"A letter from a Minister, like the one from Dr. Howells, must be taken into account in Court when considering this law."

Any lawyers out there who can say if that is in fact true? It goes against what I've seen written. I know that when there was a prosecution against Lady Chatterley's Lover, under the then new Obscene Publications Act, Roy Jenkins who as Home Secretary had had the central role in shaping this Act and getting it through Parliament was not allowed to tell the jury that the prosecution went quite against his intentioins and his interpretation oif the Act.

Of course it might be that that was because he was talking to the jury, and maybe there is a different rule for judges and magistrates.

Can anyone enlighten us? If what that MP says is the truth, Kim Howells words in respect of sessions and singarounds in premises without entertainment licences might be of crucial importance: "As long as money isn't changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence."