Last week I bumped into Ed Vaizey, Shadow Minister for the Arts, at the Daily Politics show. We were passing in the corridor - he was just coming off the sofa talking about SuperFreakonomics and zeitgeist politics with the FT's Gillian Tett. I was going on air with Gerry Sutcliffe, the Minister in charge of licensing to talk about the Licensing Act and its detrimental impact on live music.

One thing that Ed said, which would have given him a perfect excuse to stay on the sofa for my session, was how the law of unintended consequences could - and often does - have the effect of making well-intentioned legislation backfire on those sections of the community it was introduced to help.

It’s not hard to work out that my passion in life is music and particularly live music.

I was Chair of the Live Music Forum, a Government advisory body, and have spent the last six years debating, with three different Secretaries of State, how interpretation of some of the measures contained in the Licensing Act are having a very detrimental effect on live music, and particularly small scale live music.

Prior to the Act, the law said that up to two musicians could play in a bar without any formal approval, Government or otherwise. As a result, this country had a huge tradition of live music in pubs, clubs, bars, restaurants and venues of every type. Live music was very much part of our history, our culture, our society.

In general terms, the Licensing Act has introduced measures which not only meant the removal of the 2-in-a-bar rule, but now require that pretty much any performance of live music, no matter how small, requires a licence. By way of example, I know of a record shop which is in the process of being prosecuted for allowing a 16-year old girl to sing "Ave Maria". They failed to obtain a licence. That of course has opened up the potential of a £20,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment for the shop owner. No, I’m not kidding.

Such licensing requirements were introduced just before a crushing recession hit our pub and club sector.

The result? Venues that used to host live music have stopped. This point, and the impact it is having on local communities was actually highlighted by Lembit Opik, MP who spoke at the recent Westminster Hall debate on the Licensing Act. The British Beer and Pub Association estimate we are currently losing 55 pubs per week.

DCMS, on the other hand, claim that the Licensing Act has actually delivered an 11% increase in live music from 2007-2009! I’ll try and put this rather kindly. It is, shall I suggest, somewhat misleading, if not bordering on the ridiculous. Certainly, the estimate includes whole new ranges of venues like schools and hospitals, plus a host of others not even licensed for live performance.

As it transpires, Government’s own research shows there has been a profound decrease in live music in small scale venues. British Market Research Bureau’s research, commissioned by DCMS, showed that there has been a 5% decrease in the provision of live music in secondary live music venues since Government’s baseline survey was conducted in 2004 (from 47 per cent in 2004 to 42 per cent in 2007).

The Licensing Act was meant to encourage live music. But the unintended consequence is one of active discouragement. The sooner this Act is amended to exempt small scale venues the better.

Live music is vital to our local communities and to my industry. It provides a focal point of local community interest and is sometimes the only outlet for a jobbing musician. It is the bedrock upon which rests the future of the incredible success story which is the British music industry.

I applaud Ed’s comments that if the Conservative Party were to form the next Government they will conduct a root and branch review of this legislation.