Lord Clement-Jones’ live music bill, now sponsored by Don Foster in the Commons, has just passed its 2nd reading there.
Lord Clement-Jones’ live music bill, now sponsored by Don Foster in the
Commons, has just passed its 2nd reading there.
If implemented, the bill would create entertainment licensing exemptions
for performances of live music between 8am and 11pm to audiences of up
to 200. However, it retains the licence review process for bars and
other alcohol-licensed venues if the exemption is abused.
The bill now moves to the Committee stage. A date has yet to be fixed,
but it could be before Christmas.
It is unusual for a private members bill originating in the Lords to get
this far. However, while encouraging, its success today is no guarantee
that it will become law. Potential pitfalls, and much hard work, remain.
Meanwhile, another hysterical denunciation of the government’s more
radical entertainment licensing deregulation proposals has been
published, this time by Wandsworth council:
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/site/scripts/news_article.php?newsID=10856#makecomment
Entirely misleadingly it suggests that pubs and bars ‘…would not be
subject to proper safety checks with potentially no limits on the
numbers of people attending, nor on the hours of operation. This would
negate one of the reasons for introducing a licensing regime in the
first place which was to prevent tragedies where young people have been
injured in fires or as a result of overcrowding or crushing.’
This is complete nonsense and scaremongering of the worst kind. The
safety of the public in workplaces is no longer regulated by
entertainment licensing, but by separate health and safety and fire
safety legislation, and this applies to all activities taking place.
Also, as alcohol licensing and conditions in alcohol-licensed venues
would remain under the deregulation proposals, enforceable opening hours
would remain.
In their consultation submission to DCMS, Wandsworth puts forward other
specious or contradictory arguments against more radical deregulation:
http://bit.ly/squeVN
For example, their Q1 response states: ‘Of the 579 premises in the
London Borough of Wandsworth with a licence to sell alcohol on or on/off
the premises, 213 also have a licence to provide live music. Of the 48
Private Members Club in the borough supplying alcohol, 32 have a licence
to provide live music. There are, therefore, many venues within this borough
that could allow live music performances (albeit with controls to
protect neighbours from noise nuisance). However, many of these licences
are not used and this Authority would, therefore, question whether live
music is not being promoted in venues because of market decisions rather
than because of bureaucracy and red tape.’
But it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusion from this data
about the reasons for having or not having live music. How does the
council know that the licences are not being used? Venues that have in
fact closed often remain on council licence registers as if they were
still in business. And what licence conditions have been imposed?
These might include costly requirements to provide door supervisers
during performances, or to fit a noise limiter. Or they might restrict
the number of performers, or genres of music. The venue may have
particularly intolerant neighbours.
And even if the amount of live music currently provided were entirely
determined by factors other than entertainment licensing, as the council
would like to believe, what then would cause the explosion in noise
nuisance that they warn so stridently against if entertainment licensing
is removed?
February 5th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
women haircuts…
Hi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it is truly informative. I’m gonna watch out for brussels. I will appreciate if you continue this in future. Many people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!…