A little more news on Licensing

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 07:37 AM

Talking to pubs about the new rules and live music is essential, but it is also essential to get involved with LA's now on their licensing policy consultation.

If you would like an email copy of the recommendations document I prepared for Jazz Services please do not hesitate to email me your request at [e-mail]

Hamish

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 11:32 AM

Do I detect a little local 'spin'?

Weymouth Advertiser July 29th 2004

New Rules for pubs and clubs
By Advertiser Reporter

People in Weymouth and Portland can have their say on new licensing laws that could see pubs opening 24 hours a day. The Licensing Act 2003 heralds changes to the sale and supply of alcohol and late-night refreshment licensing laws.

The rules for public, theatrical and film entertainment licenses will also be overhauled. Magistrates will pass responsibility to Weymouth and Portland Borough Council in February 2005, and members of the licensing committee met to consider what the new legislation means.

Weymouth and Portland licensing manager Sue Moore said the new act would replace current rules dictating that pubs and other venues need an entertainment licence if more than two people are performing in an organised concert. She said: "If anything, this should encourage live music, but people have eight weeks to give us their comments and we will incorporate everything that we can. "Once you cut through the red tape, it's a very positive piece of legislation."

Coun Mike Goodman said: "We have got to have a lighter touch = there is a presumption that people applying for licenses should be granted one. "We would only take action if we needed to."

The public has until September 24 to respond to the draft policy statement that sets out what is expected from licence-holders. Separate conditions can be attached to each of the individual licenses, for example if there are concerns about drinks being spiked in pubs, or not enough ventilation in clubs. Councillors hope the new laws will encourage more dancing and theatre, prevent crime and public nuisance and protect people, especially children.

They will be able to target premises that cause problems to the community, while firms that go about their business in a legitimate way will be left alone. Members are also consulting police, firefighters, other local authorities, landlords, breweries, business and musicians.

The policy statement can be viewed at libraries and tourist information centres next month.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 04:36 PM

I have had a rather interesting letter from the DCMS to my point about Richard Caborn's parliamentary reply.

Unfortunately I am in too much of a hurry to get to Sidmouth (that's me with the Giants) that I cannot post details of it now.

Catch you in September

Dave

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: GUEST,ian
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 04:11 AM

I would ask that we keep pressing Boris Johnson ( Shadow Minister for the Arts) to object to the challenge to a free voice. Also his South Oxon Seat covers Thame. The Close neighbour of Towersey. The Three horseshoes only has the one weekend event to provide a venue for entertainment.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 06:17 PM

The public has until September 24 to respond to the draft policy statement that sets out what is expected from licence-holders.

This may be my local deadline but it is vital that members of every folk club, session etc do get involved in their local consultation process. This to try and ensure that folk activities in particular, never again get prevented for no good reason by legislation that was never intended for this purpose. If the Government are to be believed, this is not the purpose of this new legislation - it is up to us to ensure that our local authorities cannot ever use this new Act as they use the current licensing legislation. To ensure that your local licensing policy finds the words to ensure that the following from the Government is given real form and is not just 'spin':
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.

It would be a good idea to try and ensure that something like the following (From Hamish) appears in your local policy.

Live music, dance, theatre etc: This authority recognises its duties under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to take progressive measures to ensure that everyone can participate in the cultural life of the community and enjoy the arts. Artistic freedom of expression is a fundamental right, and this authority is bound by s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to read and give effect to all legislation, including licensing legislation, so far as possible compatibly with the right to freedom of expression.

This authority will take all this into account when considering the licensing of live music, dance and theatre. Where the Licensing Act 2003 is open to interpretation which may be more or less restrictive for these activities, the authority will fully explain the reasons for its interpretation of the Act. In such cases, and particularly where licence conditions are proposed, the authority will set out in detail where, how and why it believes subsisting safety, noise, crime or disorder legislation, is inadequate such that licensing is, or licence conditions are, not only necessary, but a reasonable and proportionate means to address the risks arising from the entertainment.

The authority, in accordance with the Licensing Guidance document, will also monitor the impact on regulated entertainment, in particular live music and dancing, of the licensing provisions. Where it is found that such entertainment is being deterred, it will review its policy with a view to reversing that trend."

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 12:18 PM

If every pub includes an application to stage regulated entertainment for their initial premises licence (and receives it) so far so good (for pubs anyway). There will be no additional financial deterrent to provide live music or hold a session unless the pub changes hands or wishes to change the terms of the premise licence.

Cafes and places not providing alcohol, if they wish to provide regulated entertainment will have to apply and pay for a premises licence and the annual inspection charge.This is not likely to increase live music in these places.

However the entertainment permission is optional. The concern must be for these pubs as if they later wish to stage regulated entertainment - this will be considered as a change and a new charge will be liable. It is more than possible that rather than pay additionally and apply again - these pubs may choose not to stage regulated entertainment.

It should be the case that sessions should be OK in pubs without entertainment permission, by being classed as incidental live music and exempt. However, old habits die hard and it is possible that some pubs will try to stage regulated entertainment, without re-applying and sessions etc could get caught-up in battles with local authorities - who will not take kindly to any attempt to get around the requirement.

Whatever this legislation is surposed to do - it is not to prevent incidental live (or indeed recorded music). The stuggle will be to try and ensure that it is never allowed to.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: RichardP
Date: 04 Aug 04 - 09:23 AM

Shambles,

There is only one thing wrong with your last posting. Whereas the licencing authority is the inforcement authority for existing PELs, the police are the enforcement authority for licences under the new Act. The only sanction that the licencing authority has is to review the conditions and apply harsher ones - essentially if the original ones are found to be ineffective in so far that when applied they do not prevent nuisance or any of the other licencing objectives. Consequently, if there is non-compliance the licencing authority's only real weapon is to try to persuade the police to prosecute. I suggest that it normally is extremely difficult to persuade the police to prosecute anyone.

Richard

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 04 - 09:54 AM

Richard, perhaps you would like to explain this to my local Enforcement Officer, who was employed (some time ago) in anticipation of the extra work as a result of what is now, the Licensing Act 2003?

You may well be right but it is rather a small point of difference. This officer is employed by the Licensing Dept and it is the Council as the local Licensing Authority who will make the policy, whoever is to enforce it. If this policy includes sessions etc as regulated entertainment - this must be enforced.

Now it is true that as the local authority is set to receive money from Premises Licenses irespective of entertainment permission, so we should not have the 'cash cow' driving their enforcement activities. However, in the case of coffee bars and cafes - the money will only come from those who need Premises Licenses in order to provide regulated entertainment. So not much has really changed there. If these places start to stage entertainment without a Premises Licence, the Council will insist on their money and will (get the police) to prevent the entertainment.

One of the effects of the new Act is that making music without a licence is as much an illegal unlicensed activity as selling alcohol without one.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 10:27 AM

There is an account in the Sunday Times of 8 August 2004 of a 'two in a bar' prosecution that failed.

Dangerous Doo Dah Band

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 12:17 PM

Incidentally...

This may be useful with - your local licensing policy, then again, it may not........[note the date]
From the Commons Standing Commitee on the (then) Licensing Bill April 1st 2003.

Jim Knight:

I would not have become interested in the subject if it were not for Roger Gall, a constituent of mine, who lives on Portland, where there is a folk jamming session on a Friday night in a pub called the Cone House Inn. It became known that the landlord was comfortable with people coming along on a Friday night and playing their music. These sessions were not advertised. Such an event, which is not advertised or actively encouraged, may be a passive part of the atmosphere of the pub, and it may begin to build up business and become a substantial attraction and profit maker for the publican. Would the Minister regard such an activity as one that should be regulated under the Bill?

Dr. Howells:

It seems that that is largely a spontaneous activity, to which people turn up occasionally, and it seems also that the word has spread that people can hear some nice music. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, the licensee does not spend money on advertising. If it is clear that music is being played in the corner of the pub, that would be incidental in my book. I do not know whether that gives him any comfort.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 12:38 PM

Richard: I'm sure it couldn't be used, but what is the position on vexatious litigation here?

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 12:54 PM

I've decided I was so succinct above no-one could really guess what my question is.

For a start, it was directed at Richard Bridge, not RichardP, but anyone who knows something about the law could answer.

Secondly, I realise a single case would not rarely be enough for a vexacious litigation claim. But what are the parameters? If someone kept bringing cases against gypsies, for example, could that make a case, or does it always have to be the same gypsy? If the former is the case, then potentially rejected cases by the same council against a range of pubs could be contenders: it would not have to be the same pub each time. But could a council be charged? Could the individual heading the relevant department? Clearly it is possible in principle for a council to bring spurious charges and so waste a lot of court time. Is there any legal framework in which a case could be made against the council for this?

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 05:58 PM

Shambles,

There is only one thing wrong with your last posting. Whereas the licencing authority is the inforcement authority for existing PELs, the police are the enforcement authority for licences under the new Act. The only sanction that the licencing authority has is to review the conditions and apply harsher ones - essentially if the original ones are found to be ineffective in so far that when applied they do not prevent nuisance or any of the other licencing objectives. Consequently, if there is non-compliance the licencing authority's only real weapon is to try to persuade the police to prosecute. I suggest that it normally is extremely difficult to persuade the police to prosecute anyone.

Given the latest failed prosecution by the local authority in North Devon, and all the expense entailed in that, it would be nice if Richard P was correct. Sadly he is not.

See s.186(2)(a) of Licensing Act 2003: for the enforcing authorities.
Number one on the list: 'a licensing authority' - i.e. the local authority. The police are number 2 on the list (for Director of Public Prosecutions read police). So I am advised..........

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: RichardP
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 08:40 PM

1) Shambles, unfortunately you are right on your last point. I should not have relied on a faulty memory.

2) You were however wrong on a previous point. It is not illegal to make music under the Act. It is illegal to permit or organise some music on unlicenced premises, but the musician as such does not commit an offence under the Act.

3)   Going back to your post of August 4th. Much has been made in the past that the Guidance cannot change the primary legislation - which is true and the DCMS contend that they have not in any way intended to do so. It is also a fact that a council licencing policy cannot prevent anything that is explicitly permitted by the Act. Specifically, they cannot make a condition that would prevent incidental music. Whilst some sessions might be so all encompassing that they genuinely are the principle reason most people are in the room - many more are clearly of interest to a minority of people in the premises and hence are incidental within the Act and are explicitly legalised by it. Of course it may need case law to prove that to local authorities.

4)   The DCMS has just issued a newsletter on the Act. Most of the information is old hat. But it may be of interest that the Musicians Union is reported to be producing a Live Music Kit to advise pubs etc. how to arrange live music under the Act.

Richard

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 04 - 02:25 AM

2) You were however wrong on a previous point. It is not illegal to make music under the Act. It is illegal to permit or organise some music on unlicenced premises, but the musician as such does not commit an offence under the Act.

I think you ar referring to this?

One of the effects of the new Act is that making music without a licence is as much an illegal unlicensed activity as selling alcohol without one.

This was making a general point - the prosecution of unlicensed premises selling drink would not see police reluctant to prosecute and whoever is actually prosecuted for unlicensed music making does not alter the fact that the activity is now on a par with this law-breaking.

Session and sing-around organisers could be committing an offence under the new Act.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 04:39 AM

Richard P is wrong again to make the sweeping claim that 'It is not illegal to make music under the Act'.

Read Sch.1 paras 1(1)(a) and 2(a) with para 2(1)(e) of the Act and consider a solo musician, or bandleader, organising and performing their own gigs. If he/she performs with any intention to entertain 'to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public', they are indeed open to criminal prosecution - unless the venue is appropriately licensed. There is a 'due diligence' defence if they can prove they were incorrectly advised beforehand that the venue was licensed for the performance. But broadly, music-making is a potential offence unless the organising performer has a) no intention to entertain, and/or b) no audience or even spectators are present, or c) the event is totally private and not-for-profit.

Richard P could argue that under s.136(2)(d) of the Act a person 'does not commit an offence... if his only involvement in the provision of the entertainment is that he ... performs live music...'. But that does not protect performers who organise their own gigs. S.136 only protects 'hired hands' or other musicians who might sit-in.

And what about sessions and the 'incidental' exemption? This exemption is void if entertainment facilities are provided (Sch.1, para 7(b)). It is clear from the entertainment facilities description (Sch.1, para 3) that, in the context of a typical pub session, musical instruments are entertainment facilities. Musicians bring their instruments to sessions, and venues often provide instruments or other facilities enabling persons to make music for the purpose of being entertained. The Act does not discriminate between a venue or a performer as a potential provider of entertainment facilities. It is also clear that making premises available can count as the provision of entertainment facilities. In the Act's definition of music (Sch.1, para 18), unaccompanied singing is also covered.

Strictly adhering to the words of the Act renders many sessions illegal unless the venue is licensed. Those performers also responsible for organising such events would also be open to prosecution.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 08:20 AM

And now the good news...................

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 09:59 AM

Just thought that you might like the amusing story.

Last night I was enjoying a meal in the "Won Kei" a well-known cheap chinese restaurant in the Chinatown area of London. One of the chinese customers seemed to be high on something and after having loud conversations (in chinese) with a non-existant person, started singing very loudly. Now I'm not an expert in chinese song, but from the looks of the other oriental customers, neither was he. Several of the waiters tried to make him desist, but he just sang all the louder. In the end he turned to the restaurant and in very bad english, asked why he shouldn't sing. I couldn't resist telling him that it was illegal if the premises didn't have an entertainments license - he didn't sing anymore, much to everyone's satisfaction.

OK - I sure that it would have counted as spontaneous - and perhaps I've pissed off people as much by singing in some pubs - but I still found the incident amusing.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 11:26 AM

I am reminded of the advert that uses an old sketch of Tommy Cooper. Last night I ordered the entire meal in French - It was a Chinese restaurant!!

The following from Graham Dixon.

Tonight - Maybe tomorrow - The Live Music Forum Quango (DCMS) is going to make a statement - Hamish Birchall will be there giving the alternate view.

Sorry don't know the exact time of the broadcast.

If Sky ask for feedback please let them know your thoughts

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 08:31 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Government will claim tomorrow that a survey conducted on behalf of the Live Music Forum shows:

almost half (47 per cent) of pubs, clubs, student unions and restaurants have put on live acts at least once in the past year

a fifth (19 per cent) of the venues staged live music regularly - at least twice a month

more than half (55 per cent) of venues who put on music do it because
customers demand it; but many potential venues have not thought about putting on live music despite the changes in the new licensing laws

1600 licensees of 'small venues' were interviewed. The data so far released, however, does not discriminate between currently exempt 'two in a bar' gigs, and gigs by three or more musicians. Without that information it is impossible to say anything meaningful about the live band scene in bars,clubs, restaurants etc. However, that hasn't stopped ministers' spin.

A DCMS press release announcing the survey includes the following quote by licensing Minister Richard Caborn:
'From the Beatles to Blur we have a live music heritage to be proud of. This survey shows that heritage is alive and well with a flourishing music scene - an estimated 1.7 million gigs were staged in the past year alone in bars, clubs and restaurants whose main business isn't putting on live music.

'The new Licensing laws will create more opportunities for budding
musicians, but the survey shows that there are many potential venues who have not thought about putting on live bands. We need to encourage them to do so and show them that the licensing changes will make staging live music easier so that they are ready to embrace the new law when it comes in next year.'

The recently published DCMS newsletter on licensing (available from the entertainment section of the DCMS website: www.culture.gov.uk) claimed that the response to the MU's live music leaflet had been 'overwhelming'. The MU told me this afternoon that the last time they checked the Freepost returns, about 400 had been received, of which an unspecified proportion is from licensees. Over 30,000 leaflets were sent to members.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 02:40 AM

I think that's useful information. It points out the new laws are not yet in place, having already listed what is quite a high level and claimed this shows a flourishing music scene - so any negative impact by the new laws will be a problem for the government.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 03:01 AM

Probably not this Government....

The following from Terry Redmond.

This from Westminster Councils guide for licensees (the names seem so appropriate)

When will I have to do something to convert my licence?

The process will start on 7 February 2005.

You must submit an application to the Council within six months from 7 February, the first appointed day (FAD) of the transition period. As the Council will be operating a phased approach to applications, we will be contacting you over the coming months to let you know when you should submit your application.

The Government will announce the second appointed day (SAD) in due course, which we expect to be nine months later. On the SAD the new licensing regime will come into effect.

Let's hope it isn't a SAD day for the music scene we enjoy........

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 06:00 AM

The Executive summary of this survey is now available here.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 07:27 AM

This response from 'our Ronnie' at the DCMS, was posted by Mary on her Action for Music list
-------------------------------------------

Dear Mr T

Thank you for your e-mail of 8 July to Tessa Jowell about the Guidance to
Licensing Authorities which relates to the Licensing Act 2003. If you have
not previously received a reply to your e-mail, please accept my apologies
for the delay in getting back to you.

It was not the Government's intention to create new licensable activities
when taking the Licensing Bill through Parliament last year. Our priority
was to modernise the existing licensing regimes and to remove anomalies and
out-dated exemptions.   During the Parliamentary stages of the Licensing
Bill, both Houses debated the case for licensing the showing of live
sporting events on widescreen television.   Both Houses rejected that case.

No-one doubts that the prevention of crime and disorder arises in the
context of the showing of particular live sporting events (mainly major
football matches) in places where the sale of alcohol takes place. We have
not heard anyone suggest that the Open Golf Championship or the showing of
rugby or cricket matches gives rise to similar concerns. It is not
therefore live widescreen television broadcasts per se which give rise to
concern, but the live broadcast of certain high profile football matches in
places where alcohol is sold for consumption. Crucially, it is the impact
of alcohol that gives rise to the need for licensing. Under the Licensing
Act 2003, all public houses and bars showing live sporting events on
television will require premises licences because they sell alcohol and, as
a result, will be required to take steps to ensure the promotion of the
licensing objectives in relation to the premises. These objectives, as you
know, are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the
prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. If
they fail to do so, they could face a review of the licence, which would
place it in jeopardy. There is therefore no case for licensing live
broadcasts of sport on widescreen television, but a strong case for
licensing sales of alcohol.

The Government has never accepted that live music, or certain types of music
(for example, acoustic folk music), should be excluded from the new
licensing regime; and Parliament has now endorsed that view. Regulating the
performance of music in public and bringing it within the licensing regime
allows the licensing authorities, following relevant representations, to
impose necessary and proportionate conditions to promote the licensing
objectives for the benefit of residents and customers. If the performance
of music were not brought within the regime it would mean that the licensing
authorities would be unable to impose conditions in order to protect the
public. The licensing authority will consider on a case-by-case basis what
range of conditions are appropriate following any representations that are
made. Major venues staging rock bands would, for example, be likely to have
to comply with a greater range and number of conditions than a small pub or
club which puts on unamplified music. Issues relating to public safety and
public nuisance, and occasionally to do with the prevention of crime and
disorder, arise in the context of live music whether or not it is combined
with alcohol. Any comparison between widescreen television broadcasts and
live music does not therefore stand scrutiny.

An example of a live music event which resulted in police intervention is
the 16th annual Brecon Jazz Festival. At this event, police arrested 90
people (nearly half for controlled drug offences) and 23 people were taken
into custody for public order disturbances.

In the context of the Licensing Act 2003, the important point is that
venues, including pubs and bars will be able to add a permission to put on
live music at no additional cost when applying to sell alcohol through the
premises licence. We believe that if the industry makes full use of the
reforms on offer, it will vastly increase the opportunities for musicians to
perform. We are working closely with organisations representing musicians
and the music industry, including the Musicians' Union, through the Live
Music Forum to ensure that full advantage is taken of these reforms.

If you would like more information about the work of the Forum please visit
our website at the following address:
.

With regard to circuses, we recognise that there are specific issues about
the number of sites which circuses visit and concerns about their
flexibility to move sites at short notice. The main consideration has
always been whether there is any justification for treating circuses
differently from other forms of commercial entertainment with which they are
in direct competition. Circuses have been licensed in Scotland and Northern
Ireland for many years, but in England and Wales they have traditionally
been regarded as falling within old exemptions applying to fairs and
travelling showmen.

The four licensing objectives are intended to benefit and protect local
communities and we do not accept that these issues are any less relevant to
circuses than they are to other entertainment providers. No credible case
has ever been made out for the exemption of circuses from the 2003 Act where
they are carrying out similar licensable activities.

I should make it clear that the Licensing Act 2003 will not specifically
exempt travelling fairgrounds from the requirement for a licence. The 2003
Act applies to circuses and travelling fairgrounds only to the extent that
they carry out licensable activities. Whether or not their activities fall
within particular definitions, relating to the 2003 Act, for example of
indoor sport, music or dancing will be a matter of fact in each case, and
will ultimately be for the courts to determine.

Circuses are large commercial events that attract large numbers of people,
including a significant proportion of children (often as much as 50 per cent
of the audience), and it is difficult to justify their exemption from the
regime, given the potential risks involved.

The facts do not lend support to the view that the financial burden on
circuses will be unreasonable. The fees for premises licences have not yet
been finalised, but as we have said on many occasions, we estimate that fees
will be between £100 and £500 in bands likely to be based on non-domestic
rateable values. Most open land would fall at the lower end of this scale
and most circuses should not expect to pay more than around £100 per
premises licence. There are about 30 travelling circuses and they claim
that, on average, each attracts annual audiences totalling 160,000 and
visits about 40 individual sites. The total cost of licences to the circus
industry in England and Wales in the first year is therefore likely to be
about £120,000. With a total annual audience of 4.8 million, this would
mean that less than three pence would have to be added to each ticket
normally sold to cover these costs.   

In addition, there will be no bureaucratic renewal process under the new
regime and licences will be valid indefinitely, if not revoked or suspended.
In subsequent years, the licence holders will pay only an annual charge to
cover inspection and enforcement activity, which will be lower than the fee
for the grant of a premises licence.   

The way to make progress is for the circus industry to engage with licensing
authorities to seek agreement on some common approaches and best practice.
This includes encouraging local authorities to consider licensing certain
public areas themselves, thus obviating the need for individual applications
for premises licences. The Guidance to licensing authorities encourages
licensing authorities to emphasise in the statements of licensing policy the
aims of providing diverse entertainment and culturally enriching activities,
which would of course include circuses. I should make it clear that the
Guidance cannot be used to amend the Act, as some have suggested, in order
to exempt circuses.

This Department has met circuses representatives, the Arts Council and
Equity on several occasions and signalled our willingness to help the circus
community engage with local authorities and to understand the terms of the
2003 Act. We will continue to work with circuses in order to help them
adapt in the most effective way to licensing reform and are more than happy
to consider any practical measures which are justified within the licensing
objectives.

It has been indicated that circuses have no objection in principle to being
licensed, but do have some issues with the scheme agreed in the 2003 Act.
What we are doing, as we have with other sectors, is finding ways to assist
this important and popular part of our cultural heritage to adjust to the
requirements of the new regime in a way that is as smooth and manageable as
possible.

I hope this reassures you that we are listening to the concerns of the
circus community and that circuses will continue to bring enjoyment to a
great many people in the future.

Yours sincerely



RONNIE BRIDGETT
Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Policy Branch
Tourism Division

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: RichardP
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 07:37 PM

Having just returned from festivals, I find that Hamish has misquoted me. Said that the misquotation was wrong and then produced a whole load of red herrings about musicians instruments being under the control of the act as "facilities" which equate to "premises".

He should have gone back to clause 1 of the Act, which makes it clear that licences are issued for premises and premises supervisors only.

You cannot walk into the local council with a comb and a sheet of tissue paper and take out a premises licence on it. You cannot get a premises supervisors plicence because you have expertise in controlling that comb and paper.

Simply an instrument is not a premise and cannot be licenced.

The only rational reason for the facilities clause is to prevent a loophole for the private functioin excemption where (more realistic than the examples in the guidance) a publican lets you have a room for free but insists that you use and pay through the nose for the in-built PA system.

Hamish is correct in noting that a musician can get into a position where he commits an offence under the act. (He might be a publican of an unlicenced pub). However, he does not commit an offence just by playing, or by writing a set list or by arranging the music. He does it by actions that could equally be performed by a non-musician.

Most importantly in the pub context, the permission for incidental music in unlicensed premises should be highly liberating. In Whitby week take a specific point of the fringe in the Tap and Spile. There is little doubt that the attraction to the Landlord of permitting the sessions on the fringe is the large quantity of liquor consumed by participants rather than any enjoyment he may get form hearing the music. That might not apply to the official singaround at the Plough down the street, where the festival may have paid for the upstairs room, but it must also apply to the informal sessions in the downstairs rooms at the same pub.

RichardP

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 08:44 AM

This is a response to Richard P's message yesterday (26 August) which concerns the question of whether the performance of live music itself is licensable, and the implications of the 'entertainment facilities' provision.

I did not misquote Richard P. His posting of 11 August unambiguously states, under point 2: 'It is not illegal to make music under the Act'. On 13 August, I said, by way of reply, that he was wrong to make this 'sweeping claim'. I went on to point out that the Act does create circumstances where the performance of live music is a potential offence for the performer. This is not the case in every conceivable circumstance, but it is the case for many common performance scenarios. I set those out in my posting of 13 August and there is no need to restate them here.

Richard P is wrong to claim that '… clause 1 of the Act… makes it clear that licences are issued for premises and premises supervisors only.' Clause 1 does no such thing: what it does is list the licensable activities. These include 'the provision of regulated entertainment' (s.1(1)(c)). The entertainment schedule goes on to define this further, and specifically includes both the provision of a performance of live music, and the provision of facilities to enable people to make music for the purpose of being entertained (see Sch.1, paras 2 and 3 for the full definitions/descriptions).

In plain English Richard P is right that an instrument is not a premises – but that doesn't stop the Act rendering the provision of a musical instrument in many ordinary performance scenarios a potential criminal offence.

Richard P's misunderstanding arises to some extent from the term 'premises licence'. How can a licence for a premises also be a licence for an activity? The answer is: a premises licence is, in effect, a dual licence for the premises AND licensable activities. This one reason why DCMS has claimed, misleadingly, that 'the concept of an entertainment licence will entirely disappear'. The term has changed, but the concept remains.

A premises licence 'authorises the premises to be used for one or more licensable activities' (s.11). This means that a premises may be authorised to be used for the sale by retail of alcohol but the licensee may not have obtained authorisation on the premises licence to provide performances of live music. Providing live music could therefore be an offence in such a place. And, crucially, solo performers particularly may be open to prosecution under s.136(1)(a). In this case, his or her actions could not be 'performed by a non-musician', as Richard P claims. In a public venue not licensed for live music, if the performer had organised the gig and promoted it, the only way for that performer to avoid committing an offence would be not to play.

Note also that 'premises' is defined in the Act as 'any place', including 'a vehicle, vessel or moveable structure' (s.193). The licensing lawyers I speak to agree that, under the Act, buskers should therefore first check with their local authority whether the street, square or park in which they wish to busk is covered by a premises licence.

Licensing lawyers have also questioned the need for the 'entertainment facilities' provision. This was the case when it first appeared in the draft Licensing Bill. The paragraph was not inserted late in the day to close a loophole – it has been there from the start.

Unfortunately, the implications for sessions still stand (as explained in my 13 August posting).

I would urge Richard P to read the Act more closely, and to consult some good licensing lawyers, before leaping to any more conclusions.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: RichardP
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 11:19 AM

Hamish

Repeating your misquotation does not make it true. What I said was "the musician as such does not commit an offence under the Act". It is certainly possible for a musician or anyone else to commit an offence by doing something beyond playing music.

It would be easy to be sucked into a series of postings along recent lines and just generate more confusion - so I will forego the temptation.

However one aspect of your last posting could be seriously misleading. The act is much clearer about the offences that can be committed by organising unlicensed performances than even you suggest it is about the offences resulting form performing so you are holding uot a flase hope to a performer in suggesting that he can organise and promote a gig and then protect himself by not playing.

In your recent postings you have not addressed the impact of the exemption for "incidental music" which is explicitly defined not to be regulated entertainment (Schedule 1 Para 7). Incidental music is defined as music incidental to any activity other than one which is itself entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilites. On this basis music incidental to drinking in a pub (which is a nearly ideal description of most sessions) is incidental music and hence is not regulated entertainment. I recognise that there may be some sessions at festivals which would not be covered by this exemption but where do you see the boundary which has to be crossed for the music to cease to be incidental and to become regulated entertainment?

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 02:13 PM

Richard, I did not misquote you. You made a sweeping statement that is not true.

In certain fairly common gig situations, performance itself can leave musicians open to a potential prosecution. The solo performer who knowingly organises and performs his/her own gigs in a pub that is not authorised for the provision of live music could be open to prosecution. But if there is no performance at all, what offence has been committed? There would be no provision of a regulated entertainment. Are you saying that such musicians could be prosecuted for not performing?

I discussed the incidental exemption in depth in my posting of 13 August. Briefly, I argued that the exemption could be of limited benefit because it is disapplied if 'entertainment facilities' are also provided. This is based on careful analysis of the entertainment facilities provision, and the way it works with the rest of Schedule 1.

If you doubt my analysis why don't you discuss it with expert licensing lawyers?

To spare Mudcatters from tedious sparring, I am happy to continue this debate if you wish to write directly to me at [e-mail]

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 05:16 PM

The law may have changed but the situation has not. If licensing officers continue to see licensing legislation firstly as a means to prevent live music - there is more than enough ammunition in the act - in the guidance and in their local licensing policy - for them to do so.

The evidence I have seen from various examples of local licensing policies does not look very hopeful that their attitudes have changed.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: RichardP
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 04:57 AM

Shambles,

Is it possible to post links to any of the examples of licencing policies that you have seen? We could all learn about appropriate comments from examples of good and bad.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 05:46 AM

We do not have much time, so I think we should safely assume that if we leave there entire drafting of policy up to the same officers - all local licensing policy for the new Act, will be bad.......

The following sample is from my Council's website, where the full draft policy can be seen: [ although the site does appear to working, this weekend]
WPBC :

Given this following emphasis placed on the website now, it would seem that as far as our licencing officers are concerned - nothing much has changed. If they continue to see licensing as a way to prevent live music - there is little hope.

Regulated entertainment is any of the following in the presence of an audience:
? performances of plays and film shows
? exhibitions of indoor sporting events, boxing and wrestling
? performing live, or playing recorded music
? dancing performances
? performances of anything similar to music and dancing
Regulated entertainment is entertainment for:
? members of the public, or a section of the public
? members of a club exclusively, and their guests
? for money and with a view to profit, which could include charitable
fundraising

Exemptions are given where entertainment is provided, or facilities for entertainment are provided:
? as part of a religious service or meeting
? as a film shown as part of a museum exhibition
? as TV or radio, seen or heard simultaneous to its broadcast
and, on premises consisting of or forming part of a vehicle which is not permanently or temporarily parked.
It is likely that church buildings, community centres and village halls will be exempt from having to pay fees. Church buildings and educational establishments may be exempted from licensing requirements altogether.

Why is there no mention in this list of the new exemptions - like Morris or incidental live and recorded music? Could it be that these officers do not want to bring attention to the fact that it may not be necessary for many premises to apply for entertainment permission or even a Premises Licence at all?

Or is it that they are they still determined to ensure all premises with any form of music , will need to apply, mainly for these officer's convienience?

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 05:51 AM

This posted by Terry Redmond on uk.music.folk. See also his site:

www.does4you.co.uk

"Your two e-mails regarding customers making their own music have been referred to me. I quite agree that it is a confused area, spontaneity would seem to be clear, but beyond that it is a grey area. I think that all I can say at the moment is that each case will be treated on its merits."

This was the reply I got from my Environmental Health Officer (the
Local Authority department responsible for licensing under the 2003
Licensing Act) when I asked which events, if any, would be exempt from
Licensing regulations.

When the same department is to make the rules AND enforce them the
least one could expect is that the Department would understand the
rules well enough to answer questions. Otherwise Herr Jobsworth is
going to have a field day every time they come across a music session
they don't like.

Time to ask YOUR local authority if they can explain which sessions
are exempt from licensing?

And what IS a 'spontaneous' session?
If you take an instrument are you 'going equipped'?

Terry

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 06:04 AM

Again from Terry Redmond - in reference to the officer's reply given in the preceeding post. This is what they were replying to.

Hi all Good luck with the respective Licensing Departments under which you suffer....
For information I've copied part of an exchange between Wandsworth Licensing Department and myself. Watch out for this, it's a 'wait and see' strategy that could prevent any discussion until it's too late.

At present, a solo musician (or a duo) would be allowed with the Licensees permission to play without needing a Public Entertainment License. As Kim Howells (when taking the Licensing Bill through Commitee stage on behalf of the Government) publicly stated that he had 'no intention of making something licensable that was not already so' can you catagorically state that the 'two in a bar' rule will continue to apply in the Brighter Borough?

Or are you actually saying that Wandswoth Councils Licensing Policy will be to wait and see if anyone plays music in premises that would require a license for other activities - such as the sale of Alcohol -and only then decide if a 'crime' has been committed?

Isn't that bordering dangerously on entrapment, as on the one hand you are saying it MAY be legal and on the other you say it MAY NOT be legal - what does it depend on exactly?

I'm not sure about the validity of your answer to the spontaneity part - if someone takes an instrument into a public house the presumption must be that it was taken with the intent to use the instrument.
(Oh look, I've got my Cello with me. Fancy me not noticing. Yeah, right! )

If on the other hand the licensed premises supply the instrument (a piano would be a good example, something that used to be a feature in a lot of pubs until the seventies craze for piano smashing contests) a breach of the Licensing Act would definitely have occurred So before anyone inadvertently - OR deliberately - commits the dreadful
crime of playing a musical instrument in Wandsworth, under what
circumstances would it be legal to do so without the Licensee having made formal application for the musician to be allowed to play?

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 06:13 AM

Again from Terry Redmond.

Check the Westminster Council links (D.C.M.S. Guidance Notes? "Not worth the paper they are printed on!" http://www.westminster.gov.uk/news/Licensing-guidance-not-worth-the-paper-it-is-written-on.cfm) and remember that Local Authorities must have completed any consultation process by November 2004.

Loads of variation in the few Draft Licensing Policies I've read so far - Westminster doesn't appear to have one, Norwich has nothing about occasional permissions, Wandsworth has extended the 72 hours to 96 hours, etc. Some want general consultation, some don't - it's bedlam.
Best of luck.
Terry

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 06:23 AM

The link I gave does not seem to work - I think this one should.

http://www.does4you.co.uk/

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 03:37 AM

Richard P, what does your local licensing policy look like?

How about everyone else? Do you know how your officers will view the new exemptions like those for incidental live and recorded music etc - or will they prevent Morris if one of the musicians has an amplified instrument? The list of questions is pretty endless - the answers to them remain more than a little unclear.

I agree that it would certainly be helpful for us to pool these experiences here and for us all to get involved in the local public consultation processes, and quickly.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:10 PM

The public has until September 24 to respond to the draft policy statement that sets out what is expected from licence-holders.

How are you getting on with your local authority's draft Licensing Policy?

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 08:00 PM

Here's a link to the Harlow Council Draft Statement of Licensing Policy
Made under Section 5 of the Licensing Act 2003 (you have to scroll down the page and click to open up the actual text)- and there's a deadline of October 4th to put in comments and suggestions, which I plan to do.

I strongly suspect that these draft policies will be very similar in a lot of places. It'd make sense for people to put in a similar set of suggestions to match.

So if anybody would like to have a look at this policy draft, and come up with some suggestions, it might be useful for other people as well. (I'll be getting round to doing that anyway, if need be, but I don't want to go reinventing the wheel)

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 09:25 AM

It would be a good idea for everyone to try and ensure that their policy contains something like the suggestion from Hamish Birchall - that I have posted earlier in this thread.

Or something shorter - like the following:

Simply demonstrating that a borderline activity is – or may possibly be a Regulated Entertainment – is not sufficient grounds alone, under the four specific objectives of the Licensing Act 2003, for the Licensing Authority to automatically inhibit or prevent the activity from taking place without the required licensing permission.

But as we will not be able to cover and predict every possible problem at this point - inserting something like the following will ensure that you will be able to approach your Licensing Committee directly for a policy decision at any point in the future.

If the Licensing Authority receives any representation on any aspect of local Licensing Policy and especially its effect on regulated entertainment, the appropriate officer will ensure that this will be presented to the Licensing Committee to enable them to make a decision on the representation.

If you do not manage to get them to include anything else at this point, inserting something like this will at least ensure that you will have access and may be able to do this later. For the danger is that the officers can go through all the motions but simply ignore every suggestion and concern made to them now - and still claim to have consulted..............

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:13 AM

A quick comment on Harlow's Draft.

They refer to Licensed Premises and of course your non-alcoholic coffee bars etc, requiring entertainment permission in a Premises Licence - will be correctly referred to from now on as Licensed Premises. There is a danger that if Harlow does get a sudden increase in music providing coffee bars - these non-alcoholic Licensed Premises will be included in any total count of Licensed Premises.

The Licensing Authority will recognise that the prevention, inhibition or placing of conditions for concerns based - for example on alcohol – will not prevent permission being sought or given for Regulated Entertainment or inhibit or prevent such activities that are exempt. For example – non-alcoholic premises requiring permission to provide Regulated Entertainment in a Premises Licence – will be known and correctly referred to as Licensed Premises but will not be presenting the concerns that have come to be automatically linked to this term.   

I couldn't find the Enforcement Policy they referred to.......

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 02:16 PM

It is interesting what (if any) exemptions are mentioned. This is Bath.

http://212.158.27.91/BathNES/environment/Licensing/LicensingAct2003.htm

What are some of the key exemptions in the Act?
 Live music at small premises (Section 177) – Where there is musical entertainment at premises which have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons and are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, only licence conditions relating to either crime and disorder or public safety apply to that musical entertainment i.e. those relating to protection of children from harm or public nuisance do not apply to the musical entertainment. However, if there is a review of the licence then the exempted conditions can be applied. Where there is a performance of live music between 8am and midnight (and no other form of regulated entertainment) at such premises then no licence conditions can apply with regard to the musical entertainment unless there is a review of the licence.
 Place of Worship (Schedule 1, Part 2 Exemptions) – Premises such as churches do not require a premises licence for activities which would otherwise be classified as 'regulated entertainment' taking place at the church.
 Garden Fetes, etc. (Schedule 1, Part 2 Exemptions) – Entertainment provided at a garden fete, or similar event, is not 'regulated entertainment' and thus requires no licence.

I have seen no specific reference at all to Entertainment facilities.

5.18 of the Guidance states: It will ultimately be for the courts to decide whether music is "incidental" in the individual circumstances of any case and concludes: But there are likely to be some circumstances which occupy a greyer area. In cases of doubt, operators should seek the advice of the licensing authority, particularly with regard to their policy on enforcement.

It is quite obvious that no one wants to touch this with a barge-pole and local authorities will want to hang-on to the courts 'ultimately deciding' but we should not let them off the hook. The guidance says to ask them and refer to their policy. It is this that will later be challenged or accepted in the courts.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 05:36 AM

I am a little confused: I am getting the impression that there is the Licensing Policy that is subject to this public consultation and other policies etc it would appear, that are not?

The reference in 5.18 of the DCMS guidance is to 'their [The licensing Authority] policy on enforcement. < Is this different to the Licensing Policy?

My local policy 4. Rules of Procedure 4.1 states The Council has published separate guidance on the procedure to be followed by applicants and *objectors". These are called the 'Rules of Procedure' and should be read in conjuction with this Statement of Licensing Policy. [not supplied] *[It uses this term even though under TEMININOLOGY- it states that the Act does not use the term "objections"]

And 3. Consultation 3.4 An internal consultation protocol has been approved by the Council to achieve consistency in its handling of representations from Council officers in relation to both the Statement of Licensing Policy and application under the Act. This protocol can be viewed by any person upon request.

Not too sure if these references are to the same thing or two different 'policies' but these do not seem to be open to public consultation??

A quick look at Harlow's Draft - contained a reference to an 'enforcement policy' - and the site linked to this - but I could not find it!

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: Lady Nancy
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 04:02 PM

Ced2 has posted some information tonight relating to our own local council/consultation meetings. I can't do blue clicky thingies, but it is dated today (15/09/05)..... Perhaps the information here and his information need to be connected.....? Cheers! LN

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 08:59 PM

A link to the thread mentioned.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=73409&messages=2

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: GUEST,RichardP
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 07:03 AM

Long ago Shambles asked what my local authority draft policy said. It was not published at that time and I have only just got round to dealing with it. It is good in one respect. It says "Through this Licensing Policy we aim for ...the further development within communities of live music, dancing and theatre, both in rural areas and in our towns." Totally commendable. However there is no further mention of regulated (or exempt) entertainment anywhere in the document.

I am submitting suggested additions on the lines developed in the early long thread.

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: GUEST,RichardP
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 07:55 AM

Everyone should be aware that the DCMS has published the draft regulations and transitional arrangements for rapid consultation. They lay down how the transition from exisiting to new licencing is to be handled in the sixth months between February and September when applications for replacement licences are submitted. The major omission is the table of FEEs. The consultation document is accessed through the "blue clicky" link.

The question that lots of people will be whether it is a simple matter of ticking the box to get entertainment cover. Yes and No. Firstly you have to tick one of 14 boxes to establish your right to apply. There are then 14 tick boxes to identify what is already licensed and a further 13 to identify what is to be added or altered. In each case the box has to be accompanied by a schedule of when the activity is to be permitted on each day of the week plus a number of text boxes to cover seasonal or other variations etc. However it is just a matter of ticking and writing in boxes. The best news is that in those lists, music comes first and the sale of alcohol comes last. So everyone will at least have to look at music before they come to the tick that every pub needs. Take pleasure in small mercies.

Good luck wading though it.

Richard

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:03 AM

Here's the "comment or representation" I wrote and dropped in to our town hall, in time for the deadline for responding to the Harlow Council's "Draft Statement of Licensing Policy", which I linked to earlier:

Comment on Harlow Council's "Statement of Licensing Policy"

1.0 First some background. In common with a fair number of other people around the country and locally, I enjoy taking part in informal folk music sessions in pubs – these are not formal folk clubs, but take place in bars, where friends will meet and make music and sing a few songs, with no kind of payment involved, and with the bar being open for business as usual.

1.1 Under the present law, before the new Act, these have had a grey status legally – in some localities they have been accepted as a normal social activity, no different essentially from a game of darts. However in other cases they have been seen as entertainment requiring a PEL, since more than two musicians are involved and on occasion long-standing music sessions had to closed down.(For example in the Welsh Harp in Waltham Abbey a couple of years ago). The two in a bar exemption has sometimes been used as a way of fudging the issue, but in many cases publicans have been reluctant to permit informal sessions, for fear of possibly trespassing against an unclear law.

1.2 In common with a lot of people involved in folk music – and other type of informal music making – I was very worried about some aspects of the new Act, especially the complete removal of the two-in-a-bar exemption for licensed premises.

1.3 However there have been a number of firm Government promises that under the Act the kind of informal sessions which I have mentioned will not be threatened, and will in fact be welcomed, and that one intended impact of the Act will be to make this country a place where it will be easier for live music to happen.

1.4 In the words contained in one Government press release "Un-amplified live music in small venues to be treated exceptionally to ensure traditional and amateur folk music thrives."

1.5 This would be in line with a pledge made by Kim Howells in a BBC broadcast on 17th July 2002 to the effect that when it comes to "sessions and singarounds, people just playing for their own fun" there would definitely be no requirement for any kind of licence – referring to such activities he said "There shouldn't be a problem. As long as money isn't changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence."

1.6 In the actual Act this appears to have been carried into effect by the exemption given to "incidental music", which is specifically excluded from being treated as entertainment that requires regulation

1.7 It seems to me that the Harlow policy statement would be improved if there was some specific recognition of this. This would serve to reassure proprietors of pubs, coffee-bars or other places where people meet informally that they do not need to be worried about allowing their customers to sing rather than talk, or to play musical instruments rather than, for example throw darts at a dart board.

1.8 I suggest an addition to the Harlow policy statement recognising that where customers in such places as public houses or coffee bars wish to socialise through making music or singing, this is not in itself "regulated entertainment" any more than where they prefer to talk to each other, or watch a football match on the TV.

2.0 I also believe that the council in producing this draft statement could register its determination to ensure other types of small venue live music, such as folk clubs, are encouraged and protected.

2.1 I think this could be achieved, and the document improved by the insertion of a section along the lines recommended by the Musicians Union (contained in paragraphs 2.2-2.4 below) :

2.2 "Live music, dance, theatre etc: This authority recognises its duties under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to take progressive measures to ensure that everyone can participate in the cultural life of the community and enjoy the arts. Artistic freedom of expression is a fundamental right, and this authority is bound by s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to read and give effect to all legislation, including licensing legislation, so far as possible compatibly with the right to freedom of expression.

2.3 "This authority will take all this into account when considering the licensing of live music, dance and theatre. Where the Licensing Act 2003 is open to interpretation which may be more or less restrictive for these activities, the authority will fully explain the reasons for its interpretation of the Act. In such cases, and particularly where licence conditions are proposed, the authority will set out in detail where, how and why it believes subsisting safety, noise, crime or disorder legislation, is inadequate such that licensing is, or licence conditions are, not only necessary, but a reasonable and proportionate means to address the risks arising from the entertainment.

2.4 "The authority, in accordance with the Licensing Guidance document, will also monitor the impact on regulated entertainment, in particular live music and dancing, of the licensing provisions. Where it is found that such entertainment is being deterred, it will review its policy with a view to reversing that trend."

Whether they take on board any of this, I've no idea, though I don't expect much. Might have more chance when it comes to the appendices still to come: "There will be a number of appendices, but these cannot be produced until the final regulations have been issued by the Department for Culture Media and Sport. The appendices will provide additional guidance on the licensing process, but will not affect the detail of the policy nor prevent consultation from taking place."

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: Leadfingers
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 09:17 PM

The Mind Still Boggles !!

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: Leadfingers
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 09:20 PM

So Now I get silly !

Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
From: Leadfingers
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 09:21 PM

And Nick Post 100 - just for the hell of it 1