I feel that the fight should concentrate on the current legislation, for it will be with us yet for some time. However as the only answers forthcoming will be that the new legislation will solve all of our problems, it is as well to know what exactly is proposed, rather than all these reassurances and provisos that Ministers and Civil Servants look like they are making up, as they go along and do not appear in any of the proposals.
The licensing of the sale and consumption of alcohol is one important concern.
Ensuring the health and safety of the people working in, and those present in all public places, for whatever activity taking place there, is another important concern and one for which more than adequate legislation already exists.
1. Why does this White Paper (above) link forever and for no positive reason, two quite unconnected elements - live music making and alcohol consumption and place both of these in the hands of local authorities, whose handling of public entertainment licensing alone has been so criticised by the Government? Both on the type of enforcement action taken by them and on the setting of fees?
2. Why then is live music making on premises, where the public's safety has been assured, to be the only matter to be combined with the licensing of alcohol? When not all, live music making takes place on liquor licensed premises?
3. The same concerns for the public's interests and safety occur for music making, by way of pre-recorded sound (DJs) and for crowds attracted to the live showing of TV sporting events. Why then will these activities not be licensable and not require prior permission from the Licensing Authority?
4. If the purpose of this legislation is the public's interests and safety, why is the "two in a bar" exemption alone to be scrapped, exposing all live music making in public houses to the licensing requirement?
5. In the public's interest and safety, why is the exemption (not in London) for music in a place of public religious worship, not also to be scrapped?
6. Although not in the White Paper, the DCMS in a letter to me 07/06/02 states that. "It is currently the Government's intention to make all places of public religious worship exempt from the requirement for permission to stage a public entertainment in so far as is possible." Is the idea that currently closely regulated public houses, with adequate heating lighting and sanitation, are less safe for live music making than, some of our ancient churches with little or none of these facilities?
7. Also not in the White Paper are statements from Dr Howells (on BBC Radio 2), to the effect that sessions where "no money changes hands", would be exempt from the future licensing requirement. This proposal, if I could trust it, may just possibly enable sessions, but gives the lie to this legislation being about the public's safety. For the same risks apply to live music making, paid or otherwise.
8. Why should payment deprive a live musician of the rights given to the public (and DJs)?