The locum has departed and we are now back with the original one - who does not appear to wish to provide the Licensing Committee with the clarification they requested, some six moths ago. I have just sent the following.

At 18:20 24/08/04 +0100, Melanie Earnshaw wrote:

The Councils priority is the successful implementation of the new licensing regime. In order to achieve this it is necessary to focus resources on what is a substantial undertaking for this small local authority. Unfortunately this means that we do not have the resources to respond further to the points you raise.

As set out in my e-mail to you of 22 July we would value your contribution to the formulation of the Councils Local Licensing Policy and Model Conditions which are currently out to public consultation.

Dear Melanie

I think we will find that this authority was roughly the same size (if not in fact smaller) in December 2000. Enough resources were available then for the officers to make 4 visits, to 'encourage' the (then) licensee of the Cove House Inn to obtain a PEL. To write to threaten them with prosecution and a possible £20,000 fine or 6 months in prison, if they continued to permit a folk music session. Which consisted of non amplified instruments and unpaid pub customers, that had never received any complaint. And again to write and prevent the long-running New Star session in 2003 and the session at the Boot in 2004.

Do I take it that before February 2005, you are now giving me permission in this message to start up such a folk session or hold a gig with more than two members, in a pub with no PEL?

That if I do, that I can tell the licensee that the current legislation will not now be enforced because this small local authority does not now have the resources to correctly enforce the current law of the land and as a result intends to knowingly fail in its statutory duty and place the public at risk?

I look forward to receiving the latest information (under the current licensing legislation) that I requested and your office had earlier indicated was forthcoming.

And further trust that some serious consideration and objective assistance is finally given to the members to prevent the continuing danger presented to folk activities, by these being caught up and prevented by public entertainment legislation, that was never intended for this use. On the 9th February 2004 - the Licensing Committee asked for written clarification of the officer's advice. I trust that some six months later - this can now be provided, to enable the members to change the policy, (if they decide to) set (by default) by the (then) Social /Community Committee on 5 June 2001?

Despite the officers advice to the members on the 9th February 2004, that the law did not permit the members to change this policy, I feel there really can be little doubt that this policy was a matter for the members to decide. For in 2001, the officers had felt that they required (retrospective) endorsement from the elected members of the (then) Social and Community Committee for enforcement action taken, based on this (broad) interpretation of the word 'performer'.

This was given on 5 June 2001 and this effectively (if by default) became the local (broad) interpretation used in the borough. This fact was even recorded in the minutes of the 9th February meeting Para 58, referring to "the policy, agreed by the Social/Community Committee." It would appear obvious, that if the members were required to set this policy they were fully empowered and entitled to also change it if they so wished. My wish (made through my ward councillor) is simply for the members to be permitted by their officers to make an informed policy decision based on all the evidence and expert legal advice presented to them - and to change the policy, if they wish to.

It appears that with the help of many well-intentioned councillors, I have spent four years simply trying to 'get the horse to the water' and the officers would appear to have spent this time trying to ensure that the horse never did get there. There has never been a committee decision NOT to change the policy - we have simply never got to that point, YET!

When we eventually do - the officers can then make their case that - the (damaging) policy -that any unpaid member of the public making any music in a pub, MUST be considered as a 'performer' in a public entertainment - is the best and fairest policy for all those in this borough. The members can then consider if this policy is one they wish to or can continue to defend to their voters. As in these four years, I have never spoke to any councillor who DID support this interpretation as being the best one for all those in the borough- it remains a mystery why this remains the local policy............... Well in truth, not that much of a mystery - but I do strongly feel that the best policy should be always be made by those elected to do so. And I will continue to ensure that it is, under both current and future legislation.

ENDS