There are three choices.

Read the Bill, and make up your own mind. If you are not going to do that.

To believe that Howells knows what the words of his Bill actually says.

To believe that Hamish knows what the words of the Bill actually says.

Gareth the idea that this Bill can be made to work in practice, is one that Labour MPs are trying to sell, because Howells and Co have sold this to them. But it is the underlying principle that is totally unacceptable.

As for council's, if they claim a piano or floor is an entertainment element, or that 'swaying to the music is dancing, that is what it will be. Unless you or the licensee can afford to go to court and can afford to lose.

This challenge about what or what is not licesable was unlikely under the current legislation because anyone thinking of doing it would be threatened with £20,000 fines or 6 months in prison, it will be the same deterrent under the Bill.

Are you prepared to trust that we will not see these type of enforcements? For there is no teeth being produced to prevent them, is there?

As for Howells, I have not met him, but I have spoken to those who have had dealings with him over this Bill. I would not waste my sympathy on him, for he will not have any for you. But it is not about personalities, it is about basic principles and not ever being prepared to sacrfice these.

Richard Bridge came up with this.
"Absence of clarity is destructive of the Rule of Law; it is unfair on those who wish to preserve the rule of law; it encourages those who wish to undermine it"

Lord Diplock, Merkur Island Shipping Corp -v- Laughton [1983]2 AC 570