I had the following non-commital response from my local MP, Joan Ruddock ...

Dear Mr Crossey

Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the effect of the licensing bill on performances of live music. I attach the explanation provided to MPs by those who drew up the plans. Please let me have your further comments.

Many thanks,

Joan Ruddock

The text of, presumably, some sort of official parliamentary briefing which she attached is set out below.


The new Licensing Bill combines six different licensing regimes into one new simpler one.

Currently, pubs and any other venues need to apply for a separate licence if they want to host musical acts that make up more than two performers, even though it is entirely possible for one person with amplification to make much more noise than say, three acoustic guitarists ever could.

The result was that pubs and smaller venues would avoid hosting acts that would require an additional license.

So this was incongruous and inconsistent and didn't take into account disturbance or public nuisance to local residents.

Additionally, local authorities would set their own fees for public entertainment licenses. So fees varied hugely.

With the new legislation, it will no longer be more expensive to host performances by three musicians than it is to put on a solo artist.

If businesses make use of the reforms, we hope to see an increase in the number and type of venues that offer live music.

And we'll be setting the licensing fee centrally – in the past, local authorities would arbitrarily set licensing fees in order to raise revenue through the back door.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will it not be harder for licensed premises to stage live music?

Our proposals will make it easier for licence holders to stage live music events because it will cost them nothing to add music to the list of activities that they wish to undertake.

By setting the fees centrally, local authorities will be prevented from attaching unreasonable conditions to licensees.

How will folk music survive when the 'two in a bar' rule is abolished?

The 'two in a bar' rule was an exemption from the normal requirement for the public entertainment license, when there was an automatic assumption that three musicians made more noise than two and therefore should require a license. We recognise that this makes no sense, as it is entirely possible for one amplified performer to make as much noise as three without.

We are abolishing the 'two in a bar' rule and replacing it with a licensed framework within which musical performance and other public entertainment can thrive alongside sufficient protection from noise nuisance for local people in the community. Simplifying the licensing system will make it easier for licensed premises to obtain permission to stage live music, hopefully creating an environment for all forms of music to be enjoyed.




So ... you see ... we're stupid to have been making a fuss when our aunties and uncles in Westminster have really been doing us a huge favour after all!

Anyone got any succinct comments that I can whizz back to Joan Ruddock and which fellow 'catters can use to refute similar missives from their MPs?