This to my New Labour MP (majority 26). He has sat on the Standing Committee and has even spoken in favour of some form of small events exemption - but has supported the Government on every vote.

22 June 2003

Dear Mr Knight

On Monday 16 June at 12.30pm, I was part of a Musicians' Union led coalition of performers, music industry representatives, MPs and Peers presenting 10 Downing Street with an 110,000 signature online petition urging the Government to amend the live music provisions in the Licensing Bill. I was proud of having the original idea, of suggesting the words to be used and of working to gain the support of over 83,697 signatures online, with a further 26,380 signed petition forms downloaded from the web.

Can I request as a constituent, that when the Licensing Bill returns to the Commons this week for Consideration of Lords Amendments, that you make strong representations to Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), in support of the small events licensing exemption for the performance of live music reinstated by the House of Lords on Thursday 19 June 2003?

In addition I would be most grateful if you could vote this time to support this small events exemption? Please note that this amendment is now only worded to cover live music – so Government scare stories about it permitting children to watch unsuitable films and freeing strip clubs from any control – is the clear nonsense it always was and their Lordships recognised this. I await your advice.

I have appreciated and been greatly encouraged by the reasoned debate in the Lords – in contrast with my horror at the treatment in the Commons. The following quote from Lord Colwyn made in that debate – will sum up the horror that is shared by many of the 110,000 voters whose names appear against the E Petition: "I read carefully the debate on this amendment in another place. There, members of the Labour Party supported this amendment, yet when it came to the vote, they voted the opposite way. "

I have many reservations about the Bill as it stands but I feel strongly that this amendment can achieve at least some of the ends that I know you to share.

If you or the DCMS and the Government have concerns about any negative implications of the exemption as worded - I would ask and expect that attempts are made to work constructively with the Opposition to improve it, rather than simply overturning the amendment and the principle it contains, for a second time?

The principle of the exemption is to encourage live performance in venues of all kinds, and to restore proportionality to the Bill. If any place can be fitted with big screens and a PA to provide broadcast entertainment, or a stage, lighting and PA for stand-up comedy, without licensing under this Bill, there can be no justification in requiring the licensing of most public performances of live music, whilst excepting others.

These and many other apparently arbitrary exemptions are one reason why 12th Report of the Joint Committee of Human Rights, published on 13 June, has warned again that the Bill is potentially incompatible with the right to freedom of expression.

Associated with the Bill is an assurance from the Secretary of State that, in her view, the provisions are compatible with the convention rights, but the Joint Committee states that the Bill, as amended:

Will leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements, without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime, so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under the European convention on human rights.

I await your advice on this aspect too, both as it applies here to the Bill and as it applies locally under current licensing legislation and which those entrusted with upholding - are trying, and being allowed to ignore.

Yours faithfully

Roger Gall