The following from Hamish Birchall

Yesterday the House of Lords voted to delay the implementation of the Licensing Act until 30 June 2006. The government was defeated by 33 votes. Today there will be a vote in the Commons. However, it is unlikely that there will be a sufficient number of Labour rebels to defeat the government. And even if the vote went against the government, its effect would not be binding - a consequence of procedural rules in this case.

See article in The Publican online:

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=19127&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

During the debate, Lord Colwyn spoke up for live music, highlighting the unfairness of the new Act in allowing pubs to keep sound systems, while filleting out the automatic entitlement to one or two live musicians.

Responding for the government, Lord Davies of Oldham said:

"In the transitional period there has not been a decrease in the number of venues providing live music. We do not think that the Act is bad for live music. We think that abolishing the "two in a bar" rule increases opportunities. As far as we can see in licence applications, there will be increased opportunities for live music in licensed premises."

Note the contrast between this statement and the government's earlier claims that the Act would lead to 'an explosion' in live music, and Purnell's hype this summer. Oldham's claim that in the transitional period 'there has not been a decrease in the number of venues providing live music' is disingenuous. There was no reason at that stage for any venue to stop live music - the new law doesn't come into force until 24 November, and new licences could not even be granted until two months after August 6th, the end of the transition period.

~ ~ ~

House of Lords - Monday 14 November 2005

Viscount Astor's motion to delay the Act's implementation: "That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Licensing Act 2003 (Second Appointed Day) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/2091) and to replace it with an order specifying the second appointed day as 30 June 2006 in order to allow more time to address public concerns about the effects of the proposed changes and for arrangements for any required changes to be completed in an orderly manner."

Live music comment:

Lord Colwyn (Conservative): My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me 60 seconds to say something on behalf of musicians in this country. Every time that I intervened during the passage of the then Bill, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chastised me for my continual interventions, and assured me that there was no problem at all and that it was all in my imagination. However, although the Act includes the "playing of recorded music" in the description of regulated entertainment, that is disapplied in the transition to the new regime for existing bars, pubs, restaurants, hotels and any premises that are already licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises.

Those places will be allowed automatically to keep jukeboxes or other systems for the playing of recorded sound, no matter how powerful the amplification. However, the automatic permission to have one or two live musicians in such venues-amplified or not-will cease. That was the live performer element of the so-called "two in a bar" rule, which since 1961 has been available in those premises as an exception from the general requirement to hold a public entertainment licence for live music.

The DCMS hoped that existing pubs, bars and restaurants would seek authorisation during the transitional period by varying their licence application to include live music, which could be done for one fee. However, that variation is not straightforward. It entails public advertisement at the applicant's expense, and a period for: public consultation; vetting by police, the fire authority, and on grounds of environmental health; planning; and ultimately the approval of the licensing committee of the local authority. If objections are received, whether from local residents or other agencies, a public hearing may be required with the potential for knock-on costs. The Government were warned that the then Bill would do nothing to promote live music. Musicians need venues to play and perform. The Act does nothing to help.

~ ~ ~

Responding for the government:

Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour):
... The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, raised the issue of live music - an issue on which he was most eloquent during the Bill's passage. Of course I respect his opinion on that. In the transitional period there has not been a decrease in the number of venues providing live music. We do not think that the Act is bad for live music. We think that abolishing the "two in a bar" rule increases opportunities. As far as we can see in licence applications, there will be increased opportunities for live music in licensed premises. However, as I move from the Scylla of the criticism of the noble Lord I land on the Charybdis of the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the question of noise. But of course we are concerned that the local community will be in a position to make its contribution to the issuing of licences to guarantee that local opinion is taken into account.

I recognise that what we have had this evening is a really rather jolly time in revisiting the Act. However, in the terms of the Motion, there is no intent to stop the second designated day of the Act, because to do so would throw the whole of our licensed premises and the selling of alcohol in this country and the control over selling of alcohol into complete chaos. On that basis, I hope that the House will reject the Motion.