Letters to the Editor

SIR,- Your article last week, New Bill is a sickener for area's entertainers, should ring an alarm bell for all musicians. Traditional music, song and dance have been part of our cultural heritage for centuries. Thousands of people in Yorkshire take part in these activities, often in pubs and at festivals. Many more thousands enjoy watching and listening. The Licensing Bill threatens to stop or disrupt much of this activity because it is capable of harsh interpretation.

Yorkshire Folk Arts has received many calls from musicians who are seriously worried at the potential consequences of this bill as it could criminalise the provision of almost all live music without a licence. Even three people singing quietly to themselves in the corner of unlicenced premises could face prosecution. This can not be right and it must not be allowed to become law.

It's not just the harshness and "catch all" provisions of the bill that we object to. The bureaucracy of consulting planning departments, environmental health, police and fire authorities will deter people from applying for a licence - it would be far easier to say "no music or dance, just crank up the jukebox." The result would be louder amplified music.

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 in place across the whole of the UK and provide adequate protection in themselves. The licensing procedure requires clearance from police, fire, health and safety, local authority, and local residents, and may come with expensive conditions attached.

Apart from this fundamental objection, the problem with the Bill is poor drafting.

lThe 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 in private homes and gardens, in churches, fields and all other places. This will include Morris practice venues. This is not a trivial licence easily obtained; it is the same one as required to sell alcohol in pubs. There can be no justification for requiring a licence to make music in these locations. Tens of thousands of weddings, private parties, village fetes and school concerts could be affected.

lThe punishment proposed is far too strong. It should not be a criminal offence punishable by six months in prison or a £20,000 fine to play music.This is a clear civil liberties issue. Musicians should not be liable to prosecution themselves if hired to play in unlicensed premises (clause 134 of the bill makes them liable and clause 188 makes any location at all count as premises). Morris teams and musicians will always have to check first whether a licence is in place before performing, and this may not be easy in practice.

lThe scope of activities covered is far too wide. The vague clause will catch music shops, music studios and music and dance teachers as it stands. All of these activities will require a licence. It will become illegal, and punishable by prison to teach music, use a practice room, try out an instrument in a music shop, make a recording in a recording studio, unless a licence is first obtained.

lBroadcast entertainment is exempt no matter how powerfully amplified. That means owners of any premises may equip themselves with a number of large screens and a large sound system, without being licensed under this Bill. One unamplified singer, however, would be a criminal offence unless licensed. This is clearly nonsense.

On behalf of Yorkshire Folk Arts I have written to all the Yorkshire MPs and have received supportive replies from David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) and Ann Cryer (Keighley). I would urge all readers to write to their MP to register their alarm at this attack on our musical heritage.

PAUL HUDSON

Chairman

Yorkshire Folk Arts

A costly plan

SIR, Councillor Clive Fox is quite right to draw people's attention to the proposed amendments to the Leeds Urban Development Plan (Wharfedale and Airedale Observer, January 2).

Long and careful discussion is needed, because housing east of Otley, beyond the Cambridge Estate is not the only issue, and some of the language and abbreviations in the plan are difficult to understand. Even elected members can have difficulty.

There are areas that seem to me to lead people towards certain conclusions (eg Gobbledegook in supporting paper 6, page 2 of that paper, para 2.6). The special problems of the East of Otley site are that it will need to pay for the desperately needed East of Otley relief road, £2 million, possibly more by the time it is built, £4,000 per plot, just for the road.

The site is below river level and below sewage works level, or so close to it that special measures will be needed to drain rainwater and foul sewage from the site which will add another £4,000 per plot. There is no local road or transport infra-structure, school places have been cut to exactly the number required at both primary and secondary level in the area in 2003, what effect will 500-800 extra houses have on school demand and traffic jams into Leeds? The sustainability report admits that there will be a significant detri-mental effect on the countryside, on waste, and water and air pollution, this is surely a matter that concerns everyone, especially young people.

Councillor Graham Kirkland (Lib Dem, Otley and Wharfedale)

Westholme

Westgate

Otley

Keeping in step

SIR, further to the article in The Wharfedale and Airedale Observer on January 9 regarding the 50 dancing years of Fred and Marjorie Anderson, may we add that they also did sequence dancing once a week at the Bramley Liberal Club. This was from 1969 to 1990. We recall lots of lovely evenings and would like to thank Fred and Marjorie for many happy years of dancing. We are sad that the Pool venue has closed, but look forward to the continuing dancing at Greenacre Hall, Rawdon.

Mr and Mrs D W Petty

56 Waterloo Lane

Leeds.

Making a point

SIR, Permit my response to recent comments from Nigel Francis and Malcolm Naylor. My intention is not to reply in great detail as these subjects are probably past their sell by date.

Concerning the Christmas lights in Otley, Nigel Francis is firmly of the opinion that he was mislead by Labour councillors on the town council's Environmental and Economic Development Committee.

Only a person who is enumerate could possibly believe that any three members of any committee could bulldoze something through committee with only three votes out of eight. Did he and the other four abstain?

How could they be outvoted? Come on Nigel, admit it, you are equally culpable as me.

Malcolm Naylor responds and my response to him is a simple question. Would he tell me if since 1977, when Labour came into power, has the benefits of he and his wife gone down in real terms? Have those benefits increased by 2.5 per -cent per annum over that period? Surely, state and council benefit are intended to keep recipients in either improved standards or at least enable recipients to maintain their status quo. Few would argue that they should provide wealth to those whose circumstances do not have a need. You may be a borderline anomaly Malcolm, but you can rest assured, that it is not the intention of any known Labour Party member to make people in receipt of any benefit financially worse off.

Councillor Ray Dunn

42 St David's Road

Otley.