|
Column Number: 087
Standing Committee D
Thursday 3 April 2003
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
Schedule 1
Provision of regulated entertainment
8.55 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I beg to move amendment No. 58, in schedule 1, page 113, line 3, leave out paragraph 14 and insert—
'Educational and social establishments
14 The provision of entertainment is not regarded as regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if it is undertaken on the premises of—
(a) an educational establishment for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment;
(b) a prison for the purposes incidental to the activities of the prison;
(c) a hospital for the purposes incidental to the activities of the hospital; or
(d) a museum or public gallery for purposes incidental to the activities of the museum or public gallery.'.
The Chairman: With this we may take Government amendment No. 5.
Mr. Moss: Amendment No. 58 is a replica of an amendment that was proposed in the other place. I understand that the Government went some way to meeting its requirements. Paragraph 14 now acknowledges that entertainment in an educational establishment for purposes directly connected with that establishment's activities is not to be regarded as provision of regulated entertainment. If the concession has been allowed for educational establishments, we still query why it is not extended to prisons, hospitals and museums, where the entertainment is incidental to the establishment's activities.
We are well aware that functions are put on in hospitals, and also now in prisons as a means of rehabilitating prisoners, who take part in operas, plays or musical activities. There can surely be no question of such activities causing disturbance or disorder in a prison, with all its rules and regulations. Knowing where prisons are situated, I do not believe that they would cause a noise problem either. I would not have thought that hospitals had huge facilities to hold large entertainment gatherings, and, again, I imagine that in most cases facilities for entertainment in museums and galleries are small, any activities that take place are small scale and related to fundraising.
We tabled the amendment to test again the Government's reasons for not allowing entertainment to take place in those establishments, as they have conceded that educational establishments will be all right. If they are all right, why are the others not all right? Again, there is inconsistency and a lack of logic in the Government's approach. We shall be interested to hear what the Minister says.
The Chairman: Before we proceed, I remind the Committee that I said on Tuesday that I was prepared
Column Number: 088
to permit a wide-ranging debate on the schedule because of the interrelated nature of the amendments and that on that basis I did not expect there to be a stand part debate on it. I mention that now, because if an hon. Member has anything to say, he must say it.
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Gale. I shall bear it in mind.
Amendment No. 5 relates to paragraph 14 in part 2 of the schedule. I am sure that the Committee has sympathy with those who proposed the exemption—I certainly do—and with the focus of their argument in another place, which was to ensure that our schools do not have to be burdened with the administrative requirements of the Bill and, more important, with the associated costs. However, I see problems with the scope of the exemption and with some points of principle.
I shall deal first with the scope. The amendment uses the expression ''educational establishment'' without offering a more detailed definition. The term ''educational institution'' is more commonly found in statute. It is used in the Bill and is defined in clause 17(3). It means
''(a) a school, or an institution within the further or higher education sector, within the meaning of . . . the Education Act 1996 . . . or
(b) a college . . . school, hall or other institution of a university, in circumstances where the university receives financial support under section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992''.
That gives us a better understanding of what would be exempted by paragraph 14. It would not be simply school plays and concerts and similar activities. The exemption would encompass a range of entertainments, such as dances, raves, rock concerts and major festivals held by universities, colleges and places of further education for their students and others. It can also be argued that it covers student unions.
These days student unions run and control nightclubs that are serious and major businesses. Their premises give rise to as many anxieties about alcohol consumption, disorder, noise nuisance and drugs as any similar commercial venture in our town and city centres. Indeed, they often are in our town and city centres. In my constituency the university is very close to the centre. It would be reckless in the extreme to exempt such premises from the Bill. For that reason we cannot allow the exemption to stand.
Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster): Perhaps the Minister can go into some detail about the debate in the other place. As he will be aware, the third line of the paragraph refers to
''purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment''.
Although I understand the concern that student union events may be riotous and noisy, they would surely not, per se, fall within the amendment proposed in the other place.
Dr. Howells: That is a fair point, which goes to the heart of the problem, because what goes on in a student union or at one of the other events that I have mentioned has an immediate impact.
Column Number: 089
Mr. Field: The Hornsey college of art.
Dr. Howells: God forbid! The hon. Gentleman refers to an educational establishment that I attended. The goings-on there would have been a problem if they had occurred in my street.
Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham): In this sitting we have seen a repeat of what has happened in previous sittings, when the Minister has used an extreme case to justify an amendment. He is applying the same principles for student union nightclubs to plays in schools put on for the benefit of parents or, say, local charities. The use of that extreme example undermines his argument. What is he trying to stop? Is there not a better way of doing it than by simply striking out the other place's amendment?
Dr. Howells: That is a fair intervention. I shall try to explain why the amendment made in another place is wrong. School concerts, carol services and so on are not the entire amendment. The amendment uses an expression that encompasses universities and further and higher education colleges, where the events that I have described take place regularly. That is a problem.
Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Howells: May I make a little progress and then I shall give way?
As regards points of principle, entertainment is regulated under the Bill to achieve the licensing objectives, not least, as I have explained, public safety. The establishments that the other place's amendment would partially exempt host a number of occasions that the public can attend. Schools stage commercial concerts and plays. However, because events take place in schools, it does not mean that the public should not be protected or expect to be protected.
I remind the Committee that the reforms under the Bill are designed to establish a level playing field for charitable and community bodies with a light touch and an unbureaucratic system. To exclude some premises entirely from the provision, while including others, would not achieve that aim. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced her intention of placing schools and sixth form colleges on an equal footing with church halls, village halls and community venues by waiving the fees in relation to the provision of regulated entertainment. I now give way to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)
Mr. Moss: It was so long ago that I almost forgot the question that I wanted to ask the Minister. He used the term ''reckless in the extreme'', but as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, the provision that deals with educational establishments clearly states:
''for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment''.
It does not refer to purposes that are incidental to an establishment. Is the Minister making the case that raves and nightclubs at universities are directly connected to the activities of such establishments?
Dr. Howells: Yes, such activities are clearly connected to those establishments. They take place
Column Number: 090
on the premises and the thrust of the Bill is about ensuring that public safety is protected and that the lives of residents who live close to the establishments are not made a misery. It is important that we recognise that. The main purpose of an establishment may be education, but that does not mitigate the misery caused to residents who live close to it as a result of events that take place regularly on the campus.
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was absurd. It is like saying that a barn dance is connected directly to the activities of agriculture, because it takes place in a barn. A rave is not connected directly to the activities of an educational establishment because it takes place in such an establishment.
Dr. Howells: That is a nice debating point, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is far more sensible than that. He will understand that at large further and higher education establishments big businesses are often involved in entertainment, which is a direct consequence of the existence of a university or college. To advance that argument about a farmer or the owner of a barn occasionally applying for a licence to mount a barn dance or concert trivialises matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has large educational institutions on the Isle of Wight. He will know that they can be a potent source of disorder and discomfiture for people who reside near them. We must bear that in mind, as well as those people who visit them occasionally and who may be subject to rowdy behaviour and danger.
School concerts are licensable activities under existing legislation, although outside London a reduction in, or waiver of, a fee may be granted by the local authority if it considers that the entertainment is of an educational or like character. There is currently no exemption from the requirement for licensing.
Under the Bill, the teaching of music, including the performance of musical pieces in school by teachers and pupils for other teachers and pupils, is not a licensable activity.
| 
