| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister give way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was about to conclude my remarks. I do not have anything else to say.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister. I did not wish to delay or hamper him in any waynot that I could. We on these Benches might feel some dismay that we do not have the guidance in front of us now. That puts us at a great disadvantage. The Minister says that the guidance will be flexible, but does he recall the noble Lord, Lord Davies, saying that the guidance would provide the parameters within which the authority must comply?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the guidance has been available for some time. I am sorry that it did not reach the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but other noble Lords have had access to it.
I shall be entirely clear about what guidance does and what the parliamentary authority for it is. The Select Committee requests that the first issue of the guidance should be subject to affirmative resolution procedures and that subsequent variations should be subject to negative resolution procedures, so that there is a degree of parliamentary control all the time. We have agreed to thatwe are doing exactly what it wants. However, it is still guidance. It maintains a degree of flexibility, for which everyone involved has expressed a wish, including local authorities, the trade and everyone else with an interest. Local authorities will not be bound by every dot and comma of the guidance but must have regard to it and must have good acceptable reasons if they propose to depart from it.
I am reluctant to oppose the amendments, because I know the good faith in which they are moved and the extent of public feeling about them. However, they are misconceived, and we cannot accept them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that blocking a fire exit is an offence under the fire Acts?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe so.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. He said that I was born of a misconception, which is an interesting phrase to use, but I will not hold it against him. However, that is the start of our differences of view.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord's father was a friend of mine, I should be especially careful about withdrawing any unfortunate misstatements.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I withdraw happily.
The Minister referred to noise causing a disturbance. That is dealt with in one part of the Bill, but the amendments intend to give proportionality, as set out in the convention. He refers to people being assaulted when they pass a pub with a jukebox playing. That may be the case, but a large number of people like to go to pubs to listen to live music.
The Minister in another place said how much he disliked folk music. I should declare an interest, as I work for the English Folk Dance and Song Society. That music is an acquired taste, too. Such performances give people the opportunity to listen to other types of music, although they may not result in mass participation. A few people playing in a pub should be regarded as proportionate, and the legislation should be proportionate, too.
Noble Lords have referred to penalties and health and safety. The Minister has said that fire exits can be blocked, but health and safety legislation is clear on that point. If health and safety legislation is good enough for recorded music, it should be good enough for live music. The measures in the Bill would kill all spontaneity. I have been to many pubs in which, at the end of the evening, a guitar is taken out and someone starts playing. That is a fantastic thing to be able to do, but such activities would be put at risk if the publican for some reason failed to set them out in applying for an entertainment licence.
The purpose of the Bill, as set out by the Minister, is to expand all the venues available for the production of live music, which would lead to a renaissance. I am tempted to refer to a renaissance of the regions, given that this is a DCMS Bill, but I do not want to take that line because that policy proved a slight disappointment in some respects, although it was helpful in others.
The Minister said that the amendments would draw a line, and that is their purpose. They draw a line in the sand and state that, at a certain level, live music should be acceptable. In a mature society, we should have the right to listen to music in the circumstances that we are discussing, and performers of music should have the right to perform it. The Bill is deregulatory. The amendments do not affect the Bill's nature but support its aims. On that basis, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 151; Not-Contents, 115.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.27 p.m.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page