The following is from my submission to the consultation. The numbers refer to the questions asked, which you can see linked to earler in this thread. It is important that your thoughts are made known and your submission would need to be in by 26 March 2010.

1. I am concerned that what is proposed in the draft, does not appear to exempt any Entertainment Facilities and will only apply to the provision of performances of live music and not to the provision of any facilities to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing which is not to any size of audience, and will not apply to associated facilities provided to enable the exempted performance.

The proposed exemption should not be limited to 'performances' but should also apply to anything provided, (including the premises or the land on which it takes place) to enable the public entertain themselves in music and dancing.

Other exemptions are not limited to inside a permanent building and there should be some consistency shown the Act's exemptions. For example, the exemption for Morris dancing applies whether the activity takes place inside or outside. If the reason for this proposed limitation is that amplified music in temporary buildings or gardens etc. is thought to offer more risk of excessive noise, this proposed limitation would also apply and would prevent non-amplified music in temporary buildings or gardens when this is unlikely to present any form of noise concern. Noise from all sources, is already addressed by the Environmental Protection Act and would apply whether Entertainment Permission were in place or not, in temporary buildings or gardens etc. There is no need to present a risk to non-amplified music by duplication in this licensing legislation, as this cannot ever give licensing permission for excessive noise.

The situation is further complicated by this proposal, for the provision of anything to enable the public to enter themselves in music and dancing which are licensable as Entertainment Facilities, because the activity is not one which is provided for any number of people or audience. Any exemption based on the size of an audience will not be able to benefit facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, which is not a performance to any size of audience. As this includes making the premises available for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, this proposal will still mean that the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing, will still be licensable, when paid performance and Entertainment Facilities associated with this performance, to a specified audience size, will be exempt.

2. Perhaps LACORS and the LGA could demonstrate at exactly what figure audience size in fixed premises, reaches the point where other existing legislation is not sufficient to ensure the licensing objectives? Then - rather than a minimum figure being set for an exemption, a maximum figure can be set at which additional Entertainment Licensing would then be necessary to be introduced in order to ensure the licensing objectives? This would leave fixed premises alone - with their existing safe capacity limits and risk assessments but would apply to temporary field/festival sites for large gatherings - where there may still be an argument for there to be a need for some form of additional entertainment licensing.

4. Other exemptions are not subject to curfews and there should be some consistency shown in the Act's exemptions. If the reason for this condition is in part that amplified live music between 11pm and 8am is thought to offer more risk of excessive noise, this proposed limitation would also apply and would prevent non-amplified music when this is unlikely to present any form of noise concern. Noise from all sources, is already addressed by the Environmental Protection Act and would apply whether Entertainment Permission were in place or not, for outside live music . There is no need to present a risk to non-amplified music by duplication in this licensing legislation, as this cannot ever give licensing permission for excessive noise

The danger of this type of curfew is that live music is used by Licensing Authorities as a bargaining position. In practice, a curfew on live music is offered to residents by a licensee and the Licensing Authority as a sacrifice to enable alcohol to be served for a longer period. In places where alcohol is served, live music should not be subject to special licensing conditions and should continue until closing time or unless the licensee decides to end it sooner.

There is no reason why all live music should be singled-out for imposed curfews of this type and all live music should be able to continue until all fixed premises close. It is bad enough that the provision of unlicensed live music is now subject to the same penalties as the provision of unlicensed alcohol. It is not acceptable that the provision of live music, with all of its benefits should be sacrificed to enable the provision of alcohol, with all of its problems. It would make far more sense if the provision of live music was encouraged for longer and for any curfews to be placed on the provision of alcohol.

5. Nothing is proposed here to enable a formal process by which the public can challenge interpretations advised by those employed to enforce this legislation and to include yet another process to enable objectors, is demonstrating a clear bias and overkill.

7. There is no need for any formal process here. Any redundant conditions can simply be suspended, like the S177 measures, until an opportunity is presented where the redundant conditions can be removed at no cost to the licensee. This should be the case where any other illegal conditions have been agreed and applied by a Licensing Authority.

10. No one can be adversely affected by this proposal as other existing legislation is still protecting the public whether Entertainment Permission is in place, whether an exemption applies or whether an activity is not in fact licensable. If other legislation was not considered not to be sufficient - then this proposal would not have been made and the fact that the proposal exists, demonstrates that other legislation is considered to be sufficient.

A formal process is required by which the public adversely affected by these, can challenge interpretations advised by those employed to enforce this legislation .

11. The proposal includes an exclusion process which itself implies that some form of protection is being removed and can be replaced by this process. No protection is in fact being removed as other existing legislation is still in place whether Entertainment Permission is in place, whether an exemption is in place or whether an activity is not in fact licensable.

12. In addition to performance, the public have the right to freely express or entertain themselves in music and dancing. What is proposed, as it applies only to performances of live music, will not prevent the Licensing Act 2003 from preventing this right by making anything provided to enable this, including the premises or land on which it takes place, to be a licensable Entertainment Facility.

13. The proposal ignores and is not extended to cover the unconstitutional and discriminatory nature of legislation which only requires facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing to be licensable Entertainment Facilities, when this does not apply to the public entertaining themselves in any of the other activities listed in Schedule 1 of the Act or in activities which do not.

ENDS