Kim Howells – - or The House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Ronnie Bridgett – - DCMS, 2/4 Cockspur St, London SW1Y 5DH
Your MP – www.faxyourmp.com - or [name/constituency], House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
EFDSS - www.efdss.org - Cecil Sharp House, 2 Regent's Park Road, London, NW1 7AY
MU - www.musiciansunion.org.uk - 60/62 Clapham Rd London SW9 0JJ FOR HAMISH BIRCHALL
MODAL - www.modal.co.uk - Centre for Popular Music,6 Paternoster Row,Sheffield S1 2QQ
I write to point out and protest first the damage that the government's plans to reform licensing law will do to folk music and dance, second the disregard for ordinary civil liberties, third the extraordinary lack of respect for our cultural heritage, and fourth the intellectual dishonesty of parts of the government argument to date on the topic. I am not concerned with the law on liquor licensing. I am concerned about folk music and dance. The "reform" proposed will vandalise an important part of England's cultural heritage (and as such is an attack on freedom of expression and human rights), will close off the route for amateur folk musicians to become professionals in the music industry of such importance to the UK economy, and will reduce the attractiveness of the UK as a venue for tourism.
The present position is a mess. All public performance involving music and dancing is illegal except that which is permitted. Public entertainment licences permit some things, but the costs involved are ridiculous, and the enforcement policies of local authorities more so. Most folk music and dance in this country takes place (and has done for decades) under the permissions given (or thought to be given) by the so-called "two in a bar" rule, or in the best Nelsonian traditions. Morris dancers for example usually dance in the road so that there is no performance on premises. The 2-in-a-bar rule says (in part) that premises licensed for liquor do NOT need a licence for live music with only 2 performers. For decades most have assumed (1) that this allows two featured performers at once, and the audience joining in on choruses if wishing and (2) a gathering of musicians playing for their own enjoyment are not "performers" (so that sessions and singarounds can occur).
Nobody bothered to enforce the law against acoustic folk music and nobody suffered. Then enforcement was transferred to local authorities, and folk clubs with acoustic trios started to be closed. There was no public benefit in this, only a waste of council tax payers' money. There were public protests - acoustic folk and jazz musicians protesting about being treated as criminals. The campaign over the last two years to reform the "2-in-a-bar" rule was not a demand for more and tighter regulation, but for less.
But the protests have been read by the government as if through a looking-glass. The government has promised to "reform" the rule. But the present plans will bring more regulation, not less. They will, in effect, ban all folk music (even with only one acoustic musician) or dance without a licence. This was not expected, nor what the public sought, nor properly disclosed in the government white paper.
What was expected were sensible rules and exemptions, prepared with more thought than the current "2-in-a-bar" rule, that would not penalise or regulate what did not need regulating. But the government has repeatedly made it very clear that ALL "entertainment" in pubs and clubs will need a licence and that it plans NO exemptions, not even for acoustic music (even sessions where players come to take part, rather than to stand out in front and entertain others), or for traditional dance like morris. It just plans (press release 12th April) "to simplify…the licensing regimes". This will not do. To regulate and then profess to simplify the licensing regime (as the government pretends) is not acceptable. First the principle of regulating folk music and dance is not acceptable. Second, any licensing regime will restrict access and no matter how it is simplified only a politician or civil servant (and these expressions are not, here, terms of praise) could pretend that it will permit more access to folk music and dance than the absence of any application of a licensing regime. Third, the regime proposed will in fact significantly bite on folk music, and anyone who knew or bothered to find out how folk music worked could see that.
The whole idea that folk music should need a licence is ridiculous. The suggestion that folk music is a noise or a nuisance or a threat to public order or safety and must be licensed is frankly rather offensive. This philistinism is completely unnecessary. Folk music and dance do not pose noise nuisances or health or public order hazards. Only an extreme control freak could ever have dreamed that they might. To sing and to have access to one's cultural heritage is not a privilege. It is a right. For centuries the ordinary people have expressed in song their opposition to the oppressions they have suffered. If folk music had always had to be licensed it would not exist. If a minority were told that a part of their cultural or religious heritage could only be practised (or their native language spoken) with a licence, there would rightly be an outcry that such a rule was tantamount to a policy of cultural genocide. There is every reason to expect a blanket ban on folk music without a licence to be a breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
There is another aspect to the cultural heritage argument. It is part of the remit of the Department of Culture Media and Sport to promote and preserve culture. It cannot be doubted that folk music and dance are part of British culture. Yet they are not actively sought to be protected and preserved. They are, by this reform, threatened. There is no acknowledgement that the law should provide special consideration to ensure that cultural heritage is preserved. The fact that in February the government refused to meet the English Folk Dance and Song Society, the premier body in British folk tradition since the 1800s, to discuss the problem is almost unbelievable. It underscores the lack of respect in the government for folk music so betrayed by the government spokesman, in the House of Commons, likening three folk singers in a pub to his idea of hell. This is fundamentally wrong for a government.
There are five aspects of intellectual dishonesty in the present government case.
First, licensing is never cheap quick and easy. This is betrayed by the vigorous campaign by local government to operate the new licensing regime - a certain giveaway that they expect to make profit from it no matter what safeguards the government seeks to impose. Indeed it is the oppression and greed of local government that has lead to the mess over Public Entertainments Licences that is in part a target of the current reforms. To place licensing of folk music and dance in the hands of local government it to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
But to be specific, the government plan is for a personal licence for the licensees of licensed premises, and also a premises licence. The entertainment licence will only be a part of the premises (liquor) licence. The pub (even if it doesn't need an entertainment licence at the moment) will in future have to apply in advance (when it applies for its liquor licence) to the local authority with a full business plan for the entire pub operation including showing how often it intends to have public entertainment and of what kind (so it will have to specify folk music) and what measures it is taking to prevent a public nuisance and to ensure public safety, and so on. The fees will be about £500 to £700 (not including any premises improvements required by the licensing authority when granting a licence that includes, say, acoustic music).
These licences will last for the life of the business running the pub, and changes will need a fresh application. This fee might (but is not guaranteed to) be lower.
Pubs at present have to have liquor licenses. The cost of an application to the magistrates for this is about £30. Pubs with no other licensing costs at the moment (if they can get away with music under the "two-in-a-bar rule) will face a huge increase - a tax as enlightened as the window tax or the timepiece tax. Those who have full entertainments licenses at the moment will get huge reductions.
But the catch is this. The pubs at the moment who do not have an entertainments licence are highly unlikely to think of putting any mention of even acoustic music on their business plans. So if they receive a request to host a folk club, they will have to apply for a variation. All folk clubs move from time to time - even if rarely. When they move, the new premises will need to apply for a variation. This will cost money. But most folk clubs cannot afford to cover the cost of that application and they will not be able either to guarantee that increased beer takings will amortise such costs. Therefore the request for a folk club will be refused.
Soon there will be none left.
The second piece of dishonesty is in propaganda from the Local Government association. They say that there is no tradition of folk music in English pubs. This is simply a lie. [Insert personal history to taste]. They also say that the low prevalence of full entertainments licences is due to lack of demand for live music. This is nonsense. Live music is at present mostly provided by loopholes or simply ignoring the legal restrictions. Just look around.
The third piece of dishonesty is government statements that this licensing of folk music is necessary to stop unamplified folk music (professional or amateur) being noisy and a public disturbance and a threat to safety(!). I can safely say that I have never seen a fight in a folk club. Ever. I have also never heard a folk singer who could be heard singing across a the width of a typical town centre bar, filled with ordinary pub conversation - but I have heard big-screen TV installations from a hundred yards down the street. I have seen football and wrestling fans leave the pub after watching these sports on the big screen, and at least appear violent. [beef up to taste]. But these big-screen TV installations I am told do not need to be licensed.
The fourth and perhaps most distasteful piece of dishonesty is that of the government in continuing to quote a statement made by the Association of British Jazz. They quote a letter to say there will be more money for everyone (and so more music). But they know (they have been told) that letter was written before anyone realised there were to be no exemptions, and was written about professional paid performances. Still they dishonestly quote it about folk clubs and sessions. In the first place it does not apply to amateur performance or sessions. In the second place, now we know there will be no exemptions, it is wrong. This outright mendacity is quite shameful.
An exemption of a suitable type is absolutely vital, and I suggest that one for music is easy. All it needs to say is that music provided by (say) up to 100 performers (or the licensed capacity of the venue if less) without amplification does not need a licence. Keyboards without external amplifiers or speakers should count as acoustic for this purpose. The general law about excessive noise can deal with extraordinary situations like 76 trombones, and there is no more case to ban professional acoustic performers than there is a case to ban amateurs.
There is no need for the law to regulate folk music and dance. The government's argument that there is such a need is making the UK the laughing stock of the civilised world.
Please confirm that you agree.
Yours faithfully
A SCoFF temporary web page, © SCoFF 2002
Trevor Gilson,
Back to SCoFF Licensing Page (or Close Window to return to News if that is where you came from)!