mudcat.org: PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill

Related threads:
How old is Brit trad of music in pubs? (88)
PEL: Mummers stopped Cerne Abbas (101)
PEL: demo - pictures (14)
BS: Is Kim Howells an arsehole? (65)
Licensing Bill - How will it work ? (331)
Weymouth Folk Festival (UK) (120)
A little more news on Licensing (158)
Killed by the PEL system Part 2 (93)
The New Star Session R.I.P. PELs (55)
PEL Problems in Hull (39)
PELs: Are we over-reacting? (74)
Circus PELs - I told you so! (16)
PEL Mk II: UK Government at it again (24)
PEL stops session in Cheshire (78)
Lyr Add: PEL Song: A PEL Protest (Julie Berrill) (27)
PELs - Letters to important folk. (50)
Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs (506) (closed)
PEL: Architect)?) Andrew Cunningam (11)
Licensing Bill moves on -OUR FUTURE (286) (closed)
UK Government to license Morris Dancing (68) (closed)
EFDSS on the Licensing Bill - PELs. (38)
PEL: Doc Roew gets through to Minister !!! (11)
PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show. (106)
From Eliza Carthy & Mike Harding PELs (36)
Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) (69)
DANCING OUTBREAK! and definition. PELs (16)
PEL threads. links to all of them. (50)
BS: Village Greens and licences (3) (closed)
PEL's: News Blackout! (53)
PEL: Billy Bragg BBC1 Monday nite (17)
PELs: Exemptions? (107)
Petition Clarification (PELs) (9)
PEL debate on BBC TV Now. (6)
further 'dangers' with the PEL (24)
Stupid Music Law. (8)
Howells (now) asks for help PELs (68)
PEL : MPs' replies to your e-mails (40)
PEL: Where does Charles Kennedy stand? (10)
PEL: NCA Campaign free Seminar (18)
PEL: Howells on BBCR1 TONIGHT! (45)
PEL : Hardcopy Petition (44)
PELs Government v MU & lawyers (48)
PEL Pages (5)
Human Rights Committee AGREES! PELs (20)
Churches now exempt from PELs (55)
Lyr Add: PEL 'Freedom to sing' song (12)
Lyr Add: PEL Protest song (14)
Can YOU help The Blue Bell session? (9)
PEL: Urgent soundbites - CBC interview (25)
BS: Kim Howells, but NOT PELS for a change (8) (closed)
PEL: Billy Bragg on Question Time 6th Feb (15)
Kim Howells (PEL) (85)
PEL - A Reply From An MP. (22)
BS: What is PEL? (3) (closed)
PEL - 'Demo' Fleetwood 30th Jan 2003 (25)
PEL – Robb Johnson on R3, 1215h, 26/1. (8)
New PEL. An alternative argument. (31)
PEL: DEMO 27 JANUARY 2003 (95)
PEL: VERY URGENT - CONTACT yr MP TODAY (46)
Poet against PEL - welcome Simon (10)
PEL - 'Demo' Fleetwood 23rd Jan (5)
kim howells does it again (PEL) (69)
PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look (22)
PEL hit squads! (16)
PELs for beginners (26)
PEL: Latest rumour/lie? It's gone away? (3)
PEL: but not music (9)
Folking Lawyers (PEL) (26)
MU campaign - Freedom of Expression (36)
PEL- Enforcement: How? (8)
PEL: Inner working of Minister's minds? (9)
PROTEST DEMO WITH GAG (PEL) (10)
PEL: What activities to be criminalised? (29)
A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL) (45)
PEL - Idea (34)
Glastonbury Festival Refused PEL (5)
MSG: x Pete Mclelland Hobgoblin Music (23)
Sessions under threat in UK? (101)
PELs of the past (13)
BS: PELs and roller skates. (1) (closed)
PELs UK Music needs your HELP (64)
Fighting the PEL (43)
URGENT MESSAGE FOR THE SHAMBLES (22)
Lyr Add: The Folk Musician's Lament (a PEL protest (2)
BS: Queen's speech, and licensing reforms (32) (closed)
PELs UK BBC Breakfast TV Monday (1)
PEL: Licensing Reform? (46)
BS: PELs in Scotland (12) (closed)
BS: The Cannon Newport Pagnell UK - no PEL! (18) (closed)
Action For Music. PELs (28)
Killed by the PEL system (66)
TV sport vs live music in pubs. HELP (6)
PEL and the Law: 'Twas ever thus (14)
EFDSS letter to UK Government HELP! (2)
24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs (77)
Help: PELs & The Folk Image (12)
Official 'No tradition' 2 (PELs) (55)
Is this man killing folk music? (19)
We have PEL - Rose & Crown Ashwell, 23/6 (2)
BS: Vaults Bar, Bull ,Stony Stratford - PEL (4) (closed)
What is folk ? - OFFICIAL (26)
Official: No tradition of music in pubs (92)
UK catters be useful TODAY (70)
Help Change Music In My Country (102)
PEL-More questions (7)
NEWS for visitors wanting to play in UK (56)
Nominate for a Two in a Bar Award -UK (11)
USA- HELP Where is Dr Howells? (13)
BS: URGENT UK contact your MP TONITE (18) (closed)
ATTENTION ALL UK FOLKIES URGENT HELP? (97)
Write an Email for Shambles? Part 2 (75)
UK TV Cove Session/The Shambles (24)
All UK folkies take note - the law!!! (68)
BS: Tenterden weekend (and PELs) (11) (closed)
PEL (UK) (25)
Will you write an Email for Shambles? (111) (closed)
Important - Attention All Mudcatters (99)
Council Bans Morris Part 2 (73)
Council Bans Morris Dancing (103)
Day of action for live music 19th July (44)
Traditional activities and the law (13)
Sessions under threat in UK PART 2 (15)
Making Music Is Illegal. (56)
Urgent Help Required!! Threat to UK Sessions (11)


DMcG 13 Jan 03 - 06:18 PM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Jan 03 - 06:38 PM
The Shambles 14 Jan 03 - 02:29 AM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Jan 03 - 06:09 AM
The Shambles 14 Jan 03 - 09:03 AM
Liz the Squeak 14 Jan 03 - 06:15 PM
The Shambles 15 Jan 03 - 04:27 PM
The Shambles 16 Jan 03 - 02:56 PM
clansfolk 16 Jan 03 - 04:15 PM
The Shambles 17 Jan 03 - 11:53 AM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:







Subject: PEL: First defeat of the bill in the Lords
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 06:18 PM

BBC Teletext says that the Licencing Bill 'has been defeated' but it appears to be one amendment forced through giving MPs and MEP the right to object to 24-hour licences.

Let's hope theres a few more amendments pushed through. Don't take this as a reason to stop writing to your MP, though!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 06:38 PM

Writing to members of the House of Lords might be even more important at this point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 02:29 AM

A rather close defeat by one vote! But a defeat.

Daily Telegraph

Yesterday in Parliament
(Filed: 14/01/2003)

Reports by Michael Kallenbach, Parliamentary Correspondent

Ministers defeated over late pub hours


The Government was narrowly defeated last night after peers objected to plans for all-night drinking licences.

Peers voted 112 to 111 to give ward councillors, MPs and MEPs the right formally to object to the licences.

The defeat, which ministers are expected to ask MPs to overturn, came in the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill. The amendment was introduced by Lady Buscombe for the Tories, but immediately opposed by Lady Blackstone, a culture minister.

The Bill allows formal objections from so-called interested parties, specifying residents and businesses in the area of the licensed premises, or their representative bodies. Opposition peers said the Bill put too great a responsibility on residents by not allowing their elected representatives, such as councillors, MPs and MEPs, to intervene.

The Tory amendment was backed by Liberal Democrat peers and several Crossbenchers. Analysis of the division lists showed that at least four ministers missed the vote.

After the vote, a Tory spokesman said the amendment gave "an opportunity for MEPs, MPs and, most importantly, ward councillors to make representations on behalf of residents in licensing cases".

Last month, in the detailed debate on the Bill, a cross section of peers voiced their concerns about loud music coming from pubs. If the Bill went through, they said, local residents would be deprived of a decent night's sleep.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 06:09 AM

The fact that a provision like this wasn't in the Bill in the first place shows howa badly thought out it is in all kinds of ways.

But the fact that the Government didn't concede this amendment without trying to resist it demonstrates that it isn't in a mood to accept sensible suggestions, and that is bad news.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 09:03 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

For information: I have copied this statement below to John Smith and Bob Wearn at the MU, to Kim Howells, and to the Shadow Culture Ministers Nick Harvey (Lib Dem), and John Whittingdale (Cons):

FAO    Peter Marsh, MCM Research, Oxford


Peter, thanks for your time yesterday morning on the phone and for discussing in some depth the work you are currently undertaking for DEFRA: 'Research into the implications for noise disturbance arising from liberalisation of licensing laws'

I was very concerned that the specification of the DEFRA study failed to mention the Musicians' Union as an organisation that should be consulted, or the Licensing Bill's exemptions for certain forms of entertainment. However, I am grateful for your invitation to contribute my view as part of your research and trust that this will be included in the published research alongside the contributions of other organisations already consulted by MCM, such as the British Beer and Pub Association, the UK Noise Association, and the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association. I am authorised by the Executive Committee of the MU to represent its views on the implications of the licensing reform for its members.

The Licensing Bill is deregulatory insofar as it will allow pubs and bars to open later more easily, but the licensing control of live music is dramatically increased. Under the Bill, almost all public music making in England and Wales becomes a criminal offence unless licensed. This arises because a range of significant public entertainment licensing exemptions are abolished: public concerts in churches outside London, private charity fund-raising events, private events were performers charge a fee, private members clubs, events in the open on public land, and, of course, the two performer exemption in 110,000 liquor licensed premises (the 'two in a bar rule').

The new licensing criterion 'Entertainment Facilities', paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, would even render the provision of a piano in a bar a criminal offence without a licence. That is because it would be a facility for enabling persons to take part in music-making for purposes which include the purpose of being entertained. There is no requirement for anyone actually to be playing the piano, nor for the presence of an audience. The maximum penalty for unlicensed performance, or music-making facilities, is a £20,000 fine and six months in prison. This is clearly an all-embracing regime in respect of live music.

However, the Bill exempts the provision of amplified entertainment in the form of broadcast entertainment such as music or sport on widescreen tv, or the playing of recorded music, provided it is incidental to some other activity, like eating or drinking, that is not a licensable entertainment (see Schedule 1, paragraphs 8 and 7). These entertainments are often powerfully amplified. This suggests that, as far as noise and public safety is concerned, there is adequate legislative protection already in place to allow some live music to be exempt in places like bars, pubs or restaurants, at least up to 11.30pm. As far as I am aware there is no correlation between incidental live music, such as folk or jazz, with any crime and disorder issues. On the contrary, they tend to attract a good humoured crowd. On the other hand, as the Association of Chief Police Officers has pointed out, satellite tv sport is often associated with crime and disorder (the control of which is one of the stated licensing aims) which in itself frequently causes serious noise disturbance to local residents. ACPO made representations about this to the DCMS prior to the Bill's publication:

"Televised Sporting Events: The televising of live sporting events, generally upon large screen televisions, within licensed premises is a further matter of concern. Very often such events, usually football matches, are accompanied by drinks promotions, they attract large crowds and are quite frequently the source of disorder. We note that the televising of such events does not fall within the definition of entertainment. Because of these issues we are of the opinion that the applicant for a premises licence should be required to specify the intention to host such events within the operating plan. This would allow the licensing authority, taking into account police representation, the opportunity to impose conditions on the premises licence pursuant to the licensing objectives.We are cognisant of the fact that appropriate definition of the terms 'sporting event' and 'large screen television' may pose a challenge for those drafting the legislation, but do not believe the problem to be insurmountable."

In spite of ACPO's view, under Clause 17 of the Bill (Application for premises licence) only licensable activities are required to be declared on the operating schedules that must accompany the premises licence application. There is therefore no requirement to declare the provision of widescreen tv or jukebox music with the licence application, however powerful the amplification equipment installed.

The government has consistently argued that abolition of the current PEL exemption for two performers in premises with a justices on licence is necessary not for public safety, but for noise reasons: 'one musician using modern amplification can make more noise than three without'. But the Bill renders even solo unamplified performance a criminal offence unless licensed, even though research data points to noisy people outside premises as the overwhelming source of complaint (81% according to the Noise Abatement Society). Noise complaints about the playing of amplified recorded music are common, and complaints about live music relatively rare according to the National Society for Clean Air and the UK Noise Association.

The government has claimed that the Bill would result in a substantial increase in live music, particularly in pubs and bars. Some might argue that any improvement on the current 5% of 110,000 premises that could employ more than two musicians would be good (only 5% hold annual public entertainment licences). The MU does not agree, however, with the government's view. Culture Minister Kim Howells himself has already suggested reasons justifying the MU position: in a letter to Chris Smith MP sent on 4 September 2002, he said that if the MU were to lobby for satellite television to become a licensable entertainment this would be 'resisted robustly' by the leisure industry. He did not go on to explain why the leisure industry took this position, but it seems reasonably clear: the leisure industry believes that if satellite tv were a licensable entertainment, most smaller bars and pubs where it is provided would be subject to the same onerous conditions local authorities are prone to impose on any live music. The industry is unpersuaded by government assurances that local authorities will adhere to published guidance over licensing conditions, many of which have major cost implications, such as the provision of door supervisors, a lower capacity set for the venue, installation of more toilets, double glazing etc. These conditions are relatively common now, even where a public entertainment licence is being sought to allow unamplified folk sessions. Although the Bill provides a right of appeal to Magistrates over disputed conditions, only businesses with at least £5,000 to spend in the courts could contemplate a legal challenge. In the transition from the present to the new regime, most landlords will want their application to progress as smoothly as possible. Declaring licensable entertainments almost always leads to local objections, and this could delay the application significantly. You claimed that only residents in the 'immediate' vicinity of licensed premises would be allowed to object. But I couldn't find the term 'immediate vicinity' in the Bill, Explanatory Notes, Framework for Guidance, or Regulatory Impact Assessment.

Licensees of smaller premises will be wary of applying for permission to host live music - far simpler to keep the satellite tv and jukebox which are exempt. Thousands of licensees could therefore lose their present right to host one or two performers, and any live music (or dancing) at all will become a criminal offence in such premises. Of course, it would be possible for them to apply at some later stage, but that process will be bureaucratic and time consuming: it will require consultation with the police, environmental health, fire service and the public. A fee will be payable for the variation procedure, the amount has yet to be decided. If variation is not a viable option, only five events a year could be hosted via the Temporary Event Notice procedure (so long as no more than 499 people participate, and the event lasts no more than 72 hours).

As we discussed, MU concerns are shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) which has written to Baroness Blackstone (5 December 2002) questioning the Bill's apparent inadequacy in protecting resident's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention. The Committee also shared the MU view that the proposed restrictions on musicians' may amount to a violation of their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 [Joint Committee on Human Rights, 'Scrutiny of Bills: Progress Report, First Report of Session 2002-03', HL Paper 24, HC 191, published 20 December 2002]. I understand that the Department for Culture responded yesterday to the JCHR.

In conclusion, the licensing exemption for satellite tv and jukebox music, coupled with the likely increase in pubs and bars opening after midnight, has, in my view, the potential to significantly increase noise disturbance to local residents. This would not be because of any live music, but rather because of the nature of the exempt entertainments and the premises likely to take full advantage of that exemption.

Hamish Birchall


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 06:15 PM

"Televised Sporting Events: The televising of live sporting events, generally upon large screen televisions, within licensed premises is a further matter of concern. Very often such events, usually football matches, are accompanied by drinks promotions, they attract large crowds and are quite frequently the source of disorder. We note that the televising of such events does not fall within the definition of entertainment"

How true...

How many pubs were given special licences to open and serve alcohol at 7.30 AM when England were in the world cup? And how many workers got so drunk they couldn't go to work?? How many arrests for Drunk and Disorderly (I believe it's just disorderly conduct now) were there that month???

How many folk festivals have you been to where the beer tent opened before the first concert?

LTS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 04:27 PM

This is a link to the Hansard account of 13 th Jan 2003. Including the Government's defeat. There is also some important stuff on safe capacity.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30113-21.htm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 02:56 PM

The Human Rights Committee findings in The Stage 16 January 2003.

http://www.thestage.co.uk/paper/0303/0102.shtml


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill
From: clansfolk
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 04:15 PM

It must be me.......

he said that if the MU were to lobby for satellite television to become a licensable entertainment this would be 'resisted robustly' by the leisure industry. He did not go on to explain why the leisure industry took this position, but it seems reasonably clear: the leisure industry believes that if satellite tv were a licensable entertainment, most smaller bars and pubs where it is provided would be subject to the same onerous conditions local authorities are prone to impose on any live music.

But all the licensee has to do is ask for provision for entertainment when he gets his new license and it won't cost him... Kim tells us so..... so include televised performances and jukeboxes and make the entertaiments section part of the standard license - then everyone will have it - and we will all be happy?

just a thought.............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: PEL: First Lord's defeat of the bill
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jan 03 - 11:53 AM

"Pure Gooogly-Gook"
*Smiles*

I think that is a Kim Howells-speak meaning common sense?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
  Share Thread:
More...

Reply to Thread
Subject:  Help
From:
Preview   Automatic Linebreaks   Make a link ("blue clicky")


Mudcat time: 24 October 2:57 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.