Despite all this proposed major reform we seem to be stuck with the definition of public entertainment, for purposes of licensing, as music and dancing.

That one form of art or expression should alone be singled out as only permissible after a fee is paid by a third party to a local authority is an unfair disincentive to music making, and not specifically addressing the stated goal of the licensing.

The standard conditions applied to the current licences apply to non-musical entertainment like hypnotism.

The term public entertainment needs to be redefined as to cover all forms of public entertainment.

If (some) music related activities are seen to present a specific problem, not presented by other forms of public entertainment, such as noise this is the area that needs to be (and is), addressed by other legislation.

Many forms of musical activity do not in fact present any appreciable noise concern, but the current and proposed law makes no distinction. A licence refused on the grounds of noise will also prevent music not presenting this.

Many forms of musical activity taking place in pubs, many of them provided by and for customers, not only do not present any appreciable noise concern but should be considered as conventional public entertainment. The current and proposed law makes no distinction.

Other non-musical forms of entertainment provided in pubs by licensees or by and for fellow customers are not subject to any unfair disincentive or to a third party obtaining an additional licence. Examples are quiz nights, darts and so on. Satellite TV, is also currently exempt from this requirment.

The current public entertainment licence is a tax or a music licence. If one art form or expression is to continue to be considered differently to others under reform, then this element should be referred as a music and dancing licence (or tax). For that is what it is.

Many of the 95% of licensed premises that do not hold PELs, are also currently providing safe premises, on a regular and on a casual basis, for small-scale musical activities. It will act as a disincentive for these premises to continue proving this, if they have to submit specific operating plans, make additional payments to enable music making to continue and are also subject to any alterations required. Many of which relating to noise, may not be necessary or applicable, as not all music presents noise concerns.

It must be recognised that existing legislation has made these musical activities safe and ensured the interests of the public. And that in Scotland, no additional licence is required.

The actions taken by many local authorities, to the detriment of musical expression, in strictly interpreting and enforcing current legislation, does not fill one with much confidence, when the whole responsibility for licensing is to be handed over to them.

Musical expression should not continued to be singled out and placed at risk by being used as a scapegoat, when the issues and concerns are noise, crime and other social problems.