Once again an incoming minister finds himself between a rock and a hard place on the
vexed question of music licensing reform.
Department for Culture, Media & Sport Minister John Penrose has admitted that finding a middle way is difficult, apparently because of public safety considerations, rather than what are normally public nuisance issues.
He has clearly been lobbied by local authorities who see unregulated entertainment as a safety issue, in spite of the fact that, in pubs at least, safety and overcrowding can be dealt with under current legislation.
At the risk of offending great swathes of my music-loving friends in the licensed trade and elsewhere, I can see his problem. Exempting so-called 'small-scale' entertainment requires a decision to be taken on the level, even if you think that an exemption is justified.
Within the licensed trade we used to have the 'two-in-a-bar', rule which actually was more to do with the number of performers rather than the size of the audience. Suddenly, as a last-minute addition to the Licensing Act, we switched attention to audience levels, and then as a further addition, switched back to whether the music was amplified or not.
So there is some confusion as what we are in fact licensing here. Is it safety, or is it noise, or is it a combination of both? Certainly the pre-Act discussion seemed to centre on noise nuisance, the argument being that a couple of performers, or unamplified music, was likely to cause less disturbance to neighbours. Judging by the reactions to the smoking ban outcome, the sound of human voices also causes disturbance when people move outdoors to have a puff. Nothing to do with music at all.
Safety
But the safety element can apply in almost any situation, with fire precautions and overcrowding heading the list. I should point out that fire safety is specifically excluded from licensing now, although you would not know it from the reactions of some local authorities. So fire precautions are dealt with directly between the fire authority and the pub — the licensing authority has nothing to do with it.
The question of overcrowding has to be related to the pub having a capacity limit, which is not actually required unless you wish to take advantage of the current permitted capacity exemption (up to 200) and have a certificate to prove it. Musical events may become crowded with fans, which itself has safety implications. Removing any control or restriction on numbers (by removing a licensing requirement) is seen by some as a backward step. Neglect of basic precautions can happen even with numbers below that level, so the safety officers are concerned about any form of exemption.
Red tape
It is simplistic to see deregulation of music licensing simply as an exercise in cutting red tape: the Government has to examine whether the safety of the public is compromised, not whether form-filling or licensing is unnecessary or over-complicated.
I totally agree that the current situation is complex and frustrating, but it does stem from the experience in this country and other parts of Europe that large numbers of people congregating in one confined space can lead to danger and in some cases tragic consequences.
It seems to me the real problem is in trying to marry up all the different strands of local government responsibility and using the Licensing Act to do it. Pubs with entertainment still have the same actual licence as pubs without, and they pay the same fees as well. So effectively entertainment licensing costs you nothing — except the cost of complying with terms and conditions, which may be applied on the licence as a result. It is this compliance that forms the crux of the licensed trade's complaint.