The Licensing Bill

A lot of people have contacted me about the Licensing Bill and its effects on live music. I am concerned that we get this legislation right, and that it does not adversely affect live music. I do have a personal interest in this, as I have friends and relatives who are musicians. I have met Ministers to discuss concerns that have been raised with me about the Bill, which is currently being discussed in the Lords, and will be in the Commons later in the year.

I am afraid that a number of myths have been propagated about the effects of the Bill, and there also seems to be a considerable degree of misinformation about the current position regarding public entertainment licensing.

Let me deal first with some of the myths. It is not true that spontaneous singing in a restaurant or pub will be an offence. It is not true that music lessons, the testing of equipment in music shops, the use or rehearsal rooms, or the booking of a band for a private function such as a wedding, will require a licence.

Licences will essentially be needed for entertainment where the public is admitted, or if they are not, where those attending the entertainment are charged to attend. This means that performances at old people's homes, for example, would not need a licence, except in the unlikely event of the general public being admitted or the old people charged. A school concert or play for parents and students, with no charge, will be exempt. A charge made in a school just to cover costs would not require a licence.

The fact is that activities such as entertainment provided by a school or college, to which the public is admitted, requires a licence now. So does entertainment in a sports club if the general public is admitted. So does live music in a community centre, or parish hall. So, oddly, does a secular concert in a church in London, although not outside London.

Any sale of alcohol at an event requires a licence now. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to licence premises to which the public is admitted, simply because of the public safety issues involved. If, for example, a venue does not have adequate means of fire escape, it should not be used for public performances. That will not change under the new regime, but nor does the Bill introduce any new regulations, contrary to some claims that pubs will have to spend large amounts of money to meet new safety regulations. They will be governed by exactly the same requirements in relation to health and safety as now.

What has happened is that the current requirements are not always implemented by some local Councils, and also many Councils use the powers they currently have to exempt events in, say, schools. They will still have the power to do this in future.

As far as churches are concerned, the Bill as originally drafted, would have brought churches outside London in to line with those inside London, and so a licence would be needed for 'secular' concerts. The Government has agreed to change this in the opposite direction, so that churches, and also church halls and village halls, will be exempt from licensing.

The most controversial issue in the Bill surrounds the 'two in a bar' rule. The current legislation requires a public entertainment licence, granted by a local Council, for any live music where two or more musicians perform. A High Court case has established that this mean a total of two, and is contravened by a succession of performers, even though no more than two play at any one time. It is clearly out of date. One person with amplified music can make more noise than several acoustic performers.

We cannot have a system in which there is no regulation of music in pubs. While that might appear attractive to some musicians it is a fact that for many people who live near pubs music can be a source of disturbance, and certainly would be more so if unregulated.

What the Bill proposes is to get rid of the two in a bar rule. Some people have suggested that this means there will be a 'none in a bar' rule, and that pub landlords will be deterred from continuing with live music as a result. This argument does ignore what the new system will actually be, and how it will differ from the current regime. At present any landlord has of course to have a licence to sell alcohol. He or she must also have a second, public entertainment, licence if live music with more than two performers is to take place. The public entertainment licence fee is set by local Council, varies enormously across the country, and in some areas is set at prohibitive levels, as much as £20,000 has been charged.

In future, according to the Bill, a pub landlord will need to apply for a premises licence. He or she will have to do this simply to sell alcohol, but the same licence will also cover public entertainment if the landlord wants to ask for it, at exactly the same cost. There will be no extra fee for including entertainment in the licence. The fees will be set nationally, and this will stop individual local Councils charging extortionate amounts.

I do understand the concerns that have arisen, but I do think many are misplaced, and are the result of misinformation about what the Bill will actually do. I believe there are still some areas of concern which need to be clarified to make sure we are not having adverse effects unintentionally. For example I want to be certain about how local Councils will implement it, and what safeguards there will be against the unreasonable refusal of a licence.

As I explained above I do have some personal interest in this Bill. I do want to be absolutely sure that it will work, and I will take a very close interest in this Bill when it comes to the Commons.

Feb 2003

Home Page     |     News & Views     |     Press Archive