This from Hamish Birchall

Junior Culture Minister Dr Kim Howells yesterday answered two more questions about public entertainment licensing.
The written questions were asked by Nick Harvey, the Lib Dem Shadow Culture Minister.
I have put my own thoughts at the end of each question (italics).
In a nutshell it seems that the Government has made a political decision to avoid implicating local authorities at all costs, in spite of the fact that while the law may be an ass, council enforcement policies are equally to blame:

House of Commons - Written Questions - Wed 19 December 2001 Public Entertainment Licences

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received regarding the issuing of public entertainment licences; and if she will make a statement. [24133]

Dr. Howells: Representations from hon. Members, industry, performers and licensing law practitioners concerning public entertainment licensing law have tended to fall into five main categories. These are concerns about inconsistent approaches adopted by different licensing authorities; the scope for local licensing authorities to impose disproportionate and burdensome requirements on smaller venues; the duplication of the requirements with the fire safety and health and safety regulations; some evidence of excessive fee charging; and the limitations on the exemption from public entertainment licensing for public houses in the Licensing Act 1964. Changes to public entertainment licensing laws require primary legislation, and our reform of the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws will address these anxieties. We shall present the necessary legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

 The Minister does not really answer the question, which specifically asked about representations received 'regarding the issuing' of PELs - not concerning PEL law. The distinction is important.
 He omits the key facts: while Parliament is responsible for primary legislation, local authorities are responsible for PEL fees, conditions, and enforcement policies.
 There would be no representations if local authority practice were reasonable and consistent.
 The five categories are interesting, but the wording is calculated to obscure the key role of local authorities.
 There is scope in the law to charge nil fees and to set reasonable conditions. The representations arise because disproportionate and burdensome requirements are commonplace, particularly London.
 The fixation on pubs must be knocked on the head: the PEL exemption in the Licensing Act 1964 for two performers, recorded sound or satellite tv, applies to all on-licensed premises including restaurants, hotels, bars, cafes etc where the public can buy and consume alcohol - a total of 111,000 premises in England and Wales.
 Duplicated legislation: Doesn't the Scottish example show that for most entertainments, including live music, PELs are unnecessary in on-licensed premises? Scotland and England share the same health, safety and noise legislation.
 'Some evidence of excessive fee charging': a classic understatement. There is voluminous evidence, including comprehensive MU data. Even the Home Office, when they had responsibility for PELs, accepted overcharging was a serious problem. By way of response it issued a Circular jointly with the LGA (13/2000, 10 April 2000) warning local authorities that overcharging is ultra vires [illegal, basically], and that this could harm the entertainment and tourism industries. This asked that local authorities consider lowering PEL fees, and to review PEL policy. The Circular advised that the Home Office would write again to all local authorities six months later for feedback. We need to know a) whether the Home Office actually did this, and b) if it did, what the replies were.
 While new primary legislation is essential in the long run, live music could thrive if local authority practice was reasonable and consistent. The DCMS could work to achieve this by issuing guidelines to local authorities on best practice concerning PEL fees, conditions and enforcement policies. Steps could be taken now to ensure that enforcement no longer happens merely because there are more than two performers in on-licensed premises. Such enforcement is not only irrational and absurd, but violates the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention, and is probably unlawful under the Human Rights Act. Section 3 of the HRA requires that local authorities must read and give effect to all legislation in a way that is compatible with Convention rights. The reasonable grounds for enforcement would be if there were a noise complaint or a convincingly established safety risk beyond that addressed by existing safety provision.
 Prohibitively expensive PELs and heavy-handed enforcement restricts on-licensed premises to providing only recorded sound or satellite television, or one or two live performers. It would be sensible to encourage local entertainments that represent less of a risk to residential amenity than either recorded sound or satellite tv. This could be done by charging very low PEL fees where acoustic live music is provided, for example, and implementing public safety under existing health and safety legislation as local authorities are legally bound to do in any case.
 There is no need to wait for Parliamentary time to draw up guidelines. There is every reason to produce them as a matter of urgency. Serious two-in-a-bar problems really began in the early 1980s after local authorities acquired responsibility from magistrates for public entertainment licences.
"Time for Reform"
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to implement the proposals outlined in 'Time for Reform'; what estimate she has made of the time scale for implementation; and if she will make a statement. [24132]

Dr. Howells: We remain fully committed to the proposals set out in the White Paper "Time for Reform" and intend to introduce legislation to implement them. The timetable for implementation inevitably depends on when it will be possible to introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament and this will be done as soon as parliamentary time permits.

The White Paper was produced with little input from performers or their unions. There was, however, plenty of input from nightclub owners, via their umbrella organisation the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association (BEDA) and, of course, from the Local Government Association. It is the LGA that lobbied to extend local authority jurisdiction over all live music, and this is what the White Paper proposes.There will be no exemptions.