Licensing Bill - How will it work ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 09:42 AM

I am certain that both the Lords and Commons were mis lead into thinking they had granted an exemption for acoustic music. They ought to be ashamed but maybe they could be pursuaded to turn that on the Minister to amend the definition of regulated entertainment by ministerial order as the Act provides. This is quicker and faster than legislation. But see the Downing Street response to the penition - wrtten me thinks by Kim Howells?

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page297.asp

Perhaps we can concentrate via our MPs of establishing what this ministerial order can do and what it cannot do?

Does it have to wait for the so-called promised review - for example? Or can these powers be introduced at any time?

When we have done this - perhaps we can work on a way of ensuring that these powers are used to the best possible effect - via a Parlimentary Committee perhaps?

When the dust has settled a little - but before the momentum is lost and perhaps to provide some incentive for this approach - another E petition would be a good idea? One carefully worded for the best possible effect and in order to obtain the maximum of support from the broadest section of the community?

Possibly one concentrating more on the basic basic principles and containing a simple but effective slogan and banner to unite under? Or at least one our media can understand?

There was tremendous support given to the (some would say) even overtly Party political nature of the words of the first E petition. This being taken from the Conservative Party originated Commons Early Day Motion. And it certainly served its purpose and higlighted the problems.

However I think it is fair to say that the nature and origin of these words, (and I will take the full blame for the use of these words) did tend to mean that Labour MPs and supporters - even those that were concerned and agreed - were placed in a difficult position.......

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 09:58 AM

"...premises with an imposed safe capacity limit over 200 or none at all -this will automatically present a public nuisence - even in the unlikely event that an application was ever to be made only for non amplified music"

- Well, unamplified brass bands and symphony orchestras do actually play to audiences over 200.

There are bits in the guidelines which are helpful enough - but if a local council decides to ignore them, does that mean that its policy and decisions are illegal and unenforceable? I've got a feeling that it doesn't.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:06 PM

The following from Hamish Burchall

Dear Baroness Hamwee

I have been forwarded a copy of an email message from you to folk musicians concerning the the Liberal Democrat role in securing live music amendments to the Licensing Act 2003, and the effect of those amendments.

As Musicians' Union adviser on entertainment licensing reform and the Licensing Bill, I worked closely with Lord Redesdale and Liberal Democrat MPs.

The Bill as published on 14 November 2002 was draconian: it abolished a range of very significant entertainment licensing exemptions, even though the government provided no evidence of a public interest reason for doing so. If enacted the Bill would have criminalised the provision of most public performance of live music in England and Wales unless first licensed.

It is quite true that Liberal Democrat Peers, in collaboration with the Conservatives, subsequently achieved important amendments, and I am particularly grateful for Lord Redesdale's and Nick Harvey's hard work to that end. I am also very grateful to Lord Lester for his speech in the Lords on July 3 (see excerpt below). David Heath was also extremely helpful in raising the profile of this issue last year in the Commons with speeches and his Early Day Motion 1182 (which gained 233 signatures).

However, I think you may be under a misapprehension about unamplified live music under the Act. It remains the case that a featured performance of unamplified live music in a secular venue will be illegal unless first licensed, whether this is a singer in a bar or a harpist in a library.

The government made a rather complex last minute concession which may limit potentially onerous licence conditions in smaller venues (up to 200 permitted capacity), but there is no outright exemption from licensing, unless the live music (amplified or unamplified) is 'incidental' to other activities that are not themselves licensable entertainments, or is purely unamplified live music 'integral' to a performance of Morris dancing, or dancing of a similar nature.

On the other hand no licence under the Act is required for broadcast entertainment, including music or sport, which is now commonly provided with big screens and powerful amplification. This is a consequence of the broadcast exemption in Schedule 1, para 8.

Thus a bar, or indeed any venue, could advertise to the public that a particular broadcast music concert will be shown as a featured entertainment on a plasma screen with a powerful sound system, and this would not require licensing under the Act. However, a similarly featured performance by one musician actually present and performing in the same premises, amplified or not, would be illegal unless licensed. That is not equal treatment, and it is difficult to see how the inequality can be justified on the grounds that live performance is likely to give rise to greater risks than the broadcast entertainment. Indeed, the opposite is more likely: the broadcast might be of a very popular DJ; the live performance by relatively unknown musician(s).

Leaving aside for the moment the Act's unequal treatment of secular venues and places of public religious worship (performance in the former is licensable; in the latter, exempt), the fact is that a very large number of bars and other potential venues that could provide some featured live music will have to clear a much greater legislative and administrative barrier than if they were to provide amplified music via broadcasts.

It is difficult to see how this does not amount to manifest discrimination against live music. This is now part of primary legislation and cannot be disapplied by guidance. The discrimination goes to the heart of the issue of musicians' right to freedom of expression and whether the Act is proportionate in its control of live performance.

Lord Lester put this succinctly in the Lords on 3 July:

'I find the distinction drawn between live music in pubs and dead music or dead entertainment on mass television in pubs arbitrary and somewhat discriminatory. Perhaps it reflects some kind of cultural bias. I believe that it shows a complete lack of proportion to insist on unnecessary regulation in licensing. I should be interested to know how the Minister [Lord McIntosh], for whom I have such high regard, would explain, if he had to do so in a court of law, how this kind of regulation is proportionate and how it satisfies the basic principle of proportionality. Are the means being used really necessary to achieve the Government's legitimate aims, or would some lesser sacrifice of free expression be proportionate?...'

Lord McIntosh did not answer these questions.

Yours sincerely
Hamish Birchall

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Aug 03 - 02:10 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Guardian has published a tirade against virtually all musicians who use amplification, including the statement 'I want to firebomb the Musicians' Union'. This is, apparently, for delaying the licensing Bill by a few days arguing for a fairer regime. Perhaps the author works for the DCMS Bill team, or could David Stubbs be a pseudonym for Kim Howells?

The Guardian's letter page email address is: [e-mail]

~ ~ ~

Guardian, The Guide, p21, Sat 02 August 2003

David Stubbs is backing Blair all the way

On July 3, the House of Lords failed to block government moves to introduce a new law requiring pubs, clubs and cafes to apply for costly new licences if they wish to provide live entertainment. The measures will, reported The Guardian, "act as a deterrent to small venues wishing to host live groups". As organisations like the Musicians' Union protest, the dangers this new legislation proposes to curb, such as overcrowding and unruly behaviour, are already covered by existing law.

Loopholes allow for the exemption of, for example, morris dancers and pubs with widescreen TV - musicians who use amplified instruments are being scapegoated. These new laws are flawed, vindictive, inconsistent and I, along with every sane person I know back them to the hilt.

Let's be clear about who's hit hardest by this legislation - talentless, timewasting pub bands. Amateurs. White blues combos from Peterborough with podgy bassists, drowning the works of Howlin' Wolf in their own sweat and phlegm. Trad jazz bands, all beards and sandals, playing When The Saints Go Marching In (Yeah? Well, one more peep out of that clarinet and it'll be the police who go marching in, suckers). Bands with the word Rockin' in their names, who reduce rock to raucous, untreated sewage. Legions of uninspired, unashamed no-hopers who, even within a music industry benevolent enough to indulge The Thrills, can't get signed and resort to ruining the lives of innocent drinkers with their relentlessly, drearily competent bletherings. Bands who can't get arrested - well, they will be now, thank Christ.

No serious lover of music seeks out dingy old pubs with blackboards boasting LIVE ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT, much as no serious lover of wine seeks out bottles with party balloons on their label. It could be argued that these excremental outfits constitute the manure from which the roses of tomorrow will bloom. Unlikely - most new talent is hatched in bedrooms on iMacs, not in back bars. Even if it were, however, better that this vast swill of pestilential conversation-drowners be suppressed and, though we be denied the new Coral, punters have their peace restored.

These bands are flogging the dead horsemeat of long-dead genres. Jazz. Blues (very dead). Rock (recently dead). So it's intensely galling that efforts to throw out this legislation has resulted in the delaying of the overall Licensing Bill, liberalising opening hours in line with civilisation as a whole, which would otherwise have been law by now. When I think of the convivial occasions I've recently enjoyed interrupted just as they were getting going by some aproned minion barking "Time, gentlemen!", of how such premature ejection is down to liberal hand-wringing over the rights of Bonnie Tyler-wannabes to inflict their renditions of I Will Always Love You on undeserving patrons, I want to firebomb the Musicians' Union. History may forgive you over Iraq, Mr Blair, but only because you've bequeathed us this wonderful legislation. Thank you, sir.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:16 AM

So here we are in September and still no guidance!!

I've been studying section 177 of the act and the following is what it means:-

If it's amplified live music and the venue has a permitted capacity of not more than 200, then there's no time restriction, however there can be conditions imposed for:
(a) the prevention of crime and disorder,
(b) public safety.

If it's unamplified, live music and the venue has a permitted capacity of not more than 200, then no conditions can be applied between the hours of 08:00 and 24:00 unless subsection (6) comes into play:-

6) 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
====================
So, it really is up to us to keep badgering the relevant parties to 'tick the box' as things like acoustic sessions, Folk Clubs without amplification, and the like cannot have restrictions put on the licence. And remind them - this will cost no extra to the premises license.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:28 AM

That David Stubbs thing is hilarious. Much as my sympathies are WITH the pub-musicians, it is a brilliant piss-take.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:50 AM

Unless LAs think that they can raise some revenue out of the new act, they're hardly going to be in a rush to implement it. It'll be interesting to see if the guidelines have appeared by next March when presumably 1/3 of existing magistrate's licenses will have expired.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: sian, west wales
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 11:08 AM

I think (no - I 'know') that the repercussions of this Bill are just now beginning to sink in at other levels of government. Apart from the music aspects, two points have been brought to my attention:

There's apparently a requirement, now, for a personal license holder to be on any licensed premises every hour that it is open. Local Authority officers here had worked out that this would mean 2 people per premises and they could easily cope with the paperwork. Our local LVA has just pointed out that, given shift work, holidays, sick leave, etc. AND given that the Bill also now allows for longer opening hours, the Authority will be processing AT LEAST double that amount. And the LA admits that they do not have the capacity.

Second point: I've just had a civil servant from the National Assembly (Wales) on the phone who tells me that the Bill will make it illegal for petrol station shops to sell alcohol.   The National Assembly strategy for keeping rural petrol stations open hinges on diversification, which largely means providing village shop and post office facilities. They've suddenly realized that the Bill is a major kick in the teeth for the strategy.

Sadly, he also didn't realize that the Bill has actulaly passed! (((big sigh))) I told them that they should be paying more attention to this thing ....

sian

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 07:32 AM

Yesterday there was a report on the radio saying one of the reasons the council tax rise was high this year was the extra responsibilities on councils because of the new Licencing Laws. Now why am I not surprised?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: GUEST,ET
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 05:18 AM

Just reviving this a bit - this so called deregulation bill is very complicated and will not now be brought in until autumn 2005.

On the DCMS website is a simplified deinition of public entertainment - it is a complete lie. See their site and FAQ. It talks about "for commercial gain". The Act says nothing of the sort.

This is what the web site says
Frequently Asked Questions
> How do you define public entertainment?   In broad terms, public entertainment is music or dancing, or entertainment of a like kind, which is presented publicly for commercial purposes or for gain.


Yes pubs need qualified people on the premises at all times but who but an idiot is going to get qualified as a "minder" and not want a pub of his/her own.

The DCMS has a flyer it asks to be distributed to the trade. It is about 3 pages long so I will copy it onto another section of this formum. If you find it- print it and give it to your local land lord. There may be a pint in it for you?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: GUEST,ET
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 05:20 AM

Official Guidance for Licensees


NEW LICENSING LAWS!
YOUR BUSINESS WILL BE AFFECTED – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

Dear Licensee

On the 10th July last year, the Licensing Act 2003 ("the Act") received Royal Assent. The Act marks the end of existing outdated licensing regimes and introduces new licensing laws for the use of premises for the sale and supply of alcohol, the provision of regulated entertainment and the provision of late night refreshment.   If you wish to continue selling or supplying alcohol after the Act is fully implemented you will need to have new permissions; a premises licence and separate personal licences. Applications will need to be made to your local licensing authority (normally your local authority) and NOT the magistrates' court.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) will shortly announce the date for the beginning of the transitional period within which applications may be made. Details will be available on the DCMS website: www.culture.gov.uk.
In making your application, the following should be noted:
        

CONVERSION OF EXISTING LICENCES

You will normally be able to apply for a 'conversion' of your existing licence(s) to a new premises licence and to have a fast track application for a personal licence. Applications for the premises licence can only be made during a period of six months following the day to be appointed by DCMS to start the transitional period.   Applications for personal licences are likely to be allowed in the same period. You will normally be entitled to the new premises licence, containing all your existing permissions and conditions, unless there is an objection by the police.

If you do not apply during this period, you cannot convert your existing licence(s) and you will need to apply under the full requirements of the Act. If so, objections could be raised by a number of specified groups, including for example the police and local residents. It is in your own and your business' interest to consider whether you wish to take advantage of this conversion process.

You will need the correct documentation and completed forms for any applications for premises or personal licences.   Information will be available on the DCMS website in due course.


VARIATION OF EXISTING LICENCES

An application to change your existing permissions or hours is called a 'variation' and can be made at the same time as an application for a 'conversion' of your existing licence. When fully implemented, the Act marks the end of national "permitted hours" during which alcohol may be sold or supplied. If you convert your existing justices' licence, your existing trading hours will be preserved as a condition of your new premises licence. However, you will be free to apply to change the hours during which you sell or supply alcohol on any day of the week. If this variation is granted, the hours, proposed by you, will then be controlled individually by the new premises licence for your premises. You can also consider through the variation process to add other permissions covering licensable activities such as the provision of regulated entertainment or provision of late night refreshment. When a variation is sought, representations, including objections, may be raised by a number of specified groups, including for example the police and local residents.

You will need additional documentation and forms for this kind of application. Information will again be available in due course on the DCMS website.

This information is being provided to help you prepare for the changes.

Please note that applications are not required to be processed by your local licensing authority until the date to be announced shortly by the DCMS. Should you wish to obtain an application form or further advice, nearer this time, you should contact your licensing authority (normally your local authority) and ask to speak with the team responsible for alcohol, regulated entertainment or late night refreshment licensing.

Finally, please note that if you wish to request any change to your existing licence or apply for a new justices' licence to be effective prior to the date when the Act is fully implemented, you will still need to do so via your local magistrates' court under the Licensing Act 1964. The new licensing system will not take effect until the end of a transitional period. This will be announced by DCMS. This will ensure that there has been an opportunity over a period of nine months for all existing licences to be converted.

If you wish to obtain more details about the future licensing arrangements, you may wish to consult the DCMS website (www.culture.gov.uk) which contains advice and information about the new system.



February 2004

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 01:45 PM

In answer to the above.

You might enjoy this editorial, published last week by the Institute for Licensing:

Licensing News, 12 February 2004


GOVERNMENT LICENSING POLICY QUERIED
The Government has come under fire for its draft guidance to local authorities under the Licensing Act 2003.

Westminster Council has said that the document is not worth the paper that it is written on. This comes after frustratingly long months since the Act received Royal Assent last June without any information from the government on how the new laws will work in practice.

Councillor Audrey Lewis, cabinet member for licensing at the council, said: 'We were told that practical detail would be contained in the guidance but having studied [it], the council discovered that the guidance is meaningless without the regulations to which it constantly refers. Unfortunately the regulations are nowhere to be seen.'

The council is one of many that has now written to the government outlining its concerns and making it clear that local authorities need to be provided with the necessary regulations, including those relating to fees.

It is concerned about numerous grey areas in the government's proposals as to how the Act will operate in principle, in particular about:

- the transition period
- absence of guidance on conditions to be attached to licences
- what application forms will look like and the detail contained in them
- a lack of clarity about the role of local authorities as objectors to licence applications
Councillor Lewis added that even issues that the government tried to address, such as the cumulative impact of licenced premises, are addressed in an incoherent way. The council is particularly concerned about the large number of expected applications during the transition period that the Act says must be determined within two months or else trigger an appeal to the magistrates' courts. The council foresees that the statutory public notices and consultation periods will be difficult to meet within those two months, let alone the adjournment of hearings often sought by applicants.

Concluded Councillor Lewis: 'The guidance is contradictory, full of holes, legally suspect and a virtually useless collection of bland statements that have no practical application.'

'If all the government and all its advisors do not know how this legislation is going to work then what hope do council licensing officers have. Councils will have to decide what conditions should be attached to premises licences with no help from this so-called guidance while dealing with a huge volume of applications during the transition period.'

Practical Effects
Meanwhile Watford Council has written to Secretary of State Tessa Jowell asking how specific issues affecting its Licensing Committee will be dealt with under the Act. Councillors were concerned that rules concerning the political balance of committees, quoracy, substitutions by councillors for others not on the main committee, and the requirement to give applicants and objectors a fair hearing could mean that it would take four years to get through the anticipated number of applications during the transition period - far in excess of the required two months.

In a letter from Minister of State Richard Caborn, the government replied that there are no rules in the Act or in proposed regulations requiring committees to achieve political balance; that existing rules as to the quorum for committees will apply; and that there is nothing to prevent substitutions to the licensing committee from other members of the council.

Guidance to be approved soon
Licensing professionals will be aware that Parliament needs to approve the statutory guidance under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 in order to start the process for implementing the transfer of liquor licensing responsibilities to local authorities.

This process has been taking longer than expected. Originally, it seemed the government would have published the draft guidance and detailed regulations in August or September 2003, a timetable that has now dramatically slipped.

In a series of oral answers to the House of Commons, the government has indicated that it hopes the draft guidance will be tabled during January, with approval from both Houses being gained by the end of February.

That should in their view lead to full implementation of the Act by spring 2005. By the last week of January however there was still no sign of the guidance appearing.

Minister Richard Caborn told MPs that as soon as both Houses approve the necessary regulations, the six-month period for consultation and production of statements of licensing policies will begin. The first appointed day in his view will be in July 2004 and the implementation "will end six months after that in the spring of 2005" - which is presumably a typing error in Hansard, a deliberate miscalculation or a calendar malfunction.

West Derbyshire MP Patrick McLoughlin pre-empted the criticism by Westminster Council when he too questioned the value of the guidance. He pointed out that the draft has not yet properly released for the public although it's 165 pages are available on the Culture Department's website - and the system, as the Minister acknowledged last August, should be a "light touch" one.

Watford's MP Claire Ward added to the questioning by asking for some certainty in respect of the timetable for implementation. Her local authority wanted to be certain about the impact that any changes resulting from the legislation would have on its budget-setting process.

Liberal Democrat MP Don Foster asked the Minister how the Act can possibly be implemented, when the guidance has not been published or approved; when the secondary legislation has not been agreed; when no fee structures have been agreed with local authorities; when no draft forms for making applications have been published; when no set-up fees have been agreed; and when there has been no start to a central database for personal licences by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport despite its intention to do so.

Richard Caborn replied that: 'Rather than the picture painted by the Honourable Gentlemen, the reality, according to the Local Government Association, is than many local authorities are already preparing to implement the Act.'

MP for Bromsgrove Julie Kirkbride questioned Ministers about the possible financial consequences of the set-up costs involved in implementing the Act on the part of local councils. She told the House that some councils had estimated it would cost £200,000 to implement, and Maidstone council's deputy chief executive had written to DCMS to complain that the government has totally underestimated the costs involved for local authorities in doing this job properly. The Minister confirmed that the full cost-recovery for local authorities envisaged by the government would include the cost of setting up new procedures and systems.

Outside of the House, the Minister has faced criticism from the trade after failing to talk to the industry, and calling off at the last minute a visit to last year's Publican Conference in order to attend the Rugby World Cup instead. Last year a poll for The Publican.com showed that 41 per cent of licencees were unsure of what they should do to prepare for the Act, and 26 per cent were still waiting to be contacted by their local council.

Lack of clarity
Mark Hastings of the British Beer and Pub Association told The Publican: 'There is a total lack of clarity about the timetable and what we are going to do and when. The industry is in a limbo and everyone is looking for some direction.'

Tony Payne, chief executive of the Federation of Licenced Victuallers' Associations, added: 'We need to get the message across to all licencees but things have been delayed because the guidance is still waiting to go through Parliament.'

END

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 05:56 AM

The Guidance. As of 23 March 2004.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2004/draft_guide_licensing_act2003.htm

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: GUEST,ET
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 06:43 AM

The guidance is out. Storm of criticism on pub hours and binge drinking. On music "incidental live and recorded music to be exempted from licensing for the first time". Unamplified live music in small venues to be treated exceptionally to ensure traditional and amateur folk music thrives.

I quote from the guidance wihtout comment or interpretation.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 06:50 AM

Come on then Roger (and probably Richard Bridge as well) - let's have a digest of the points which are likely to affect folk song, music, and Dance.

It's rather amusing that after all the benefits that this bill was going to bring us, it now appears that the government are getting cold feet about extending licensing hours.

Also, if this act was so urgent - why is it not likely to be fully implemented until 2006 ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 02:02 PM

Looking at 5.18 on page 49 about Incidental Music.

This was a hope for us but not much hope for your singing Dave. As one factor is set to be "volume".

Common sense dictates that live or recorded played at volumes which predominate over other activities at a venue could rarely be regarded as incidental to those activities.

Having heard your singing drown out the Whitehall traffic - I fear that this exemption will not be open to you Dave.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 03:12 PM

So, if the music is louder than the sound of the knives and forks in a restaurant, it'll be illegal. And if it isn't louder than the sound of the knives and forks, it'll be pointless. I wonder how they cope with the situation when people shut up in order to listen to something - presumably it instantly becomes illegal.

I gather that the Punch and Judy people are hopping mad because they now realise that are under threat too - OUR MEDIA PAGE FOR JOURNALISTS

This government site has the guidance document. "Please note this is a large document, and may take some time to download." And even longer to read; and no doubt even longer to make sense of what it says.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Kevin Sheils
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 04:50 AM

I've only had a quick skim but it seems full of the waffle we've become used to.

For example it states as quoted above by GuestET "Unamplified live music in small venues to be treated exceptionally to ensure traditional and amateur folk music thrives". Nowhere does it appear to give any guidance on what is "exceptional" treatment. In fact it's impossible to know what "exceptional" treatment is since it doesn't appear to give any indication of what "non exceptional" treatment is.

As I said I've only skimmed it but the criticism seems justified, if not surprising.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 06:25 AM

In 5.11 Page 47: Said juke box for background music - is not a licensable entertainment facility. Does it then become so if the volume is turned-up (as per 5.18?

5.13 Page 48: For example, stand - up comedy is not a licesable activity and musical accompaniment incidental to the main performance would not make it a licensable activity.

So this kind of music is always to be considered incidental and not a licensable actitity - however loud the volume!

Why the distinction - given the objects of the Act? If the stand - up comic sits down - does their chair become an entertainment facility?

So let us forget the concept of session being for music, let's call it a stand - up comedy night. You just get someone to stand-up and tell a few jokes and the music - no matter how loud is always incidental and not a licensable activity.

No wonder Punch and Judy people are pissed - off at being left out. What a joke!

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 06:38 AM

For example, stand - up comedy is not a licesable activity and musical accompaniment incidental to the main performance would not make it a licensable activity.

That could mean that music hall songs would slip under the net. Dig out your Cosmotheka records...

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 06:51 AM

Hard on the heels of the Punch & Judy fiasco*, I've heard from Equity variety branch that the Damn Act's causing havoc in the circus due to the requirement to obtain individual licences for every stop - I gather that another flurry of letters to MPs will follow.

One way of headlining it is that having failed to make morris dancing illegal theyre going for the clowns!

* of course every punch & judy prof should carry mobile toilets with him (one of the sillier implications of a booth being a "premises"). Think of the scope for fun when you install a practical joke pottie!

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 07:21 AM

I hope it won't end up as a case of "and the Punch and Judy man is gone forever".

I expect that LAs (like Greenwich) will still interpret tha rules to make as much cash as possible.

What will happen where there are existing PELs in place - will they still have to carry on paying at the current exhorbitant rates ? It seems to me that if they "Tick the Box" when they apply for their first license under the new scheme, they should get the entainment provision for free, or will LAs be able to insist on new restrictions/inspections for premises that they were willing to grant a license to under the old provisions when they were asking for lotsa money ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 07:29 AM

My understanding is that the poor old Punch and Judy person does in fact stand-up to perform. Even if we can't see this because of the tent. Can they not simply be considered as stand-up (but in a tent) comedy? And exempt?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:57 AM

Have I got this right?

A stand-up comic's performance is not licensable regulated entertainment. Live or recorded amplified or non-amplified music at any volume, as part of stand-up comic's performance will be exempt because this would be always be considered as incidental to this performance?

Morris dancing performance is exempt. Non-amplified live music which is part of this performance is also exempt because this would be considered as integral to this performance (presumably recorded music used for Morris dancing - will be regulated entertainment as one can hardly claim it to be incidental)?

So the same live amplified or non-amplified music played entirely for fun - WILL be licensable - because it is not taking place as INCIDENTAL to a non-licensable performance of stand-up and it is not taking place as an INTEGRAL part of an exempt performance of Morris dancing............

In addition to all this - can someone explain what, how and when music and dancing is 'spontaneous' and not to be considered as regulated entertainment - re 5.19 Page 50.

Can someone also tell me what all this madness has to do with the four objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 - like protecting children from harm?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 12:07 PM

Wouldn't Morris Dancing count as stand-up comedy in many cases?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 07:16 PM

The Shambles has alighted on the question that should have been the basis of all concerns form the start.

If you want to get a quick assessment of the true impact go directly to the model potential licence conditions associated with the four objectives.

You will immediately recognise that two of the four have nothing to do with entertainment and hence will not affect the entertainment aspects of the licence. e.g. Child protection.

The two that do affect us directly have mainly reasonable model conditions - have the emergency exit unlocked and accessible. Have the emergency lights working. etc.

Prevention of nuisance might require the windows to be closed late in the evening and make us move indoors at such times - but even these are not to be applied unless there is a formal request from the neighbours.

Note that council's have to justify any conditions that are not in the appendices and can then have them challenged in court.

As for existing PELs they become scrap paper next year and council's cannot continue to charge excessively for that scrap.

It is easy to joke about having a toilet in a Punch and Judy tent - but this act absloutely precludes putting such a condition on any licence for any premises - it is now only a town planning matter. None of the model conditions will cost pub owners anything significant - so go out and persuade them all to tick the box.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 06:16 AM

None of the model conditions will cost pub owners anything significant - so go out and persuade them all to tick the box.

Putting aside the principles for a moment - this may well in fact be true but convincing licensees of this will not be easy and if we do not manage to convince enough of them - we will have to live with reduced numbers of venues. However hard we try the choice remains theirs and if they do not choose to apply - we just have to accept it.

I am not saying that it not a good idea to try this, as a 100% take-up will be fine, just that it is not wise for us as council tax payers with a voice to simply rely on increasing this take-up, where we do not have a voice or the final choice.

If the current PEL take-up of 5% is increased, and that should not be too difficult - but now the remainder can stage some form of live music. Under the new Act that will not be the case.

So it is vital, as a safety valve, that we also ensure that the incidental live music is nailed down locally so that non-amplified sessions etc can take place in ANY pub. LAs are now forming their licensing policy based on this DCMS Guidance, and this is the time to approach local councillors to ensure that the intepretation of incidental - is not set locally when your area's officers decide to make the claim that a local session is NOT exempt incidental live music. That will be too late as we will then be back in the position of having to rely on licensees to be prepared to face prosecution to decide the word in court.

As the guidance mentions volume, it may not be too difficult to get your councillors to accept that the volume of non-amplified instruments will always be incidental to the drinking. If a low volume juke box is exempt, as incidental recorded music - there should be no reason why a session is not also exempted as live incidental music, by a LA following this Guidance.

Also that the volume of these events will not generally be enough to bother the nieghbours and if it should prove to, that there are other legal solutions to noise concerns. Why not invite your local licensing committee and show them? Tell them that you expect them to make your local licensing policy - not their employees, as their votes depend on it. So when there is not a 100% take-up of entertainment applications, it will still be possible to legally hold a session in any venue with a compulsory premises licence.

We can't change the words of the Act but if we can be bothered locally - this Act does present us with the chance to improve things.

As well as trying to convince licensees that local authorities cannot place significant costs on their conditons - we will have to first convince LAs that they cannot. Old habits and tired thinking die hard, especially when officers are used to exerting tremendous power, in a field where no one else (other than licensees) took very much notice.

We could also try to work with our councillors and officers to ensure that our local council make a point of informing and convincing licensees that they cannot and will not now place significant costs upon their choice to provide live music.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:08 AM

It's interesting that my LA, Greenwich, have just shut down yet another folk session until they obtain a PEL, while this changeover is already in progress. I think that this is an indication that some LAs will not give in to the new legislation without a fight.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:17 AM

The shane is that they couldn't have made it an opt-out thing for pubs instead of an opt-in, so they'd have had to tick a box to say they didn't want to have their licence covering entertainment.

I'm still very unclear about the position as regards music on places which don't sell drink - cafés, waiting rooms, bookshops, libraries, barbers, bus shelters...

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: GUEST,JOHN of ELSIE`S BAND
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 09:20 AM

When our Mudcat friends from overseas read these postings above and understand what it is all about they will be fully justified in wondering how we manage to get dressed in the morning. They may also be astounded that we still keep the elected loonies and irrational killjoys responsible in office. As has been asked before, how can a place of public gathering be quite safe with a full house yet become a hazard and require a licence if a number of people perform a song or play a tune? Beats me! If there are any councillors who would care to elucidate, please come forward?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:35 PM

The Shambles last posting is extremely wise advice.

You can and should take other actions. Local Authorities have to consult various organisations and individuals as part of their drafting of there licensing policies. Folk clubs and perfomers can greatly strengthen their position by writing to their local council and asking to be one of those consulted. That way lies initial influence.

There is then a second opportunity, because Council's have to publish their draft policy and consider comments raised about it before it is formally adopted.

There is a challenge for you all!!

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:43 PM

McGrath's last posting also raised a very pertinent point about places that home music but do not serve alcohol. In theory the change for them is slightly less dramatic than for alcoholic premises, but not very different.

Theoretically, they all need PELs at present. In future they will need the same licence as a pub except that they will not include the parts associated with the sale of alcohol. Of course in practise some authorities have been lax about PELs and will have to get into the habit of processing large numnbers of licences in future because of the number of pubs and licensed shops that they will handle.

They have the disadvantage that where entertainment in a pub adds nothing to the license cost, they will have to recover the cost of the license from entertainment since they sell no alcohol to cover it.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 02:01 PM

Having responded to the two above mailings; do we need to consider whether it is correct to maintain on thread for the Licensing Act (we must learn not to call it a Bill any longer - it is now the law of the land).

There are important issues related to the implications of the Act in pubs which tick the box. The one thing we do not be concerned about in those is what music is exempt under the Act because the licence defines what is permitted and cannot legally exclude anything which is exempt.

There are entirely different issues in pubs that are licensed for alcohol but not for entertainment. What matters then is how wide the exemptions really are. Note the explicit example of darts in the guidance. How far are the same principles applicable to some categories of music? How encompassing are the exemptions for not-for-profit events? Note very carefully that profits over the bar do not make the activity for profit. Nor do payments to cover the costs of an artist even if the attendance is greater than expected and the takings exceed the expenses. Both these are explicit in the guidance but need checking for applicability to promotions by not-for-profit folk clubs.

There are yet different issues outside premises licensed for the sale of alcohol.

Should these be split up into separate threads to reduce confusion?

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:01 AM

I may be wrong but I think that after the firestorm about drinking, and police huffing and puffing, the guidance has now gone back into the box for another year - possibly until after the next election if an early election is called.

The Act is law, but not yet implimented, so the old law remains operative for the time being.

Roger is this what you have heard too?

Sorry I've been a bit quiet on this topic recently: all this trying to earn a living stuff!!

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 08:29 AM

Richard you have been busy.

I can recall two SIs which are commencement orders. The first abolished ballots about Sunday drinking in Wales and so confirmed that drinking is legal throughout Wales seven days a week.

The other brought into force all the parts necessary for Local Authorities to prepare their "Statements of Licewncing Policy". She has now published the draft of the Statutary Guidance, which is subject to affirmative resolution in both houses. This now triggers the actual policy writing by LEAs. The first appointed day has to be at least six months from the Guidance publication - i.e. it is likely to be in late September. That is the first date at which applications can be made for licences. The second appointed day is indicated as being a further twelve months later at which point the new licences come into force and the old licences (including PELs) will be abolished. Your guess is as good as anyone elses whether that is before or after the General Election.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 09:03 AM

As I understand it, once the Act becomes active, there are not going to be any Public Entertainment Licences anymore, but only a section in a Licencing Application primarily for selling alcohol, which will allow the applicants to opt in to having it cover certain types of entertainment. However without signing this opt-in, they will also be allowed, by virtue of the Alcohol licence, to permit music of certain kinds in certain circumstances.

So how does an establishment which is not into selling alcohol, or even perhaps any kind of refreshment - for example a bookshop or library - go about applying for a licence to cover the kind of entertainment that would be covered under the opt-in for a pub, or for the kind of music that would be allowed in a pub even without signing the opt-in? There doesn't seem to be any way - but if they don't they are liable to be in breach of the law, if they allow any kind of singing or music anywhere on their premises.

I know I keep on asking this question, but it really does seem potentially a pretty significant one. For example, if we wanted to hold a folk club night in our house or garden, it could apply to any of us.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 09:25 AM

As the act stands, there isn't a great incentive for the LAs to rush to write their policies. Some, like Greenwich, who've been charging over the odds for licenses, will probably be sorry to see the system change. All of them will have to put expensive new procedures in place and LAs are experts at stretching things out when they want to. The government itself is getting cold feet about the extension or abolition of licensing laws. Landlords in most cases think "Better the Devil we know" than this new system.

I think that there's quite a possibility that the act will never be fully implemented - in which case let's try and make sure that the bits which are, are not detrimental to what we want.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:02 AM

As I understand it, once the Act becomes active, there are not going to be any Public Entertainment Licences anymore,

So far so good.

- but only a section in a Licencing Application primarily for selling alcohol, which will allow the applicants to opt in to having it cover certain types of entertainment. However without signing this opt-in, they will also be allowed, by virtue of the Alcohol licence, to permit music of certain kinds in certain circumstances.

No regulated entertainment will be allowed unless venues with a Premises Licence have first applied for an obtained additional licensing permission and specified its nature. Exactly the same goes for venues not wishing to serve alcohol.

S 177 is still being 'spun' as an exemption for small pubs and bars only. But as they have to hold a Premises Licence and already been granted the additional permission for regulated entertainment and have a local authority safe capacity imposed first - it can hardly be that. All it does is prevent the LA from placing conditions on the Premises Licence for two of the Act's four objectives.

The only real hope is that sessions etc can be considered by your LA as incidental live music and exempt from the additional licensing requirement, along with incidental recorded music. I think that would then mean that your local cafe for example - not serving alcohol - would not need a Premises Licence?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:22 AM

"No regulated entertainment" - but there's still no definition of what counts as entertainment.

And if "your local cafe for example - not serving alcohol - would not need a Premises Licence", without such a Premises Licence allowing music any musical entertainment would surely be illegal.

The "incidental to other actiuvities" might give a let out sometimes, though not one that would cover cases like the branch of Waterstones that invited a String Quarter to play, and the people then had to sit instead and listen to a record of them playing instead. But does the "incidental" exemption apply anyway to situations where there is no Premises Licence in the first place (such as a private house having a publicly accessible music evening)?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:54 AM

McGrath, you are taking a narrow drinkers view. The act replaces four different current licences with a single licence that can cover any number of the original licences subjects. Out go Alcohol licences, Public Entertaiment Licences (which are currently required by any premises providing live entertainment whether or not they serve alcohol), Film Licences and Late Night (after midnight) refreshment licenses. We of course are directly affected as folkies by the replacement of the PEL and as drinkers by the rpelacement of Pub Licences.

A dry theatre or cafe as you postulate would simply activate just the entertainment aspect of the new combined licence.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 11:35 AM

Just thinking about the Licensing Act spin about encouraging live music venues. We have tended to concentrate on pubs and the claim that for them to provide live music will not cost pubs more.

A café not serving alcohol, if they wished to hold any form of live music – would currently need only to apply and pay an annual fee for a Public Entertainment Licence (and a PRS etc, licence).

However, this café can currently have incidental recorded music – in the form of a juke box - at no additional licensing cost (except a PRS etc, licence).

So what is the situation going to be under this Act that will encourage live music venues?

This café (not serving alcohol remember), in order to stage any form of regulated entertainment, will first have to pay for a Premises Licence, this to last for the life of the business. And to pay an annual inspection charge. It will then have to apply for additional permission for regulated entertainment and specify its nature. It will also have to pay PRS etc.

Will all this encourage a venue such as this café to stage live music?

However, should it not logically follow that under the new Act, as we now have an exemption from the additional licensing requirement for incidental live music, that this café should be also be able to supply this at no additional cost (except a PRS etc, licence)? As it currently can for incidental recorded music such as a juke box.

It has taken a lot of effort to introduce this exemption into the Act. I think that if we wish to see more live music venues, and not less, it is vital to get our local authorities to establish what they consider to be incidental live music and exempt from the additional licensing requirement. This is at least in our hands. We have no control over how many licensees (or café owners) choose to apply for additional permission to provide regulated entertainment

It is helpful – if not intentionally so – that the latest guidance mentions juke boxes and low volume in the context of what might be considered to be 'incidental. If such juke box recorded music is currently exempt in cafes and pubs, as it is considered to be incidental recorded music – there can really be no grounds for a local authority to consider small-scale non amplified live music – such as sessions – as not being incidental live music under the Act.

It may also be worth a try to get small-scale amplified music as incidental – on the grounds that it is no louder than a low volume juke box. This should not be too much of a problem in pubs as the LA will be getting their money anyway.

However, it would mean that they would not be receiving additional Premises Licence fees and annual inspection charges from non-alcohol cafes, if they considered them to be providing incidental live music. The officers would probably fight to consider this live music not to be incidental but full-blown regulated entertainment in these premises. A position that will not encourage live music venues.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:11 PM

RichardP

Yes.

What I meant was that I thought I heard gossip that the guidance was not going to be implimented even though it had now been laid - ie the first and second commencement orders might not happen, and some re-thinking might go on (if one can call what politicians do "thinking" rather than "machiavellian manoeuvering")

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:30 PM

Actually a "narrow drinkers view" is the reverse of what I'm concerned with here. I like playing and listening in pubs, true - but I also like the idea of live music in other venues. All kinds of other venues - not just cafés and thetres which might have to have some kind of licence anyway, but places that don't currently and never have had.

I want live music where people who are too young to drink can come, and where older people who aren't into drinking - Muslims, Mormons and so forth, for example, can feel at home. And I want to see music happening in the places where we live without feeling we have to look over our shoulder, because its hapening as a public event in some sense.

There's been so much focus on the pub side of it, because that is what the Bill was primarily about, that this side of it has consistently been pushed aside.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:43 PM

Only two errors in what you write, Shambles:

a)    The promise is that there is no extra cost for inclusion of entertainment, plays or films.

b)    You need to appreciate that the Act establishes a premises licence which applies to every premises that hosts anything that is licenseable. It is only needed if a licencable activity takes place. Consequently, the incidental music exemption is an exemption that allows incidental music anywhere in the country, not just in pubs.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:21 PM

"The promise is that..." - but how much is a promise from this government (or any government) worth? Insofar as it is possible to make sense of such a badly worded act there's nothing to make them stick to that promise, or any of the other warm words that have occasionally been uttered.

It's going to be interpreted in different ways in different places and at different times. In some places it may allow more music to happen, but in others it'll mean less. The overall effect will be to prevent the kind of innovation and flexibility that could allow live infomal and semi-formal music to flourish.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:18 PM

I thought that I had to extract this paragraph, 3.58, from the Guidance, because I could hardly conceive of anything which is so pro-music when taken on its own. Someone seems to love us - however other parts are more obtuse and less dedicated to easing the path of traditional music.

3.58    Statements of licensing policy should also recognise that as part of implementing local authority cultural strategies, proper account should be taken of the need to encourage and promote a broad range of entertainment, particularly live music, dancing and theatre, including the performance of a wide range of traditional and historic plays, for the wider cultural benefit of communities. A natural concern to prevent disturbance in neighbourhoods should always be carefully balanced with these wider cultural benefits, particularly the cultural benefits for children. In determining what conditions should be attached to licences and certificates as a matter of necessity for the promotion of the licensing objectives, licensing authorities should be aware of the need to avoid measures which deter live music, dancing and theatre by imposing indirect costs of a disproportionate nature. Performances of live music and dancing are central to the development of cultural diversity and vibrant and exciting communities where artistic freedom of expression is a fundamental right and greatly valued. Traditional music and dancing are parts of the cultural heritage of England and Wales. Music and dancing also help to unite communities and particularly in ethnically diverse communities, new and emerging musical and dance forms can assist the development of a fully integrated society. It should also be noted that the absence of cultural provision in any area can itself lead to the young people being diverted into anti-social activities that damage communities and the young people involved themselves. 3.59 To ensure that cultural diversity thrives, local authorities should consider establishing a policy of seeking premises licences from the licensing authority for public spaces within the community in their own name. This could include, for example, village greens, market squares, promenades, community halls, local authority owned art centres and similar public areas. Performers and entertainers would then have no need to obtain a licence or give a temporary event notice themselves to enable them to give a performance in these places. They would still require the permission of the local authority as the premises licence holder for any regulated entertainment that it was proposed should take place in these areas. It should be noted that when one part of a local authority seeks a premises licence of this kind from the licensing authority, the licensing committee and its officers must consider the matter from an entirely neutral standpoint. If relevant representations are made, for example, by local residents or the police, they must be considered fairly by the committee. Those making representations genuinely aggrieved by a positive decision in favour of a local authority application by the licensing authority would be entitled to appeal to the magistrates' court and thereby receive an independent review of any decision made.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:42 PM

Yes, indeed that is encouraging. The lobbying and the campaigning has got us somewhere. Without all the fuss there is no way we would have got that kind of stuff in the guidance, and it is going to be very helpful in helping us. It'll no longer be possible for an unhelpful local authority to hide behind phony excuses like "It's not within our power...it's not up to us".

But if they feel like it they will be able to say "Well, it is up to us, and that guidance is nothing more than advice. We are working within the legislation, and our decision is perfectly legal."

The tone is one of seeking to persuade local authorities to act sensibly, rather than of requiring them to do so: "local authorities should consider establishing a policy... This could include for example... village greens, market squares, promenades, community halls, local authority owned art centres and similar public areas. Performers and entertainers would then have no need to obtain a licence or give a temporary event notice themselves to enable them to give a performance in these places. They would still require the permission of the local authority..." and so forth.

There's no suggestion that we have any right as free citizens to make music, unless there is some very good reason for this to be curtailed. It's a culture of "Yes Sir, No Sir, Three Bags Full Sir."

And I predict the result is going to be very patchy.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:45 PM

Secton 5.16 specifies that private events are not subject to licensing unless run to provide a profit to the premises manager/owner and/or to the event organiser. (Note that payments to musicians do not count as profits). This would appear to leave those folk clubs which are members (and guests) only exempt from the act unless they pay for the room and thereby give the premises management a profit. Note that profits from the sale of drinks or food by the landlord do not count as profits from the event.

This could be a godsend for some clubs. It explicitly states that an inadvertent profit because more people attend than expected pay the contribution to covering the costs, although presumably the surplus would have to be retained to cover losses on subsequent unsuccessful gigs. This state appears to me to represent many existing clubs, particularly where local authorities have made PELs ridiculously expensive.

On the same basis any "spontaneous" music in a bar, where there is no admission charge gives rise to no profits as defined by the guidance and hence is not licencable and therefore can take place legally anywhere.

Who can find any holes in that argument?

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:09 PM

quiz?

ego!

But when I have more time

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:12 PM

Only two errors in what you write, Shambles:

a)    The promise is that there is no extra cost for inclusion of entertainment, plays or films.

Over many years, various Ministers and spokespersons have ignored the Act's words and made many lofty claims in Parliament, the media and elswhere, for the Bill/Act's postitive effects and for its limited financial burdens on premises wishing to provide regulated entertaiment. I was rather just lumping all these fine claims and promises together.

If you include PRS licence fees - even the promise you refer to is hardly the complete truth. One could argue that PRS fees are not extra to premises already paying for them. However, when the Act is sold as encouraging new live music venues, these additional PRS licence fees may come as a bit of a shock to a licensee who accepted the Government's word that they would not be liable for any extra costs for providing entertainment for the first time, under the Act.

b)    You need to appreciate that the Act establishes a premises licence which applies to every premises that hosts anything that is licenseable. It is only needed if a licencable activity takes place. Consequently, the incidental music exemption is an exemption that allows incidental music anywhere in the country, not just in pubs.

I think that I do appreciate this and I am not sure that I was saying anything different but perhaps not wording it very well. Just pointing out that pubs had to pay the LA in their Premises Licence to provide drink anyway but other places not serving alcohol, like the cafe example - only had to pay for a Premises Licence and annual inspection charge, if they wished to provide regulated entertainment. Or indeed any other licensable activity like late night refreshment.

The incidental live music exemption does indeed apply everywhere and not just in pubs (which is at least an improvement on the old 'two-in-a-bar-exemption) - we just have to get our LAs to establish what incidental live music is, or is not.