Live Music Bill [HL]

In moving Amendment 3, I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group, which I shall reference separately as we go along. On Amendments 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 18, proposed Section 177 contained in Clause 1 refers at various places to ““music entertainment”” or ““live music entertainment””. It is clear from the Bill and the definition of ““music entertainment”” in subsection (5) that all those references relate to live music. For the sake of simplicity, and to improve the drafting, the amendments ensure that the term ““live music”” is used throughout the provisions. Moving to Amendments 4 and 6, in proposed Section 177(5) contained in Clause 1, there is a defined term, ““supply of alcohol””. However, elsewhere in Section 177, the Bill does not use the phrase ““supply of alcohol”” but instead uses the words ““supply alcohol”” or ““supplying alcohol””. The defined term ought to be used consistently throughout. Proposed Section 177(1)(a) also alters the wording about the circumstances in which provisions apply from being when the premises are, "““open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises””," to when the premises are, "““supplying alcohol for consumption on the premises””." The wording in the Bill, if applied literally, could mean that the premises would have to be supplying alcohol the whole time that the music entertainment was taking place. That is a somewhat surreal concept. It would be absurd if the requirement was that at least one person was actually being served alcohol at the bar, rather than the premises simply being open for the purposes of supplying alcohol. Those amendments ensure that the defined term ““supply of alcohol”” is used uniformly within the drafting. Amendment 6 also addresses that potential absurdity. Moving to Amendments 19 to 21, Clause 2 removes ““entertainment facilities”” from the definition of ““provision-regulated entertainment”” in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003, and removes other references to entertainment facilities in that schedule. I am sure that your Lordships will be familiar with the fact that ““entertainment facilities”” means the piano in the bar—or the piano in the street, which we will see during the City of London Festival. Currently, erroneously, the Bill does not include removal of the references to entertainment facilities in paragraphs 8, 11(b) and 11A(4) of Schedule 1. As provision of entertainment facilities will, under the terms of the Bill, cease to be regulated entertainment, all references to entertainment facilities should consequently be removed. The purpose of Amendments 19 to 21 is to remove those three references to entertainment facilities from Schedule 1. Moving to Amendments 22, 26 and 31, Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 contains a number of exemptions where, in specified circumstances, the type of entertainment referred to is not to be regarded as regulated entertainment. In each instance in the schedule, the wording refers to ““entertainment consisting of””. These three minor amendments simply ensure that, in respect of the new exemptions that will be inserted into Schedule 1 by paragraphs 12A, 12B and 12C, the wording is consistent with what already appears elsewhere in the schedule. Penultimately, I turn to Amendments 23, 27 and 32. The words, "““within the meaning of paragraph 2(1)(e) of this Schedule, or entertainment of a similar description””," in proposed paragraphs 12A, 12B and 12C are, I am advised, unnecessary. It is self-evident that references to live music in Schedule 1 refer back to the definition in paragraph 2(1)(e), and paragraph 2(1)(h) of Schedule 1 has the effect of making, "““entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (e)””," regulated entertainment. The words, "““entertainment of a similar description””," in paragraph 2(1)(h) apply not only to the description of the entertainment in Part 1 of the schedule but also, where appropriate, to the exemptions in Part 2. That is a very complicated way of saying that some unnecessary wording will be removed from paragraphs 12A, 12B, and 12C, but I say that to put it on the record for those who are following the movement in the Bill's wording. Finally, I turn to Amendment 34. That is another minor amendment which removes the words ““or entertainment”” from paragraph 12C. I am also advised that those words are unnecessary in the context of the provision and, to avoid confusion, should be removed. I beg to move.