Hamish Birchall has sent the following to my MP and copied it to many others. The danger is that constiuents will be told that the Bill exempts non amplified music - when of course it does no such thing.

Jim

Except for unamplified live music integral to the performance of Morris dancing or dancing of a similar nature, the Government has not made an 11th hour licence exemption for unamplified live music in pubs or anywhere else. I hope you will do what you can to prevent that myth gaining ground on Labour backbenches and beyond.

Whether amplified or not, live music in pubs and bars remains illegal unless licensed, and still subject to potentially onerous conditions.

Clear Guidance for local authorities may militate against onerous conditions, but then again it may not. Local authorities tend to be very sure about what constitutes a 'necessary' condition. The only means to challenge a disputed condition - an appeal to magistrates, or judicial review - is costly and very time consuming, and likely to be beyond the means of smaller businesses.

What the Government has done is introduce a partial alleviation from certain licence conditions in small venues. The amendment is quite complex and difficult to interpret. Having talked it through with various people, including the licensing lawyer who advises both the MU and the Arts Council, this is my summary of what it means:

In all cases, to qualify for the concession, the permitted capacity must be 200 or fewer and a premises licence must already be in force authorising 'music entertainment'.
Music entertainment means the performance of live music or performance of dance.
The amendment also makes a key distinction between places used primarily for the consumption of alcohol and those that are not:

1    Premises used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises
This effectively means bars and pubs. The definition excludes restaurants, for example, libraries and hospitals, and any number of other potential venues for public performance.

If the bars or pubs qualify on the other criteria, and they provide performances of live amplified OR unamplified live music, licence conditions relating to noise or the protection of children from harm will 'not have effect' initially. They would have effect, however, if problems or complaints led to a review of the licence. The suspension of noise and protection of harm conditions would apply whenever such premises are open and providing the live music. This could be round the clock. However, safety and crime and disorder conditions would apply at all times.

2    Everywhere else
At other qualifying places such as restaurants, libraries, hospitals, public spaces, your front garden and so on, there is a wider concession, but only for unamplified music between 8am and midnight. In this case no licence conditions 'relating to the provision of the music entertainment' will have effect (subject to review, as above).

However, if such places wish to provide amplified live music at any time, or unamplified music between midnight and 8am they will be subject to the full range of licence conditions. Local authorities would also seem to be able to impose any condition that did not relate directly to the provision of the music entertainment, but which they could argue was 'necessary' to achieve any of the four licensing objectives.

Confused? I'm not surprised - this is now one of the most complex sections of the Bill.

3    Costs
Remember that in both sets of potential venues a premises licence authorising 'music entertainment' must be in force in the first place. Cost: one-off fee of £100-500, plus annual inspection fee of £50-150 where applicable, plus the application must be made at least 28 days in advance with fees up front (probably non-refundable), plus compliance costs of implementing 'necessary' safety/crime/disorder licence conditions where applicable.

4    Noise conditions inconsistent
Bars and pubs that open after midnight, particularly in towns and cities, are a major source of local residents' complaints, mostly about noisy people, but also noise breakout from within premises. And yet under the terms of the amendment they are exempt from noise conditions at any time (subject to review). By contrast, other places which may not sell any alcohol, and are not commonly associated with neighbour complaint, or anti-social behaviour, are subject to noise conditions after midnight.

5    What does it mean in practice?
As now, where pubs and bars are concerned, local authorities will be empowered to impose any condition relating to the provision of live music, amplified or not, which they consider 'necessary' for public safety and crime and disorder. If local authorities argue, as they have consistently in the past, that because live music attracts more people than usual the installation of more toilets is necessary (public safety), or door supervisors are needed (crime and disorder), the only way for the licence applicant to challenge the conditions will be via appeal to the Magistrates court, or application for judicial review to the High Court. Both routes are are potentially costly and risky for the applicant, and likely to be beyond the means of smaller businesses. The delay between lodging an appeal and the hearing date can be months. And while licence conditions pertaining to regulate entertainment are in dispute the licensee must refrain from providing the entertainment, or implement the condition.

None of this palaver applies, of course, to activities that are not licensable - such as the provision of big screen broadcast entertainment.

In places not primarily used for the supply and consumption of alcohol and where completely unamplified live music is provided, the suspension of all licence conditions does represent a significant concession. In practice, however, it will benefit a relatively small proportion of performers.

6    Genuine exemptions for unamplified live music
The performance of unamplified music will be exempt in the following circumstances:

as an integral part of a Morris dance, or dance of a similar nature
in a public place of religious worship
at a garden fete or similar function (provided the function is not for private gain),
under the 'incidental' exemption (which applies anywhere), provided it does not accompany dancing that could not be described as similar to Morris dancing, and does not accompany any other regulated entertainment,
or at a private event that is not for private gain.
The Morris exemption is, of course, welcome. However it gives rise to further anomalies: a public recital by a solo unamplified musician in, say, a hospital or library would be illegal unless licensed; but if the musician were to accompany folk dancers, the event would be exempt.

As you may know, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, architect of the Human Rights Act, said in the Lords last week that in his view the new regime was disproportionate (he cited particularly the complete exemption for big screen broadcast entertainment as against the licence requirement for live performance). Somehow I feel this issue is going to be around for a while.

Hamish