Culture minister backs down on unpopular licensing bill and agrees to work with Musicians' Union

Anne Perkins, political correspondent
Tuesday March 4, 2003
The Guardian

Kim Howells, the minister being dubbed "the greatest threat to live music since Oliver Cromwell", will today admit to critics of his controversial licensing bill that he has got it wrong.

In a rare case of ministerial penitence Mr Howells has invited the Musicians' Union to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ask them to work with him to improve the bill.

Already it has been savaged in the Lords by an alliance of Liberal Democrat and Tory peers who have fought to exempt some performances of live music from its provisions.

Yesterday the culture minister admitted there were weaknesses in the bill which he had failed to anticipate. "It's curious," he said. "We saw it as a civilising bill, relaxing licensing laws, cutting down on bureaucracy. It was only when it started going through the Lords we realised how it would be interpreted."
Musicians believe the bill would have a devastating impact on the number of venues where they can perform because instead of the "two in a bar" rule, allowing up to two musicians to perform unlicensed, every live performance would need licensing. Schools and churches also fear they will need licences for plays and concerts.

An online petition has received more than 76,000 signatures and protests have included a "gagged" musical lobby of parliament. Mr Howells, who has attacked what he calls a "pernicious campaign", fought back with "20 myths" he said were being put about.

"Spontaneously singing 'Happy Birthday' will not be illegal," he said. "Spontaneous singalongs in pubs will not be licensable."

But John Smith, general secretary of the Musicians' Union who will be at today's meeting, remains unconvinced. "We are philosophically miles apart," he said yesterday. "We don't believe we should be licensed at all, because ordinary noise and health and safety legislation covers us."

Musicians claim the government has failed to understand what a hurdle the proposals will be for small businesses like pubs and restaurants which will now need a licence for a Saturday night guitarist or pianist. "The trouble is no one at the DCMS has ever worked in a pub," one campaigner said.
Some members of the union are so angry they want to end their union's 80-year link with Labour.
Hamish Burchill, a jazz drummer who has been a vociferous critic, said the number of venues had already slumped as councils demanded new lavatories, colour-coded pipes and extra fire-proofing before granting licences.

Mr Howells - a minister more identified with the new liberalism of the 60s than with what critics call the authoritarianism of New Labour's Home Office - acknowledges that there have been bad experiences. "We've got to convince everyone we'll be watching them like hawks so they can't impose extra conditions. We will also set fees centrally and they will be the same everywhere."

The bill has brought the department more bad headlines, just as it started to recover from its first-term involvement in such disastrous projects as the Millennium Dome and the rebuilding of Wembley. Insiders blame the Home Office, whose officials originally drafted the bill. The DCMS took over responsibility for licensing only after the 2001 election.

The minister, who is also in charge of the complex communications bill, is now staking everything on the introduction of statutory guidelines to govern the way local authorities issue licences.
After the bruising he has had in parliament over the past six weeks, Mr Howells is keen to settle. The Musicians' Union is also in the market for a rapprochement. "If I've got it wrong, I don't mind saying sorry," Mr Smith said.