Mudcat Café message #1217673 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #70681   Message #1217673
Posted By: The Shambles
01-Jul-04 - 11:58 AM
Thread Name: A little more news on Licensing
Subject: RE: A little more news on Licensing
The following from Hamish Birchall.

On Monday 28 June, licensing minister Richard Caborn was asked in the Commons whether Tessa Jowell would use her powers under the Licensing Act 2003 to make big screen sport in bars licensable, alongside live music, as a regulated entertainment.

Caborn's answer: No. Predictable enough, perhaps. But check out his explanation why (see Hansard excerpt at the end of this). It amounts to this: the public safety/noise nuisance/crime and disorder risk is already covered by separate legislation, and if there is a problem the licence can be reviewed. Marvellous.

(Note also that no licence under the Act is required to provide broadcast entertainment anywhere, no matter how big the screen or how powerful the amplification.)

So what is it about live music, or even a piano, in a bar or restaurant that justifies stricter regulation than big screen sport provided in the same venue?

Don't let the government off the hook. Write to your MP - fax direct from: www.faxyourmp.com

Snail mail: House of Commons, London SW1A OAA
Some MPs accept email. This link to the Parliamentary website identifies them:
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm

If you want ideas for what to write, see below - but it is better to use your own words:

"The minister's reply to Mr Moss in the House of Commons on Monday 28 June shows that the government believes that a premises licence to sell alcohol, without an authorisation for regulated entertainment, is adequate to address any safety, noise nuisance, crime or disorder risks inherent in the provision of televised sport in bars, restaurants etc.

However, under the Act the provision of a piano for regular public performance in similarly licensed premises would be a criminal offence unless its provision were also explicitly licensed as a regulated entertainment. Can the minister please specify the risks inherent in the provision of a piano that justify stricter, pre-emptive regulation through entertainment licensing than is applied to the provision of televised sport in such premises?"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Monday 28 June 2004 House of Commons:

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will use her powers under the Licensing Act 2003 to include sporting events shown on large screens in bars, public houses and other licensed premises within the definition of regulated entertainment under Schedule 1 of the Act. [180370]

Mr. Caborn: We have no current plans to use the powers in the Licensing Act 2003 to license the showing of live broadcast sporting events on large screens in licensed premises. Under the 2003 Act, all public houses and bars showing live sporting events on television will require premises licences because they sell alcohol and, as a result, will be required to take steps to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives in relation to the premises. These objectives are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. If they fail to do so, they could face a review of the licence.

Furthermore, it will be an offence under the 2003 Act to allow disorderly conduct on the premises and knowingly to sell, attempt to sell, or to allow alcohol to be sold to people who are already drunk. Finally, the police have powers (in certain circumstances) under the 2003 Act to close down instantly for up to 24 hours any relevant premises where a senior officer believes there is, or is likely to be, disorder on or in the vicinity of the premises, or alternatively where a public nuisance is being caused as a result of noise emanating from the premises.

28 Jun 2004 : Column 9W

Mr Caborn appears to have made a wonderful argument as to why there is no need at all for any additional entertainment licensing permissions for any live music in any pub, under the new Act. However, he does not go on to explain why the Act insists that they do now need this......