Bar Wars - the peers strike back

Comments on the proposals in the new Licensing Bill

I wrote in January about the Licensing Bill, which has just gone through the House of Lords and is due to become law next year, replacing the Licensing Act of 1964 which was the last major piece of legislation about licensed premises.

The mainstream licensed trade welcomed the new Bill because it will remove the present restrictions on opening hours. But it was greeted with dismay by many - including actors, musicians and other performers, who feared that its aim of licensing all premises where public performances are held would put a strait-jacket on many forms of live entertainment, from jazz and folk groups to concerts in school halls, churches and village halls.

There has been a chorus of protests from these groups. MPs have been lobbied, rallies have been held outside Parliament and leading articles in the national press have compared Culture Minister Kim Howells with the Puritans who closed the theatres and banned singing and dancing.

At last the Government seems to be listening - if not to the public, at least to their own backbenchers who have been on the receiving end of these protests, and to the Lords who have proposed sweeping amendments to the Bill.

Churches, schools, village halls and community centres will not, after all, need a licence to stage concerts and plays, Bands performing at private parties and wedding receptions will be exempted from the requirement for an entertainments licence. Mr Howells hosted a music industry summit on 26th February and is due to hold talks with Musician Union leaders on March 4 to listen to performers' concerns.

So what caused all the fuss? The problem lies with the legislative process. All too often, hasty and badly drafted legislation is rushed through Parliament to further some manifesto commitment or policy agenda.

The politicians drive the process but the hard work is done by civil servant s, whose job it is to work out the detail. The clear statement of policy - in the case of the Licensing Bill the laudable aims were consistency and de-regulation - gets lost in a morass of complex and unintelligible verbiage and the result is an Act of Parliament which does things it was never intended to do.

The 1964 Licensing Act may have had its faults but it is comprehensive and intelligible. Mr Howells' Bill by contrast is imprecise, badly thought through and wide open to interpretation.

Initially Mr Howells refused to accept that the Bill as drafted does not say what he intended it to say, and failed to understand that creating potentially repressive laws, expecting them to be enforced with humanity and common sense by the authorities, is a triumph of hope over experience.

If the Bill had been more carefully drafted the Government would not have to perform another embarrassing climb-down.

March 2003

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us, Ralph’s email address is ralph.court@raworths.co.uk