This was the opposition's final comments on the Bill.
Mr. Whittingdale: The Government have got many aspects of the Bill wrong, but the provisions that caused the most problems and which most closely resemble a dog's breakfast are those on entertainments licensing.
At every stage of the Bill, when objections were raised they were dismissed out of hand by Ministers as nothing but scaremongering, yet time and again, Ministers were forced to accept that they were wrong and have had to propose new amendments to overcome specific weaknesses; for example, on the requirement that churches should be licensed for the performance of secular entertainment.
The Government surrendered early on that issue. The removal of licence fees for schools and sixth-form colleges quickly followed. Since then, Ministers have repeatedly had to return with further amendments, even as late as this afternoon.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): I wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ask about an event that my wife and I hold regularly, when 80 people pay about £10 for a glass wine and contribute to entertainment in our family room to raise money for a good cause, either the Church or the Tory party. I asked whether I should need a temporary entertainment licence, but I have received no response. I assume that, as the number is about 80 rather than 250, the answer will be yes, because the Government resisted the amendment. If that kind of public-spirited entertainment requires a licence, the Bill, in that detail, must be wrong.
Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend's example is typical of hundreds that are being presented by organisations throughout the country. They all believe that they will have to meet an additional tier of regulation and bureaucracy as a result of the Bill. The Minister has assured the House that the provisions will not cover some events, but the organisations that presented evidence to us had obtained professional legal advice in each case.
Their advice shows very clearly that the Bill, as amended, will cover events of that kind. That is part of the problem. Examples, such as that cited by my hon. Friend, have been given repeatedly, and we have got into the most obscure debate, for instance, about whether or not a marquee with a wooden floor would be exempt from licensing, whereas a dance that took place inside a house with a wooden floor would require licensing. That is complete madness.
Dr. Howells: Would the hon. Gentleman like to cite that debate?
Mr. Whittingdale: We discussed such things in a debate on an amendment this evening, and the Historic Houses Association has given that exact example. [Interruption.] Well, earlier this evening, we debated an amendment, suggested by the Historic Houses Association, that was designed precisely to put right that kind of objection, but the problem has arisen because of the Government's decision to insist on a licensing requirement for all public performances of live music.
All of us agree that the law, as it stood previously, was arcane and unjust, but no one believed that the Government's response to the campaign to remove the two-in-a-bar rule would not be to abolish the licensing requirement, but to extend it to all public performances.
No convincing explanation has been given about why live music poses risks and problems that broadcast entertainment, however loudly amplified, does not. No explanation has been given about why the system in Scotland, which has no requirement for entertainment licences, would not be appropriate in England, too. It is hardly any wonder that musicians across the land, from morris dancers to metal bands, are united in opposing the Bill.
This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and I joined members of the Musicians Union in delivering an electronic petition, containing 110,000 signatures, to No. 10 in protest against the Bill. Those signatures were attached to the early-day motion that I tabled a few months ago. Indeed, I suspect that it is a record for an early-day motion to have 110,000 signatures associated with it.
I draw the Minister's attention, once more, to the finding of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published on Friday, in which it said that there is a significant risk that the Bill is now incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
Associated with the Bill is an assurance from the Secretary of State that, in her view, the provisions are compatible with the convention rights, but the Joint Committee now tells us that the Bill, as amended, will leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements, without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime, so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under the European convention on human rights.
The solution is very simple. If the Government were to accept the amendment passed in the House of Lords exempting performances attended by fewer than 250 people from needing a licence, almost all that opposition would melt away. I realise that the Government have so far been unwilling to do so, but I predict that the House will have to consider this matter again very soon, and I hope that, if the House of Lords insists on reinserting that amendment, the Government will listen and think again.
The work done by the House of Lords on all the issues that I have mentioned led to a greatly improved Bill. For that reason, the Conservative party did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading.
Sadly, nearly all the good work done in the House of Lords has been undone by the Government in Committee. The result is a Bill that is riddled with anomalies, that imposes more regulation rather than less and that will lead to the loss of thousands of venues at which it is currently possible to enjoy live music.
The Bar Entertainment and Dance Association said: "Like almost every organisation involved with the development of the Licensing Bill, BEDA remains extremely concerned at the omissions, over elaborations and ill thought through proposals that remain within the legislation at this late stage."
The Musicians Union, the English Folk Dance and Song Society and the Association of British Jazz Musicians wrote a joint letter, saying that the Bill "will be a disaster for the performing arts".
The Government presented a bad Bill. It was improved by the House of Lords, but it has been made worse again by the Government. For that reason, I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
Nick Harvey: When the Bill was brought before Parliament, there was a general view across the political spectrum that legislation on such matters was long overdue. Indeed, there was general goodwill toward the prospect of legislation. The Government headlined the Bill by saying that it would allow more relaxed drinking hours and perhaps 24-hour drinking in some areas. That measure appeared to be popular and they must have believed that they were on to a winner.
Although the Bill's aim was to be simple and deregulatory, it has ended up being surprisingly complex. Each time a problem has arisen, the solution found has added to the Bill's complexity and produced further problems. Solutions to those problems have created a Bill that has become increasingly cumbersome. I agree that it would have benefited in no small way from pre-legislative scrutiny.
The former Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting handled the Bill's passage with panache and deftness—we congratulate him on his promotion but he will be sorely missed as he moves to his new job—but publicans, musicians, performers and residents remain significantly unhappy. I acknowledge that some of the campaigning outside the House has inflated concerns to an extent that is not entirely proportionate and that the perception of several aspects of the Bill is worse than the reality.
Publicans fear possible costs. They do not fear the licence fee but the cost of meeting conditions that they believe that they will have to fulfil to be granted licences. Not unreasonably, their perception is that the new system will be more bureaucratic than the one that it replaces. They think that they will have to engage advisers and consultants to help them to put together complex operating plans and that there is more far more red tape inherent in the new system than in previous systems.
If publicans want to change their operating schedule or the names of their designated premises' supervisors, the system is more cumbersome and complicated than it used to be. In addition to the concerns of individual publicans, we know that chains of pubs are unhappy that they cannot register their interest in designated premises. We may also come to regret that shortcoming.
The biggest controversy surrounds live performances and entertainment licensing. Despite everything that the Government and the Minister have said, live performers still believe that fewer venues will be available for live music and performance after the Bill is enacted, and their fears may be well founded.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said that we can all accept the shortcomings of the two-in-a-bar rule in the previous set-up, but that there is a desperate need for a de minimis provision. The Government's biggest mistake is not finding an alternative de minimis provision to replace the two-in-a-bar rule.
Although the figure of 250 that was suggested in the other place as constituting a small event is on the high side, I sincerely believe that something along those lines is necessary to avoid small entertainments becoming encumbered by a new licensing regime.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that that will reduce the number of live performances. Aside from those considerations, it appears that performers such as morris dancers who move around and perform at a variety of venues in quick succession will be caught up in many more licensing provisions than they were in the past.
The third interest group is the residents who will understandably be aggrieved that residential amenity has not been included in the Bill alongside the other licensing objectives as something that licensing authorities have to take into account when they make their decisions.
As we heard, they will also be aggrieved that undertakings from the old regime are not to be carried forward. The ability of a ward councillor to make representations was something that we—myself included—were wrong to exclude when we sensibly wrote out the provision for MPs and MEPs to be able to do so.
On other concerns, we heard that the Joint Committee on Human Rights thinks that there are possible breaches of human rights. I am equally uncomfortable about the statutory guidance. Although it will need parliamentary approval at the outset, it will not need it when the Government want to change it.
I have concluded that, regrettably, the Government have taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Much of the Minister's response to specific points came down to existing law already covering various aspects but not, in truth, being implemented. We might have done better to set about implementing existing laws before seeking new legislation.
People will look at the Bill and wonder why the Government concluded, for example, that Punch and Judy shows need to be licensed for public entertainment. They will want to know what motivated them to include that in legislation in 2003. Is it because Punch and Judy is sexist, cruel to crocodiles or shows a lack of respect for law and order?
Whatever it is, it is an example of the Government putting too much in the Bill and attempting to do too much. With a heavy heart, I conclude that it should not be given a Third Reading.