV sport in unlicensed pubs and then make a central part of their case a letter that calls into question their own Bill lifting the of any entertainment licensing controls in ALL of London's churches!

If they claim that any entertainment in churches will not ever attract the same "type of clientele attending the event and which therefore may give rise to concerns regarding crime, disorder and nuisance and also issues surrounding the protection of children from harm',   They may have to accept that the concern is really to alcohol and social issues , rather than music. These are not concerns that can be solved by advanced blanket entertainment licensing.

It is rather easy for the Government to scare people with lies and myths about the effects of lifting blanket entertainment licensing - perhaps they should be asked via our MPs, to provide the evidence to prove how efficient the current system has actually been in addressing any of these scares' stories and social concerns

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 02:06 AM

It means that Opposition peers will have another go at a small events exemption when the Bill returns to the Lords on Thursday 03 July (not this Thursday as originally proposed).

This is our only chance!............But it must be stressed that should we lose the vote in Lords - we are dead in the water.

So we must work and not simply trust and rely on the Lords goodwill to survive all the Government pressure that will be placed on them to allow the Bill to pass. And quickly - for if the Lords do carry on and the Commons don't compromise - The Government's whole Bill will run out of time and fall.

Personally I think that to be the very best option but it is most unlikely that this Government will allow this to happen.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 05:38 PM

So it's ping-pong time. Here is the fax number for the Peers Lobby in the House of Lords so we can send the messages asking them to dig in their heels : 020 7219 5979.

And here is a link for sending faxes via your PC - http://www.networks-id.co.uk/tpc.htm - from anywhere. Remember Peers don't have constituents, so faxes from foreign parts should get read as well.
And here is a link to a post with a list of relevant peers.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 04:38 PM

STOP PRESS

The Government's amendment was passed by by 268 to 159
Considering the previous debates were 400 odd to 40 odd, that was pretty close. Perhaps they didn't understand it either?

The following from Hamish Birchall

In a short Commons debate this evening on the Licensing Bill the Government will overturn the small events exemption won last Thursday (19th June) in the Lords. The Government's position is no surprise. It means that Opposition peers will have another go at a small events exemption when the Bill returns to the Lords on Thursday 03 July (not this Thursday as originally proposed).

This gives a bit more time for Opposition peers to consider reinstating another small events exemption, working with the MU, Performer-Lawyer Group and others.

In place of the small events exemption, the Government is proposing an amendment (see below) that rejects any exemption but seeks to limit local authority conditions to those dealing with crime and disorder and public safety (i.e. not noise or protection of children from harm). It is irrational, convoluted, and in places impenetrable. Members of the Performer Lawyer Group have already dismissed it as 'barking'. Conservative and Liberal Democrats will vote against it, but the chances of any more than one or two Labour rebels are slim.

One reason for the Government's position was a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) sent to Secretary of State Tessa Jowell on 20 June urging Jowell to reverse the exemption. However, ACPO's focus was not pubs, but on events in premises where they have no powers of closure - in other words, places without a premises licence for alcohol. ACPO's letter included this comment: 'The differences [between heavy metal and string quartets] extend not only to the level of noise emanating from the venue (which could be a venue outdoors) but also to the type of clientele attending the event and which therefore may give rise to concerns regarding crime, disorder and nuisance and also issues surrounding the protection of children from harm'. Arguable perhaps, but just because heavy metal exists, why should that justify a blanket licensing requirement on string quartets and solo pianists?

It would have been a simple matter for the Government to address these concerns by restricting an exemption to premises that will already be licensed for alcohol or some other regulated entertainment. But, for the moment, the Government has rejected this notion. Odd that they have taken ACPO's hypothetical concerns so enthusiastically on board this time, when they have consistently ignored ACPO's recommendation that televised sporting events be licensable even though ACPO has plenty of evidence already that they are 'quite frequently a source of disorder'.

Once I have read the Hansard record tomorrow I will send a further update with recommendations for who to write to and a draft letter.

~ ~ ~

GOVERNMENT'S REPLACEMENT AMENDMENT FOR SMALL EVENTS EXEMPTION:

Secretary Tessa Jowell
To move, the following Amendment to the Bill in lieu of the Amendment (No. 62A) proposed by the Lords:

*Page    97,    line    35,    at end insert

'Special provision for pubs etc.

    Dancing and live music in pubs etc.

    (1)   This section applies where

(a) a premises licence authorises

(i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and

(ii) music entertainment, and

(b) the premises

(i) are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and

(ii) have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons.

    (2)   At any time when the premises

(a) are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and

(b) are being used for music entertainment,

any condition of the premises licence which relates only to the music entertainment, and is imposed by virtue of section 19(3)(b), 35(3)(b), 52(3) or 166(5)(b), does not have effect unless it falls within subsection (3) or (4).

    (3)   A condition falls within this subsection if the premises licence specifies that the licensing authority which granted the licence considers the imposition of the condition necessary on one or both of the following grounds

(a) the prevention of crime and disorder,

(b) public safety.

    (4)   A condition falls within this subsection if, on a review of the premises licence,

(a) it is altered so as to include a statement that this section does not apply to it, or

(b) it is added to the licence and includes such a statement.

    (5)   This section applies in relation to a club premises certificate as it applies in relation to a premises licence and, in the application of this section to such a certificate, the reference in subsection (2) to section 19(3)(b), 35(3)(b), 52(3) or 166(5)(b) is to be read as a reference to section 72(3)(b), 83(3)(b) or 86(3).

    (6)   In this section

"music entertainment" means

the provision of entertainment of a description falling within, or of a similar description to that falling within, paragraph 2(1)(e) or (g) of Schedule 1, or

the provision of entertainment facilities falling within paragraph 3 of that Schedule,

in circumstances where the conditions in paragraph 1(2) and (3) of that Schedule are satisfied;

"permitted capacity", in relation to any premises, means

where a fire certificate issued under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (c.40) is in force in respect of the premises and that certificate imposes a requirement under section 6(2)(d) of that Act, the limit on the number of persons who, in accordance with that requirement, may be on the premises at any one time, and

in any other case, the limit on the number of persons who may be on the premises at any one time in accordance with a recommendation made by, or on behalf of, the fire authority for the area in which the premises are situated (or, if the premises are situated in the area of more than one fire authority, those authorities); and

"supply of alcohol" means

the sale by retail of alcohol, or

the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club.'.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 03:17 PM

The message that I was getting from my MP was that the Government were determined to insist on licensing what was left and it was a matter of ensuring that the licence was easy to obtain, so as not to act as a deterrent to live music.

This amendment sort of squares with that view. It reminds me of the days of going out to round-up my 400 hill sheep, in order to drench and medicate those that required it. Then letting most of them slip away and return to the hill - coming home with just 40, but insisting on using all the medication I had on the remaining 40, whether they needed it or not.

The amendment may be trying to address the issue of premises not being prepared to apply for entertainment but this one makes the comments and concerns of the Joint Committee of Human Rights even more valid.

It is the blanket requirement for a premises license, preventing freedom of expression in some premises but not others and without identifying the pressing social need, highlighted by this committee, that this Government have still not addressed and seem determined just to ignore.   

It brings in the question of a premises licence being reqired and dependent on conditions being met, conditions which could be insisted on but ones not having any legal effect as they would not be for crime and disorder or public safety. Things like insisting on the size of a car park being first enlarged etc, which are often used now.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 03:10 PM

They don't like admitting they cocked it up. Simple as that. It's the explanation for most things that go wrong with governments and other organisations, because it interferes with the normal process by which people learn.

Spot the mistakes as they happen and corect them as you go and you are fine. Refuse to admit them and you always make things worse.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: ET
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 02:26 PM

It could well have been written by Gilbert/Sulivan.   Have e-mailed those parliamentarians concerned that the Government amendment is both pointless and misses the point in one go. If you have an entertainments licence in the first place...off you go.   The whole point is that there will be so few of them because licensees fear to add the relevant tick box, all the neighbours will think of boom boom at 2 am. Its hardly the licensees place to carefully explain the difference between unamplied or even amplified jazz and heavy rock.

Why the governmnt is so instistent on these provisions as British Soliders die in Iraq, Blair having read a 10 year old thesis from a student as a justification for war, I will never know. I have read every word of the debates and never yet come across anything that says "now I see".

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 02:06 PM

So how does putting forward an amended version of the version the House of Lords has rejected square with saying in thet first sentence "That this house insists on its amendment No 62 to which the Lords have disagreed" ?

As I read it, the idea is that they are supposed to vote to insist on "amendment 62" - and then vote to chuck it and introduce instead a new version, which of course is not "amendment 62", which they would have just voted to insist on having.

And then it goes back to the House of Lords, which can be expected to vote to hold on to their original amendment...

It all cries out for WS Gilbert's touch.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 02:00 PM

It does not even say that local authorities can't insist on premises licence conditions on grounds other than for crime and disorder or public safety - though this is the only reason they should be doing it, I don't really see the point of spelling it out - It just says such conditions would not have any effect.

As Richard points out, the premises licence first has to be obtained, so the damage would have already been done.

So expensive modifications like extra fire doors, emergency lighting or anything that can be stretched as being for public safety etc, can still be insisted on, before the entertainment licence can be issued - exactly as before.

There is a reason for introducing the amendment - I am sure we will find out what.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 01:34 PM

It dies indeed only apply if there is already a music licence, so it is useless. It it probably a cynical attempt to pretend they have listened, while they are still determined to F**K us.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 11:25 AM

John - you makes I laugh. :>)

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 11:17 AM

this,goverment,is,a,big,load,of,shit.john

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 11:00 AM

Whatever it means - it replaces the Lords Amendment and the Commons will vote for it and send this one back to the Lords in its place.

Why it does replace the Lords Amendment I have no idea - it seems to be an attempt to put words in the Bill that do at least try to ensure that Local Authorities can only place conditions on entertainment for crime and disorder and public safety.

As they already claim this when it is clear the reasons are other than this - I can see no benefit at all, other than to confuse an already confused situation....... Perhaps that is the idea of its introduction?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 10:30 AM

As I understand this (as if), it seems to be the exact opposite. The clause only applies if "the premises licence authorises ... musical entertainment". So the place has to have a licence for the music before this clause even comes into effect. Then it seems to go on to say that any licencing conditions that were only about the music only apply if music is being played. That may or may not be sensible, but is surely an added reason NOT to have music.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 10:26 AM

Is Tessa Jowell proposing that the government accept some of the "Small Events" exclusion ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 10:17 AM

Well, that's perfectly clear now, isn't it?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 10:13 AM

STOP PRESS

Consideration of Lords Amendments: 24th June 2003
Licensing Bill [Lords] continued

Commons amendment No 62

Secretary Tessa Jowell

*To move, That this house insists on its amendment No 62 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees to the Amendment (No 62A) proposed by the lords in lieu of that Amendment.

Secretary Tessa Jowell

To move, the following Amendment to the Bill in lieu of the Amendment (No 62A) proposed by the Lords:-

* Page 97, line 35 at end insert-'Special provision for pubs etc.
Dancing and live music in pubs etc.
(1) This section applies where-
      (a) a premise licence authorises-
          (i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premise,
and
          (ii) music entertainment, and
    (b) the premises-
          (i) are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises,
and
(ii) have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons.

(2) At any time when the premises-
    (a)are open for the purpose of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises,
    and
    (b) are being used for entertainment,
any condition of the premises licence which relates only to the music enetrtainment, and is imposed by virtue of section 19 (3)(b), 35(3)(b),52(3) or 166(5)(b), does not have effect unless it falls within subsection (3) or (4)

(3) A condition falls within this subsection if the premises licence specifies that the licensing authority which granted the licence considers the imposition of the condition necessary on one or both of the following grounds-
    (a) the prevention of crime and disorder,
    (b) public safety.

(4) A condition falls within this submission if, on a review of the premises licence-
    (a ) it is altered so as to include a statement that this section does not apply to it, or
    (b) it is added to the licence and includes such a statement.

(5) This section applies in relation to a club premises certificate as it applies in relation to a premises licence and, in the application of this section to such a certificate, the reference in subsection (2) to section 19(3)(b), 35(3)(b), 52(3) (b) is to be read as a reference to section 72(3)(b). 83(3)(b) or 86(3).

(6) In this section-
"music entertainment" means-

The provision of entertainment of a description falling within, or of a similar description to that falling            within, paragraph 2(1)(e) or (g) of Schedule1,or

The provision of entertainment facilities falling within, paragraph 3 of that Schedule,

In circumstances where the conditions in paragraph 1(2) and 3 of that Schedule are satisfied;

"permitted capacity", in relation to any premises means-

Where a fire certificate issued under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (c.40) is in force in respect of the premises and that certificate imposes a requirement under section 6(2)(d) of that Act, the limit on the number of persons who, in accordance with that requirement, may be on the premises at any one time, and

In any other case, the limit on the number of persons who may be on the premises at any one time in accordance with a recommendation made by, or on behalf of, the fire authority for the area in which the premises are situated (or, if the premises are situated in the area of more than one fire authority, those authorities); and

"supply of alcohol" means-

the sale by retail of alcohol, or

the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club"..

LICENSING BILL [LORDS] 9programme0 9No.3)

Secretary Tessa Jowell
Peter Hain

That the following provisions shall apply to the Licensing Bill[Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 24th March 2003 and 16th June 2003.

Consideration of Lords Message

1 proceeding on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, the Lords Amendment in lieu of Commons Amendment No 62, the Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments Nos. 6,15,16,20 and 21 and the Lords Amendment in lieu of words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No.50.

Subsequent stages

3. Any further message from the lords may be considered forthwith without any Questions put.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 09:57 AM

When I looked in they still seemed to be debating the "Anti-social Behaviour Bill". I feel that the Licensing Bill comes under this category as far as most performers are concerned. If it becomes law without the "Small Events" exclusion, I think that the government might see some Anti-social Behaviour from the performer's lobby. I wonder if the MU might consider asking it's members to black any performances for the government !

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 07:30 AM

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: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 06:17 AM

This to my New Labour MP (majority 26). He has sat on the Standing Committee and has even spoken in favour of some form of small events exemption - but has supported the Government on every vote.

22 June 2003

Dear Mr Knight

On Monday 16 June at 12.30pm, I was part of a Musicians' Union led coalition of performers, music industry representatives, MPs and Peers presenting 10 Downing Street with an 110,000 signature online petition urging the Government to amend the live music provisions in the Licensing Bill. I was proud of having the original idea, of suggesting the words to be used and of working to gain the support of over 83,697 signatures online, with a further 26,380 signed petition forms downloaded from the web.

Can I request as a constituent, that when the Licensing Bill returns to the Commons this week for Consideration of Lords Amendments, that you make strong representations to Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), in support of the small events licensing exemption for the performance of live music reinstated by the House of Lords on Thursday 19 June 2003?

In addition I would be most grateful if you could vote this time to support this small events exemption? Please note that this amendment is now only worded to cover live music – so Government scare stories about it permitting children to watch unsuitable films and freeing strip clubs from any control – is the clear nonsense it always was and their Lordships recognised this. I await your advice.

I have appreciated and been greatly encouraged by the reasoned debate in the Lords – in contrast with my horror at the treatment in the Commons. The following quote from Lord Colwyn made in that debate – will sum up the horror that is shared by many of the 110,000 voters whose names appear against the E Petition: "I read carefully the debate on this amendment in another place. There, members of the Labour Party supported this amendment, yet when it came to the vote, they voted the opposite way. "

I have many reservations about the Bill as it stands but I feel strongly that this amendment can achieve at least some of the ends that I know you to share.

If you or the DCMS and the Government have concerns about any negative implications of the exemption as worded - I would ask and expect that attempts are made to work constructively with the Opposition to improve it, rather than simply overturning the amendment and the principle it contains, for a second time?

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 can be no justification in requiring the licensing of most public performances of live music, whilst excepting others.

These and many other 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.

Associated with the Bill is an assurance from the Secretary of State that, in her view, the provisions are compatible with the convention rights, but the Joint Committee states that the Bill, as amended:

Will leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements, without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime, so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under the European convention on human rights.

I await your advice on this aspect too, both as it applies here to the Bill and as it applies locally under current licensing legislation and which those entrusted with upholding - are trying, and being allowed to ignore.

Yours faithfully

Roger Gall

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 06:08 AM

+ 4
LICENSING BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (No. 3)
[No debate]
Secretary Tessa Jowell
Peter Hain
That the following provisions shall apply to the Licensing Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 24th March 2003 and 16th June 2003.
Consideration of Lords Message
1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, the Lords Amendment in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 62, the Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments Nos. 6, 15, 16, 20 and 21 and the Lords Amendment in lieu of words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 50.
Subsequent stages
3. Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
4. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
To be decided without debate (Orders of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002).
+ 5
LICENSING BILL [LORDS]: Consideration of Lords Amendments and Reasons.
[Up to one hour]
For Motions and Amendments relating to the Lords Amendments, see separate Paper.
Proceedings shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement if the Licensing Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3) Motion is agreed to.


To listen LIVE click on the following http://www.parliamentlive.tv/hocvid.asp

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: Pied Piper
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 06:02 AM

Have no doubt about it; if this amendment is not passed Councils will use the bill on use, as another moneymaking scam. At least dick Terpin wore a mask.

All the best PP

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 04:38 AM

I Fax-ed my MP the other day, but he took 3 months to reply to the previous one so I doubt that he'll read it in time.

The borough which I live in - Greenwich, is rather notorious for trying to make as much as possible out of PEL applications. The session at "The Cricketers" was an example of that. They now have a license for two evenings a week at a cost of £400 - if they wanted more evenings, it would cost them pro rata. Seems strange to me, if the pub's safe for two evenings per week, why isn't it safe for seven. Even more puzzling is why just paying another thousand pounds would make it safe.

I'd be quite happy for the government to modify the small events clause enough for them to save face - ie reduce it to 150 and block up the possible loophole which would allow premises to shut and then re-open until 11.30 the next day. There could be a problem with early morning (ie May Day) events if this was worded badly though - but I couldn't imagine PEL inspectors getting up at dawn to prosecute anyone. I wouldn't object to a limit on PA power, but a complete ban on amplification would probably be too restricting.

Let's hope that the commons can at last see sense on this issue.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 03:52 PM

"...the House do disagree..." - very Mummersett, bain't they?

The thing is, if the Commons sned it back for another go, there's no reason why the vote should go the other way next time. They haven't a dicile built-in majority in the Lords, and no signifcant payroll vote.

If they want this Bill to go through - which they do, because there are a lot of wealthy organisations who want to to have the pubs open longer hours - I thnk the Government is going to give on this. After all the music bit is only a tiny part of it. Cut down that figure of 200 a little bit, maybe stick in some provision limitting the level of noise. And if there's any press rumblings about u-turns and so forth, just brief the media saying that it's all down to Kim Howells for cocking it up, which is true enough.

And then the battle moves to getting those guidelines
written in a way that is permissive towards good music-making.

If the fax-your-MP site doesn't work, because an MP has changed his or her fax number for example, it should be possible to find a working fax number or email via Google, and use a free online fax number to send a fax. I think my unfortunate MP Bill Rammell is probably getting about three copies of my fax via different sources, to follow up all the ones I've sent him previously. And I might go around and stick a copy through his letter box as well.

Well, he is private secretary to culture secretary Tessa Jowell, so he deserves to get nailed on this. He should know better. In fact he does know better, but he's building his career. Still, for all I know, he might be beavering around trying to get them to see sense, and stop picking a needless quarrel with potential friends.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 03:03 PM

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

Page 112   , line 30, at end insert—

"Small events: live music

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 02:04 AM

From John Whittingdale - Tory Culture Spokesman.

We had the debate on Report Stage in the Commons on Monday. The
Government have now backed down on several provisions including the
admittance of unaccompanied children.

However, they stood firm in throwing out the Lords amendment exempting small events (attended by less than 250). The Lords then voted on Thursday to reinstate the small events exemption.

It comes back to the Commons on Tuesday.

There is a chance that the Government may give in; if they refuse then it goes back up to the Lords.

Whether we can win a third time is difficult to predict.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: vectis
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 06:33 PM

Several professional performers have tried to convince me that the bill has been voted out in the commons. I have tried to convince them that the battle is not over and they are celebrating a false rumour.

Letters to the papers and keep nagging your MP. we have to keep going right up to the vote being counted.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: Alexis
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 03:48 PM

I will be doing this tomorrow. My MP(Kali Mountford) did not sign the earky day motion, but who knows.
I would also like to say a huge thankyou , no matter if we win or lose, to The Shambles for all the cajoling, pleading and worse, to get us all to take notice and stant up to these mad bastards in power.
Thanks
Alex

Subject: Licensing Bill UK - Urgent help please.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 03:19 PM

URGENT

I have been sent the following (easier?) link for sending a FAX from the web.

http://www.urban75.com/Action/politicians.html

If you have not already done so (or even if you have) - will you please make the effort to contact your MP and ask them to vote to support the Lords amendment to exempt small live music events from additional licensing, when the Licensing Bill returns to the Commons, this coming Tuesday?

You can also use the following, which appears to be a little more up to date.
http://www.faxyourmp.com/

Or email from this list on the Common's website http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm

The E petition presented to 10 Downing Street last Monday had 110,000 signatures - it would be nice to be able to send 110,000 FAXES.

More information can be found on the Musicians' Union site http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/articles/welcome.shtml

The English Folk Dance and Song Society [EDFSS] http://www.efdss.org/

Graham Dixon's E Petition site http://pub22.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=1824620545&cpv=1

Or the Mudcat thread Licensing Bill moves on –OUR FUTURE

For those without a MP in the UK- You can also help by sending a fax to the Prime Minister on (0)20 7925 0918. (From outside the UK, the number is [phone].)

For those without a FAX, you can send one from the web by using the following site http://www.networks-id.co.uk/tpc.htm

Please circulate this to any one you think may be prepared to help.....

Many thanks