Nicola Slade looks into today’s report by a government select committee into the Licensing Act 2003 - and notes what a welcome relief it is....In the wake of the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, which subsequently came into full force in 2005, Dave Gelly, musician and jazz critic for the Observer, commented: “It looks as though the Government has deliberately set out to strangle any kind of live music at all, not just in pubs, clubs and restaurants but everywhere - church halls, schools, wedding parties in stately homes, a marquee on the vicarage lawn, or even in your own back garden. Nowhere will be exempt from persecution.”
His comments were echoed by a raft of people and organisations, particularly the Musician’s Union, who foresaw that the Act would reduce the number of venues/pubs which would be prepared to host live music. Among other points, the law namely required that there be a license for the playing of live music in any venue, no matter how small, therefore disbanding the old ‘two-in-a-bar’ rule which had allowed two musicians, playing unamplified music, to perform without seeking a license. The fee for applying for a premises license (covering a number of elements, not just music) cost between £100 and £635.
To deal with any concerns raised over the new bill, the Live Music Forum (LMF) was set up, headed up by now UK Music chairman, Feargal Sharkey. LMF issued a report in 2007, studying the ramifications of the Act, in which it claimed that “(it) has had a neutral effect on the UK’s live music scene”, but recommended there should be more flexibility of the application of the Act on smaller premises.
News comes this morning (Thurs 16 May) that a crossparty Select Committee is now seeking to reverse some of those decisions relating to music, embodied by the Act. In fact, you might go as far to say that the committee is recommending a complete u-turn. “To encourage the performance of live music we recommend that the Government should exempt venues with a capacity of 200 persons or fewer from the need to obtain a license for the performance of live music. We further recommend the re-introduction of the two-in-a-bar exemption, enabling venues of any size to put on a performance of nonamplified music by one or two musicians,” it states. It’s welcome news indeed, but why has this u-turn come about? Given the LMF’s original claims that the Act showed nothing other than a ‘neutral effect,’ we presume that the introduction of London’s Met Police’s Form 696 might be one of the driving factors. Form 696 has been one of the most contentious demands set by the capital’s police and we count ourselves among those who completely oppose it.
Form 696 is billed as a ‘risk assessment form’ that venue owners and/or promoters have to submit to the police two weeks in advance of any planned music event. 696 has become controversial due to its stipulation that names, stage names, private addresses, and phone numbers of all promoters, DJs and artists be listed. The form also asks for a description of the style of music to be performed and the target audience. The original form also asked for details of ethnic groups likely to attend the performance, but that version was revised to omit those parameters in December 2008.
Form 696 has naturally come under fire by various groups and former LMF chief Feargal Sharkey himself. The report this morning suitably criticises 696 and even goes so far to suggest that it should be scrapped: “We are concerned at the linkage of live music and public order issues by the Licensing Act and its accompanying guidance, and we emphasise that music should not automatically be treated as a disruptive activity which will inevitably lead to nuisance and disorder. We therefore conclude that...Form 696, goes beyond the requirements of both the Act and its Guidance to impose unreasonable conditions on events and that it should be scrapped.”
“As with the restrictions on small venues, Form 696 is a wholly unnecessary impediment to live music... UK Music has been vocal amongst musicians, civil liberty campaigners and members of the public who want to see this counter-productive and morally questionable risk assessment form scrapped. I am delighted the Committee feels the same way,” Feargal Sharkey told RotD.
It’s a bizarre set of circumstances. We can’t help but wonder why limitations on live music were included in the Licensing Act and secondly, how the Met Police was able to implement 696 without consultation in the first place. If the UK government really had an understanding of music and the business itself, why are its decisions in such disarray? Maybe that says more about the Labour Party that it does its relationship with our industry?
We also couldn’t help but be amused at the irony of the timing of this news. Only earlier this week, culture secretary Andy Burnham opened a new rehearsal facility in Liverpool for young, aspiring musicians as part of a programme to open up similar spaces across the whole of the UK – with no less, financial stimulus from the government. If this report doesn’t succeed in reversing the problems with the Licensing Act, then it’s highly probable that many of those rehearsing in such spaces will continue to have limited venues to perform in.
However, The DCMS has 12 weeks to respond to the concerns of the select committee and we trust that it will see the error of its ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment