The traditional British pub conjures up images of cosy drinking-holes full of merry punters, sometimes gathering for regular live gigs and hearty sing-a-longs. But under the Government’s new Licensing Bill, such meetings could become a criminal activity without an official licence. So, too, will performances involving any number of musicians – a departure from the long-standing exemption for pubs and bars to host up to two musicians – the so-called ‘Two in a Bar’ rule – without a Public Entertainment Licence (PEL).
The bill to deregulate drinking hours and, simultaneously, licence live music, has industry figures worried. While the Government insists its new measures will create an upsurge in live music venues, key music industry figures believe the opposite – fearing a considerable decline in live music across both England and Wales.
A number of organisations are backing campaigns to amend the bill, including the Musicians’ Union (MU), the Arts Council of England (ACE) and the National Campaign for the Arts (NCA). And their concerns over its introduction, unamended, are as wide as the definitions of licensable activities outlined in the bill.
A spokesman for the ACE, David McNeil, told Arts Hub that the Arts Council has ‘considerable concerns at the moment’ over the bill’s implications. ‘The Government stated very clearly that this licence bill was to be deregulatory. However, the bill itself – in an effort to be consistent – seems to have caught everything.’
‘Everything’, in this case, has been the subject of much confusion. The Musicians’ Union holds that the wording of the bill implies any public live music performance – with the intention to entertain or ‘with a view to profit’ – is licensable. While this would affect up to 110,000 licensed premises – namely pubs, bars and restaurants – operating under the ‘Two in a Bar’ exemption, it may also criminalise public concerts in churches, which are currently exempt from licensing fees.
However, the Government has agreed to reconsider its position on churches – although this is the only proposed amendment, of about 30 suggested, to undergo re-evaluation.
According to Hamish Birchall, who is leading the MU’s campaign, performances at weddings and birthday parties could also be encompassed by the bill, as well as merely reciting Shakespeare in a pub. The bill’s definition, he explains, is so wide that any role-playing would require premises to have an entertainment licence.
In response, Culture Minister Kim Howells recently ruled out the possibility private functions would be licensable under the bill.
‘It [does not] license the testing of equipment in a music shop; studio recording sessions; school concerts or nativity plays where the wider general public is not admitted; singing “Happy Birthday” to granny in a restaurant; hiring a band for a wedding or the whistling postman,’ he told the Daily Telegraph late last week.
But protecting the interests of live musicians is at the heart of campaigners’ objectives. The ‘two performer’ exemption is argued to foster live performances in a variety of venues – a view the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights recently agreed with. The committee ruled that the new bill interferes with the rights of performers, and therefore breached Article 10.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding freedom of expression.
While the Government argued the interference was justified – under Article 10.2 – on the grounds of public health and safety, the committee found this claim was ‘not a justification; indeed, it seems to be an attempt to pull the bill up by its own bootstraps,’ and has demanded a better explanation.
Chris Hodgkins, Director of the UK promotion and development body Jazz Services, said people like himself had been campaigning to relax the ‘Two in a Bar’ rule, to exempt more than two musicians. He is incredulous that the legislation, officially in place since 1961, has been replaced by ‘none in a bar’, and fears a subsequent decline in venues will mean limited opportunities for up-and-coming musicians.
‘The bill needed a lot more thought and consultation – it’s gone from sublime to cor-blimey!’ he said, adding that pubs and bars are training grounds not only for jazz musicians, but for rock, pop and R&B hopefuls. ‘I’m very concerned for young musicians; they need to play.’
Brenda Godrich from English Folk Dance and Song echoed similar concerns, saying impromptu sessions for musicians were an important part of the learning process.
But Hodgkins also points out that the bill does not represent a level playing field, as it exempts television broadcasts and recorded music but criminalises one unamplified musician – a point on which the MU has also been vigorously objecting.
‘There is an issue of proportionality here,’ Birchall asserts. ‘If you are going to claim noise is the reason for licensing all live music – and that includes the harp or the violin, played without amplification – but, on the other hand, you exempt powerful sound systems in bars, that really makes a nonsense of the rationale.’
The MU favours a model similar to Scotland’s, in which entertainment licenses are automatic when live music is incidental to the main business, while noise is regulated by UK-wide legislation. The union and the ACE are also pushing for more live music in smaller venues – which will likely be hardest hit by the bill – by recommending premises with a capacity of 200 or fewer need not seek a permit.
Currently, only five per cent of venues pay high licence fees for a PEL. While the Government has promised to standardise fees – a move welcomed by the MU – Birchall disagrees with the assertion by Baroness Blackstone that providing one application for a liquor and entertainment licence will increase live music venues.
At this stage, the Government has indicated licence fees will incur an initial cost of between £100 and £500, with an additional inspection fee of £100 or more. But Birchall says it is the potential for local authority interference that will deter landlords from applying for an entertainment permit. Until 1983, the authority to issue a PEL lay with magistrates, before being transferred to local authorities – a shift which saw a decline in live music. Under the new bill, music industry figures fear live music performances in England and Wales will drop even further.
‘We’re really not confident that the proposals, as they stand, would lead to any significant increase from the five per cent currently providing more than two performers,’ Birchall claims. ‘It [obtaining an entertainment licence] will be an elaborate consultation, and a lot of landlords will not want to bother… We don’t think it will mean a net gain in a number of premises that a musician can perform.’
The Government has indicated that guidelines will be issued to local authorities this week. While McNeil says the ACE hopes the guidelines will clarify the bill, Jackie Clayton, Campaigns Manager at the National Campaign for the Arts, says people are not so much concerned with the legislation, but how the guidelines will be implemented and the ability for local authorities to find loop-holes.
Birchall agrees, adding it would be more sensible to give entertainment licensing authority to art departments.
‘Surely, if the arts – and this is the gateway for access to the arts – is to be regulated by local authorities, then the arts department should have primary responsibility for it; not some licensing department which has no particular interest except in prosecuting or regulating, as if it were a parking offence.’
In contrast, Culture Minister Howells rejected concerns licensees would be put off by a procedure he claimed, in the Daily Telegraph, could “hardly be simpler”. The Telegraph also reported Howells commented it was insulting to doubt councils’ ability to process entertainment licences quickly and fairly.
With the bill currently in the committee stage in the Lords, the MU, ACE and NCA are continuing to work with civil servants to introduce amendments. The guidelines for local authorities could mark the first insight into the workings of the bill, which is due to go to the Commons in the spring.
While the breach of ECHR’s Article 10.1 marks a significant point in the campaign, Birchall also argues the bill is contradictory to the Government’s agenda for access to the arts.
‘We strongly believe that in order to encourage maximum participation in the arts, particularly music, live music in premises like bars and pubs should be positively encouraged the by Government in every way possible – and criminalising musicians hardly fits with that agenda.’
CLICK HERE to view ‘Hot Topic’ articles related to the Licensing Bill
