The controversy surrounding music in pubs seemingly will not go away. Now, the Conservative Party is reported as backing exemption for certain "small-scale" music-in-pubs events and the re-introduction of the "two-in-a-bar" rule, which is another exemption, after the report from the Culture Media & Sport Select Committee, which I commented on recently.
At the same time, music campaigner Feargal Sharkey is — rightly in my view — still highly critical of the Metropolitan Police form 696, which seeks to identify the type of music played at pre-advertised events, together with personal details of performers. The claim that this is concealed racism has been levelled at the police and I confess I have yet to hear a credible explanation to refute this entirely. The sense of Big Brother watching every move is very strong.
But there are problems with the Tory position on music, as they may well find if they get into power next year. The reluctance of the Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) to make concessions in this area stems from their concerns over public nuisance, which they claim can come from a small number of entertainers as much as from a larger group. Amplified music of any kind can cause a ferocious racket if the sound is allowed to penetrate neighbouring buildings and local residents may well find the Tory position not to their liking. Licensing musical entertainment can allow conditions to be attached.
The DCMS also points to the existing concessions introduced to the Licensing Act at a late stage after the House of Lords expressed concerns about the global effect of music licensing requirements. Unfortunately, section 177 is not only obscure but it does not really give an exemption from licensing: it merely disapplies conditions already applied to the licence in respect of musical entertainment. What opponents of the system want is complete exemption, either where there are not more than two live performers or where the venue holds 200 people or fewer.
There is, of course, a raft of laws designed to prevent or punish noise nuisance, mostly policed and enforced by local council officers. Environmental health departments are there to
take action if noise is a problem, and they can even issue an abatement notice, which is a "suspended sentence" for a pub, allowing the
council to prosecute immediately if there is a further breach.
This means that pub music is, and will continue to be, a battleground, not only for politicians, but for the music industry, and for licensees who try to provide facilities for making music. It's clear there is no easy fix. This government appears not very keen on granting exemptions to existing laws — look at the problems travelling circuses still have to gain some form of concession on the rigid rule that they must license every spot they pitch, in advance.
The key issue is at what level do you set the exemption? And for what? Where is the logic in having a fixed level of performers and a fixed level of customers? The two-
in-a-bar rule worked in the past because it was a complete exemp-tion from a complete licensing system, so you would not have to pay the licence fee or comply with the raft of conditions.
Now, music is bundled with alcohol, on the same licence, for which you pay a fixed annual fee, regardless of how many "licensable activities" you provide. So the only argument would be over the type of conditions imposed on the licence. And that argument is set to run and run.