The following from Hamish Birchall

See below for a copy of the Local Government Association briefing paper for Peers dated 01 July 2003. It was sent with a short covering letter from LGA Chief Executive Sir Brian Briscoe.

Note that the LGA view differs markedly from the police. The LGA objects to the Government concession suspending licence conditions for live music, adding: 'This is unnecessarily complicated and will be difficult to monitor and enforce.'

Note also that the examples of local authority prosecution of public safety abuse at licensed premises or venues would have been offences under safety or fire legislation and could have been undertaken irrespective of entertainment licensing:

~ ~ ~

Introduction

Local Government Association members are very concerned at the ongoing attempts to exempt or otherwise concede controls on small premises. We have received evidence from local authorities about the real and serious safety and nuisance problems to be found in small premises.

The majority of premises licensed for entertainment currently are "small" premises and the effect of the Lords and government amendments would be to deregulate community protection to a degree where effective sanctions are not available to local authorities to deal with licence holders who abuse the new freedoms.

We believe that these are needless amendments. The Bill already ensures that conditions attached to licences will be appropriate and proportionate to the activity taking place. We believe the risk to live music is much exaggerated and based upon an inaccurate view of local authority approaches to licensing.

LGA key messages

Small premises

There appears to be a rather naive assumption that an event which attracts less than 200 or 250 people, or 500 in the case of a Temporary Event Notice, is insignificant and as such incapable of causing a disturbance or a risk to those attending. Our evidence indicates otherwise. We do not accept that small premises are inherently safer in fact it is our experience that small businesses and community groups are more likely to lack the expertise and resource to put effective safety and nuisance management systems in place.

Local authorities are not against live music

The assumption in much of the debate on the Bill so far is that if local councils are in charge of licensing, they will stifle culture and creativity. However local authorities are major promoters, facilitators and funders of community arts and culture. It is merely scaremongering and misinformation about local authority approaches to licensing that has led to these dangerous amendments.

Local authorities want to continue to be able to deal proactively with safety and nuisance issues. We believe that existing legislation the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 does not provide sufficient protection for people attending events or nearby residents. The remedies available under the Licensing Bill will be effective and make the most efficient use of local authority resources, which are already under pressure as a result of this Bill.

Local authorities recognise that licence conditions must be commensurate to the risk presented by the activity. Last year, in response to local opinion, the London Borough of Camden launched its 'Unplugged music and dance licence'. This licence is aimed at encouraging small scale live music within a sensible regulatory framework. For musical entertainment with no amplification whatsoever in small premises (capacity 100) up to midnight, usual standard conditions are waived and alternative noise and technical requirements substituted. After midnight the usual conditions apply.

The Musicians Union has described it as a best practice precedent for all local authorities and the proposal was welcomed by the Arts Council. It is clearly possible for premises to be subject to all the licensing objectives without detriment to art and culture.

Local authority regulatory services are governed by Best Value performance indicators and 96% of local authorities have signed up to the Enforcement Concordat. This is a Cabinet Office initiative setting out what businesses and others being regulated can expect from enforcement officers. The Concordat commits enforcers to follow the principles of good enforcement: having clear standards of service and performance, being open and approachable, being helpful in advising on and assisting compliance, having an accessible complaints procedure, making enforcement action proportionate and consistent.

Local authorities are committed to taking forward this approach into the new regime and LGA has brought on board the national body LACORS Local Authority Co-ordination of Regulatory Services to provide guidance and advice to authorities to ensure consistency and efficiency in implementation, administration and enforcement.

Public safety

The recent tragic incident in New York at the Station Night Club where 97 people died at a live music event may seem remote. Unfortunately we have received examples of home grown dangerous behaviour by licensees of small premises that could have produced a similar outcome. Some of the examples are listed below:

In the last two weeks, despite previous warnings, the licensee of a pub in Stockton on Tees was prosecuted for exceeding the occupancy level of 100 persons set by the Council by 75%;

The London Borough of Islington recently prosecuted a basement nightclub for exceeding its licensed capacity of 100 by over 100%;

In July 2002 Swansea City Council prosecuted a venue for breaches related to overcrowding and inadequate means of escape. The premises were licensed for 92 persons and it was estimated that 250 persons were present on the night, mainly as a result of poor management, stewarding and supervision;

In 2002 Wychavon DC prosecuted a public entertainment licensee for keeping an emergency exit locked whilst members of the public were on the premises (capacity190). The prosecution was undertaken by the Council after the licensee had received earlier warnings;

In March 2002 West Wiltshire DC prosecuted a premises licensed for entertainment for 200 people. The licensee pleaded guilty to a locked fire exit and failure to count numbers in breach of conditions of the licence. The Magistrates in sentencing made the point that health and safety had been at risk and the consequences could have been dreadful.

The arrangements for ensuring public safety under the Bill are already complex. Exempting small premises from the full range of public safety issues means that matters such as the provision of drinking water, First Aid, aspects of drug control that are not covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, are not covered.

Such amendments will also mean that in some licensed premises members of the public will not be covered by fire and safety legislation at all, for example where there is no work activity taking place or using unpaid volunteers.

Noise and nuisance

Small premises are more likely to be located in close proximity to noise sensitive properties in residential areas than larger venues. These premises are usually constructed from traditional materials and the sound mitigation properties of the structure are more or less non-existent.

Environmental Health Officers from around the country have told us that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is simply not adequate to deal with noise from premises like these.

The procedures are lengthy and require a significant input of enforcement resource. Licence conditions are a transparent, challengeable way to prevent a problem before more serious sanctions are required.

Where this approach fails there remains the option to prosecute for breach of licence conditions. The use of the prosecution sanction is relatively common against licensees who do not take action to prevent noise nuisance. For example in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea two branches of the same chain were prosecuted within a year for breach of noise conditions.

Many authorities, such as Horsham DC and Ipswich BC, report that unlicensed entertainment events are generally brought to local authority attention as a result of complaints about the noise disturbance they have created.

Ryedale DC make specific mention of noise problems from premises without entertainment licences making use of the existing "2 in a bar" exemption. These amendments create a new anomaly - "200 in a Bar" or "250 in a Bar" rather than "2 in a Bar" that imposes a new enforcement burden for local authorities and reduces the protection of local residents.

The prevention of nuisance in the vicinity of premises a major source of complaint nationally cannot be dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The ability of local authorities to attach conditions relating to public nuisance is key to ensuring local residents are not unduly disturbed by patrons leaving licensed premises.

The Lords original amendment

The original Lordsamendment to Part 2 of Schedule 1 allowed an exemption from the licensing regime in respect of the provision of regulated entertainment for entertainment attended by fewer than 250 people provided it finishes by 11.30 pm.

The effect of this amendment was to exempt all forms of entertainment from folk music to cinema to lap-dancing with significant implications for the licensing objectives and local authority policies. In particular, relating to public safety, this amendment seems to have learned nothing from recent disasters in the United States.

The Government amendment

The government amendment relaxes conditions relating to public nuisance and the protection of children from harm for "music entertainment" in defined circumstances. The definition of music entertainment is very wide, beyond live music, and includes karaoke and striptease.

Any problems that arise, for example children being present at adult entertainment or severe noise nuisance late at night, can only be dealt with by way of review a process that could be lengthy and does not prevent the problem in the first place. The evidence above indicates that this will not be a rare occurrence. Licence reviews, rightly, do not attract a licence fee and this mechanism will increase the pressure on local authority resources unless the fee levels are suitably adjusted.

The relaxation of conditions only applies when the music entertainment is taking place and the premises open for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises. This is unnecessarily complicated and will be difficult to monitor and enforce.

Relaxing public nuisance conditions in premises where the supply of alcohol is the primary use is deeply flawed - alcohol tends to change the behaviour of customers leading to an increased likelihood of noise and nuisance in the area matters which cannot be dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act 1990