'two-in-a-bar' rule campaign
What is the 'two-in-a-bar' campaign?
'Two-in-a-bar' is a campaign to update the Public Entertainment Licensing (PEL) law which prevent more than two musicians playing in a licensed premises without a PEL. This law has stopped a number of jazz events in Leeds area. This page is a collection of campaigner Hamish Birchill's emails.
Who's involved in the Campaign?
London based musician Hamish Birchall, and the Musicians Union, is spearheading a broad coalition for two in a bar reform. Campaign partners include Equity, the English Folk Dance and Song Society, the Association of British Jazz Musicians, and the Arts Council's licensing working party. The Church of England lends its name in support, and music industry organisations such as the Performing Rights Society and British Music Rights are also now lobbying behind the scenes.
Background Information
What is PEL?
Example of PEL enforcement
How can I help?
You can help the campaign by writing to Hamish or Government Ministers and MPs detailing your experiences with how PEL affects your enjoyment of live music in Leeds as either performer or gig supporter. The DCMS is responsible for PEL policy. Dr Kim Howells is the Minister with responsibility for licensing. Kim.Howells@culture.gsi.gov.uk
Join the campaign!
To receive future emails directly send an email to Hamish at ham.drum@virgin.net
Useful Links all links below open in a new window
Index to campaign emails
Use these links to move up and down this very long page!

 Open Letter, Carlsboro Elec. MD 17/6/2
 150 MPs... Who? full list of names 19/6/2
 140 MPs have signed 17/6/2
 94 MPs have signed 25/5/2
 77 MPs have signed EDM1182 23/5/2
 Live satellite tv in pubs 15/5/2
 Taliban in Stockport 17/3/2
 PEL in Parliament last night 3/3/2
 PEL Debate timetabled for House of Commons 19/2/2
 Camden Campaign scores hit 14/2/02
 Tales from Community 23/1/2
 Government answers more two-in-a-bar questions 20/12/1
 PEL letters to MPs 10/12/1
 Write to the Minister 08/12/1
 'two-in-a-bar' alarms ordinary and honest people 1/12/1
 PEL - musicians statements 16/10/1
 Send a letter to Minister re: PEL 28/9/1
 2-in-a-bar rule 16/9/1

About Hamish Birchill
"I am a London-based musician, and since September last year have been employed (part-time) as an adviser to the Musicians Union on public entertainment licensing reform. I am also a long-standing member of the MU (over 25 years). As of 25 June 2002, 159 MPs have signed EDM 1182, which puts it among the top 50 of over 1,700 EDMs currently open for signature! If we can't persuade the Government to get it right this time, it won't be for want of trying."

Contact Hamish via email at ham.drum@virgin.net

Open letter from Carlsboro electronics    top
Andrew Bishop, owner of Carlsboro electronics, the last British manufacturer of amplification equipment, has sent this tremendous open letter to his MP, Geoff Hoon:

Dear Geof
Carlsbro 1960 - 2002

Thank you for taking the time to come to see me at the factory to discuss the business we are conducting in the Arab Countries and the latest situation regarding a recent Early Day Motion (EDM 1182).

As the owner of the last remaining British manufacturer of amplification equipment for musicians and singers, I write in the strongest possible terms to urge the government to change the law and allow more live music in England and Wales. Please remove the burden of the Public Entertainment License (PEL) and treat all forms of entertainment fairly. Here are my views in point form for clarity.

  1. Live music venues are swapping stages for dining tables and installing video walls and recorded music systems in preference to live music as they do not have to apply, comply with or pay for a PEL.
  2. As a nation we spend millions of pounds each year encouraging youngsters to play musical instruments and then prevent them expressing their skills by limiting the number of live venues in which they can develop their craft. Why give hope and take it away, the best method of encouraging children to learn is to give them an incentive.
  3. In Britain we spend 20 million each year funding youth projects for live music bands are formed and then swiftly break up due to the lack of venues to play in.
  4. In the course of a year we spend £50 million promoting Britain as a holiday location for overseas visitors. Gone are the days when the country can boast numerous live music venues depicting the culture of the nation. Most public places have little entertainment to offer. A mere 5% of public houses have a PEL.
  5. Carlsbro employ 50 people and support 250 jobs in the local community. Our business is in jeopardy through lack of venues, reduced income to musicians resulting in no need to buy or replace equipment. British manufacturing is important to me and after 43 years we should be permitted to continue.
  6. Drug usage in our inner cities continues to corrupt young children and cause distress to communities. Opening up live music venues and giving youngsters a reason to live through playing, listening and writing music is one method of giving hope to people less fortunate than you and I.
  7. Music was our biggest export. Recognition was given to Sir Mick Jagger by the queen. He joins Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney. Clearly the nation recognises what contribution these stars bring to the British Isles, but who is following these fantastic ambassadors for the UK? We must act quickly to encourage youngsters to follow these icons by giving them the opportunity to play, in public.
  8. Record companies are reporting record losses. This is not due to internet fraud but a lack of new talent publicly exposed for the benefit of all. The lack of new talent is illustrated by Elvis Presely who has been dead for many years but is currently number one in the charts in the Uk.
  9. Parents need reasons to encourage cultural activities for their children. I am a parent and all my children play at home. We have no live music venues in my town so it is unlikely they will continue. We have invested significant sums in instruments and lessons and it saddens me to think they will return to the computer screen or the television in the years to come as they have little or no reason to continue to play music with their friends.
  10. With 2000 music shops in the UK it is estimated that over 30,000 people in the music business will loose there jobs as the industry declines into recession. What hope is there of a future for British music with no outlet for talent. All of this because we encourage local authorities greedy for cash to prosecute musicians thus killing a once great British music business. We cling on to the music of the Beatles, Dire Straits and the Jam whilst the industry cries out for new blood to revive British tourism, industry and music for everybody.
Please copy this letter to anyone be they government ministers or members of parliament who listen to music and encourage everyone to support the EDM 1182. Let us hope Mr Blair will support musicians and remove legislation which prevents development of all forms of music.

Please help us.

Regards
Andrew Bishop Owner
www.Carlsbro.com
Mob ++44 (0) 7973 223949
Private Fax ++44(0) 1765 604920

150 MPs now signed up to EDM 1182 - 20 June 2002    top

150 MPs have now signed, which puts EDM 1182 in the top 60 of 1682 EDMs currently open for signature.
 
Has your MP signed? Check list below, and if you haven't already contacted them, you can (usually) send a fax direct from www.faxyourmp.com
 
Please keep the letters, faxes and emails going. It helps two in a bar press coverage, and encourages the Government to introduce licensing reform in November's Queen's Speech.
PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE
23.04.02
Mr David Heath
Mr Richard Allan Mr David Amess Janet Anderson
Mr Richard Bacon Norman Baker John Barrett
Hugh Bayley Mr Roy Beggs Mr A J Beith
Andrew Bennett Mr Roger Berry Peter Bottomley
Virginia Bottomley Mr Keith Bradley Mr Colin Breed
Kevin Brennan Mr Russell Brown Ms Karen Buck
Colin Burgon Andy Burnham Mr Menzies Campbell
Mr Ronnie Campbell Mr Alistair Carmichael Mr Martin Caton
Mr Colin Challen Sir Sydney Chapman Mr David Chaytor
Mr David Chidgey Mr Michael Clapham Mrs Helen Clark
Harry Cohen Mr Iain Coleman Mr Tony Colman
Mr Michael Connarty Frank Cook Jeremy Corbyn
Brian Cotter Mrs Ann Cryer Mr John Cummings
Mr Jim Cunningham Mr Paul Daisley Mr Tam Dalyell
Mr Edward Davey Valerie Davey Mrs Janet Dean
Mr Andrew Dismore Jim Dobbin Mr Frank Dobson
Sue Doughty Jim Dowd Mr David Drew
Julia Drown Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody Mr Huw Edwards
Mr Bill Etherington Mr Frank Field Paul Flynn
Mr Don Foster Dr Hywel Francis Andrew George
Matthew Green David Hamilton Mr Mike Hancock
Nick Harvey Mr Mark Hendrick Mr Stephen Hepburn
Mr David Heyes Kate Hoey Paul Holmes
Mr Kelvin Hopkins Mr Lindsay Hoyle Simon Hughes
Mrs Joan Humble Dr Brian Iddon Mr Brian Jenkins
Mr Martyn Jones Mr Nigel Jones Alan Keen
Mr Robert Key Mr Piara S Khabra Mr Archy Kirkwood
Jim Knight Mr David Laws Mr David Lepper
Mr Tony Lloyd Mr Elfyn Llwyd Ian Lucas
Mr Peter Luff Mr Andrew MacKay Andrew Mackinlay
John Mann Rob Marris Mr Gordon Marsden
Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews Mr Michael Mates Siobhain McDonagh
Mr Kevin McNamara Mr Austin Mitchell Laura Moffatt
Mr Chris Mole Julie Morgan Ms Meg Munn
Mr Martin O'Neill Mr Mark Oaten Diana Organ
Mr Greg Pope Mr Stephen Pound Adam Price
James Purnell Syd Rapson Hugh Robertson
John Robertson Mr Geoffrey Robinson Mr Peter Robinson
Andrew Rosindell Chris Ruane Bob Russell
Phil Sawford Mr Brian Sedgemore Andrew Selous
Mr Jonathan R Shaw Mr Barry Sheerman Mr Alan Simpson
Mr Dennis Skinner Mr Chris Smith Geraldine Smith
Mr John Smith Mr Gerry Steinberg Mr David Stewart
Mr Paul Stinchcombe Dr Gavin Strang David Taylor
Matthew Taylor John Thurso Mr Mark Todd
Mr Paul Tyler Mr Bill Tynan Dr Rudi Vis
Steve Webb Brian White Miss Ann Widdecombe
Mrs Betty Williams Mr Roger Williams Mr Mike Wood
Tony Worthington Mr James Wray David Wright
Derek Wyatt Richard Younger-Ross

140 MPs now signed up to EDM 1182 - 17 June 2002    top
Have you contacted your MP yet? Try www.faxyourmp.com.
Music industry and public entertainment licensing
MPs discussed the music industry during a Westminster Hall debate last Wednesday (12 June). For the full Hansard transcript click on this link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020612/hallindx/20612-x.htm

The focus was on copyright and piracy issues, but Siobhain McDonagh MP made a useful speech about two in a bar and public entertainment licensing, see section below:

"... My main concern is the lack of opportunities for new bands to make live music. Through my teenage years from the age of 17, a week had not ended properly if I had not had the opportunity to see a live band in some small pub or club not far from where I lived. Many of those venues have now gone, and people now in their late teens will not be able to see the equivalent of The Jam, or say that they saw them in a small pub in Croydon on the Sunday night that their first single hit the charts. Many such stories have built my love for music, and I should like young people to be given the opportunity to attend concerts at little cost and to watch bands thrive and develop.

"It is a tragedy for live music in this country that many venues have gone. It is also a tragedy for live music of the future—there are fewer places where bands can start out and learn the craft of live performance. It is not the fault of the Government's new deal for musicians, which has been welcomed by the Musicians Union, and which has given a hand-up to more than 9,000 young musicians; nor is it the fault of the union learning fund, which is a small grant scheme that was set up by the Government in 1998 to encourage unions to help their members develop their talents. The decline in small music venues is largely the fault of local authorities and their public entertainment licences, and all the Government's good work will be stymied without positive licensing reform.

"For a nation that rightly takes pride in the global success of its music industry, it is strange that licensees commit a criminal offence if they allow three singers to perform in a pub, or in any other premises covered by the Licensing Act 1964. Even spontaneous singing—which I have been known to do, particularly in the Strangers Bar—is technically an offence. [Interruption.] Yes, my singing is an offence. Such activity is an offence unless a special permit called a public entertainment licence has first been obtained from the local authority. Last week's BBC Music Live community sing-a-long was therefore an act of mass civil disobedience for most of the pub customers who took part.

"Without a public entertainment licence, premises may provide unlimited recorded sound, and radio, live satellite and terrestrial television broadcasts. The maximum penalty for unlicensed public entertainment however is a £20,000 fine and six months in prison—a bizarre state of affairs. The two-performer exemption from public entertainment licences is understandably derided by musicians who call it the two-in-a-bar rule. Only 5 per cent. of 111,000 liquor-licensed premises in England and Wales hold an annual public entertainment licence, which is why the word "rule" is more appropriate than "exemption."

"It means that a live gig tonight performed by more than two musicians would be illegal in more than 100,000 bars, pubs and other liquor-licensed premises.

"The low take-up of public entertainment licences is largely due to rising costs and red tape. Home Office circular 13 published in April 2000 warned councils against excessive conditions and asked them to consider lowering fees for public entertainment licences. Few have taken any notice. Annual public entertainment licence revenue for local authorities in England and Wales rose by about 20 per cent. a year between 1998 and 2001; for the record, the figures are £11.005 million between 1998 and 1999 and £16.067 million between 2000 and 2001. That data comes from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. In fact, the totals are almost certainly higher, because a small percentage of councils do not provide CIPFA with such information.

"To me, revenue from public entertainment licensing looks suspiciously like a music and dancing tax. Local authorities argue that public entertainment licence fees are justified on the polluter pays principle, but since alcohol sales of some £30 billion a year generate some £12 billion in VAT and duty, perhaps some of the money should be available to local authorities to underwrite the legitimate costs associated with regulating music and dancing premises. Surely, that would be better than a locally set tax, which often bears no relation at all to the polluting capacity of the premises.

"The two-in-a-bar restrictions on live performance are ludicrous by any standards. In Ireland, whose team has also had significant World cup success in the past few days and which many of us support, a pub without a live band is the exception. No entertainment licence is required in rural areas, although a permit costing £24 a year is needed in towns. In Scotland, most pubs can provide live bands before 11 pm without a public entertainment licence, and Scottish pubs—indeed, all workplaces—are regulated by UK-wide safety and noise legislation, which begs the question of whether a public entertainment licence is the only way to address safety and noise concerns.

"On the face of it, the rationale for public entertainment licensing is eminently reasonable. Public entertainment licences are supposed to ensure public safety and minimise noise nuisance, and prevent crime and disorder. However, if it is deemed safe for pubs without a public entertainment licence to entertain customers with live sport on widescreen television, as they are doing with the World cup, surely it is safe to provide a folk band, a jazz trio or, in the case of some restaurants, a string quartet.

"It would be mistake to assume that noise from live music is a major problem for local authorities. According to the Noise Abatement Society, 81 per cent. of complaints are caused by noisy people in the streets outside premises. The remaining 19 per cent. of complaints relate to noisy neighbours, noisy machinery or loud recorded music escaping from bars and nightclubs. Loud amplified bands may be a problem, but there is effective legislation to address it, as the Scottish example shows. Licensing justices have the power to attach noise conditions on the grant of liquor licences. It seems that the power is not widely used, but it is there.

"According to the Musicians Union, in Finland, Denmark and Germany there is no separate licensing requirement for live music. Its provision is assumed when the equivalent of a liquor licence is granted. As one would expect, the premises are subject to noise-limiting conditions, particularly if they are open after midnight. I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has announced that the Government do not intend to require live television sport in pubs to be licensed under the proposed new alcohol and entertainment Bill. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that. Yet the Government propose that, in future, even one amplified guitarist in a bar will be illegal, unless such entertainment has been declared when applying for a premises licence and subsequently approved by the local authority.

"I recognise that the Minister publicly acknowledged in his Department's press release of 12 April that simply abolishing the two-in-a-bar rule was not enough. Indeed, the licensing White Paper "Time for Reform" carried a risk assessment that musicians could lose work as a result. So how exactly do the Government expect that live music will benefit if the starting point for all licensees becomes none in a bar? Sweeping away red tape and making licensing simpler and cheaper will undoubtedly benefit the licensed trade. The Government are to be congratulated on the scope of their proposed licensing reforms, but surely a thriving musical life at all levels in society is somewhat more important than the potential for 24-hour drinking.

"Setting licence fees centrally may help, but only if the levels are low. The Government have an obligation to explain more clearly how their reforms will not just stop but reverse the decline of grass roots entertainment. Pop icons such as Elton John and Dave Stewart have recently complained about the lack of talent and depth in the contemporary pop scene. Composer and performer Big George Webley, who wrote the music for "Have I Got News For You" and won Sony Music broadcaster of the year last month, said:

"'Over the past two decades this once great musical nation has lost its breeding ground for talent. Pre-packaged lightweight muzak fodder has replaced grass roots entertainment. If the Beatles, Queen or Dire Straits were starting their careers today, they would never get on stage, let alone make a record or get on the radio.'"

94 MPs have now signed - 25 May 2002    top
94 MPs have now signed David Heath's public entertainment licence Early Day Motion 1182. Only about 400 MPs are eligible to sign EDMs so this is a very significant level of support. If you are experiencing two in a bar problems in your area, the local press may now be more interested in covering the story, linking it to EDM 1182. If your MP has signed so much the better.

Has your MP signed? - Check using the link below:

http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1182

Parliament is in recess from next Monday (27 May) returning on Monday 10 June, so the total may not rise as steeply as it has done over the last two weeks. Fax your MP direct from www.faxyourmp.com or write c/o House of Commons, London SW1A OAA. Please pass this message on to other musicians interested in the public entertainment licence issue. Thanks again to those of you who have already contacted your MP about this.

77 MPs have now signed EDM 1182 - 23 May 2002   top
77 MPs have now signed David Heath's EDM 1182 calling on the Government to reform the two in a bar rule and our 'archaic and just plain daft' public entertainment licensing legislation. This represents a tremendous level of support, and will help generate more media coverage. Thanks to all of you who have already contacted your MP to ask them to sign.

To check whether your MP has signed click on URL below, enter 1182 in 'Search for EDM number' and click on SEARCH:

http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1182

The PRINTABLE EDM button will give you a list of supporting MPs in alphabetical order with the text of the EDM beneath. Equity, the English Folk Dance and Song Society (EFDSS), and the MU have now written to all MPs urging them to suppport EDM 1182. The Arts Council has contacted MPs with a music interest, also asking for their support. If you have not yet contacted your MP please do so now. You can fax them direct from www.faxyourmp.com. If you don't know their name this useful service will identify them from your postcode. The postal address is c/o House of Commons, London SW1A OAA.

Live satellite tv in pubs - 15 May 2002    top
Live satellite tv in pubs is currently exempt from public entertainment licensing. Whether you think that is good or bad, it is clearly an anomaly. The PEL rationale is primarily to prevent overcrowding and nuisance, but pubs with live satellite tv often get overcrowded and noisy when major football fixtures are broadcast. Local authorities pay little attention. Put three singers in a pub without a PEL, however, and the council will arrange covert surveillance by licensing officers. Threats of criminal prosecution usually follow. The Government is proposing that in future, even one performer in a pub will be illegal - unless landlords have first declared their intention to host live music on the licence application, and this has received local authority approval. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has today confirmed, however, that the Government has no plans to require landlords to declare the provision of live satellite television on their licence application. Ministers may be persuaded to change their minds, apparently, if a reasonable case is made by performers unions. Perhaps it would be better to turn this around and use the satellite tv example to argue for a similar exemption for small-scale live music? Comments welcome.

Echoes of the Taleban in Stockport 17 March 2002    top
See this report about a clampdown on live music from today's online Stockport Express (please remember that all the safety issues can be addressed without resort to the live music licence)

www.stockportexpress.co.uk

None-in-the-Bar 21 March 2002    top
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport sent a letter to Weymouth council on 4 Feb clarifying the aims of the proposed licensing reform.

So, the general rule would be none-in-the-bar. The present legislation says its purpose relates only to safety and noise. But that hasn't stopped local authorities applying excessive, inconsistent and costly conditions for bands.

Having talked with some officers of his local council on the subject last January, Steve Rubie, proprietor of the 606 Jazz Club warned the Musicians Union that:

"... each licensee will be required to make the choice, at the point of application, as to whether or not they want to add Entertainment to their licence application. Should they decide not to, for whatever reason, then that premises will not be licensed for music of any kind. In other words, the '2 in the bar' rule will be gone, but if the applicants, who may have had duos for possibly years, do not fully appreciate the situation and just assume that they still don't need a licence for duos, and so fail to apply for one, then they will lose the ability to put on live music altogether.

"It is also quite possible that a number of venues that have put on live music in the past may be required to make so many changes under the new regulations that it's not worth their while, and will subsequently stop the provision of live music. The biggest problem, it seems to me though, is that licensees really need to be educated to the fact that even if they only want to put on music once a year, say New Year's Eve, then they must still add 'Entertainment' to their licence at the point of application otherwise it will not be possible'.

"... it could be a great boost to the promotion of live music if handled properly, but it does seem to me that if not it could actually backfire and lead to fewer, rather than more, venues promoting live music."

Is this the best way forward? Will it cost more for the 'premises licence' to host live music? Why can't there be a presumption in favour of incidental live music in bars and pubs, unless the council can demonstrate convincingly that this is just not feasible in a particular premises?
Why can't we adopt the Scottish licensing regime? Most bars there can provide live bands during permitted hours with no additional fees or conditions - and the same safety and noise legislation applies in Scotland as in England and Wales.

Fax your MP from the web via this free service: www.faxyourmp.com

Or snail mail: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

PEL in Parliament last night 3 March 2002    top
Hamish Birchill writes: "David Heath MP did a tremendous job last night in the House of Commons. The attendance was poor (predictable: it was very late) this did not detract from a superb speech and some useful contributions by Jim Knight MP. Whether the Government's response is good enough you may judge for yourselves (my view is that it is not)".

www.publications.parliament.uk


PEL Debate timetabled for House of Commons 19 February 2002    top

David Heath MP (Lib Dem, Somerton & Frome) has secured an adjournment debate on reform of public entertainment licences in the House of Commons on Wednesday 27 February: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmfbusi/20225a01.htm This is, I believe, the first time PELs will be the subject of a timetabled House of Commons debate.
It was David Heath's question in the Commons on 3 December that provoked the now notorious comment by Junior Culture Minister, Dr Kim Howells:

'...For a simple urban boy such as me, the idea of listening to three Somerset folk singers sounds like hell...'

Mr Heath had pointed out: '...Does the Minister not recognise that live music in pubs and inns has the potential to make a major contribution to tourism in rural areas, which we have already said we want to promote?'

It was odd that Dr Howells did not take the opportunity to develop this important point. A few weeks earlier he had remarked: '...Somebody told me the other they had calculated that even in remote areas the hospitality industry and the tourism industry between them is worth four times that of farming, and many times that in terms of employment. So it is absolutely essential, I think, that we do not sit back, we do not delay too far on this but we say "Let us see how we can help the industry by deregulation"...' [Select Committee hearing on licensing deregulation, 16 October 2001]

In fact, deregulation as a means to remedy the absurd iniquities of two-in-a-bar was rejected some years ago. Meanwhile, all the Government will say about a new licensing Bill is that it will be presented 'as soon as Parliamentary time permits'. * * *

The full text of the 3 December 2001 House of Commons exchange is as follows:

Music (Licensed Premises)

11. Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): When she [Tessa Jowell, Culture Secretary] will introduce legislation to abolish the restrictions on the numbers of musicians permitted to play together in licensed premises?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): We intend to present a Bill to reform and modernise the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws as soon as parliamentary time permits. However, there is no current restriction on the number of musicians who may play together in licensed premises if the licensee has first obtained an appropriate public entertainment licence. I am aware that obtaining such licences can be a prohibitively expensive business in some local authority areas, because of the attitude of those authorities.

Mr. Hopkins: Many thousands of part-time and professional musicians who wish to play and entertain in pubs and restaurants, and millions who wish to listen to them, find that that is not possible because of the current restriction - the two-in-a-bar rule. Is it not nonsensical that a quiet jazz piano trio or a string quartet may not play in such premises, while a loud karaoke machine or discotheque may operate in them?

Dr. Howells: I entirely agree. We want to make licensing a much simpler, less bureaucratic and cheaper process, so that there is no deterrent to seeking the appropriate licences. It is obvious that the legislation badly needs to be updated: it dates back to the mid-1960s, when I suppose an acoustic-guitar folk trio made a good deal less noise than one person with a loud amplifier.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): If the legislation needs updating so badly, and given that legislation modernising licensing laws was promised to the electorate in the Labour party manifesto, why did that proposed legislation not appear in the Queen's Speech?

Dr. Howells: Because this Government were elected to improve public services. Those were the Government's priorities, as we made very clear, and they are the priorities that we have stuck to in our legislative programme. We hope very much that there will be space for a Bill allowing us to make these reforms, and that it will be announced in the next Queen's Speech.

Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): Are we not living in a much nicer world when we can listen to music rather than having to face the music, as we have to here from time to time? Will my hon. Friend look again at the restrictions on buskers on the underground and at British Rail stations? They add to the enjoyment and gaiety of life, but so often they are moved on. Can we not view the situation in a proper way, so that the buskers can earn their living and we can all enjoy their performances?

Dr. Howells: I do not believe that that would be part of a reform of licensing Bill, but it is an interesting thought. Some extremely dreary public places are enlivened by the activities of buskers.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Is it not ridiculous that, in the unlikely event of Michael Jackson and Madonna teaming up to do a gig down the local pub, they could so, yet three people singing Somerset folk songs would not be able to do so? Does the Minister not recognise that live music in pubs and inns has the potential to make a major contribution to tourism in rural areas, which we have already said we want to promote?

Dr. Howells: We are straying into very dangerous territory. For a simple urban boy such as me, the idea of listening to three Somerset folk singers sounds like hell. Having said that, the hon. Gentleman is right: music does enliven many pubs and restaurants. It should thrive. Silly rules are preventing it from doing so.

* * * NB: The term 'silly' is something of an understatement for rules that have destroyed hundreds, if not thousands, of gigs. A breach of the 'silly rules' constitutes a criminal offence for which the maximum penalty is a six month jail sentence and a £20,000 fine. Local authority threats of prosecution are common.

Campaign for Live Music in Camden scores a hit. 14 February 2002    top

Camden's new draft licensing policy proposes the creation of an 'Unplugged music and dance licence', available at a nominal fee, for 'musical entertainment with no amplification whatsoever' in small premises (capacity 100) up to midnight. Follow licensing links from www.camden.gov.uk Standard noise conditions would be waived and a less technical requirement substituted unless the hours applied for extend beyond midnight when standard conditions, and full fees, would apply. It must be stressed that this is only a proposal. The draft will be presented to council members tomorrow (14 Feb) at the meeting of the General Purposes (Licensing) Sub-Committee. If adopted it could establish a best practice precedent for all local authorities.

Two tales from Community 23 January 2002    top

January 23rd there was a a live report on BBC Radio 4's Today programme about the world's first full-scale scientific research into the therapeutic benefit of live music. This project, now in its third year, is based at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. Their initial results show a significant reduction in anxiety for patients. This leads to a reduction in prescriptions of anti-depressants and painkillers, and a reduction in recovery times - all of which have cost-saving implications for the NHS. The daily live music programme at the hospital ranges from world-class chamber music to African drumming, and even full-scale opera. Performances take place in the public atrium and on wards. Last year they monitored the response to live music for both mother and unborn child in the antenatal ward. This year live music is being evaluated in the day surgery unit.

Elsewhere in the community, the authorities adopt a rather different view. The latest choice tale comes from York where the landlord of the Melbourne public house was threatened by the council with a £20,000 fine because one of his regulars, pensioner Mavis Brogden, 'enjoyed an impromtu boogie during a song by a regular singer' [front page feature, York Evening News, Sat 29 December 2001].

Government answers more two-in-a-bar questions 20 December 2001    top

Junior Culture Minister Dr Kim Howells yesterday answered two more questions about public entertainment licensing.

The written questions were asked by Nick Harvey, the Lib Dem Shadow Culture Minister. I have put my own thoughts at the end of each question (brown text). In a nutshell it seems that the Government has made a political decision to avoid implicating local authorities at all costs, in spite of the fact that while the law may be an ass, council enforcement policies are equally to blame:

House of Commons - Written Questions - Wed 19 December 2001

Public Entertainment Licences

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received regarding the issuing of public entertainment licences; and if she will make a statement. [24133]

Dr. Howells: Representations from hon. Members, industry, performers and licensing law practitioners concerning public entertainment licensing law have tended to fall into five main categories. These are concerns about inconsistent approaches adopted by different licensing authorities; the scope for local licensing authorities to impose disproportionate and burdensome requirements on smaller venues; the duplication of the requirements with the fire safety and health and safety regulations; some evidence of excessive fee charging; and the limitations on the exemption from public entertainment licensing for public houses in the Licensing Act 1964. Changes to public entertainment licensing laws require primary legislation, and our reform of the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws will address these anxieties. We shall present the necessary legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  • The Minister does not really answer the question, which specifically asked about representations received 'regarding the issuing' of PELs - not concerning PEL law. The distinction is important.
  • He omits the key facts: while Parliament is responsible for primary legislation, local authorities are responsible for PEL fees, conditions, and enforcement policies. There would be no representations if local authority practice were reasonable and consistent. The five categories are interesting, but the wording is calculated to obscure the key role of local authorities.
  • There is scope in the law to charge nil fees and to set reasonable conditions. The representations arise because disproportionate and burdensome requirements are commonplace, particularly London.
  • The fixation on pubs must be knocked on the head: the PEL exemption in the Licensing Act 1964 for two performers, recorded sound or satellite tv, applies to all on-licensed premises including restaurants, hotels, bars, cafes etc where the public can buy and consume alcohol - a total of 111,000 premises in England and Wales. Duplicated legislation: Doesn't the Scottish example show that for most entertainments, including live music, PELs are unnecessary in on-licensed premises? Scotland and England share the same health, safety and noise legislation.
  • ‘Some evidence of excessive fee charging': a classic understatement. There is voluminous evidence, including comprehensive MU data. Even the Home Office, when they had responsibility for PELs, accepted overcharging was a serious problem. By way of response it issued a Circular jointly with the LGA (13/2000, 10 April 2000) warning local authorities that overcharging is ultra vires [illegal, basically], and that this could harm the entertainment and tourism industries. This asked that local authorities consider lowering PEL fees, and to review PEL policy. The Circular advised that the Home Office would write again to all local authorities six months later for feedback. We need to know a) whether the Home Office actually did this, and b) if it did, what the replies were.
  • While new primary legislation is essential in the long run, live music could thrive if local authority practice was reasonable and consistent. The DCMS could work to achieve this by issuing guidelines to local authorities on best practice concerning PEL fees, conditions and enforcement policies. Steps could be taken now to ensure that enforcement no longer happens merely because there are more than two performers in on-licensed premises. Such enforcement is not only irrational and absurd, but violates the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention, and is probably unlawful under the Human Rights Act. Section 3 of the HRA requires that local authorities must read and give effect to all legislation in a way that is compatible with Convention rights. The reasonable grounds for enforcement would be if there were a noise complaint or a convincingly established safety risk beyond that addressed by existing safety provision.
  • Prohibitively expensive PELs and heavy-handed enforcement restricts on-licensed premises to providing only recorded sound or satellite television, or one or two live performers. It would be sensible to encourage local entertainments that represent less of a risk to residential amenity than either recorded sound or satellite tv. This could be done by charging very low PEL fees where acoustic live music is provided, for example, and implementing public safety under existing health and safety legislation as local authorities are legally bound to do in any case.
  • There is no need to wait for Parliamentary time to draw up guidelines. There is every reason to produce them as a matter of urgency. Serious two-in-a-bar problems really began in the early 1980s after local authorities acquired responsibility from magistrates for public entertainment licences. "Time for Reform"

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to implement the proposals outlined in 'Time for Reform'; what estimate she has made of the time scale for implementation; and if she will make a statement. [24132]

Dr. Howells: We remain fully committed to the proposals set out in the White Paper "Time for Reform" and intend to introduce legislation to implement them. The timetable for implementation inevitably depends on when it will be possible to introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament and this will be done as soon as parliamentary time permits.

The White Paper was produced with little input from performers or their unions. There was, however, plenty of input from nightclub owners, via their umbrella organisation the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association (BEDA) and, of course, from the Local Government Association. It is the LGA that lobbied to extend local authority jurisdiction over all live music, and this is what the White Paper proposes.There will be no exemptions.

PEL letters to MPs 10 December 2001    top

Many thanks to those of you who have written to Culture Minister Kim Howells.

If want a reply signed by the Minister himself, however, rather than a response from a minion, note this advice from one of my email contacts who used to work for an MP:

'Following up through your own MP is the best approach to get a response from Howells himself. If you write to the Minister directly it will be dealt with by a junior civil servant at the DCMS and will be signed by that person. Writing to your MP asking him/her to raise the matter with Howells will eventually get a copy of a letter that he will have signed himself. I don't know what mechanisms the department has for registering public interest, but a flow of letters across his own ministerial desk is likely to register with him, rather than a statistic in a briefing note.'

If you are unsure who is your MP you could visit the House of Commons website with the full list of MPs and their constituencies.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/almsad.htm

Many have e-mail addresses listed. You can then email or write to your MP at:

House of Commons London SW1A OAA

Two-in-a-bar - time to write to the Minister 08 December 2001    top

I know that many of you have already written to Culture Minister Kim Howells expressing your concerns about public entertainment licensing restrictions on live music, particularly as they apply in on-licensed premises. But if you haven't yet written, please consider sending an email or letter now.

As recently as 29 November, a senior DCMS civil servant was able to write to me:

'While you and others have tried valiantly to raise the public profile of the issues that concern you, I am afraid that there has been very little public response to the media coverage so far as Departmental correspondence is concerned.'

This was cited by the DCMS as one reason why it need not provide general information about PELs on their website. The other was that such information might 'alarm ordinary and honest people unnecessarily'. Dr Howells' comment in the House of Commons on 3 December that the idea of listening to Somerset folk singers 'sounds like hell' was most unfortunate. But it got huge media coverage, and many of these reports have also cited the 'two-in-a-bar rule' and the Minister's observation that such rules were 'silly'. As I have said in recent emails, while new primary legislation is essential in the long run, work opportunities for musicians and public access to live music could be transformed now - if councils abolished PEL fees and heavy-handed enforcement policies. The DCMS is responsible for PEL policy, and Dr Howells is still the Minister with responsibility for licensing:
Kim.Howells@culture.gsi.gov.uk

Or snail-mail:

Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur St
London SW1Y 5DH

'two-in-a-bar' alarms ordinary and honest people 1 December 2001    top

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has finally explained why it will not provide general information on its website about the prevailing legislation that regulates public music and dancing www.culture.gov.uk .

'We are extremely reluctant to place general information on our website which may alarm ordinary and honest people unnecessarily when their local authority may adopt a policy of non-enforcement or the practice of waiving requirements in certain circumstances'.
[Philippa Drew, Director of Education, Training, Arts and Sport, DCMS, letter to Victoria Todd, Director of the National Campaign for the Arts, dated 5 October 2001]

The 'alarming' information apparently includes the 'two-in-a-bar rule' and the way councils enforce it. When challenged, councils say they have no discretion. Since Ms Drew's letter the DCMS has declined to produce any evidence of local authorities that adopt a 'policy of non-enforcement'.

There is also the enormous category of potential criminals created by public entertainment legislation. This includes not only those who would organise public gigs without first obtaining a PEL, but also 'any other person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect' that a venue was going to be so used and 'allowed the place to be used for the provision of that entertainment... or let the place, or otherwise made it available, to any person' responsible for organising the entertainment without a PEL. Max penalty: £20,000 fine and six months in prison. [Schedule 1, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982].

In England and Wales only 5% of 111,000 pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels currently hold annual PELs. In Scotland, by contrast, no PEL is required for live bands playing in these premises during permitted hours (i.e before 11pm). If a band plays, the licensee is committing no offence, and no additional fee is payable to the local authority. Exactly the same health and safety legislation applies to Scottish pubs as in England and Wales. Ms Drew also argues that, based on the number of enquiries received at the DCMS, there is no need for their website to provide any FAQs about PELs because there is little public interest.

This is strange when you consider that this year alone there have been editorials about PELs and 'two-in-a-bar' in

  • The Stage (January 11)
  • Evening Standard (14 June)
  • The Times (19 July)
  • letters in The Times (25 July)
  • features in The Stage (January 11 and post)
  • Sunday Times (21 January)
  • The Times (19 July)
  • Guardian (28 July)
  • Evening Standard (13 June and 20 July)
  • Classical Music (1 September)
  • and television coverage on HTV (January)
  • BBC Weekend Watchdog (1 June)
  • BBC South (4 September)
  • Carlton West Country (17 October)
  • radio news coverage by Radio 4 (PM)
  • Radio Five Live, LBC
  • Three Counties Radio, Radio 3 (all July 19)
  • and on Courtney Pine's Radio 2 jazz programme (13 August)
  • not to mention continued coverage in local and trade press:
    Hampstead & Highgate Express : Camden Chronicle : Dorset Echo : Brighton Argus : Western Daily Mail : The Oxford Times : The Publican : Morning Advertiser and others.

If you probe far enough into the DCMS website there is a copy of the licensing White Paper, some 80 pages long. This sets out the Governments proposals for reform. This includes a risk assessment that doing away with the 'two-in-a-bar rule' will actually reduce work opportunities for musicians [p67]. Under the proposals, licensees who want to put on even a solo pianist will have to obtain local authority approval first. It is unclear how the DCMS expect the general public to understand the proposed reforms without also providing some information explaining the present law. On 2 May former Home Office Minister Mike O'Brien held a press conference announcing the conclusion of the Government's licensing review. He gave equal weight to liquor and entertainment licensing reform, saying: 'These reforms should give the tourism industry a real boost...' (Home Office press release). The DCMS is now responsible for both public entertainment licensing policy and tourism, but no timetable has been set for the presentation of a new licensing Bill.

If you wish to express a view directly to the DCMS, you could email Licensing Minister Dr Kim Howells: Kim.Howells@culture.gsi.gov.uk Ms Drew's email address is: Philippa.Drew@culture.gsi.gov.uk Or write to: DCMS, 2-4 Cockspur St, London SW1Y 5DH.

Re: Two-in-a-bar-rule 16 October 2001    top

FAO: Tom Grainger, Chief Executive, Weymouth & Portland Borough Council
cc Ian Lock, Director of Tourism
Sue Allen, Licensing Manager

Dear Mr Grainger

Thank you for your e-mail of yesterday (15 October), in which you respond to my e-mail of 10 October. It seems that you are short of six musicians' statements explaining why PELs curtail live music. I am therefore re-sending those statements as attachments. They are from:

  • Chris Hodgkins (Director, Jazz Services, London, also trumpeter/band leader, numerous tv/radio broadcasts)
  • Dave Chamberlain, BMus, professional double bassist, London
    Dave's Statement
  • Marya Parker, folk musician, Norwich
  • Nigel Slee, professional musician, Leeds
  • Peter Butterworth, jazz musician, Middlesex
  • Sheila Miller, folk promoter, London

This brings to 13 the total sent to you via my contacts (one more than my previous estimate: Kelvin Christiane may have sent his direct to you without copying to me). Note that 'alasdick', referred to in your list of statements received, is simply the first part of the e-mail address for Dick Laurie, bandleader, editor/publisher of 'Allegedly Hot News', and veteran 'two-in-a-bar' campaigner.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of the above, and also confirm the overall total number of statements on this subject now in possession of WPBC.

It may be helpful to know that Chris Hodgkins is one of the leading promoters of UK jazz. His organisation is partly funded by the Arts Council. Sheila Miller operates The Cellar Upstairs, one of the longest-running folk clubs in London (26 years). It was through her contacts that my own local PEL lobbying group (Campaign for Live Music in Camden) has attracted the support of John Peel (BBC broadcaster, DJ), Lisa Anderson (producer, Brit Awards), Andy Kershaw (BBC presenter, DJ etc), Roy Bailey MBE, FRSA, (singer, and Emeritus professor, Sheffield University), John Williams (guitarist) and Lord Rupert Redesdale, among others.

You say that Sue Allen is 'putting together a report for the appropriate committee on the subject of PELs and will refer to the representations made'.

If this report is anything like the report presented to the Social/Community Committe on 5 June it will leave the council open to a charge of maladministration. This is because:

  • the report mentioned the legal context of PEL enforcement against Mr Gall's session without detailing the actual precedent (Clarke v Searle 1793, for example) nor explaining why the council believed it to be in their favour;
  • in particular it omitted any mention of Brearley v Morley, a significant case which more closely resembles contemporary folk sessions, where members of the public making music were not counted as 'performers', and where the licensee was found not guilty of providing unlicensed public entertainment (Mr Lock has now admitted that the decision in B v M conflicts with Clarke v Searle);
  • it omitted expert legal opinion which offers alternative interpretations of the word 'performer' in s 182.1 of the Licensing Act 1964, a clause which is crucial to this debate;
  • there was no discussion of the overlap between PEL conditions and existing legislation that applies to workplaces (which include pubs) in respect of public safety, noise and public order issues - understanding the extent of this duplication in determining whether or not the Council's enforcement action was proportionate to the public safety risk of Mr Gall's sessions (the Council had already conceded that there had been no noise complaints arising from his music).
  • the report erroneously claimed (5.1) that 'by applying the relevant licensing legislation the Council has imposed conditions and restrictions on Mr Gall's rights [under Article 10] which are legal, necessary and proportionate in the interests of public safety, control of nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder'.
  • The restrictions, such as they were, applied not to Mr Gall's indoor sessions, but solely to the timing of a single outdoor charity event .
  • The Cove's PEL was granted without imposing any additional safety conditions, therefore Mr Gall's session presented no safety risk that was not already addressed by existing legislation. Without this information councillors cannot be expected to debate PELs and their impact on live music in the context of Article 10 from a position of knowledge and understanding.

Will you please confirm that Ms Allen's report will a) remedy these shortcomings, b) will be made public, and c) not only refer to, but append all the musicians' statements which demonstrate that PELs curtail live music?

Yours sincerely
Hamish Birchall

Send a letter re; PEL 28th September 2001    top

The Department of Culture (DCMS) is somewhat reticent about its new responsibility for public entertainment licensing legislation. The Minister responsible is Dr Kim Howells kim.howells@culture.gsi.gov.uk

I have sent a version of the letter below to the DCMS, copying to the MU, the Arts Council and the National Campaign for the Arts. Feel free to copy and paste this into your own letter to Dr Howells:   

* * *
(Did you know it's a criminal offence to organise any of the following...)    top
========================================

Dear Dr Howells

As you know, public awareness of the legislation that applies to music and dancing is very low. For example, few people realise it would be a criminal offence to organise any of the following activities without first obtaining a PEL:

  • More than two live musicians in over 100,000 on-licensed premises
  • Morris dancing in a pub, or on the pub's land
  • A piano recital in your own home, in a village hall, church, school or hospital - if members of the public could attend
  • One person singing along to a backing tape or minidisc
  • Members of the public singing together in a pub (local authorities quote case law from 1793 to prevent this)
It would seem reasonable for the DCMS to include on its website page of licensing FAQs something about PELs and proposed reforms. Yesterday I asked the press office whether this would happen. They replied:

Current public entertainment law is administered and enforced by local authorities. It would therefore be up to them to publicise the current laws or provide guidance notes - based on their interpretation - and not central Government. Clearly, the DCMS has responsibility for policy and publicising any changes to overall policy, an example of this is being our proposals to change the current licensing laws.

Local authorities currently administer and enforce liquor licensing legislation, but this has not prevented the DCMS providing FAQs about it on the website: http://www.culture.gov.uk/new_responsibilities/faqlic.html

Clearly it is inconsistent to do this for liquor licensing but not for public entertainment licensing. When will the DCMS rectify this situation?

Yours sincerely

==================================

2-in-a-bar rule 16th September Copy forwarded by Caleb Price via Dave Jones (a bass player in London)

Letter from Hamish Birchall, Weymouth, UK    top

Dear All
I sent out a circular recently about Weymouth council using case law from 1793 to justify counting members of the public as 'performers' under s 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 (the 'two-in-a-bar rule'). Now, Tom Grainger, Chief Executive of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council (WPBC) has asked for evidence that the 'two-in-a-bar rule' causes problems for musicians nationally.

'...I would be interested to hear of examples anywhere in England,' he e-mailed me yesterday. '...we do have a shared agenda to ensure musicians and culture can flourish. If the current legislation is curtailing this and can't be justified on other grounds a case can be made out for reform of the law.'

Many of you have had first or second-hand experience of losing gigs because of the two-in-a-bar rule. If you have, please send a short e-mail to Mr Grainger summarising your experience TomGrainger@wpbcweymouth.gov.uk and copy it to me ham.drum@virgin.net . Even if you have already written to me please send something to Mr Grainger. I will, of course be forwarding Mr Grainger all the documented evidence I have already assembled and forwarded to the MU, Department of Culture and the Arts Council. I will also collate all your replies and will forward these also to the MU, DCMS and ACE (if they refer to instances of enforcement I have not already documented and passed on).

(Example of PEL Enforcement)    top
WPBC's enforcement action against a local folk session has been covered by The Guardian, 28 July, The Stage 30 August and 06 September, and several editions of the Dorset Echo.

Roger Gall, a local folk musician, organised the session in a Portland pub called the Cove House Inn. It was put under covert surveillance by the council, who subsequently declared the session illegal - because they counted participating members of the public as 'performers' - and there were more than two. The landlord was threatened with prosecution (max penalty £ 20,000 fine and six months in prison) if he allowed the sessions to continue.

News of this spread on the web and now music-loving American tourists have threatened to boycott Weymouth if they don't lighten up. Some of their letters have been published in the Dorset Echo and quoted in The Stage. According to one source this news 'is spreading like wildfire' across the USA.

Many thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Hamish Birchall

top : back

Arrived via search engine? Visit full site at www.jazzinleeds.co.uk