Music Blogs

The live music industry has criticised the government for ignoring various key suggestions made by a parliamentary select committee regarding reforms of the 2003 Licensing Act - in particular in relation to exempting smaller venues and scrapping the controversial Form 696. As much previously reported, the 2003 reform of live entertainment licensing in the UK resulted in good things and bad things, and the live sector has recently been busy lobbying political types to address the bad things and overcome the problems they have caused. One key aim was to try and get smaller venues, so less than 200 capacity, exempted from much of the new licensing rules. It's argued that the bureaucracy venue owners must now navigate to stage live music, post-2003, is resulting in fewer and fewer smaller and pub venues staging music events, and that's bad news for the grass roots music community. Another concern is the controversial and much previously reported music licencing Form 696, introduced by the Metropolitan Police under new powers given to local authorities by the 2003 act, which promoters and artists say asks for far too much unnecessary information about planned gigs and artists playing at them. Those doing the lobbying earlier this year welcomed a report by parliament's Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee which addressed a number of their concerns, and proposed a small venue exemption and the abolition of the Form 696. But they were less impressed yesterday when the government rejected both those select committee recommendations. Confirming that was the case, the Department Of Culture, Media & Sport told reporters it had "not been able to reach agreement on [small venue] exemptions that [they believe] will deliver an increase in live music", while on Form 696 it noted concerns within the live industry but said that, as this was a Met Police form, it was up to the Met Police to decide whether or not to keep using it. Which kind of misunderstands the entire point of the democratic political process I think - besides, the issue really was that the new act gives local authorities, including local police forces, too much power, which they are in danger of abusing, as, some would argue, the Met and local London councils are doing with the Form 696. That's a problem with the Act and is for government and parliament, and not the Met, to address. Commenting on the DCMS's decision, cross-sector music business trade body UK Music said they were "extremely disappointed by the government's response. At a time when the British music industry is facing significant recessionary pressure and government's own research indicates a 5% decrease in the number of venues available to aspiring young musicians and performers, we had hoped, wrongly, that this government would endeavour to provide the most supportive framework possible for our industry. Today it has not". A disappointed Feargal Sharkey, who has led the music business' lobbying efforts in this domain, both in his current role as boss of UK Music, and in his last job as chair of the Live Music Forum, told CMU: "After six years of legislation, eight consultations, two government research projects, two national review processes and a parliamentary select committee report, all of which have highlighted the harmful impact these regulations are having on the British music industry, government's only reaction is yet another review". He continued: "Yet again we are told to wait. Yet again we are told that there will be another new review process, more meetings and yet another group, this time charged specifically with trying to develop loopholes which exploit a deeply flawed and ill-conceived Licensing Act. At what point does someone within government become brave enough to acknowledge that it is time to raise a hand, time to admit they have got it wrong and time to fix it. To recall the words of one former party leader, 'Sometimes it is better to lose and do the right thing than to win and do the wrong thing'". The Liberal Democrats also hit out at the government's decision regarding the select committee's recommendations on honing licensing legislation, and yesterday announced they would put a bill to parliament addressing some of the live sector's concerns. The Live Music Bill proposes the exemption for smaller venues, as well as the reintroduction of the 'two in a bar' rule whereby two musicians can play in a bar (or anywhere public really) without the need for a licence. They also propose that hospitals, schools and colleges should be allowed to stage live music events without a licence. The Lib Dem's culture spokesman, Tim Clement-Jones, who is launching the legislation in the House Of Lords, told CMU: "We were literally promised 'an explosion' of live music when the Licensing Act went through in 2003, yet the reality has been a major reduction in performances in the small venues which are so important to new artists. This bill will provide crucial exemptions and free small venues from the bureaucracy and cost of the act which I am sure will be of major benefit to Britain's talented musicians and the many millions of people who enjoy live music". Of course an opposition bill won't actually affect the law - unless something remarkable happens - but it does give the music industry's case a formal framing. Sharkey says he backs Clement-Jones' proposals, telling CMU: "What is most surprising is that British music must now rely on opposition parties to support the future of our industry. That is why we will be supporting the introduction of the Liberal Democrat Live Music Bill. This is opposition legislation specifically designed to tackle the key issues in the Licensing Act 2003; key issues which damage our industry and which provide a platform for the unattractive and immoral principles of Form 696".