|
10 Sep 11 - 03:03 AM (#3220986) Subject: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: DMcG Plans to scrap entertainment licences put forward I've been expecting something like this since the election. Not that the government cares much about music, but it's an obvious way of cutting costs of local government. |
|
10 Sep 11 - 07:37 AM (#3221061) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Surely you have that wrong mate, since the opposite is the case. It will reduce Local Authority income by an average of £1600 per annum per venue. Sly digs at the government are out of order in this matter, since the last lot showed scant respect for any English tradition or culture. They even lumped Culture and Heritage in with sport for Christ's sake (an ignorant population has a higher proportion of Labour votes) Don T.. |
|
10 Sep 11 - 07:48 AM (#3221066) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Arthur_itus Who introduced the licence? Well done the government for doing this. It will provide more work in the folk world for sure. That has to be a massive bonus. We should all be positive about it, irrespective of who the government is. |
|
10 Sep 11 - 08:06 AM (#3221070) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Vic Smith Two more discussions on this matter:- The Guardian on Wednesday 7th September http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/07/live-music-pubs-licence-bands The Crosstalk Foundadtion website http://www.crosstalkfoundation.co.uk/IndexSubEntertainment.asp?page=Licensing1 |
|
10 Sep 11 - 08:17 AM (#3221073) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Vic Smith This might be an area where de-regulation would be an advantage to pub goers and musicians - but I can think of many others where it will cause a lot of grief to the average person. I like our countryside and don't want it handed over to greedy unscrupulous developers. |
|
10 Sep 11 - 08:46 AM (#3221086) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: doc.tom The danger, again, is perhaps to far, too fast. This de-regulation seems very sensible - after all the 2003 act was really destructive when it came in (I remember 4 venues that just stopped because local authorities became so petty, weddings that got copped for linceses so they could have an evening dance in the marquee in the garden, gross inconsistencies with in single authorities, etc.). But perhaps 5000 capacity is a bit big! And remember that child protection laws, health & safety laws, noise laws, etc., etc., etc., were in place before the change in legislation and still remain! That was another problem with 2003 act - you ended up with two sets of laws governing the same thing in some aspects! It was a bad law then. It remains a bad law. The sooner it is ammended the better. Just PLEASE make sure your voice contributes to the consultation. TomB |
|
10 Sep 11 - 11:07 AM (#3221131) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Grendel's Dad Vic, You're dead right. This is one of those proposals which sounds great on paper. But I live at the back of a pub, and you wouldn't believe the grief the locals got from it vis a vis the noisy disco, the drunks, the fights, and the brewers who quite happily lied through their teeth to the magistrates and the licensing panels. The 2003 Act made it a hell of a lot easier to control errant pubs, but now that we've got this one roughly under control, it looks as though they're going to take that particular safety net away. This isn't being done to cut local authority costs, but to facilitate the brewers who traditionally do so much to fund the tory party. |
|
10 Sep 11 - 11:16 AM (#3221138) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,PeterC after all the 2003 act was really destructive when it came in I am no fan of the 2003 act but it was a still an improvement on the previous regime. Do be careful not to confuse premises licensing issues under the act with PRS licensing issues which are totally separate and are not going to go away with deregulation. It will reduce Local Authority income by an average of £1600 per annum per venue. The consultation document, which I have only skimmed so far, seems to suggest a net benefit when the cost savings are taken into account. There are going to be a lot of local authority bureaucrats fighting to keep their little empires and those are people who know how to influence the system. Folk clubs are part of the "big society" as far as this government is concerned and, as much as we may dislike being hijacked by Cameron we can use it to apply our own counter influence to get this through. I would suggest that everybody reads the original consultation documents for themselves at culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx rather than relying on press reports or opinions posted here. |
|
10 Sep 11 - 11:20 AM (#3221139) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,PeterC But I live at the back of a pub, and you wouldn't believe the grief the locals got from it vis a vis the noisy disco, the drunks, the fights None of which are down to "regulated entertainments" and the controls over those issues are not being taken away. As I said in my previous post you need to read the consultation doucments for yourself. |
|
10 Sep 11 - 11:29 AM (#3221147) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Leadfingers And I STILL cant see why a bar full of people watching Wide Screen Televised Sport needs NO Licence , but an Acoustic Music Session does . |
|
10 Sep 11 - 12:23 PM (#3221172) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,matt milton Yes, isn't the whole point that it is venues of 200 CAPACITY or less that will be exempt from licensing? That's what the article in the Guardian stated. So, Don Wizywig, when you say: "It will reduce Local Authority income by an average of £1600 per annum per venue" what are you basing that on? I find that hard to believe, looking at my own locale. Are there really that many <200 capacity places who all dutifully regularly bought live entertainment licenses that they amount to a national average of £1600 per venue? As opposed to, say, pubs with function rooms that might well have operated as <200 capacity live music venues but didn't because they'd have had to buy a license? I live just down the road from a live music venue and a branch of Fitness First. I've never heard any noise from the music venue, while the gym is a massive noise nuisance (pumping dance music that accompanies the aerobics classes spilling out of the fire escape; surly, hostile staff who swear at you when you ask them to turn the music down etc etc) As has been pointed out, a pub doesn't need a license to blast out loud recorded music: I find that venues with live bands are generally quieter (simply because, if you don't want to alienate your regular punters, you generally have the music in a function room out the back, not the main bar. And when music IS in the main bar, it tends to be acoustic...) |
|
10 Sep 11 - 02:15 PM (#3221233) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: DMcG You needn't take my opening post as a dig at the government, Don. They said from the outset that they wanted to cut costs, make a bonfire of red tape and so on. So scrapping this would be the government doing what it claimed to, which is hardly something to complain about. Spinning it so they sound as if they are concerned about music is less praiseworthy but that's normal for the higher echelons of all business, politics and so on. And remember I referred to cutting costs whereas your response was about the effect on income; quite a different thing, I'n sure you would agree |
|
10 Sep 11 - 06:19 PM (#3221322) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,PeterC And I STILL cant see why a bar full of people watching Wide Screen Televised Sport needs NO Licence , but an Acoustic Music Session does . That point is explicitly made as a justification for deregulation in the consultation document. |
|
10 Sep 11 - 06:30 PM (#3221329) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The 2003 Act made it a hell of a lot easier to control errant pubs, but now that we've got this one roughly under control, it looks as though they're going to take that particular safety net away."" Interesting point of view, were it not for the fact that the Licensing Act 2003 did not control Discos, Kareoke, or wide screen soccer broadcasts, all of which are far noisier than any acoustic live music and/or song session. Even amplified Open Mic nights can't match Disco or Kareoke for sheer ear destroying volume, and a bunch of drunken football fans will take their noise outside with them on their way home (seldom, if ever, happens with live singers and musicians). Whatever it was that got your local under control, it most certainly was not the 2003 Act. Don T. |
|
10 Sep 11 - 06:38 PM (#3221334) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T The £1600 average figure was an official figure widely reported on several TV channels, and although TV isn't always highly accurate, I would say it is streets ahead of the gutter press, which IMHO includes virtually ALL so-called newspapers. Don T. |
|
10 Sep 11 - 06:54 PM (#3221343) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,Jon Maybe my memory is wrong but I thought there was supposed to be no additional fee for the entertainment part of a premises licence? |
|
10 Sep 11 - 06:56 PM (#3221345) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,Jon Ah. Seem to have answered my own question at: http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/alcohol_and_entertainment/4043.aspx#7 |
|
11 Sep 11 - 07:27 AM (#3221493) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Grendel's Dad Peter C. "None of which are down to "regulated entertainments" and the controls over those issues are not being taken away. As I said in my previous post you need to read the consultation doucments for yourself." You clearly don't live at the back of a pub, and you've clearly never fought a brewery. An entertainments licence can have any number of clauses built into it to suit the particular circumstances. EG., with the pub I've been fighting, fire doors and windows now have to be kept closed while music is being played, and a time limit is imposed after which the music has to cease. Moreover, instruments and pa's have to be loaded and unloaded at the front of the pub, rather than at the rear where the noise of same was disturbing neighbours. Those clauses were acheived because local people objected to the renewal of the licence. How are we to acheive any level of control over this pub if there's no licence to object to. This is all part of David Cameron's big society philosophy. Strip the state of its powers and all will be sweetness and light. I don't think. |
|
11 Sep 11 - 08:08 AM (#3221505) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,PeterC You clearly don't live at the back of a pub, You clearly didn't read my post. The issues under discussion were NOT "regulated entertainments" under the terms of the act so are NOT being deregulated. Its just this sort of confusion that is used to justify the controls over live music |
|
11 Sep 11 - 08:24 AM (#3221510) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,Jon Grendel's Dad, as far as I understand it, there still we be a premises licence to be renewed each year. I believe the change would alter what is classed as "regulated entertainment" with live music becoming exempt. This would bring live music in line with recorded music and TV. |
|
11 Sep 11 - 10:15 AM (#3221535) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Grendel's Dad Yes, but you've then got to object to the premises licence. That's much more difficult because a sustained objection is more likely to result in the closure of the premises. Therefore, brewers will fight that much harder to keep their premises open, and it then becomes a world of solicitors and barristers. Neither set of advocates comes cheap, and if there is one thing guaranteed to put people off objecting, it is the thought of having to pay crippling amounts of money in barrister's fees. |
|
11 Sep 11 - 11:57 AM (#3221567) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Leadfingers The biggest problem with the early act as that any pub that previously had not needed a licence now certainly DID need a licence , and to get all the right boxes ticked (ESPECIALLY Fire Regs)was a VERY expensive business . My then local club had the chance to move to a more congenial Pub , and was in the position of being able to afford the Licence from the local council - This was in 1990 , and it was going to cost the Landlord £12,000 in alterations to get the Fire Safety Box ticked ! The local Entertainments Licence at the time was £300 ! |
|
11 Sep 11 - 11:57 AM (#3221568) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,Jon That's all you had with your disco... |
|
11 Sep 11 - 12:24 PM (#3221579) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,The Shambles At the moment all that we have is yet another consultation....... It is vital that we all make sure that this is the last one and the only way to do this is to make a contribution to it. Which you can do by following the following link. http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx |
|
12 Sep 11 - 05:22 AM (#3221812) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Richard Bridge My two pennorth, sent to the DCMS. I didn't have a go at TV - it should be regulated byut no chance. "1. The performance of amplified music is not adequately regulated at all. I could take anyone interested to many pubs from which karaoke could be heard for about half a mile and also many from which juke boxes could be heard for some hundreds of yards. This is the norm. The EPA does not control with any adequacy in that in general it is retrospective and in practice no regulation occurs until a log of events over several weeks has been completed - and usually leads to the identification of the complainant to facilitate reprisals by offended revellers. 2. However some music has countervailing cultural benefits. 3. This does not apply to karaoke. Karaoke should be fully licensable and sound limiters should always be required and in the absence of any cultural benefit the threshold should be low. Scotland's "inaudible inside any other residence" has much to recommend it although "barely audible inside any other residence after 11pm" might be more practical. 4. There is little benefit to the performance of recorded music. Jukeboxes should be controlled. Such music should not benefit from the incidental exemption, so that sound levels can properly be controlled in advance. Sound limiters should always be required and in the absence of any cultural benefit the threshold should be low. Scotland's "inaudible inside any other residence" has much to recommend it although "barely audible inside any other residence after 11pm" might be more practical. 5. The performance of recorded music in so-called "night clubs" is almost always a source of nuisance and violence and needs more control than it gets. A spectacular example is a well known night club in Medway often featured on television programmes about violence, which has almost single handedly turned a particular part of Medway into a no-go area after midnight. 6. The performance of unamplified music is both of cultural benefit and inherently incapable or almost incapable of creating unacceptable noise. It almost never leads to violence. It can safely be left to the EPA as to noise and needs no other regulation whatsoever. This approach could be extended to "minor amplification" in which slightly amplified instruments (such as portable keyboards) are played with unamplified instruments (or voice) so that those other instruments (not only the drums - all those other instruments) or voices remain audible without the amplified music predominating. For example some performers of Indian traditional music use an I-phone to produce the characteristic drones. There might be a case for limiting such an exemption to pubs or community halls. Conversely however the "Morris Dancing Exemption" needs extending to enable other instruments to be amplified enough to keep up with melodeons, banjos and rope drums - but not too much, and also to enable such music to continue to some extent after the morris dancing has stopped. A sensible definition of "Morris Dancing" is needed. 7. The performance of live amplified music is of cultural and economic importance and a balancing act is required. Sound limiters should always be required but the threshold might be higher than for recorded music in similar circumstances - although reducing after 11 pm where residential premises are affected. Sound limiters should not be the sort that simply cut power. That can cause damage to equipment. I am of the view that live music from bands that are simply jukeboxes on legs suffers more from the problems associated with recorded music whereas music from bands playing a large proportion of original music or non-slavish arrangements (or improvisation) suffers less, but I cannot see a path to definitions that would legally distinguish one from the other. 8. It is unjustifiable to retain conditions in existing licences that could not be imposed in new ones, and conditions that extend to things becoming unlicenseable should to that extent fall. 9. It is vital that conditions are legally certain. At present restrictions as to style of music are often found - eg "only jazz" or "no basement (or bashment". These are legally meaningless and should not be permitted. 10. The legal status of the "guidance" is wholly unclear. Normally, if delegated legislation is to be able to amend primary legislation it is necessary for the parent act or another enabling act to say so. Although the making of "guidance" is empowered by the Licensing Act its effect is baffling. It seems probable that "guidance" cannot change the meaning of the Act itself and much of the diffuse and uncertain content of the "guidance" is likely to be ineffective if fully legally challenged. Legislation and law must be bear precise meaning. The "guidance" does not. Yours, etc Richard MacDonald Bridge" |
|
12 Sep 11 - 06:45 AM (#3221836) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: doc.tom Well said Richard - others please do similarly! TomB |
|
12 Sep 11 - 06:58 AM (#3221844) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Grendel's Dad I'm going to study Richard's contribution closely. It seems to cover pretty well all the points I could have thought of and may be a good guide for other people to use in submitting their own contributions. Which doesn't mean sign it and send it of course. Put the thing in your own language, use your own examples, and add any other points you want to make. |
|
12 Sep 11 - 07:08 AM (#3221846) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: stallion The one positive thing that came out of the 2003 act were the issues around health and safety. When pubs applied for a licence they had to supply certification that their premises were safe, prior to the act I had carried out electrical test and inspections on eight pubs that I remmember possibly more, all eight certificates were returned unsatisfactory, subsequently, in two of the pubs that I frequented someone had issued a certificate cos they were still trading but the remedial work had not been done. This was possible because the licemces were granted by a magistrate and the premises were never inspected, when the local authority became responsible for the licence the same people that licensed hotels and guest houses actually inspected the premises they were quite eagle eyed and realised some of the certificates were not worth the paper they were written on, as a consequence pubs became much safer places to work and play in |
|
12 Sep 11 - 07:10 AM (#3221848) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Richard Bridge The point I left out (after thinking about it) but others might want to make is regulation of the fans of rugby or association football (or sometimes boxing) getting shitfaced in pubs watching big screen tellies with 1 kilowatt sound systems the better to hear every broken bone reeling violently into the night... There is a key issue of why other regulation does not cover all of the points I made above - but the fact is that noise may technically be covered in other ways but in practice that fails miserably - whereas strangely fires and wiring and so on seem to get addressed under other regulatory channels - just not amplified music. Places over half a mile from residential premises might not need (much) sound regulation. The Red Lion/Leos in Northfleet would benefit from that. Incidentally it's very much a "muso" venue and unless chavs come down to make trouble there are very very rarely any problems there at all. Unless you count the taste of the "beer" but that's another story. |
|
12 Sep 11 - 04:01 PM (#3222138) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall It sounded too good to be true - and, sadly, it was. Contrary to ministers' claims, 'bonkers red tape' is to be kept for small gigs in bars and restaurants under the government's sweeping 'deregulation' proposals published last Saturday. Only new businesses and existing venues without alcohol licences would enjoy the full benefit. As ever, the devil is in the detail. In this case page 11, paragraph 2.25 of the DCMS consultation document: 'Premises that continue to hold a licence after the reforms (for example, for alcohol, late night refreshment, or remaining forms of regulated entertainment) would be able to host entertainment activities that were formerly regulated without the need to go through a Minor or Full Variation process. We propose that all existing conditions on such licences would continue to apply unless the premises decided to apply for a variation to remove or amend them - a situation that should prevent the need for a wholescale reissue of licences by licensing authorities...' http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/consultation_deregulation-scheduleone_2011.pdf In other words, even if the entertainment licensing requirement is abolished, live music licence conditions would remain in pubs, bars, restaurants and any other premises with an alcohol licence, however small. Such conditions quite often include restrictions of performer numbers, genres, times or days of performance. The onus would be on the licensee to pay to apply to have these removed, either £89 (minor variation) or several hundred pounds (full variation), and the final decision would remain with the council. Credit for spotting this time-bomb within the consultation goes to John King of the Welwyn Live Music Forum, the group that conducted the first systematic review of local licence conditions in 2009, uncovering a raft of petty restrictions at small venues in St Albans: http://www.musictank.co.uk/resources/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council Their press statement today (full text below), highlights the possibility that red tape would actually increase, and includes this telling comment: 'For the largest licensed sector: premises already licensed to serve alcohol and provide live music there is no proposal to cut any red tape whatsoever. There will be no reduction in licensing costs for affected businesses, and there are no measures to encourage live music.' This also means that Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill represents the only genuine deregulatory measure in the legislative pipeline for small-scale performances of live music. Full text of Welwyn & Hatfield Live Music Forum statement today: The Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum – Statement on DCMS Proposal to Deregulate Entertainment Licensing On 9th September 2011, DCMS published a "consultation proposal to examine the deregulation of Schedule One of the Licensing Act". The introduction to the document written by Licensing Minister John Penrose concludes: '…this is a golden opportunity to deregulate, reduce bureaucratic burdens, cut costs, give the big society a boost and give free speech a helping hand as well. Our proposals are, simply, to remove the need for a licence from as many types of entertainment as possible.' But the actual content of the Government's proposal falls way short of it's own spin, and a coalition agreement to slash entertainment red tape. For the largest licensed sector: premises already licensed to serve alcohol and provide live music there is no proposal to cut any red tape whatsoever. There will be no reduction in licensing costs for affected businesses, and there are no measures to encourage live music. In this sector, DCMS are proposing an increase in red tape and costs; and with increased powers for Local Authorities to veto events, there is likely to be less live music. Critically, paragraph 2.25 of the document reveals that existing premises licence conditions relating to regulated entertainment are to be retained. Entertainment in breach of these conditions will remain a criminal offence – maximum fine £20,000 or 6 months in jail. Licensing Authorities will continue to use the previous government's comprehensive definition of regulated entertainment that includes pretty much everything from carol singing to reciting poetry. Since 2004/5, Licensing Authorities have wasted £millions hiring thousands of licensing officers, and here is a selection of some of the restrictions on live music now found on premises licences across England and Wales: • Restrictions on the days of the week live music can be performed • Restrictions on the number of live music performances per week/month/year • Restrictions on the instruments musicians may play • Restrictions on the genre of music musicians can perform • Bans on under-18 year olds listening to live music • Bans on amplification • Requirements to leaflet the surrounding area warning of impending live music events • Requirements to display a sign outside the premises signalling that live music is in progress • Restrictions on the number of musicians allowed to perform • Restrictions on the lyrical content of songs • Bans on all live music (including unamplified) even where recorded music is still permitted. • 10 working days notice of live music events to be given to the principal licensing officer. • Form 696 (look it up – get used to it – it's here to stay). This is bad news for musicians who aren't 'white'. DCMS is proposing to retain all the existing red tape in premises licensed for alcohol. And this is the very sector which needs URGENT deregulation. And yet, Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen in both Houses have heavily criticised existing restrictions. A DCMS Select Committee described restrictions as "draconian" and "absurd". The Labour spokesman in the Lords admitted that the previous government "got it wrong" on live music – a matter which they "deeply regret". Even Licensing Minister John Penrose described live music restrictions as "mostly bonkers red tape". The document (para 2.25) indicates that existing conditions will be retained in order to "prevent the need for a wholesale reissue of licences by licensing authorities". After waiting a year for this consultation to appear, this reason is unacceptable. The document is proposing a welcome reduction in existing red tape with the removal of the requirement to license entertainment in the small number of premises which do not have alcohol permissions. But many of these are public spaces or schools or even derelict bandstands, and will be of little benefit to the core live music sector or licensed trade. As for the increase in red tape – this is concealed within paragraph 3.6 of the document. Currently, if a premises wants to put on an event falling outside the restrictions on its licence – for example a pub wanting to put on a folk duo, or a restaurant wanting to put on a pianist – it can apply for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN for short). Under the previous government's Licensing Act, only the Police can object to a TEN. Paragraph 3.6 states that this proposal operates in tandem with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill currently before Parliament. Though not mentioned in the DCMS proposal, for the first time (and given their previous track record, inexplicably) Local Authorities are to be given the ability to object to a TEN and impose yet more restrictions on entertainment. Or, indeed, ban it. If licence conditions are retained, we are looking at more red-tape for existing live music venues, more powers for local authorities to restrict or ban one-off events, and – unless there is a sudden and massive enthusiasm for live music in currently unlicensed venues – we are looking at a possible decrease in live music. We are deeply concerned at DCMS proposal to retain entertainment licence restrictions. We urge the Government to scrap this proposal and give genuine support and Parliamentary time to the Lord Clement-Jones Live Music Bill as an interim measure. John King David Robertson Prof. Phil Jaggar Les Rayner 12 Sep 2011 Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum welwynhatfieldlivemusicforum@yahoo.co.uk |
|
14 Sep 11 - 10:21 AM (#3223076) Subject: RE: UK Reform of Music Licence? From: Richard Bridge refresh. It seems more sense to use this thread now rather than the old one. |