Hobgoblin Music, PO Box 2522, Henfield, BN5 9SN, UK.

Tel: +44 (0)1273 491456 Fax: +44 (0)1273 491123

Website: www.hobgoblin.com E-Mail: post@hobgoblin.co.uk

Hobgoblin Music Campaign Letter

Fully updated and revised - please circulate as widely as possible

03 March 2003

Summary

Progress has been made, the government has conceded on some issues, including the important issue of criminality, and there have been 2 minor victories in the house of lords. All the other major issues remain unresolved despite the spin.

1 Making music should not be a licensable activity. We want all the music provisions removed from this bill

2 Illogically other noisier activities will be exempt. We want live music completely exempt in the same way as broadcast entertainment.

3 Music will need a license in nearly every conceivable location. We want any licensing of music restricted solely to alcohol licensed premises.

4 We want the wording changed to explicitly exclude Lessons, Studios and Shops

5 This is a "None in a Bar" law, a huge number of venues may close. We want license free acoustic music in all venues

Detailed Response

The new Licensing Bill was introduced to parliament on 14^th November 2002 and has now nearly finished in the House of Lords, and will subsequently go on to the House of Commons. I believe that despite amendments, it remains an assault on our civil liberties and our culture as it clearly restricts participation in the performing arts. If passed in the form the government wants, it will be a disaster for musicians, event organisers, music teachers, studios and retailers, and bring repression unseen for centuries for our whole musical culture in England and Wales. I don't think any other country in the world restricts the arts in such a way.

My earlier campaign letter in early December did produce some results, the EDM 331 was drafted which covers all my original objections. Politicians and the officials at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport have been made very aware of the strength of feeling by the letters they have been getting. The combined efforts of all the campaigns have now resulted in substantive improvements as regards:

1, Church and village halls which will get their licences for no fee,

2, Private events are now pretty much in the clear,

3, Criminal responsibility for performers has been removed altogether, and

4, The Lords have passed amendments which would allow incidental live music on the same basis as incidental recorded music, and music in educational establishments directly connected to their activities. (but we must expect some or all of this to be overturned in the Commons).

I have been (with John Clews of Keytempo who are campaigning from a classical musician's viewpoint) to meet with officials at the DCMS on two occasions, most recently on February 24th, and have met and spoken with a number of MPs, all of whom mentioned that they had been inundated with copies of my letter and other post on the issue. However many musicians and music lovers are still not aware of, or can't believe the truth of, what is going on. This updated letter takes account of the latest discussions and clarifications. Please circulate this document as widely as possible, keep the pressure up, and feel free to contact me with any helpful ideas.

The DCMS and the minister dealing with the licensing bill, Dr Howells have made a number of statements about their intentions which are mildly encouraging in the last few weeks, but unless we can get them to continue to change the actual wording of the bill to match their stated intentions, we will have made limited progress. The bill has now nearly finished in the Lords, without only limited progress from our point of view. Everything now hangs on the what the House of Commons do with it.

It is essential that maximum effort is put in by everyone affected right now to try to get the bill amended in the House of Commons as far as possible to deal with the main objections listed here. This can be achieved by lobbying of your MP - write to them now, ask them to sign EDM 331, tell them not to believe the spin (particularly the 20 myths document which is very misleading), but to look at the wording of the bill - by contacting the media in your area and nationally, by signing the online petition at www.petitiononline.com/2inabar/petition.html and by writing to the ministers at the Department of culture, media and sport, Dr Howells and Tessa Jowell.

KEY OBJECTIONS TO THE BILL AS IT STANDS

1 Making music should not be a licensable activity. It isn't in Scotland, and most other countries. Existing and recently enhanced health and safety, fire, and noise regulations are already in place across the whole of the UK and provide adequate protection in themselves. Recently the DCMS has justified music licensing stating that music and dance are associated with noise and drugs culture! (Also the organisation whose research paper the government claimed proved music itself was a genuine noise problem has denied the existence of such a paper - other more reliable research shows it is drunks outside pubs which is the main noise nuisance). The licensing procedure requires clearance from police, fire, health & safety, local authority, and local residents, and may come with expensive conditions attached. It will not be a simple matter at all.

We want all the music provisions removed from this bill

2 Illogically other noisier activities will be exempt. Live music is to be licensed, but recorded music will be partly exempt and broadcast music and sport will be completely exempt in the same locations. If he two in a bar rule is to be ended because it is "illogical", it is not justifiable to include a huge new illogicality in the new law. You would think the department of culture would encourage live music not single it out for new restrictions. Live Music is not a social ill, (though noise can be). Broadcasts and Jukeboxes are clearly not less of a noise, safety or social problem than live music - and the Association of Chief Police Officers agrees. Yet music is to be licensed and the others are not. This is very wrong, and everyone can see that it is.

We want live music completely exempt in the same way as broadcast entertainment.

3 This is a None in a Bar law, a black and white situation. At present around 5% of pubs have a music licence, but in the other 95% of pubs and all other locations either 2 performers, or any amount of music can be performed legally. This act places over 95% of all possible music venues under threat of closure. It really can not be taken as a given thing that they will all pay for or obtain the new local authority licenses. Even if the number of music licensed pubs doubles, we will still lose over 90% of all current possible venues.

At the very least we want license free acoustic music in all venues

4 The scope of locations covered is far too wide. The new act will make music licensable not just in pubs and clubs and places where alcohol is sold, but also school halls, hospitals, fields, streets and many other places. This is not a trivial license easily obtained, it is the same one as required to sell alcohol in pubs. There can be no justification for requiring a license to make music in these secondary locations. Thousands of public events will be threatened despite recent assurances to the contrary from the DCMS, unless the wording is changed.

We want any licensing of music restricted solely to alcohol licensed premises.

5 The scope of activities covered is far too wide. A new activity "Provision of "Entertainment Facilities" will become licensable (schedule 1, paragraph 3). This vague clause may catch Music Shops, Music Studios, and Music and Dance teachers as it stands (despite the DCMS saying this is not the intention). All of these activities may require a license. It may become illegal to teach music, use a rehearsal room, try out an instrument in a music shop, make a recording in a recording studio, unless a license is first obtained. (Unless the DCMS can be persuaded to change and clarify the wording)

We want the wording changed to explicitly exclude Lessons, Studios and Shops

6 Folk Traditions are under particular threat. The folk traditions of this country have been handed down in pubs for centuries, and now also rely on the private members club exemptions. This new "none in a bar" law will severely harm a national treasure which was already under threat from the existing "two in a bar" law. It cannot be right that Scottish traditions can be continued, while English and Welsh ones are to be made illegal. You would think that the Department of Culture would see the value of, and strive to aid and protect our unique national history and culture of music and dance, and of its value to tourism, which is stated as an aim of this bill.

We want license free acoustic music in all venues

AMENDMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS NEEDED

Amendments needed to existing wording

Ideally music should be removed from the bill, and a separate bill introduced. The wording required to suit the necessary changes in alcohol licensing simply don't cope with the needs of licensing music. As regards the existing bill, we would suggest the following changes:

1 Schedule 1, paragraph 1 states that music will be a licensable activity if the entertainment meets these two criteria: If it is to any extent for the public or for members of a club, or it is for consideration and with a view to profit.

Sub-paragraph (6) states that raising money for charity counts as being for profit.

Sub-paragraph (4) states that if any charge is made by any person concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment and if any charge is paid by those entertained, then the entertainment will count as being for consideration.

Thus Paragraph 1 may therefore catch buskers, mummers, morris dancers, school concerts, choral society events, school and village fetes, and many other currently legal events. It will not be possible or practicable for the organiser of such a one off event to obtain a full entertainment and drinks license, nor will they know how to go about it even if it is made relatively easy. The events will all have to be cancelled. It will also catch music shop activities if the playing of an instrument publicly can be deemed entertainment.

Dr Howells (the licensing minister) has stated that the bill intends to make all music licensable where the artist is paid to perform. However, the DCMS has stated (Jan 2003) that the wording "for consideration and with a view to profit" in subparagraph 2(c) means that the event would have to be intending to make a profit, and not just cover its costs. This is a good intention, but the wording of paragraph 4 states that entertainment will be regarded as for consideration (note the omission of the wording "view to profit") if any charge is made. This clearly implies that an event would be licensable when a charge is made, whether or not the event was "with a view to profit."

2 The wording regarding entertainment facilities is poorly drafted. It is not clear what is intended, and it will take a court to decide what it means. Surely it should be clarified and done properly. It can be taken to mean a number of activities, which are apparently not intended to be included. Music teaching, rehearsals, studios and shops should be specifically excluded. (They would be caught if a bystander, student, shop customer, rehearsing or recording musician etc. can be defined as an audience, and is deemed to have been entertained) Also the purpose of this section is not clear, what difference does it make to noise or safety whether the equipment is provided by the band or by the venue? It would seem best to remove it altogether.

3 A requirement on the venue to have clear signs or certificates on the wall making it clear what is and is not allowed in that premises. (This could be taken care of in the guidance)

4 All places which have a licence to serve drinks should have an AUTOMATIC basic music licence included (for instance acoustic music, an audience not exceeding 100 people, and not later than midnight), somewhat similar to the Scottish model. Larger events etc could be additionally licenced.

Exemptions needed

1 Music should not need to be licensed unless an alcohol licence would also be required.

2 There should be a specific exemption for unamplified acoustic music. This would allow most busking, carol singing, spontaneous singing in pubs, folk sessions, most folk clubs. It could not possibly be considered to pose a noise or safety hazard to exempt these kind of activities.

(The government is now proposing to exempt fees for church and village halls, but is still not budging on community events in locations such as schools and hospitals.)

PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE BILL

Will your performance be legal or not?

Local authorities should not be able to specify the detail of exactly what kind of music may be performed and when. They are proposing to grant very specific licenses, such as for 3 jazz musicians in the left hand corner on Thursdays. The licence should be a general one. Otherwise no one will know where they stand and licensees will constantly be having to reapply for variations to the license. Clear labelling will be required. We want the guidance to local authorities:

1, To restrict the types of music license granted to one or two easily understood categories,

2, For the music license to be an opt out option in the application form (so that licensees would have to ask NOT to have music),

3, To make it clear to licensees on the application form that they need to opt for music if they want ANY MUSIC AT ALL, and

4, Clear labelling on the outside of the premises.

Folk Music is under particular threat

Folk Clubs largely survive under the private club exemption. This will go. Not all the premises will get licensed. It is not hard to imagine that more than half of the clubs will have to close. The folk clubs themselves certainly can't afford licenses, nor are they always managed effectively enough to cope with this anyway. This is a direct threat to national culture. Folk sessions survive largely on the understanding that it is not a public performance, although this has been interpreted differently by the local authorities and is already something of a problem. Sessions will only be able to take place in premises which hold the new licence. This will obviously reduce the number of possible venues. This is a direct threat to national culture. We want all acoustic performances to be exempt from the law.

How will street music continue?

Morris Dancing, Mummers plays, street theatre, local bandstands, busking etc. All these are currently legal anywhere as regards licensing. Who will be the licensee and apply for the license under the new act? Will the new act catch them? It will if the premises are deemed to have been made available under schedule 1. The street is premises under the act - but can it be deemed to have been made available? A pub car park for a Morris Dance display, or a railway station or shopping centre for a carol singer or busker certainly will be deemed to have been made available, and the DCMS has confirmed this. Again we want all acoustic performance to be exempt from the law.

Local authorities may interpret the act to suit them / the courts may redefine the meanings less favourably

The current laws are enforced very zealously by many authorities at present. A landlord has recently been fined a considerable amount for allowing four customers to sing Happy Birthday. Many other pub based folk clubs and sessions have been shut down. We must expect this over zealous interpretation to be applied to any new law, so it is very important that no ambiguity is there for the local authorities to exploit, and which will need test cases in court to clarify.

Pete McClelland (Hobgoblin Music)

Useful contacts:

Pete McClelland pete@hobgoblin.co.uk,

Hamish Birchall hab.drum@virgin.net,

John Clews keylist@sesame.demon.co.uk

House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA,

House of Lords SW1A 0WP,

Tessa Jowell MP (minister for culture)

Kim Howells MP (minister for tourism, film and broadcasting),

Malcolm Moss MP (conservative spokesperson on licensing),

John Whittingdale (conservative spokesperson on culture),

Online page for faxing your MP: www.faxyourmp.com

online petition: www.petitiononline.com/2inabar/petition.html