Prior to the Licensing act 2003 - there was live music in pubs which was exempt under the 'two-in-a-bar' rule. There was no evidence ever produced which showed that this was a problem that needed addressing by the abolition of this exenption.

This live music ended when the pub closed (or a little before) but although there was general closing time for the serving of alcohol - there was never a set time by which this live music would automatically end or where it automatically required additional licensing permission. In theory, at least, there was nothing preventing this live music from continuing in pubs after closing time - but as pubs exist to sell alcohol - it was an unlikely event.

The Licensing Act 2003 has done away with a generally set closing time for alcohol, in favour of a more flexible approach, which is generally appreciated.

But now, despite the many problems associated with alcohol - it is live music, with its undoubted benefits, which finds itself with a set closing time or a time when it requires additional entertainment licensing to continue past a set time. This on the grounds that even non-amplified live music will automatically become a noise concern at this set time. And all this in advance, before a note has been sounded......

The really ilogical thing about this is that live music which proves in practice to be an actual noise concern and has not been granted additional entertainment licensing will be subject to the very same legislation to control noise, as would live music which has not been granted additional entertainment permission. So as permission to make noise is not possible - what purpose can the need for this additional licensing permission possibly provide to address noise?

Additional entertainment licensing under the licensing Act 2003 is a very expensive and time consuming process - and as it cannot be used to deal with noise emanating from sources other than from entertainment - the pretence maintained by the LGA Group lobby and others, that additional entertainment permission can be any practical use to deal with noise, is one which is not credible and which must end.   

But now we find that our own side is agreement with this. The Live Music Bill first proposing a midnight point at which all live music must (except it would appear, non-amplified music for Morris dancing) requires additional entertainment licensing. The Govt are proposing an 11.30 point at which all live music requires the 'protection' afforded by this as part of the 'price' for their conditional support for the Private Members Bill.

There is an argument that as all live music will be exempt prior to this curfew - that this is an improvment. Possibly but I contend that no proposal should be made or agreed where there is no logical underlying reason for it.

The Morris exemption is a good example. There was no logical reason why the exemption for non-amplified Morric performances could not have been extended to cover all non-amplified live music.

The possibly inconvenient fact remains, that there is now already in the Licensing Act 2003, an exemption for non-amplified live performances which are not thought to automatically become a noise concern and require additional entertainment licensing at 11.30 or midnight.