Richard, of course you are right if there is a conflict (i.e. totally incompetent drafting). In this case the Act requires the Sec of State to prepare Guidance and requires Local Authorities to have due regard to it.

If anyone can find a genuine conflict between the two the Act will have precedence. However one of the problems in the debates on the Act was that the Minister said all sorts of desirable things, which were not inconsistent with the wording but were not explicit in it. At least some of those items are explicit in the Guidance and so in those cases the current Minister has now fulfilled the promise in debate.

Richard P - are you related to old Sir Humphrey Appleby by any chance?
Would it not have been better if they had just concentrated on getting the words of legislation right? Rather than trying to make it sound like they had, just in order to get the Lords to pass the bloody thing. Then we would not all be so concerned now about damage limitation.

Carol singers we were told by the DCMS, would under the Act, require supermarkets to apply for Premises Licences and permission to provide this regulated entertainment. This may have been before the exemption for incidental recorded music was extended to include incidental live music - but I have not seen any public change in this position.

If supermarkets do not now need additional licensing for the incidental recorded music many of them kindly provide for us, and this will not be rquired under the Act - why would the incidental live music performed by carol singers in supermarkets not also be exempt?