Music News » Music Licensing News

LGA misleads Peers over live music bill

admin — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:16:22 +0000

The Local Government Association has been handing out a misleading and offensive briefing against Lord Clement-Jones’ live music bill.

Entitled ’Live Music Bill – LGA Group Second Reading Briefing’ and dated 15th January 2010, the A4 page has been distributed to Peers over the past two days in advance of the bill’s 2nd reading today in the House of Lords.

The introduction makes these key claims: ‘The Live Music Bill proposes exempting performances of live music that attract an audience of fewer than 200 people from the need for a premises licence. It also proposes reintroducing the “two in a bar” rule which would allow up to two performers to play live music anywhere without the need for a licence.’

On the basis of those claims, it then states in bold type:

‘LGA View – The LGA does not support this Bill. If introduced it would restrict the rights of local people and their directly-elected councils, and deny them a voice in the licensing process for live music. Licensing authorities are trusted to ensure that their residents’ wishes are heard and that the licences of local premises take into account the wellbeing of the neighbourhood as a whole. We believe that families should be able to put their children to bed in peace and be able to relax in their homes without being disturbed by noise from local premises.’

But this is misleading claptrap. Under the bill, the exemption for live music that might apply in pubs and bars could be revoked if residents’ complaints were upheld following a licence review. Councils’ and local people’s rights of redress under the Licensing Act remain at such venues, if there are problems. The exemption proposed for hospitals, schools and colleges is conditional upon no alcohol being sold during its provision. If alcohol were to be sold, the event would be licensable.

In any event, local people, their councils and the police, already have statutory redress against noise nuisance under various Acts, irrespective of licensing, including noise abatement notices issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (which can be pre-emptive or reactive), on-the-spot fines for licensees under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (for noisy premises between 11pm and 7am), and fines under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (noise nuisance coming from a dwelling or garden between 11pm and 7am).

The LGA briefing is offensive where it insinuates that live music generally must be regarded a threat to families and ‘the wellbeing of the neighbourhood’, and that this threat is such that it must be pre-emptively regulated by licensing. There is absolutely no evidence of any significant nuisance or public order problem caused by live music, certainly nothing that justifies making it a potential criminal offence merely to host a performance by one musician.

The briefing goes on to quote recent licensing statistics in support of the LGA view. But these statistics have already been exposed as meaningless, specifically the claimed rise in live music permissions of about 11% since 2007. Since this data was published last year by DCMS, the government has had to concede that they don’t know what proportion of the apparent increase is accounted for by venues that would not have needed a licence under the old regime, including two-in-a-bar venues, and schools and hospitals hosting public events. Nor do they know what live music licence conditions apply, and whether these have been implemented by the venue – as they must be if gigs are to be legal.

The LGA’s concluding arguments suggest that in their view the new ‘minor variation’ process and new guidance on the ‘incidental music’ exemption obviate the need for any new exemption. But clearly even the government accepts that neither is likely to be of significant benefit because they would not have proposed their own 100-capacity exemption otherwise.

A call to the LGA established that this rather dodgy briefing originated with their Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by St Albans councillor Chris White.

Hamish Burchill

Petition the Prime Minister to stop criminalising live music with the Licensing Act

admin — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:45:40 +0000

Everything about music

Petition the Prime Minister to stop criminalising live music with the Licensing Act

To sign the petition follow the link below

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/livemusicevents/

Petition the Prime Minister to stop criminalising live music with the Licensing Act, and to support amendments backed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the music industry, which would exempt most small-scale performances in schools, hospitals, restaurants and licensed premises.
More details from petition creator

Under the Licensing Act, a performance by one musician in a bar, restaurant, school or hospital not licensed for live music could lead to a criminal prosecution of those organising the event. Even a piano may count as a licensable ‘entertainment facility’. By contrast, amplified big screen broadcast entertainment is exempt. The government says the Act is necessary to control noise nuisance, crime, disorder and public safety, even though other laws already deal with those risks. Musicians warned the Act would harm small events. About 50% of bars and 75% of restaurants have no live music permission. Obtaining permission for the mildest live music remains costly and time-consuming. In May, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended exemptions for venues up to 200 capacity and for unamplified performance by one or two musicians. The government said no. But those exemptions would restore some fairness in the regulation of live music and encourage grassroots venues.

New guidance for licensees, musicians and local authorities on the Licensing Act’s ‘incidental music’ exemption has been published by the Local Government Association

admin — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:36:21 +0000

New guidance for licensees, musicians and local authorities on the Licensing Act’s ‘incidental music’ exemption has been published by the Local Government Association: http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768

and http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/23037.pdf

Despite input from the Musicians Union and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the abiding impression is of someone holding a dangerous snake at arms length. The benefits of live music are rarely cited, and where they are, they read as though delivered through gritted teeth:

‘We are aware of incidental music examples such as a keyboard player in a restaurant, a jazz guitarist in a cafe and a new group using the local pub as a nursery venue, that have enhanced the cultural activities of an area.’

Worse than this, however, the guidance fails at a fundamental level. Its aim was to clarify the legislation, but it achieves the opposite. Examples given of gigs that would or would not qualify as ‘incidental music’ reinforce the absurdity of the law, and will undoubtedly cause confusion. Consider the following:

Exempt: a pub promoting a stand-up comedian accompanied by a pianist.

Licensable: a pub promoting a performance by a pianist/singer supported by a stand-up comedian.

Exempt: pub with pianist or other single instrument playing background music.

Licensable: pub promotes a sing-along event with pianist.

Exempt: carol singers outside a shop.

Licensable: shopping centre organises performances of carols in a shopping mall.

What coherent regulatory rationale informs these differences? On what rational grounds should any of the licensable examples deserve criminalisation unless licensed? The potential for noise nuisance, offered as the main reason for regulation, would seem to be the same in both the licensable and exempt entertainments.

Elsewhere in the guidance it suggests that incidental music means ’there should be no expectation to listen or to watch’, and that ‘the public must be allowed to talk during the performance.’

This ludicrous nonsense was launched with a clutch of cringeworthy quotes, of which by far the saddest must be this from Danny Longstaff, chair of the Musicians Union executive committee:

‘This is excellent news. At last we have some real clarity about this area of the licensing act which will be of great benefit to musicians and venues alike.’

Live music campaigner Roger Gall put it more clearly: ‘This document may not be good news for the incidental music exemption but it is good ammunition for a new one