Martin Red
06-07-2003, 05:08 AM
Headline Summary
Two in a bar – reform of public licensing
Key objections to the licensing bill
· The Licensing Bill if enacted will be a disaster for the performance of live music in village halls, leisure and arts centres, cafes, restaurants, pubs, schools and colleges.
In all other parts of Europe, and indeed in Scotland, this freedom to perform live music is celebrated. Yet musicians in England and Wales are to be excluded from such freedom by an act of philistinism.
· The Licensing Bill discriminates against the performance of live music.
· There are strong grounds in cultural and social policy for putting an end to the discouragement of live music on licensed premises.
· The Licensing Bill will deleteriously affect the employment of musicians.
· Pub landlords will, when they file their operations plan for the premises licence, tick a box if they want to include live music as part of their operations. The implication is that for a small extra charge they will be able to employ musicians playing on the licensed premises. This optimistic view does not take into account health and safety.
At the present time, a landlord can employ up to two musicians without an entertainment licence on his premises with his or her existing health and safety obligations and inspections. With the proposed legislation that right to employ two musicians is removed and there is no guarantee that under the new licensing regime licensing authorities and health and safety inspectors will allow a publican to employ two musicians with his or her existing health and safety measures on their licensed premises.
There is an overwhelming sense of injustice in the Bill in that live music is discriminated against, whereas TV and juke boxes are exempt from the Bill. therefore it would be of enormous help if the DCMS were to ameliorate their position with a return to the status that all licensed premises were again allowed to employ up to two musicians without an entertainment licence.
· The situation in Scotland is fairer, more logical and less bureaucratic. It should be followed.
· In England and Wales, making music should not be a licensable activity.
· The scope of locations is far too wide. the Bill makes music licensable in everything from pubs and clubs to churches, schools and a marquee in a person’s back garden.
· The punishment is too strong if a musician is caught playing on unlicensed premises - £20,000 fine and six months’ imprisonment. It is intolerable that the onus is placed on the musician to ensure the premises they are playing in has a valid entertainment license.
· The Bill is a charter for wide screen TV and recorded music at the expense of the performance of live music. TV and recorded music are exempt from the Bill yet live TV coverage of sporting events are more likely than a group of musicians to result in drunkenness and public disorder.
· The Licensing Bill is a charter for red tape.
· The current system of magistrates formed into licensing committees is effective, efficient, diligent and corruption-proof and will be replaced by a 10 – 15 strong committee, consisting of at least 10 and not more than 15 members, of a licensing authority. This will invariably give rise to more red tape.
· The Bill is a drunkards’ charter. The prevailing pub culture in England and Wales will not be changed by extending drinking hours which will exacerbate rather than reduce the drinking mayhem that afflicts our town and city centres at night.
· Music, especially pop music, has been one of Britain’s biggest export successes in the past. And where did Sir Mick Jagger and Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Elton John learn their trade and play their first gigs? In pubs, clubs and village halls etc.
If kids grow up only hearing music coming out of loudspeakers, they will not associate music with human beings playing instruments and eventually there will be no native English or Welsh music of any kind, because there will be no-one to play it. (Scotland won’t be affected; they get along perfectly well without any of this nonsense north of the border.)
Idle young people with nothing creative to occupy them often drift into drugs and crime. Even if a few of them can get together and form bands, that will be a few lives saved. But you can’t have a band without somewhere to practise and then somewhere to play for other people.
· The Joint Committee on Human Rights of the House of Commons has concluded there is a potential violation of musicians’ rights to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention) within the Licensing Bill. Interestingly, it has also concluded that the Bill inadequately protects residents’ rights to a quiet night’s sleep (Article 8 of the European Convention). Under the Human Rights Act 1998, all new legislation must be compatible with certain European Convention rights, including Articles 8 and 10.
16 January 2003
Chris Hodgkins
Jazz Services
132 Southwark Street
London SE1 0SW
SOURCE =
http://www.jazzsite.co.uk/ex/2bar/summary.htm
Two in a bar – reform of public licensing
Key objections to the licensing bill
· The Licensing Bill if enacted will be a disaster for the performance of live music in village halls, leisure and arts centres, cafes, restaurants, pubs, schools and colleges.
In all other parts of Europe, and indeed in Scotland, this freedom to perform live music is celebrated. Yet musicians in England and Wales are to be excluded from such freedom by an act of philistinism.
· The Licensing Bill discriminates against the performance of live music.
· There are strong grounds in cultural and social policy for putting an end to the discouragement of live music on licensed premises.
· The Licensing Bill will deleteriously affect the employment of musicians.
· Pub landlords will, when they file their operations plan for the premises licence, tick a box if they want to include live music as part of their operations. The implication is that for a small extra charge they will be able to employ musicians playing on the licensed premises. This optimistic view does not take into account health and safety.
At the present time, a landlord can employ up to two musicians without an entertainment licence on his premises with his or her existing health and safety obligations and inspections. With the proposed legislation that right to employ two musicians is removed and there is no guarantee that under the new licensing regime licensing authorities and health and safety inspectors will allow a publican to employ two musicians with his or her existing health and safety measures on their licensed premises.
There is an overwhelming sense of injustice in the Bill in that live music is discriminated against, whereas TV and juke boxes are exempt from the Bill. therefore it would be of enormous help if the DCMS were to ameliorate their position with a return to the status that all licensed premises were again allowed to employ up to two musicians without an entertainment licence.
· The situation in Scotland is fairer, more logical and less bureaucratic. It should be followed.
· In England and Wales, making music should not be a licensable activity.
· The scope of locations is far too wide. the Bill makes music licensable in everything from pubs and clubs to churches, schools and a marquee in a person’s back garden.
· The punishment is too strong if a musician is caught playing on unlicensed premises - £20,000 fine and six months’ imprisonment. It is intolerable that the onus is placed on the musician to ensure the premises they are playing in has a valid entertainment license.
· The Bill is a charter for wide screen TV and recorded music at the expense of the performance of live music. TV and recorded music are exempt from the Bill yet live TV coverage of sporting events are more likely than a group of musicians to result in drunkenness and public disorder.
· The Licensing Bill is a charter for red tape.
· The current system of magistrates formed into licensing committees is effective, efficient, diligent and corruption-proof and will be replaced by a 10 – 15 strong committee, consisting of at least 10 and not more than 15 members, of a licensing authority. This will invariably give rise to more red tape.
· The Bill is a drunkards’ charter. The prevailing pub culture in England and Wales will not be changed by extending drinking hours which will exacerbate rather than reduce the drinking mayhem that afflicts our town and city centres at night.
· Music, especially pop music, has been one of Britain’s biggest export successes in the past. And where did Sir Mick Jagger and Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Elton John learn their trade and play their first gigs? In pubs, clubs and village halls etc.
If kids grow up only hearing music coming out of loudspeakers, they will not associate music with human beings playing instruments and eventually there will be no native English or Welsh music of any kind, because there will be no-one to play it. (Scotland won’t be affected; they get along perfectly well without any of this nonsense north of the border.)
Idle young people with nothing creative to occupy them often drift into drugs and crime. Even if a few of them can get together and form bands, that will be a few lives saved. But you can’t have a band without somewhere to practise and then somewhere to play for other people.
· The Joint Committee on Human Rights of the House of Commons has concluded there is a potential violation of musicians’ rights to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention) within the Licensing Bill. Interestingly, it has also concluded that the Bill inadequately protects residents’ rights to a quiet night’s sleep (Article 8 of the European Convention). Under the Human Rights Act 1998, all new legislation must be compatible with certain European Convention rights, including Articles 8 and 10.
16 January 2003
Chris Hodgkins
Jazz Services
132 Southwark Street
London SE1 0SW
SOURCE =
http://www.jazzsite.co.uk/ex/2bar/summary.htm