Committee debates s.182 Guidance

And so it came to pass in a committee room in the Palace of Westminster that a group of men declared the s.182 Guidance to be a bit rubbish in places but good enough for the time being. Isn't politics at the cutting edge exciting?

Ok, so a little more was said. There was praise for clearing up the concept of 'vicinity' and for stating that councillors are allowed to discuss licensing matters. Also, spelling out that there's no presumption in favour of trading hours being extended was seen as a good thing.

There was some confusion as a result of the minor variations consultation announced yesterday. To be fair I can see how it arose but I don't think it's of sufficient importance to go into here. Suffice to say that there's a query over whether, if you're making changes to your premises' layout of a sort that wouldn't be shown on the plans under the Act's plan requirements, whether a variation application is needed. There is then a further query as to whether this may in fact constitute a 'minor variation' scheme already in operation.

There were three substantial criticisms of the Guidance.

1. Live music. Incidental music is still defined too vaguely to be of any practical use and this is leading Licensing Authorities to err on the side of caution. There were calls for the 2-in-a-bar rule to be reinstated and/or to have an exemption for small venues or unamplified music.

Also, the gov.t's lack of response to the Live Music Forum's report was noted. As was the apparent disapprearance of the British Market Research Bureau's look into live music. Finally, elaboration on Lord Davies' statement in the House of Lords on 15 Oct 2007 that "other proposals that may benefit live music" are being looked into by the DCMS was reguested.

2. The Personal Licence Holders Register. Essentially the question was "where is it?" as the Guidance states that the gov.t aims to set one up according to the Guidance.

3. Drinks promotions. The Guidance seems a little confused in this area and the reason seems to be to do with competition law. The current situation is that LA's can't promote a ban on cut price drinks/happy hours developed at local level, although they can encourage participation with industry-wide voluntary codes, even if neighbouring LA's are not. This was described as a 'farce' which is fair enough.

Gerry Sutcliffe got to stick up for the Guidance and the Act in general a bit, although he spent far too long bandying statistics around. Surely no-one listens to, let alone believes statistics these days, or is it just me? Anyway, his comments can be boiled down thusly:

• A response to the Live Music Forum's report is coming soon. That's soon in "gov.t terms" so don't hold your breath.
• He conceded (just) that "there may be instances in which there is an unintended or disproportionate impact on certain types of venue or activity" which was big of him.
• Research examining the extent and frequency of live music in licensed premises should be available at the end of the year and this will be comparable against baseline figures from 2004.
• They are currently consulting on minor variations
• They are currently consulting on a measure for village and community halls to obtain a licence to cover all activities rather than having to apply for TENs all the time. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the only change here is that those places won't have to have a DPS. It's not exactly revolutionary.
• No-one seems to want a Personal Licence Holders Register so for the time being they're not going to bother with one.
  
• A consultation in early 2008 will ask whether de minimis licensing activities (which could include live music in some circumstances) should be exempt from licensing.
  

The last of these is the most interesting of the lot and will make for very interesting reading indeed.

There was a little more said but, unless you relish the site of politicians flinging statistics at each other then I think I've covered the main things here. The full text is available here for the masochists out there.

Finally, on a lighter note (newsreader cliché ahoy) there was a joke which just about merits repeating. Mr Vaizey (Wantage) (Con) picked up on a typo in para 8.11 of the Guidance:

councillors who are not themselves interested parties or representing interesting parties may wish to be kept informed

and went on "I should like to know why there has been a change from “interested” to “interesting” parties. The Minister has left the law wide open to subjective interpretation, as councillors may from now on ignore representations from boring white, middle-aged men in suits and ties, whereas those made by people wearing cargo pants and T-shirts may be taken more seriously."

I bet they were rolling in the aisles.

Share This Post