|
04 Feb 03 - 03:11 AM (#882036) Subject: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: The Admiral I'm sorry start yet another thread concerning the PEL but in my attempts to get my MP, Jane Grffiths, Reading East to sign the EDM 331 'Licensing of Live Music' I received this email from her, unedited, only copied and pasted..... Subject: RE: Licensing of Live Music Thank you for this message and for taking the trouble to let me know your views. I think there are a number of misapprehensions about this bill, and I will write to you in the hope of clearing up any difficulty. It remains though to say that under this bill there will be no unlicensable music in pubs, live or recorded. Any pub will have to have a licence, just the one, whether it has live music of not. It is likely to be cheaper for most than it is at present. With good wishes Jane Griffiths Am I going mad, have I lost the plot or does no-one know what's going on? |
|
04 Feb 03 - 04:27 AM (#882059) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: clansfolk Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms, Re:Licensing Bill I have received your fax via the FaxYourMP.com website, and you will be pleased to know that instead of signing the EDM, I had a meeting with the Minister to raises issues of concern and he was able to offer me many reassurances. I attach a copy of that letter and also detailed explanatory notes. I hope you will find the information reassuring. If I can be of assistance to you in any other matter in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me. I send you my best wishes and assure you of my best attention at all times. Yours sincerely Joan Humble MP Blackpool North & Fleetwood Constituency -------------------------------------------------------------- Joan Humble MP House of Commons LONDON SW1AOAA 21 January 2003 Dear Colleague LICENSING BILL AND MUSIC I know that many of your constituents - entertainers and people who like to be entertained - are very concerned about the effect that the Licensing Bill might have on live music and other forms of entertainment. This is not surprising, given some of the colourful myths that have been put about by the publicity and publicists representing the Musician's Union. Those myths are jeopardising the enormous liberalisation of the law surrounding entertainment for the public that the Bill represents. They are threatening the very interests they claim to be protecting. I am writing to dispel some of those myths and, I hope, to reassure your constituents, many of whom I know are suffering a great deal of unnecessary anxiety. For example, it is not true that people will have to get a licence to hire a band to perform at their daughters' wedding, unless they decide to throw it open for the general public or charge for entry. It is not true that spontaneously singing happy birthday in a restaurant will get you clapped in irons for not having a licence - it obviously will not be a licensable activity and it is inconceivable that any Government of this country would ever seek to make it so. Music lessons, the testing of equipment in music shops, rehearsal rooms -none of these will need licences, as any rational person would expect. Broadcasting studios to which the general public are not admitted will not be licensable. Church bell ringing - which is not an organised event provided for the public - will not need a licence. We are not banning folk singing, Morris dancing or anything else. This is just a selection of the more colourful myths. There is one, however, that stands head and shoulders above the rest, and that is the position regarding the so-called two-in-a-bar rule. Let me set out what the two-in-a-bar rule is, why we are getting rid of it, what we are putting in its place and why we believe that it will result in a vast increase in the opportunities for performers of all types - not just one or two musicians - to ply their trade. INVESTOR IN PEOPLE Department for Culture, Media and Sport The two-in-a-bar rule is an exemption under the Licensing Act 1964 that allows two performers - and that is two all night, not two and two and two - to perform live music in a pub without needing a public entertainment licence under the current system in addition to a justices' licence to sell alcohol. I understand why musicians and publicans are attached to the rule. Because of huge inconsistencies in the way local authorities set fees for public entertainment licences - in some areas, particularly in London, the fees can run into many thousands of pounds - many pubs are put off from applying for one. The fall back position is that they rely on the two-in-a-bar rule, which as a result, reduces the range of entertainment available in pubs. The Bill will abolish the rule, for a number of very sound reasons, none of which are to do with a wish to restrict opportunities for performers to perform - quite the reverse. First of all, the effect of the rule is very restrictive - it restricts drastically the forms of entertainment that may be carried out. Only entertainment consisting of one or two performers of live music is exempt. Anything beyond that - including the performers combining live music with sound recording-requires an additional public entertainment licence. The perverse effect of the rule is that many types of music and other forms of entertainment are discouraged by reliance on the existence of the rule. Furthermore, this means that the range of cultural experience available to the general public is narrowed severely. Secondly, the rule is anachronistic. It is quite possible for a single performer using amplified equipment to give rise to considerably greater nuisance than four or even more entertainers performing acoustically. The Government simply does not accept that live music in pubs is never a source of disturbance. The Institute of Acoustics lists "amplified and non-amplified music, singing and speech sourced from inside the premises" as a principle source of noise disturbance from pubs, clubs and other similar premises. In addition, the provision of entertainment can - and does - give rise to issues of public safety and crime and disorder in certain circumstances. So we are abolishing the two-in-a-bar rule. What we are putting in its place is a simple, cheap and streamlined licensing system that should encourage - if industry makes full use of the reforms - a huge opening up of the opportunities for performing all sorts of regulated entertainment. Focusing on pubs - as that is where the current exemption is most visible - pubs will need a premises licence to sell alcohol - it is a simple as that. They will have to go through the application procedure and pay the applicable fee if they want to sell alcohoL It will cost them nothing extra - nothing at all - to seek at the same time authorisation in the premises licence to put on regulated entertainment in any of its diverse forms. Where no representations are received on the licence, it will be granted automatically. Compare this with the current system where huge fees for a public entertainment licence - as much as £20,000 in some areas - act as a considerable deterrent to pubs obtaining such licences. Department for Culture, Media and Sport The Government is very firm in its belief that the combination of the abolition of the two-in-a-bar rule with the much simpler and cheaper licensing system should open up the opportunities for entertainers to perform. But that will only happen if industry makes maximum use of the reforms. With the current level of myth, mischief and misinformation that is being generated by a small number of individuals with links to the Musician's Union, it would be quite understandable if the industry ran a mile. I hope I have made the case that the new system should be better, freer, and provide greater opportunity for the public to be exposed to a much broader range of cultural provision. I have set out an overview of the position in this letter. I enclose a leaflet that explains in more detail the benefits of the Licensing Bill for live music and entertainment of all forms. If you require any further information about the Bill and its effect on live music - or anything else for that matter - my officials stand ready to answer any questions you might have. DR KIM HOWELLS MP |
|
04 Feb 03 - 04:49 AM (#882066) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: clansfolk REGULATION OF ENTERTAINMENT UNDER THE LICENSING BILL Contents Introduction 1. The Licensing Bill 2. The provision of regulated entertainment under the Bill 3. Entertainment in places where alcohol is sold 4. Entertainment in community centres and village and parish halls 5. Entertainment in schools and colleges 6. Entertainment in private homes and gardens 7. Entertainment in churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship 8. Entertainment in sports clubs 9. Music and dance studios 10. Music shops and recording and broadcasting studios 11. Why licence entertainment 12. Folk music and traditional activities such as Morris dancing, wassailing etc. 13. Clowns, story-tellers, magicians, children's entertainers, stand-up comedians 14. Carol singing 15. Church bell ringing 16. Spontaneous singing 17. Rehearsing or practising 18. Music lessons 19. Exemptions for broadcast entertainment and incidental music 20. The Bill's compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights 21. Entertainment events held to raise money for charity 22. Licensing of live music in Scotland 23. The new licensing regime and existing laws 24. Penalties for carrying out licensable activities without a licence Introduction Many individuals and organisation have expressed serious concerns about the effect that the Licensing Bill will have on live music, and other forms of entertainment. Many of the fears that exist are unfortunately based on misinterpretations of its provisions. The Bill has been drafted, as all Bills are, by Parliamentary Counsel following instructions from the Government. We have considered the alternative interpretations that have been put to us but have concluded that they are incorrect. This paper seeks to address the issues raised in relation to entertainment and correct any misconceptions. It begins with a short explanation of what the Bill does say in relation to entertainment and what this means in practical terms. It then deals with a number of issues relating to particular entertainment activities and some more general points. The paper gives examples where possible but it must be borne in mind that it is always possible to think up a case where one parameter has changed that might alter the position in regard to the new licensing regime. The information provided in the first part of this paper should, however, make it relatively simple to work out whether or not a particular activity is licensable. 1. The Licensing Bill 1.1 The Government believes that the Licensing Bill will provide a new licensing regime that increases the opportunities for musicians and other performers. We believe that these reforms will give the arts in England a new lease of life rather than sounding its death knell as some are suggesting. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is of course also responsible for the arts and we continue to have both performers and their audiences at the forefront of our minds as we take the Licensing Bill through Parliament. 1.2 Under the new licensing regime there will be no public entertainment licence: it will completely disappear. Permission to sell alcohol, provide entertainment for the public, stage a play, show a film or provide late night refreshment will be integrated into a single licence - the "premises licence", cutting significant amounts of red tape at a stroke. Under the new regime, any public house will need to obtain permission to sell alcohol for consumption on those premises and will be free to apply simultaneously for permission to put on music or dancing or similar entertainment whenever desired. The fee for such a premises licence will be no different whether the pub simply seeks permission to sell alcohol or if it decides to apply for additional permissions, for example to provide entertainment. The existing cost and bureaucracy, which acts as a deterrent in many cases, will be removed. 1.3 The position now is that many pubs are wary of obtaining a separate public entertainment licence because the costs can be prohibitive in some local authority areas. Subject to continuing discussions with stakeholders, any variation in fees will more likely relate to the capacity of the venue so that smaller venues pay less than large ones. The fees will also be set centrally by the Secretary of State to eradicate the wide and sometimes unjustified inconsistencies that presently exist. The Regulatory Impact Assessment, which accompanies the Bill, estimates that the one-off cost of applying for a premises licence would be between £100 and £500, with an annual charge of between £50 and £150. 1.4 Guidance will also be issued by the Secretary of State to licensing authorities when the Bill is passed that will make it clear that any conditions attached to licences must be tailored to the needs of the particular premises and must be necessary for promoting the licensing objectives. This should prevent the issuing of swathes of unnecessary and irrelevant conditions, which may prevent licensees applying to hold public entertainment events. 2. The provision of regulated entertainment under the Bill 2.1 The Bill considers entertainment in terms of the provision of regulated entertainment. Only entertainment, or entertainment facilities, that come within this definition will be licensable. For the most part this paper uses "entertainment" as a short hand for entertainment and entertainment facilities. 2.2 In order to be regulated entertainment, the entertainment must satisfy two conditions. The first of these is that it must be provided: (a) to any extent for the public or (b) exclusively for members of a qualifying club for members and their guests or (c) where (a) and (b) do not apply, for consideration and with a view to profit. 2.3 The Bill further says that entertainment is only to be regarded as provided for consideration if any charge: (a) is made by or on behalf of any person concerned in the organisation of the entertainment; and (b) is paid by or on behalf of some or all of the persons for whom that entertainment is provided. 2.4 This means that all performances will be licensable if the public are admitted. If they are not, licences will generally only be needed if those attending are charged to attend, with the aim of making a profit (including raising funds for charity). Payment to an agent or to a band to appear at a private wedding, for example, would not result in a requirement for a licence unless the guests are charged to attend with a view to profit. We are not aware of many weddings being staged in order to secure profit from invited guests. The reference to "on behalf of" in paragraph 2.3 above implies agency, that is someone buying a ticket on someone else's behalf with their money and not his own. A licence would not therefore be required where the host of a private party pays for entertainment that is subsequently enjoyed by his guests or where a company that pays for entertainment at its in-house Christmas party for staff, where neither the guests nor the staff pay for tickets to attend the event at a level that would generate profit for the organiser. 2.5 Performances at places such as hospitals and old people's homes would also not be licensable unless the public were able to attend, or a charge was made to those inhabitants or patients who attended with a view to do more than cover costs. 2.6 The second condition that must be satisfied in order for entertainment to be regulated is that the premises on which the entertainment is provided are made available for the purpose of enabling the entertainment to take place. 2.7 The descriptions of entertainment covered by the Bill are: • the performance of a play, • an exhibition of a film, • an indoor sporting event, • a boxing or wrestling entertainment, • a performance of live music, • any playing of recorded music, • a performance of dance • or entertainment of a similar description to any of these, where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose of entertaining that audience. 2.8 Entertainment facilities are defined by the Bill as facilities for enabling persons to take part in music making, dancing or similar entertainment, for the purpose of being entertained. An antique piano in a pub that was only provided for decorative effect would not give rise to the need for a licence. And a licence would not be required if the pub operator did not allow the public to play it. A licence would only be required if it was used to entertain people at the premises or by people on the premises to entertain themselves. 3. Entertainment in places where alcohol is sold 3.1 It has been claimed that "110,000 on-licensed premises in England and Wales would lose their automatic right to allow one or two musicians to work. A form of this limited exemption from licensing control dates back to at least 1899." 3.2 This point is disingenuous. In 1899, the courts held that impromptu performances by customers were not licensable, but performances given by a customer or any musician "for a consideration" were licensable. The Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales) 1929 - 1931 (paragraph 249) confirmed this interpretation of the law. Working musicians were therefore not exempted as claimed. The "two in a bar rule" was introduced by the Licensing Act 1964. The Bill does abolish the "two in a bar rule" but introduces new arrangements whereby any pub may obtain permission to stage live musical events at no extra cost when obtaining permission to sell alcohol 3.3 Under existing legislation all public performances of music in licensed premises are licensable. The only exemption is provided by the "two in a bar" rule, which allows two musicians or less to perform without a public entertainment licence when a Justices' Licence is held. 3.4 We are abolishing the two in a bar rule for two very good reasons. First of all, the effect of the rule is very restrictive - it restricts drastically the forms of entertainment that may be carried out. Only entertainment consisting of one or two performers of live music is exempt. Anything beyond that - including the performers combining live music with sound recording-requires an additional licence. The perverse effect of the rule is that many types of music and other forms of entertainment are discouraged by reliance on the existence of the rule. Furthermore, this means that the range of cultural experience available to the general public is narrowed severely. 3.5 Secondly, the rule is anachronistic. It is quite possible for a single performer using amplified equipment to give rise to considerably greater nuisance than four or even more entertainers performing acoustically. The Government simply does not accept that live music in pubs is never a source of disturbance. The Institute of Acoustics lists "amplified and non-amplified music, singing and speech sourced from inside the premises" as a principle source of noise disturbance from pubs, clubs and other similar premises. It is equally the case that the public safety issues that the Bill addresses can arise where there are one or only two performers. It is therefore important that the likely risks are considered and proportionate steps taken to address them if necessary. 3.6 What we are putting in place is a simple, cheap and streamlined licensing system that should encourage - if industry makes full use of the reforms - a huge opening up of the opportunities for performing all sorts of regulated entertainment. 3.7 The Musician's Union proposed in February 1998 that every venue currently covered by a Justices' Licence (to permit the sale of alcohol) that wished to engage live performers should be required to have an entertainment licence. Although there will of course be no entertainment licence as such under the new regime, only a permission to provide entertainment on the premises licence, this is the model that we have followed. The Musician's Union also suggested that the playing of recorded music should be treated in the same way. Recorded music is a licensable activity under the Bill but there is an exemption for incidental music that is discussed later in this paper. 4. Entertainment in community centres and village and parish halls. 4.1 Under the present system live music is licensable in community centres and village and parish halls. Outside Greater London these venues do however enjoy an exemption from fees. Under the Licensing Bill the cost of a premises licence is likely to be negligible for these places and, taken with the savings,, which will be made in other areas such as liquor licensing, the result will be a net reduction in costs for these venues. The Bill will give the Secretary of State powers to waive or reduce fees if she thinks it appropriate. During the passage of the Licensing Bill through Committee in the House of Lords, the Government gave an undertaking that it was considering very carefully the case for such an exemption. 4.2 These halls will also be able to benefit from a more informal system of permitted temporary activities that the Licensing Bill will introduce. Anyone can notify up to five of these per year, or fifty if they are a personal licence holder. Each event can last up to 72 hours and up to five events can take place at one premises in any year where less than 500 people attend. These permitted temporary activities will require a simple notification to the licensing authority and the police and a small fee of around £20. 5. Entertainment in schools and colleges 5.1 Entertainment provided by a school or college to which the public are admitted is currently licensable and will continue to be licensable under the new regime. This is mainly because the public safety issues involved would be the same as for any other venue. 5.2 A concert or other performance in a school or college which takes place for parents and students without payment will, however, be exempt from the licensing regime. Similarly, if the school charges parents and students but does so only to cover its costs, no licence would be required. This would mean that the school nativity play in the form that we all know would not need a licence. 5.3 Any performance of music, dancing, etc that is being performed for students as part of their education would be exempt as it would not be provided for the purpose of entertainment. 6. Entertainment in private homes and gardens 6.1 The Private Places of Entertainment (Licensing) Act 1967 already enables local authorities to licence many private events that are promoted for private gain. The only places otherwise exempt under the 1967 Act are premises licensed for other purposes. The Licensing Bill draws together these varied permissions into a single scheme that is clearer and easier for everyone to understand and use. 6.2 However, any performances of live music that take place in private homes and gardens for private parties and weddings will not be licensable unless the host takes the unusual step of charging the guests to attend with a view to making profit. 6.3 The Bill does nothing to affect what people are entitled to do in their own homes unless the public are admitted or guests are charged with a view to profit rather than to simply cover costs. 7. Entertainment in churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship 7.1 The Government has been at pains to ensure that appropriate exemptions may be enjoyed by any faith when they are engaged in worship or any form of religious meeting. 7.2 Outside London current public entertainment licensing law exempts music in "a place of public religious worship or performed as an incident of a religious meeting or service." "A place of public worship" means only a place of public religious worship that belongs to the Church of England or to the Church in Wales or which is for the time being certified as required by law as a place of religious worship. The Licensing Bill maintains an exemption for any entertainment for the purposes of, or incidental to, a religious meeting or service. 7.3 As currently drafted the Licensing Bill would remove the exemption that churches outside London currently enjoy in relation to music that is not performed as part of a religious service. - for example , a secular concert performed at churches that might range in size from the small local parish church right up to St Paul's CathedraL However, the Government understands the breadth and depth of feeling that surrounds the issue. 7.4 Both Baroness Blackstone and Kim Howells have made it clear that the Government will amend the Bill to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on churches. DCMS is discussing possible solutions with church organisations and suitable amendments will be tabled for consideration at Report stage in the House of Lords. 8. Entertainment in sports clubs. 8.1 Contrary to some claims, sports clubs do not enjoy any exemptions for the provision of entertainment to which the public are admitted. In addition, if a club is selling alcohol as a registered members club for its members and their guests, it needs a certificate of suitability from the local authority for entertainment provided after 11pm and a special hours certificate from the magistrates' court. If they are currently holding activities without licences it will be for other reasons such as that they are private events. 9. Music and dance studios. 9.1 The Licensing Bill will not result in the licensing of performances in a rehearsal studio or broadcasting studio for the simple reason that no audience would be present. A licence would only be required if the equipment in the studio is being used to provide entertainment to the public and as rehearsal studios do not generally provide entertainment or the facilities for people to take part in entertainment there is no requirement for a licence. However, if a dress rehearsal is provided for the public an authorisation will be required. A broadcasting studio recording a programme without an audience is similarly exempt. 10. Music shops and recording and broadcasting studios 10.1 With regard to a music shop, if a customer wishes to test a new musical instrument, for example, there would be no requirement for a licence. The playing of the instrument in the shop is for the purpose of demonstrating and selling the instrument, and not for the purpose of entertaining the potential purchaser. 10.2 Performances in a rehearsal studio or broadcasting studio are not licensable where there is no audience present. Entertainment facilities at such studios only give rise to a requirement for a licence if the means provided for making music are provided for enabling persons to take part in an entertainment. Rehearsal studios are not providing an entertainment or providing facilities for people to take part in an entertainment. A broadcasting studio recording a programme without an audience is similarly exempt because it does not charge the musicians for the facilities. On the contrary, it pays them. 11. Why licence entertainment 11.1 The Government requires certain types of entertainment to be licensed because they raise issues of public safety, nuisance and sometimes crime. The Government does, however, recognise that the licensing system should be able to take into account the nature of the entertainment and treat it accordingly. Under the present system local authorities sometimes attach swathes of standard conditions to entertainment licences whether or not they are needed. This will not be possible under the new licensing regime. Major venues staging rock bands would therefore be the subject of more restrictive conditions than a small pub or club that puts on unamplified live music. 11.2 The Government does not accept that certain types of music, for example acoustic, are never "noisy" or never raise public safety issues and should therefore be excluded from the licensing regime. If music is to be performed for the public at a premises, then the licensing authority should have the power on receiving representations to impose necessary and proportionate conditions in order to protect residents and customers. 11.3 Nor does the Government accept that existing health and safety and noise legislation provides sufficient safeguards where premises are used for entertainment. Health and safety assessments relate to premises in normal use. Their use for entertainment often gives rise to particular issues, for example: • Temporary cabling and staging • Blocking of fire exits • Unusual distribution of people in the premises • Certain aspects of crowd behaviour • Unusual noise disturbance It is to address these and similar issues that public entertainment has been and continues to be a licensable activity. 12. Folk music and traditional activities such as Morris dancing, wassailing etc. 12.1 There is no reason why any of these activities should be adversely affected, as at present any performance that involves more than two musicians or dancers in a single session would require a licence. Under the new regime licences for music and dancing can be obtained for any premises where an application to sell alcohol is made at the same time for no additional cost. 12.2 As detailed above, centrally set licence fees and the control of conditions imposed by licensing authorities will remove the deterrent of high charges for licences and allow these activities to flourish. In addition, spontaneous singing and dancing would not be caught. 12.3 Unfortunately, music is also sometimes associated with drugs culture and related crime. This is not just true of nightclubs. The 16th Annual Brecon Jazz Festival resulted in 90 arrests for controlled drugs offences and 23 people were taken into custody for public order disturbances. 13. Clowns, story-tellers, magicians, children's entertainers, stand-up comedians 13.1 These entertainments would not of themselves be licensable. They might however require a licence if, for instance, a comedian played the guitar and sang a number of songs as part of his act and the entertainment fulfilled the other conditions of a licensable activity. 13.2 Even if these performers activities were licensable because, for example, a guitar was played as part of the performance, no licence would be required for performances that took place in private homes or gardens for private parties unless the host took the unusual step of charging the guests to attend with a view to making profit. The same would apply to performances at children's or old people's homes. However, if the entertainment takes place at a venue to which the general public are admitted, or if the audience was charged, with a view to profit, to attend, a licence would be required. 14. Carol Singing 14.1 Carol singers going from door to door, or just deciding to sing in a particular place, or even turning up unannounced in a pub and singing - whether collecting for charity or not - would not be providing regulated entertainment, just as drinkers in a public house who suddenly decided to start singing carols would not be licensable. However, where a place such as a shopping centre arranges for a group of singers to sing carols this will be the same as their arranging any performance of live music. It will be the provision of regulated entertainment and will need to be provided under the authorisation of a premises licence or temporary event notice. 14.2 The position for carol singers within London would be no different under the new regime. Outside London, carol singers who perform organised events inside a building would continue to be licensed - they are currently licensed under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. However, carol singers who perform organised events in the open air would require a licence for the first time once the Bill comes into force. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that a shopping centre, railway station or similar premises obtain a premises licence or temporary permission to enable such entertainment to take place. 15. Church bell ringing 15.1 Church bell ringing would not be licensable. First, if the bell ringing were incidental to a church service it would be exempt. Secondly, if it is undertaken as a hobby or for fun, it would not be licensable because there would be no audience present on the premises and finally, the bells would not be licensable as an "entertainment facility" because the church would not charge the bell ringers for the use of the facilities. However, if an organised bell ringing event takes place for the public that would be licensable. 16. Spontaneous singing 16.1 Section 2 above sets out what is regulated entertainment for the purposes of the Bill Any spontaneous singing, for example of "Happy Birthday" would not be licensable. 16.2 This is not explicitly stated in the Bill because it does not need to be. Legislation sets out definitions of the activities that need to be licensed and any exemptions that might apply. It does not provide exhaustive lists of the activities that are not licensable. This is unnecessary. An activity is either within the scope of the definition or exemption but if it is not it is not covered by the provisions of the Bill The Government is not going to change the form of Government Bills that has been used for hundreds of years just because the Musician's Union disapprove of it. 16.3 Contrary to some suggestions, a postman whistling on his round would not require a licence. 17. Rehearsing or practising 17.1 Practice or rehearsal of any form of entertainment would not be licensable unless the public were allowed to attend or a charge was made for a private audience. A dress rehearsal to which the public were admitted would be licensable. 18. Music lessons 18.1 Music teachers will also not be licensable because there is no public performance and the playing of music in this context is not for the purpose of entertaining the students but for the purpose of educating them. An end of term concert given by the pupils of a particular teacher would also be exempt so long as the invitation to attend was only open to family and friends and the general public were not invited, unless a charge was made to attend with a view to a profit (ie to cover more than costs). 19. Exemptions for broadcast entertainment and incidental music 19.1 Broadcast entertainment on satellite or terrestrial T.V will be exempt from the licensing regime. This is for a number of reasons, including that the Bill is deregulatory and does not require the licensing of any forms of entertainment that are not currently licensable. It is also the case that no professional bodies responsible for public safety have approached the Government arguing that it is necessary to licence such activities under the Bill. 19.2 In the Bill we have identified entertainments that need to be licensed in their own right. For example, music and dancing because of, among other things, noise and drugs culture and late night refreshment because of disturbance. Watching television - which almost every citizen does every day of their lives - does not in itself give rise to the need for licensing. 19.3 The Bill also contains an exemption for the playing of recorded music that is incidental to other activities that are not of themselves entertainment. Jukeboxes in a pub would not therefore need to be included on a premises licence, unless, for instance, a dance floor was also provided. The reasons for this exemption are similar to that of broadcast television that is that the playing of incidental recorded music does not of itself give rise to issues that require it to be licensed. A DJ playing to a public audience would, however, be licensable. 20. The Bill's compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights 20.1 Baroness Blackstone has made a statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, saying that she is satisfied that the provisions of the Licensing Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. 20.2 The Joint Committee on Human Rights has written to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for further information in relation to two specific matters. The Department has replied and awaits the Committee's response. 20.3 The right of freedom of expression has to be balanced in a sensible and proportionate way with the rights of local residents to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. 21. Entertainment events held to raise money for charity 21.1 Under the existing regime licensing authorities may waive or reduce fees for charitable events taking place outside Greater London. 21.2 Charitable events will not be exempt under the new regime because the risks associated with charity events where the aim is to raise money, albeit in a good cause, are no different to those at other types of public performances; for example charitable events, such as major concerts like Live Aid, do not give rise to any diminished risk to the safety of the public. It is perfectly sensible that the safety of the public is properly considered whether a concert is staged to raise money for a charity or conducted for profit. 21.3 The Secretary of State has powers under the Bill to set licensing fees and will be able to waive or reduce fees as she sees fit. 22. Licensing of live music in Scotland 22.1 It is often argued that the entertainment licensing that is used in Scotland should apply to England and Wales. Licensing law in Scotland has been separate to that of England and Wales for many years. 22.2 In general terms, the licensing system in Scotland provides that public entertainment is covered by a licence permitting the sale of alcohol, but only within formal permitted hours. Many licensed premises in Scotland do have extended licensing hours because of the more flexible system operating there. There is, however, nothing in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 which denies the Licensing Board the power to restrict or forbid entertainment activities by conditions, either specified in by-laws or attached to licences. Although by-laws prohibiting live music in Scotland are rare, the law provides Boards with these powers should they be necessary. This is similar to the system proposed under the Bill whereby conditions would be attached to licences only where they prove necessary. As we intend to abolish permitted hours and the new hours, up to twenty-four hours a day, will be tailored to specific premises it would be inappropriate to adopt the Scottish system, which is based on national permitted hours. Our approach is more flexible. 22.3 Finally, the Licensing Bill sets out a system for licensing in England and Wales, not Scotland, and not any other country. Scotland is currently reviewing its licensing laws. 23. The new licensing regime and existing law 23.1 There are claims that that existing regulations relating to noise, fire and health and safety are sufficient and that entertainment should not therefore be licensed. There is however no law in this country, which addresses public nuisance generally. 23.2 It is also the case that in several respects, premises providing public entertainment are exempt from aspects of safety legislation precisely because the matters are dealt with by licensing law. Live performances raise issues of public safety and nuisance that must be addressed both to ensure the safety of those attending such events and the rights of local residents. But where these issues are not of concern due to the nature of the performance, costly conditions will not need to be attached to the licence. 24. Penalties for carrying out licensable activities without a licence 24.1 While it is true that performers who take part in a musical performance would potentially commit an offence if an appropriate authority under the Bill has not been granted, a defence of "due diligence" is provided in clause 137 of the Bill. This provides a defence against the criminal offence where "the act was due to a mistake, reliance on information given to him or to an act or omission by another person or to some other cause beyond his control, and he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence". Accordingly, a musician should check that any venue has proper permission to stage regulated entertainment, but if he is misled by the organiser, he is fully protected by the Bill. 24.2 The penalties provided in the Licensing Bill are maximum penalties and, as with all offences, the courts would decide on the appropriate punishment depending on the facts of the case. Severe penalties might be appropriate in some cases, however rare, for instance where a musician put lives at risk by trailing bare cables through an audience. DCMS January 2003 |
|
04 Feb 03 - 05:16 AM (#882075) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: The Shambles From the leader in today's Independent. This still leaves a deeply flawed piece of legislation, possibly the most ill fated since the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991. An answer to some of the above can be found http://www.does4you.co.uk/REPLY.htm. A more cpmplete response is to follow. |
|
04 Feb 03 - 05:39 AM (#882087) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: GUEST,Vectis My MP signed EDM331 when I told him that I expected him to as my representative. He later sent me the standard reassurning blurb from the DCMS. He offered to send me the 12 page document if I wanted a copy. Like many before him he has been taken in by the government line, and he isn't even a Labour MP! I will send him another letter in the hope that I can enlighten him. |
|
04 Feb 03 - 05:45 AM (#882088) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: clansfolk How many Labour MPs have NOT signed and used above excuse that it was all in hand and not a problem?? How many MPs from other parties have signed? What ratio? |
|
04 Feb 03 - 06:39 AM (#882102) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: Pied Piper Many Labour MPs are "bag carriers" in ministries this means they cannot sign EDMs or vote against the Governement.150 Labour MPs "Cannot" vote against government legislation. Incidentally if you are co-opted into a ministry you get an extra £50,000 "expenses". Isn't democracy great? PP |
|
04 Feb 03 - 08:22 AM (#882147) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: McGrath of Harlow "he was able to offer me many reassurances" - hollow laughter. These guys should be making fishing nets, there are so many holes in what they write. Just for example, of bell ringing: "it would not be licensable because there would be no audience present on the premises". But when you turn to the definition section in the Bill, "premises" is defined as "any place". |
|
04 Feb 03 - 08:41 AM (#882159) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: greg stephens I notice an intriguing loophole...it's not entertainment if you are demonstrating an instrument to a potential customer. So I would suggest you remove the "this machine kills fascists" message, and replace it with a "guitar for sale" notice. That should take of it. I cannot help thinking that extensive education given to lawyers seems to have been largely a waste of time as far as the drafters of this bill are concerned, |
|
04 Feb 03 - 08:50 AM (#882166) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: DMcG According to the bill, rather tham Kim Howells, I don't think it is the case that demonstrating an instrument is not licencable. see this clause in part 2 of Schedule 1: Film exhibitions for the purposes of advertisement, information, education, etc. 5 The provision of entertainment consisting of the exhibition of a film is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of 5 this Act if its sole or main purpose is to— (a) demonstrate any product, (b) advertise any goods or services, or (c) provide information, education or instruction If such as exemption is needed for films, it can only be assumed that live playing is not exempt, even if its sole or main purpose is (a) (b) or (c). |
|
04 Feb 03 - 08:58 AM (#882171) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: greg stephens Having read all the small print carefully, I have spotted another curious anomaly. If I'm in a pub with some friends, and we become aware that it is someone's birthday, it is perfectly OK to sing Happy Birthday to You, even if the premises are not licensed for singing. However, if the group of friends make a plan to go down to the pub and have a birthday drink and sing Happy Birthday to You, an offence will be committed. The position on clowns seems a little unclear. No license is required for a clown, unless he picks up a guitar and sings several songs, in which case it is licensable entertainment. Exactly what the situation is if he or she only sings one song does not seem to be defined. And since instruments are not elsewhere specified as being a necessary part of the definition of musical entertaiment, why has the guitar been mentioned? Surely he shouldnt be allowed to sing songs at all, whether or not a guitar is used. |
|
04 Feb 03 - 09:12 AM (#882178) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: Richard Bridge Dear Greg You have swallowed the Minister's shit. I am working on the refutation of the usual rubbish from the DCMS, line by liine, with quotes and reasons. About Happy Birthday, and a couple of other common ministerial errors, the new law is as follows: - (i) The Minister says one will not have to have a licence for a band to play at a private function, unless the function is thrown open to the public or entry is charged. He is wrong. If the wedding reception is at a "qualifying club" (even if entry is restricted to some members and their guests only) Schedule 1 para 1(2)(b) catches it. But it is much worse than that. Schedule 1 para 1(2)(c) also catches it if the "entertainment" is provided "for consideration and with a view to profit". "Entertainment" is defined in Para 2(1) as including any performance of live music in the presence of an audience". The words "for consideration" are given an artificial meaning by Para 1(4). The relevant parts for the purposes of this evaluation are that entertainment is deemed to be provided "for consideration" if and only if (a) any charge is made by a person concerned in the organisation…of that entertainment and (b) that charge is paid by some of the persons for whom the entertainment is provided. I comment that paragraph (a) plainly includes a bandleader, for by definition a bandleader organises a musical performance. Further the host, who will have paid the charge made by the bandleader, will be present and one of those entertained. (ii) The minister says that singing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant will not be licensable. He is wrong. Plainly it is a performance of live music. Plainly it is in the presence of an audience, for by Para 2(1) an "audience" includes any spectators. When "Happy Birthday" is sung, the person to whom it is sung is an audience, and the rest of those present, even if not part of the same party, are spectators. In a restaurant or pub, the public or a section of the public will be present, and the singers know that and know that those others will be listening and amused. Therefore the entertainment is provided "to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public" (Para 1(2)(a)), and the purposes "include the purpose of entertaining that audience" (Para 2(1), at end). Since restaurateurs know this will happen they cannot be heard to say that they do not make the premises available for this purpose. The result, as the Minister says, may be "inconceivable", but it is what the words of the Bill say. (iii) The minister says that the testing of musical equipment in shops will not be licensable. He is wrong. The shop is open to the public. In most cases others will be present, and if the minister goes to music shops he will see that those testing equipment frequently if not always to a greater or lesser extent play to that audience. The rest of that argument follows as in para (iv) above. But further, the shop allows the equipment and its premises to be used for that testing. That takes us to Para 3, not Para 2. Under Para 2 "entertainment" includes "making music", and this is true whether or not an audience of others is present or is to be entertained. Thus the shop, in the words of Para 3 provides "facilities (the shop and the guitar and if at all amplifier, etc) for enabling persons to take part in [making music]". The rest of Para 3 imposes a condition for the making available of facilities to be licensable. That condition is that those taking part do so "for …purposes which include the purpose of being entertained". That is to say what is weighed is whether the players entertain themselves rather than others. First, those who play an instrument are entertained when doing so. It is why one does it. Second, the word "entertainment" must be read in the same sense throughout the paragraph (R-v- Bloxham, (1982)). "Entertainment" in context is defined to include "making music" and "being entertained" must therefore include making music. So if the intentions of the player include the intention to make music, the shop proprietor is caught. The Minister may well say that no rational person would expect that. I agree, but the effect of the drafting does indeed appear to be that irrational. |
|
04 Feb 03 - 09:15 AM (#882179) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: clansfolk Greg - you missed the "if, for instance" and the "fulfilled the other conditions of a licensable activity" He can't sing, dance or make music - perform a play et al - that's the way to do it Mr Punch??? A Clown can't be a musician without a licence but a musician would be a clown without one!!! snip...These entertainments would not of themselves be licensable. They might however require a licence if, for instance , a comedian played the guitar and sang a number of songs as part of his act and the entertainment fulfilled the other conditions of a licensable activity...snip Pre meditated music and going equipped - throw away the key.... |
|
04 Feb 03 - 09:19 AM (#882182) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: greg stephens Richard Bridge: I don't think I have swallowed any minister's shit. My previous posts were intended as satirical comments on the ludicrous nature of the bill, and the government's efforts to explain it. |
|
04 Feb 03 - 09:46 AM (#882198) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: vectis Richard Can I use your arguments to try and convince my MP please? Mary |
|
04 Feb 03 - 01:49 PM (#882431) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: McGrath of Harlow I don't think anyone should accept the idea that if something is pre-mediated that means it can't be spontaneous. (I know the word doesn't appear in the act, but it very likely will appear in guidelines and so forth.) The primary meaning of "spontaneous" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is: "Acting, done, occurring without external cause; voluntary, without external incitement, as made a spontaneous offer of his services.". So if a publican, for example asks around, saying says "I'd like a bunch of people to come and play here on a Friday night" that'd mean the resulting session might not count as spontaneous. But if someone goes into a pub and asks the landlord "Would it be all right if me and some friends had a bit of a music session on a Friday night" and he said yes, I can't see how the resulting session would be anything other than spontaneous. Yes there are all kinds of possibilities in between, and room for arguing about things such as "if someone buys you a drink is that payment", and I hope that we don't have to get into those arguments, but that there'll be a rational amendment in our favour. But it seems pretty self evident to me that the idea that something can't be spontaneous just because you planned to do it in advance is nonsense. |
|
04 Feb 03 - 02:20 PM (#882450) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: The Shambles We have a regular weekly session but I would argue that it is always a 'spontaneous/impromptu' activity. The night of the week and the venue may be the same but everything else, including the participants will be different every time. And if there are no participants, it won't take place at all. It would be nice to think that at least now, with over 65,000 signatures on the E petition, that Howells and Co would be prepared to listen to these arguments, as they have to those of the the church lobby? |
|
04 Feb 03 - 02:43 PM (#882463) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: clansfolk 'spontaneous/impromptu' activity, pre-meditated??? going equipped - It's not really in the proposals...... don't loose your sense of humour and take everything literally!! :-) |
|
06 Feb 03 - 05:09 AM (#883833) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: The Shambles The humour of those two words has been lost on me long ago. Those very words, although not appearing in any legislation, have been used to support my council's policy. The Local Government Ombudsman has also been convinced that these words have some legal relevance. They have been used in an attempt to destroy the relevance of the only case law that concerns unpaid music making by pub customers, the 1899 one quoted above by the DCMS. Where again they use the word 'impromptu' when the activity in Brearley -v- Moreley 1899 was a regular event. |
|
06 Feb 03 - 05:21 AM (#883837) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: sian, west wales Just to add to the library of response, I copied my letter to my AM to the National Assembly for Wales' Cultural Minister, Jenny Randerson. So, first my letter to the MP (his reply isn't worth retyping, and he just sent along the stock Kim Howells letter) and then the reply from our Minister of Culture's dept: sent 13-12-02 Dear Mr Ainger, I write to add my voice to the growing number of people protesting the government's changes outlined in the Licensing Bill. From my reading of the Bill, and it's supporting schedules, the current proposals will effect activities as diverse as informal music and poetry sessions in pubs, choral rehearsals in chapels, non-sectarian fundraising events held on religious premises, book launches in book shops if involving 'readings', and, apparently, carol singing! Should the current Bill be passed, particularly without the modifications being proposed by members of the House of Lords and in Early Day Motions, the social cohesion of Wales, and rural Wales in particular, will be seriously under threat. Social interaction within communities, and participation in local culture is often the first step to full participation in a healthy civil society and no legislation should be set in place which creates barriers to this. Neither should any legislation be undertaken which encourages globalization of culture while penalizing the local. Making an exception for television and 'piped' music not only encourages a preference for the global, but also sends the message that citizens should be observers, not participants. I am aware that the current legislation, appropriately dubbed 'daft' in the first EDM, needs to be reformed. I have no objections to the concept of a single, check-box license, nor to inspections of venues to ensure that Health and Safety regulations are met. However, what is being promoted - rather vaguely - as an inexpensive license may well be inflated far beyond the majority of current venues' means by multiple inspections by local authorities more interested in the income generated than in enabling community cohesion. I would point out that this legislation flies in the face of current thinking in Wales, as well as long standing cultural customs and practices. Where the Assembly is working, through initiatives such as Cymru'n Creu, LEADER+ themes, and Rural Community Action, to encourage a culture of participation, Westminster's Labour government is criminalizing activities which are essential to these policies. Similarly, what future for the Arts Council Cultural Industries initiatives, or Wales Tourist Board Strategic Tourism schemes if the community interface is undermined by the Licensing Bill as it currently stands? In closing, I think that we, once again, are faced with legislation which may work for major conurbations where population density makes expenditure on licenses viable. This, from Dr. Kim Howells' comments on BBC Radio last week, is obviously the paradigm being used. However, in rural Welsh communities, where chapels are concert venues and taverns host the passing on of musical and poetic traditions, the critical mass required to make expenditure on this license viable does not exist. I would like you to note my opposition to the proposed Licensing Bill and my objection to our cultural traditions, to say nothing of our freedom of expression, being undermined by this government. Sincerely Siân Thomas (via faxyourMP) ********************************* Dear Ms Thomas Licensing Bill Thank you for sending the Minister of Culture a copy of your letter of 13 December to Nick Ainger MP about the Licensing Bill which is currently before Parliament. I have been asked to reply. As you state in your forwarding email, licensing is a matter which has not been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and the Licensing Bill is the responsibility of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in London. The Welsh Assembly Government was not consulted by the DCMS about the provisions relating to the licensing of places of entertainment. The Bill would not allow the Assembly Government to modify those provisions in respect of their implementation in Wales. Jenny Randerson has written to Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to express her disappointment about the failure to consult and to relay the concerns which you and others have raised. Ms Randerson made clear in her letter that she shared the concerns relayed by her and pointed out that whilst licensing is a non-devolved matter, provisions in the Bill will have significant implications on several key policy areas which are the responsibility of the Assembly Government – the arts, community sustainability and social inclusion in particular. Ms Randerson asked that the DCMS Ministers take the issues raised into consideration as they take the Bill forward through its remaining Parliamentary stages. For your information, the Bill has not yet cleared the House of Lords; it will be introduced into the House of Commons later in the session. Yours sincerely Gareth Thomas Arts Branch |
|
06 Feb 03 - 05:29 AM (#883839) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: clansfolk ,pre-meditated??? going equipped - It's not really in the proposals...... don't loose your sense of humour and take everything literally!! :-) |
|
06 Feb 03 - 09:24 AM (#883956) Subject: RE: PEL - A Reply From An MP. From: clansfolk EDM 331 128 signatures as of 06.02.2003 Whittingdale/John (Conservative Party) Constituency: Maldon and East Chelmsford Moss/Malcolm (Conservative Party) Constituency: North East Cambridgeshire Greenway/John (Conservative Party) Constituency: Ryedale Hoban/Mark (Conservative Party) Constituency: Fareham Robathan/Andrew (Conservative Party) Constituency: Blaby Fabricant/Michael (Conservative Party) Constituency: Lichfield Lansley/Andrew (Conservative Party) Constituency: South Cambridgeshire Francois/Mark (Conservative Party) Constituency: Rayleigh Gillan/Cheryl (Conservative Party) Constituency: Chesham and Amersham Luff/Peter (Conservative Party) Constituency: Mid Worcestershire Bottomley/Peter (Conservative Party) Constituency: Worthing West Gray/James (Conservative Party) Constituency: North Wiltshire Key/Robert (Conservative Party) Constituency: Salisbury Waterson/Nigel (Conservative Party) Constituency: Eastbourne Winterton/Ann (Conservative Party) Constituency: Congleton Winterton/Nicholas (Conservative Party) Constituency: Macclesfield Spink/Bob (Conservative Party) Constituency: Castle Point Wilshire/David (Conservative Party) Constituency: Spelthorne Flook/Adrian (Conservative Party) Constituency: Taunton MacKay/Andrew (Conservative Party) Constituency: Bracknell Kirkbride/Julie (Conservative Party) Constituency: Bromsgrove Lewis/Julian (Conservative Party) Constituency: New Forest East Burns/Simon (Conservative Party) Constituency: West Chelmsford Osborne/George (Conservative Party) Constituency: Tatton Garnier/Edward (Conservative Party) Constituency: Harborough Fallon/Michael (Conservative Party) Constituency: Sevenoaks May/Theresa (Conservative Party) Constituency: Maidenhead Leigh/Edward (Conservative Party) Constituency: Gainsborough Loughton/Tim (Conservative Party) Constituency: East Worthing and Shoreham Roe/Marion (Conservative Party) Constituency: Broxbourne Murrison/Andrew (Conservative Party) Constituency: Westbury Wiggin/Bill (Conservative Party) Constituency: Leominster Spelman/Caroline (Conservative Party) Constituency: Meriden Ainsworth/Peter (Conservative Party) Constituency: East Surrey Knight/Greg (Conservative Party) Constituency: East Yorkshire Flight/Howard (Conservative Party) Constituency: Arundel and South Downs Watkinson/Angela (Conservative Party) Constituency: Upminster Brazier/Julian (Conservative Party) Constituency: Canterbury McIntosh/Anne (Conservative Party) Constituency: Vale of York Mates/Michael (Conservative Party) Constituency: East Hampshire Mercer/Patrick (Conservative Party) Constituency: Newark Norman/Archie (Conservative Party) Constituency: Tunbridge Wells Taylor/Teddy (Conservative Party) Constituency: Rochford and Southend East Randall/John (Conservative Party) Constituency: Uxbridge Chapman/Sydney (Conservative Party) Constituency: Chipping Barnet Shephard/Gillian (Conservative Party) Constituency: South West Norfolk Selous/Andrew (Conservative Party) Constituency: South West Bedfordshire Grayling/Chris (Conservative Party) Constituency: Epsom and Ewell Ruffley/David (Conservative Party) Constituency: Bury St Edmunds Evans/Nigel (Conservative Party) Constituency: Ribble Valley Rosindell/Andrew (Conservative Party) Constituency: Romford Yeo/Tim (Conservative Party) Constituency: South Suffolk Malins/Humfrey (Conservative Party) Constituency: Woking Howarth/Gerald (Conservative Party) Constituency: Aldershot Hunter/Andrew (Conservative Party) Constituency: Basingstoke Redwood/John (Conservative Party) Constituency: Wokingham Willetts/David (Conservative Party) Constituency: Havant Robertson/Hugh (Conservative Party) Constituency: Faversham and Mid Kent Lait/Jacqui (Conservative Party) Constituency: Beckenham Lilley/Peter (Conservative Party) Constituency: Hitchin and Harpenden Maclean/David (Conservative Party) Constituency: Penrith and The Border Heald/Oliver (Conservative Party) Constituency: North East Hertfordshire Horam/John (Conservative Party) Constituency: Orpington Streeter/Gary (Conservative Party) Constituency: South West Devon Field/Mark (Conservative Party) Constituency: Cities of London and Westminster Bercow/John (Conservative Party) Constituency: Buckingham Swayne/Desmond (Conservative Party) Constituency: New Forest West Robertson/Laurence (Conservative Party) Constituency: Tewkesbury Davis/David (Conservative Party) Constituency: Haltemprice and Howden Jackson/Robert (Conservative Party) Constituency: Wantage Baron/John (Conservative Party) Constituency: Billericay Cotter/Brian (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Weston-super-Mare Davey/Edward (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Kingston and Surbiton Hancock/Mike (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Portsmouth South Gidley/Sandra (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Romsey Brake/Tom (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Carshalton and Wallington Beith/AJ (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Berwick-upon-Tweed Brooke/Annette (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Mid Dorset and North Poole Doughty/Sue (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Guildford Stunell/Andrew (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Hazel Grove Webb/Steve (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Northavon Campbell/Menzies(Liberal Democrats) Constituency: North East Fife Jones/Nigel (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Cheltenham Willis/Phil (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Harrogate and Knaresborough Laws/David (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Yeovil Baker/Norman (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Lewes Marsden/Paul (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Shrewsbury and Atcham Rendel/David (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Newbury Tyler/Paul (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: North Cornwall Harvey/Nick (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: North Devon Opik/Lembit (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Montgomeryshire Breed/Colin (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: South East Cornwall Allan/Richard (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Sheffield Hallam Burnett/John (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Torridge and West Devon Russell/Bob (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Colchester Keetch/Paul (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Hereford Foster/Don (Liberal Democrats) Constituency: Bath Abbott/Diane (Labour Party) Constituency: Hackney North and Stoke Newington Marshall-Andrews/Robert (Labour Party) Constituency: Medway Etherington/Bill (Labour Party) Constituency: Sunderland North Dean/Janet (Labour Party) Constituency: Burton Best/Harold (Labour Party) Constituency: Leeds North West Clark/Helen (Labour Party) Constituency: Peterborough Dowd/Jim (Labour Party) Constituency: Lewisham West White/Brian (Labour Party) Constituency: North East Milton Keynes Cohen/Harry (Labour Party) Constituency: Leyton and Wanstead Daisley/Paul (Labour Party) Constituency: Brent East Singh/Marsha (Labour Party) Constituency: Bradford West Hendrick/Mark (Labour Party) Constituency: Preston Khabra/Piara S (Labour Party) Constituency: Ealing Southall Cox/Tom (Labour Party) Constituency: Tooting Follett/Barbara (Labour Party) Constituency: Stevenage Taylor/David (Labour Party) Constituency: North West Leicestershire Dobson/Frank (Labour Party) Constituency: Holborn and St Pancras Mann/John (Labour Party) Constituency: Bassetlaw Corbyn/Jeremy (Labour Party) Constituency: Islington North Atherton/Candy (Labour Party) Constituency: Falmouth and Camborne Sawford/Phil (Labour Party) Constituency: Kettering McDonnell/John (Labour Party) Constituency: Hayes and Harlington Benton/Joe (Labour Party) Constituency: Bootle Jones/Martyn (Labour Party) Constituency: Clwyd South Hurst/Alan (Labour Party) Constituency: Braintree Marris/Rob (Labour Party) Constituency: Wolverhampton South West Owen/Albert (Labour Party) Constituency: Ynys Mon Thomas/Simon (Plaid Cymru) Constituency: Ceredigion Price/Adam (Plaid Cymru) Constituency: Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Hermon/Sylvia (Ulster Unionist Party) Constituency: North Down Beggs/Roy (Ulster Unionist Party) Constituency: East Antrim |