Licensing - exemption unlikely
Roger Gall
Despite creating an impression of urgency, the government is unlikely to be
able to implement an entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs before
the general election.
It looks increasingly as if the licensing minister's dramatic exemption
u-turn, leaked to the Guardian on 21st October by DCMS, the eve of the
Equity and MU demonstration, was a damage limitation exercise. Scoops tend
to discourage coverage in other papers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/21/police-law
The following day Gerry Sutcliffe claimed on BBC radio that the the
government wanted to act 'very quickly' (You & Yours, 22 October). But his
praiseworthy intention has been undermined by the latest government replies
to questions raised by Liberal Democrat peer Tim Clement-Jones.
Responding to a question about the timescale of the public consultation,
Lord Davies of Oldham said:
'We hope to publish the [small gigs exemption] consultation this year and
will consult for the usual 12 week period.'
See:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91111w0003.htm#09111147000499
DCMS has yet to announce the proposed exemption or the consultation on its
website - despite the fact that they first raised the possibility of a small
gigs exemption consultation two years ago in response to recommendations of
the then Live Music Forum:
'We accept the spirit of these recommendations and will explore options for
allowing certain low risk live music performances to be exempt from
licensing requirements, in addition to the existing exemption for incidental
music. This is unlikely to result in a blanket exemption, but we will look
at finding a meaningful way to exempt those events that are self evidently
of low risk to the licensing objectives. This is likely to be pursued
through the de minimis exemption route on which we plan to consult next year
[2008] but we will also explore other options.'
['Government's Response to the Live Music Forum Report', published by DCMS
17 December 2007, para 19]
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/384FA317-FE3F-4341-931E-C2C506129196/0/govtresponselivemusicforum.pdf
Last Monday, 9th November, the Guardian reported concerns from Feargal
Sharkey and others about the delayed consultation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/08/live-music-venues-licensing-laws
But the timescale problem is not so much the consultation. Rather it is the
means by which the minister proposes to amend the Licensing Act: the
Legislative Reform Order (LRO). Typically these take over six months to
progress through Parliament, due partly to close scrutiny by the Regulatory
Reform Committee. Controversial reforms inevitably result in delays arising
from amendments negotiated between the Committee and the originating
department. For an overview:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/regulatory_reform_committee/regulatory_reform_orders.cfm
This tortuous process is of course fully understood by the DCMS licensing
team. They chaperoned the Licensing Act's 'minor variations' amendment by
this route earlier this year.
Undoubtedly this issue will be high on the agenda of representatives of
Equity and the MU, and MPs on the Performers Alliance Parliamentary Group,
when they meet Gerry Sutcliffe at DCMS next Tuesday, 17th November.
With Labour's general election prospects not looking good, campaigners must
keep up the pressure, focussing particularly on the Conservatives. The
party has already backed the recommendations of the all-party Culture
Committee, chaired by John Whittingdale MP, including the exemption for
venues up to 200-capacity.
ENDS