A good example of this lip-service is this answer from the http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/welwynhatfieldsubmisson.pdf

Question 10: Do you agree that the proposal, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it?
Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

No. Musicians who are employed at licensed premises are generally prohibited from making representations at licensing hearings. In failing to address this unfairness, this consultation is in potential conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998:

1. Local authorities are 'public authorities' for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998.
2. Under s3 of the HRA public authorities are obliged to interpret ALL legislation so far as possible compatibly with the European Convention rights now incorporated into UK law including
Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly).
3. Under s6 of the HRA public authorities must not act in breach of human rights unless primary or secondary legislation obliges them to do so.
4. The performance of live music falls within Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
5. The rights of residents to object to live music fall within Article 8 - respect for private and family life.
6. Rights under Articles 10 and 8 are qualified rights: both are subject to restrictions, subject to a range of conditions, including protecting the freedoms of others. In other words, where these
rights are in competition, a fair balance must be struck. But any control on the exercise of Article 10 must be 'necessary to meet a pressing social need' and must be proportionate to the need.

Furthermore, it is highly relevant that LACORS guidelines for Licensing Committee Hearings advise that cultural considerations 'will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives'. This is in clear conflict with the Human Rights Act.

Evidence given by DCMS to the DCMS Select Committee in 2008 claimed that the Licensing Act carefully balanced the needs of residents with cultural requirements. This evidence was not completely accurate as it failed to take account of LACORS guidelines.

The proposal contains no reference at all to the cultural benefits of live music. Music is only mentioned in connection with noise and crime.