Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Order 2009

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment and his explanation of it. The House has heard that Section 177 of the Licensing Act was a last-minute compromise at a very late stage of the passage of the then Bill in July 2003. The Bill had twice ping-ponged between this House and the other place on the issue of an exemption for small gigs. This exemption had been supported by my party and by the Liberal Democrats, who at the last minute withdrew their support when the DCMS offered Section 177 and an exemption for morris and similar dancing. The Section 177 amendment demanded by this House before the Bill could be approved was intended to protect certain forms of live music in small premises. The whole process exposed the Act’s absurd overregulation of the most innocuous live music against the light touch for canned entertainment, such as big-screen sport in bars. The Act effectively removed the old "two in a bar" rule that since 1961 had been available in premises as an exemption from the general requirement to hold a public entertainment licence for live music. As I said in the debate on 4 June, the restrictive legislation had serious implications for jazz. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats have regretted their decision. Section 177 is notoriously difficult to understand; it is not any kind of exemption, merely a suspension of certain live music licence conditions in venues already licensed for live music up to a capacity of 200 people. The noble Lord has explained Section 177 very clearly. It is a complex, probably unworkable provision, introduced in the late stages of debate in the Licensing Bill in June 2003. As far as I am aware, no venue and no local authority has ever used it. It is likely that only a small number of premises will want to take advantage of these exemptions, which would be of limited value to most commercial operations. There is no exemption from actually holding the required licence. The Government considered that such exemptions were not necessary to protect live music, but were forced to compromise in this House to secure the passage of the Bill. Amending Section 177 to create an outright exemption for certain small gigs would go a long way to meeting the demands of the Musicians’ Union, the former Live Music Forum and the tens of thousands of musicians and music lovers involved with this debate over many years. With a little imagination, such an amendment could extend exemption to other premises, venues such as hospitals or schools that are not usually licensed for live music. If the public need protection from small gigs, as is so often insinuated by the Government, there is a plethora of legislation already in place to address the risk of noise, nuisance, crime, disorder and public safety. How else could big-screen sport in bars escape entertainment licensing? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, draws attention to the Government’s failure, despite many promises and the recent recommendations of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, to implement any exemption for small-scale performances. Bearing in mind the high level of interest in matters relating to licensing and the concerns expressed by some local authorities, the Government’s recommendation is surprising. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.