| Licensing Bill [Lords]
|
|
Dr. Howells: I will certainly consider that. I am grateful for that important example. My hon. Friend stresses that we will have to ensure, in the guidance among other things, that licensing authorities come at the matter with a heavy dose of common sense, because that is important. [Interruption.] There are sniggers coming from the Opposition Members. I do not share that cynicism about local authorities. There are some good authorities and there are some not so good ones. We will have to work closely with them, as with all licensing authorities. Some hon. Members would like the watching of television to be licensed. In the Bill, we have identified entertainments that require licensing in their own right. Such entertainments include music and dancing, because, among other things, on occasion, there can be issues relating to noise and drugs culture, late night refreshments and disturbance and disorder. For theatre and cinema, there can be issues relating to, for example, fire safety. Watching television, which almost every citizen does almost every day of their life, does not in itself give rise to the need for licensing. The concerns that the amendments attempt to address are really about the combination of the consumption of alcohol and the televising of certain sporting events in public places. The hon. Member for North Devon made a good point when he said that there are advertisements outside venues—people frequently trip over them, especially if they have had one too many—that inform people that there is a World cup game inside. I repeat Column Number: 064 that such things are not licensed at the moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill, so he will know that, if a venue proves to be a nuisance to the neighbourhood and public, its licence can be modified. If it is really bad, it can be closed for 24 hours by the police—something that they could not do previously. I have seen for myself in Manchester that a venue can be made to step into line if what is going on is disorderly or constitutes a public nuisance or if the leakage of noise from that building is such that it makes the lives of people or businesses in the area a misery.Nick Harvey: The last point seems logical and sensible, and I do not understand why that approach cannot be used for a variety of activities. If the Government genuinely wanted to take a deregulatory approach, that would be the most sensible way of approaching the issue of music in pubs, or any of the other subjects that we have discussed. Dr. Howells: I realise that I may have hypnotised the hon. Gentleman when I tried to explain. I know that it is not easy to have to sit and listen to this stuff, but I tried to make it clear why playing live music and some other licensable performances are, and should remain, licensable. I have tried to point out that there are reasons for that other than nuisance and the issues covered by some health and safety laws. Obviously, he does not accept that, but I repeat that we do not intend to extend licensing. Indeed, he does not want licensing to be extended to activities that are not licensable at the moment. Mr. Turner: The Minister is pitching an extreme example of why activities that are rather reasonable and modest should be licensable. It is not common for there to be problems with raves, even in my constituency, but it is common for small entertainments involving a limited number of musicians to take place. Earlier, the Minister said that he would set up a committee to examine the kind of music that would be likely to cause public nuisance. Is it his intention that local authorities should be able to veto the kind of music played? That is the impression that I got from the way he associated certain kinds of music with a threat to public order or a danger of crime. Dr. Howells: That is a fair question. The last thing that I want from the Bill is the sudden introduction of a bunch of cultural commissars who decide what music is to be performed in public. That is exactly what I am not saying, and I tried to explain the reasons why. When the hon. Member for North Devon spoke to his amendments, which called for non-amplified music to be exempt, I tried to explain why that would distort the position in the way that two-in-a-bar rule has done. I confirm that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is certainly not my intention or that of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Devon properly raised the issue of premises with loud television. I do not know—but will try to find out—the law governing the playing of MTV-type channels that broadcast constantly, often on big plasma screens. I know that the premises probably have to pay Sky a pretty hefty fee. That can, in some cases, act as a deterrent. There Column Number: 065 were many complaints about that during the World cup: many licensees complained about the fact that they were forced to pay a lot of money, but that is a contractual agreement that I do not want to get involved in. The hon. Gentleman knows what I mean.As I have pointed out, the Bill provides a power for the Secretary of State to alter the definition of the description of entertainments in schedule 1, which may be used if experience shows that other forms of entertainment should be regulated and it would be in the public interest to extend the scope of the control in that way. However, it would not be appropriate to extend the regime's coverage in the way suggested in the amendments. In the light of my comments, I hope that hon. Members will see fit not to press their amendments. Mr. Moss: The debate that we have had on this short list of amendments demonstrates two things to me and my colleagues; perhaps it will do so to the public at large as well when Hansard is read. First, the Bill does not seem to have any logic. Secondly, it does not have any consistency. We are not in favour of adding to regulation. The point of many of our earlier amendments was to deregulate and take activities out of licensing. No one could accuse us of wanting to add things. The purpose of the amendments was just to test the logic of why one thing is licensable and another not.
4 pmThe Government and the Minister go round the houses, using such reasons as noise, drugs, health and safety and disturbance. Occasionally they say that if there have not been any complaints they will not make an activity licensable, but there is no logic to their position on that. I would not have thought there were any complaints in most instances when two people play in a pub, but they will now have to be licensed. Where is the logic in that? Where is the health and safety issue? There is not one. Where is the disturbance? There is not one. Where is the noise? There is probably very little noise. Most complaints about noise come from people nearby, as I said earlier, when people disgorge from the pub, rather than because of noise from inside. The Government have not made the case that there is a logical and consistent approach here to which activities are in and which are out—whether they are entertainment activities or anything else. Under later amendments, we shall take a firm stand on that point because the case is not made. To argue that the measure is deregulatory is, frankly, nonsense. Anyone looking at the whole list of activities here would, I think, arrive at the conclusion that we have reached: there is no logical consistency to what is and what is not included in the list. Entertainment licences will be issued for a period of years, but I cannot see where in the Bill numbers of musicians are specified. Let us say that a pub that usually has two people playing there applies for an entertainment licence. Will its licence stipulate that no more than two people can play, or will there be a blank Column Number: 066 licence specifying up to a small combo, or up to 10 musicians? Who will specify that? If the pub then wants to go above that number, will it have to reapply for a licence? I have looked in the Bill to see where that is dealt with, but it is still not clear. It is all right applying for an entertainment licence, but what will it state that someone can do? If it is not specific, it seems to me that it is hardly worth having the regulation, but if it is specific, every time someone wants to change their activity they will have to reapply. That will add to the cost.We shall not press the amendments to a vote. They were tabled simply to draw out the Government's arguments on and justification for their stating which activities are licensable and which are not. On the next series of amendments, however, we shall take a stand because the Government do not seem to be making any effort whatever. Under the next group of amendments, they are going to destroy the effort that was made in the other place. They are trying simply to cut out the changes and making no effort to replace them with something that is practical and workable and that seeks to address problems such as those that we have raised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Dr. Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in
'performance of live music or the playing of recorded'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 3. Dr. Howells: Hon. Members will no doubt be aware that the Government suffered a number of defeats on the Bill in the other place. Some of those defeats we will seek to overturn in Committee, but as hon. Members will know, we are prepared to compromise on some, as we already have during today's sittings. We have accepted some wholeheartedly, subject to necessary technical modification. The defeat on incidental live music—the subject of this group of Government amendments—falls into the latter category, as I am sure the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will be pleased to know. I hope that the Committee will allow me to make one matter clear. Regardless of the myths and misinformation surrounding the Bill in respect of regulated entertainment, the Government are firmly committed to improving the range and diversity of cultural provision available to the public, and preserving important musical traditions that help define the character of the country. That is why the Bill was designed to make it much easier and cheaper for venues to get a licence to put on entertainment, and why it removes the perverse disincentive of the two-in-a-bar rule. I made a mistake earlier when I said that the Musicians Union did not say back in 1998 that all music should be exempt. In fact it said that all music should be licensed, with no exemptions, and argued that licences should then be set at a moderate and affordable price. That is precisely what we are doing Column Number: 067 and I would be very interested to hear its reaction to that when the next avalanche of letters arrives.We accept that more could have been done in the Bill to further that aim, which is why we have made a range of concessions since the Bill was introduced. For example, we have exempted places of public religious worship. We have amended the Bill to make it clear that entertainers who simply perform at unlicensed venues, and do no more, will not be committing an offence. We have announced that we will exempt church halls, village halls and other community buildings from entertainment fees. We shall use the accompanying guidance to ensure that only necessary and proportionate conditions are attached to licences. As part of that package of concessions, Government amendment No. 2 provides a modification to Opposition amendments made in another place which would exempt incidental live music and recorded music to ensure that the effect of the amendment is perfected. The spirit of the amendments is retained in its entirety. Government amendment No. 3 removes an anomaly that arose as the result of the defeat in another place. Paragraph 11 of schedule 1 provides an exemption for unamplified incidental live music. As the Government have accepted the principle that all incidental live music, whether amplified or not, should be exempt from the requirement to obtain a licence, that further exemption is unnecessary and will be removed.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 1 April 2003 |
