|
Column Number: 043
Standing Committee D
Tuesday 1 April 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
Schedule 1
Provision of regulated amendments
Amendment moved [this day]: No. 54, in
schedule 1, page 110, leave out line 21.—[Mr. Moss]
2.30 pm
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 116, in
schedule 1, page 110, line 21, after 'of', insert 'amplified'.
Amendment No. 115, in
schedule 1, page 110, leave out line 22.
Amendment No. 113, in
schedule 1, page 110, line 22, leave out 'playing' and insert 'performance'.
Amendment No. 114, in
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): May I begin, Mr. Benton, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again. I was coming to the second part of my remarks on amendment No. 54, which I said at the outset is a probing amendment to ask the Government why live music should be licensable in the first place. Before I comment on the other amendments, may I say that it seems to many people in the music industry that the Bill discriminates against live music in favour of, say, wide-screen television and juke boxes, which are both exempt from the Bill. We will come to those later.
There is a feeling—we will develop the argument I am sure in later clauses—that the Bill infringes human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights found that the Government have provided no evidence of any need to increase licensing controls over live music and that the Bill could infringe people's right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. It is our view, shared by those in the music industry, that a licensing regime that encourages and enables the performance of live music in pubs and clubs would bring incalculable benefits for the nation. It would provide another incentive for tourism, help young musicians to develop and hone their music skills, increase access by the general public to live music and increase work opportunities for musicians of all ages.
In the huge amount of material that I, and no doubt other members of the Committee as well as the Minister and his officials, have received were two
Column Number: 044
quotations from two of our leading jazz musicians of long standing. I refer, of course, to Humphrey Lyttleton and John Dankworth. I want to quote briefly from both of them. Humphrey Lyttleton states:
''The question must be answered—why? Ostensibly, I understand, it is to help curb anti-social behaviour. I have surveyed audiences in venues from prestigious to humble for over half a century and never once suffered so much as a twinge of anxiety that they might, as a result of my music-making, rush out into the street and create mayhem.''
John Dankworth says:
''The proposed bill is a nightmare for musicians. It began as a simple attempt to get rid of an antiquated and stupid restriction on our lives. The result is another far more stupid (and pernicious) restriction on our simple wish to make music. However well-intentioned its perpetrators might be, the new legislation can only be seen by those it affects in one way—bureaucracy gone mad, and yet another unwarranted interference by government in our already difficult battle with recorded music.''
Jim Knight (South Dorset): I should be interested to know when those comments were written because towards the end of last year an enormous number of myths were circulating about the implications of the Bill, particularly for live music. Were they written while those hares were running?
Mr. Moss: I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman because I do not have the date on the quotes. I would not have thought such eminent musicians would wax lyrical in that way unless they were sure of their ground.
Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 110, which appear in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), would make it clear on the face of the Bill that it is not just the playing of recorded music that is the issue, but the more active involvement in the performance of recorded music by a disc jockey. Amendment No. 2 does not solve the problem; it compounds it.
Returning to the performance of recorded music, there seems to be scope for confusion between the reference to any playing of recorded music in this part of the schedule, and part 2 paragraph 7, which provides exemption for the playing of recorded music
''to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity''.
This calls into question when recorded music is deemed to be incidental. Is that related to the type or simply to the volume of the recorded music?
Will businesses risk being in breach of their operating plan if they misinterpret their recorded music as being incidental and do not include it when submitting their application to the licensing authority? The assumption seems to be that paragraph (2)(1)(f) is aimed primarily at the performance of recorded music by DJs. If that is the case, it needs to be amended as proposed in the interests of clarification.
Nick Harvey (North Devon): I shall address some remarks to amendments Nos. 116 and 115, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). Let me say at the outset that I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) in moving this group of amendments. As yet, we have not heard from the Government why we need to license music and entertainment at all. I will not go
Column Number: 045
over all the same ground. The hon. Gentleman went through the other forms of regulation that already exist: noise abatement, environmental health departments, health and safety, fire and so on.
What is it that necessitates this extra form of regulation? Why is it that they do not feel the need for it in Scotland—and the world does not seem to have ended there as a result—but we persevere with it in England and Wales? I am not convinced that we need to get into these realms of regulation at all. If the Bill was to achieve some of the deregulatory objectives that it sets for itself, the Government would have taken this opportunity to follow the Scottish example.
We tabled the two amendments, one on live and the other on recorded music, because we need to hear the Government's interpretation of the amendment on incidental music that was passed in the other place, which they have reformulated for us here. If it is the Government's interpretation that the performing of music in a pub is incidental to the main business of serving alcohol, that is a significant breakthrough. It was our fear that fewer venues would host live music in the future, but it may not be as bad as we initially supposed. However, I have not yet heard the Government confirm that that is their view. We shall come to that in a few minutes. If that is not their interpretation, the two amendments—other ways of skinning the same cat—introduced by Conservative Members will be very necessary. Otherwise, as I said on Second Reading and as was said this morning, we are replacing the two-in-a-bar rule with a none-in-the-bar rule. If we are, that would be a retrograde step and there will be a danger of killing live music, particularly in pubs.
Landlords will be reluctant to tick the entertainment box entitling them to hold live music events if they think that it may raise queries about their entire licence and that residents in the area may put forward objections that would put the licence in doubt. That could mean that far fewer pubs and clubs will be willing to apply for a licence and serve as a venue for musical events. I hope that the Government will clear that up for us this afternoon.
Amendment No. 115 would remove the phrase
''any playing of recorded music''.
The amendment would enable those who play live but want the backing of pre-recorded music to do just that. Some musicians use background harmonies, or a drum or piano track, to improve the quality of their performance, which was one of the ideas that we had in mind when tabling the amendment. The amendments approach the same issue in different ways. Perhaps they can serve as probing amendments if the Government have a more comprehensive solution up their sleeve, but if not, they are very important. We need to hear from the Government what their interpretation of amendments Nos. 2 and 3, with which we shall deal later, actually is.
Jim Knight: I have concerns about the need to regulate live music, which I will expand upon when we deal with the amendment in my name and that of my
Column Number: 046
hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). I wanted to speak briefly to these amendments, which do not quite hit the mark in dealing with the concerns.
Amendment No. 54 would omit live music from the provision. As I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, there are circumstances in which live music certainly should be regarded as regulated entertainment. I used the example of the Glastonbury festival—the most extreme example, but there are plenty of others—as a place where a performance of music will undoubtedly attract a significant number of people. That should be regulated for the sake of public safety, noise nuisance and so on. The amendment does not hit the mark.
Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 suggest that we refer to the ''performance'' of recorded music to the public. I find that idea of the performance of live music fairly confusing. I can imagine some scenarios where the definition might work. Miming on ''Top of the Pops'' might be regarded as a performance of recorded music. I suppose that Fatboy Slim and the like, who are DJs, might be performing recorded music. However, having listened to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, it sounds as if he has framed the amendment to get round some of his worries about incidental music, so I do not think that he quite hits the mark with that amendment either.
I am unsure about amendment No. 110 adding ''dancing'' and ''making music''. As a former arts promoter and performer, I think that the participatory aspects of the arts should not be regulated. I would be concerned if amendment No. 110 added dancing and making music to regulated entertainments. I do not want participation in dancing and making music to be regulated.
|
