The Liberal Democrat's culture man, Lord Clement-Jones, last night hit out once more at the Licensing Act 2003 and, in particular, at the government's failure to amend those aspects of the act that the grass roots music community have criticised.
As previously reported, the Act, which was set up to simplify licensing procedures has, many in the live music sector argue, made things much more difficult when it comes to licensing live music events, especially smaller events. Part of the problem seems to be that the Act gives new powers to local authorities and, some argue, some are abusing those powers. For example, and as much previously reported, London local authorities have made the Metropolitan Police's controversial 696 Form part of the licensing process.
A recent review by parliament's Culture Select Committee proposed a number of changes to the 2003 legislation, and the scrapping of 696, but the government has so far ignored many of its recommendations. Lib Dems like Clement-Jones have also been increasingly vocal on the issue.
He was speaking at the previously reported MusicTank Think Tank debate on the topic. According to Billboard's Juliana Koranteng, the Lord told the MusicTank session: "The way local authorities interpret the licensing act means there is far too much red tape. Live music is the basis of the whole UK music industry's success. Young musicians get their first break in small venues. But things are worse now than in 1899. The government promised to do something about in 2007, in 2008 and in 2009, but not a dickey bird has come out of it".
On one of the more controversial issues there was a defender in the house. The Metropolitan Police's Adrian Studd said the reporting of 696 had exaggerated its significance and made it seem a whole load more sinister than it really is, mainly by focusing on the information requested regarding musical genre (which is presumably used to guesstimate the demographic make up of the audience expected to attend, something which, some worry, could lead to racial discrimination in the licensing process).
Saying that out of the 175,000 licensed premises in the UK, only 270 had submitted a 696 form, and only 70-100 had done so as a condition of their licence application, he argued: " isn't a means to prevent live music or events from going ahead, or to close down venues, or to pick on any type of music, event or section of the community. It's a way of supporting managers and promoters by sharing information, of supporting communities by reducing violence to ensure events can go ahead".
Despite past controversies relating to 696 and calls for it to be banned, a number of live music players at the Think Tank said they recognised the form had some value in terms of risk assessment, and reducing the potential for conflict at events. The conclusion, I think, was to not let anger about 696 dominate over a number of other problems with licensing rules that are hindering a greater number of promoters and venues trying to stage grass roots music events.