The message that I was getting from my MP was that the Government were determined to insist on licensing what was left and it was a matter of ensuring that the licence was easy to obtain, so as not to act as a deterrent to live music.

This amendment sort of squares with that view. It reminds me of the days of going out to round-up my 400 hill sheep, in order to drench and medicate those that required it. Then letting most of them slip away and return to the hill - coming home with just 40, but insisting on using all the medication I had on the remaining 40, whether they needed it or not.

The amendment may be trying to address the issue of premises not being prepared to apply for entertainment but this one makes the comments and concerns of the Joint Committee of Human Rights even more valid.

It is the blanket requirement for a premises license, preventing freedom of expression in some premises but not others and without identifying the pressing social need, highlighted by this committee, that this Government have still not addressed and seem determined just to ignore.   

It brings in the question of a premises licence being reqired and dependent on conditions being met, conditions which could be insisted on but ones not having any legal effect as they would not be for crime and disorder or public safety. Things like insisting on the size of a car park being first enlarged etc, which are often used now.