Schedule 1 - Provision of regulated amendments
Licensing Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
May I begin, Mr. Benton, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again. I was coming to the second part of my remarks on amendment No. 54, which I said at the outset is a probing amendment to ask the Government why live music should be licensable in the first place. Before I comment on the other amendments, may I say that it seems to many people in the music industry that the Bill discriminates against live music in favour of, say, wide-screen television and juke boxes, which are both exempt from the Bill. We will come to those later.
There is a feeling—we will develop the argument I am sure in later clauses—that the Bill infringes human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights found that the Government have provided no evidence of any need to increase licensing controls over live music and that the Bill could infringe people's right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. It is our view, shared by those in the music industry, that a licensing regime that encourages and enables the performance of live music in pubs and clubs would bring incalculable benefits for the nation. It would provide another incentive for tourism, help young musicians to develop and hone their music skills, increase access by the general public to live music and increase work opportunities for musicians of all ages.
In the huge amount of material that I, and no doubt other members of the Committee as well as the Minister and his officials, have received were two
quotations from two of our leading jazz musicians of long standing. I refer, of course, to Humphrey Lyttleton and John Dankworth. I want to quote briefly from both of them. Humphrey Lyttleton states:
''The question must be answered—why? Ostensibly, I understand, it is to help curb anti-social behaviour. I have surveyed audiences in venues from prestigious to humble for over half a century and never once suffered so much as a twinge of anxiety that they might, as a result of my music-making, rush out into the street and create mayhem.''
John Dankworth says:
''The proposed bill is a nightmare for musicians. It began as a simple attempt to get rid of an antiquated and stupid restriction on our lives. The result is another far more stupid (and pernicious) restriction on our simple wish to make music. However well-intentioned its perpetrators might be, the new legislation can only be seen by those it affects in one way—bureaucracy gone mad, and yet another unwarranted interference by government in our already difficult battle with recorded music.''