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

My Lords, although this debate has not packed the Chamber with the same number of noble Lords as the previous debate, I, for one, recognise its importance. Indeed, tomorrow I shall be making an Oral Statement to the House on the Government’s White Paper following the conclusion of the work on Digital Britain where, among other things, we shall discuss the future of digital radio. I have long held the view that that has the potential to be a driving force for providing outlets and support, particularly for niche music interests and, indeed, for jazz. I have sympathy with the issue, then, and as noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, may know, I have had the good and occasionally challenging fortune to have spent quite a bit of time in the past nine months with the music industry on this issue, among others. While I am afraid that I do not have the history in my mind that other noble Lords have of the debates on what became the Licensing Act—I am not overly complaining about that—I am well aware of the level of passionate support on this question, particularly from colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I was not surprised, then, at what could be described as the astonished explosion of passion on this issue tonight. The Government are well aware of the arguments, particularly the debates that still rage around Section 177. I shall try to answer the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and other speakers who supported him. I shall come back to deal with some specific questions on the minor variations point later. I am afraid that I shall disappoint the noble Lord by saying that the Government cannot agree that the Licensing Act has made it harder to put on live music. Indeed, as the noble Lord will know, the Live Music Forum chaired by Feargal Sharkey, who also now chairs UK Music, found that the Act had had a neutral impact on live music, while the Live Music Survey in 2007 indicated that there had been a 5 per cent reduction, but that licensing was rarely a factor in decisions about whether to put on live music. In fact, in 2008-09, live music provision increased in licensed premises by nearly 8 per cent and, with the addition of members’ clubs, there are now more than 90,000 venues licensed for live music. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that there is evidence to suggest that small-scale, informal gigs may have been negatively affected by the Act. We believe—I checked this in the briefing I received—that the Government have tried to honour their commitment to explore options for further live music exemptions. As I am sure noble Lords will know, discussions were held last year with musicians’ organisations, local authorities and others on draft exemptions for small live music events. However, I have been reliably informed—and I pressed officials on this point—that it proved impossible to agree on exemptions that would deliver an increase in live music but still protect the rights of local residents. It is not the case that the Government have turned their eye to this question, but rather that we have sought to find a balance of interest. On this basis, the Government have agreed with the Musicians’ Union and the LACORS to explore other ways of encouraging live music. While I understand the noble Lord’s frustration on some of these questions, I was slightly disappointed that he dismissed the entirety of the benefit of the minor variations. Our view is that the minor variations bring some advantages, for live music in particular. We think that the minor variations process, appropriately implemented, will help venues to put on more small live music events. The statutory guidance states: ""It is the Government’s intention that applications to vary a licence for live music should benefit from the minor variations process unless there is likely to be an adverse impact on the licensing objectives"." The Musicians’ Union, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned, is one of the bodies we have engaged with and is the main body representing musicians. It recognises the potential of minor variations to increase live music provision. It has formed a new group with local authorities to explain and promote the benefits of the new process for live music. The group is also developing a communications programme to explain the current exemption for incidental music, which we accept has had a limited effect, and will see whether it can tackle other live music issues as they arise. We share the noble Lord’s view that these measures will help to deliver an increase in small live music events. The Government undertake to review the situation in a year’s time when the minor variations and the other initiatives outlined have had time to take effect. If necessary, we will revisit the subject of exemptions. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will take up the question of Olympic endorsement for morris dancing with my colleague in another place. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was supported by the noble Lords, Lord Colwyn and Lord Redesdale, and I ask that the House reject it before I return to answer the other questions posed.