Crawley MP Henry Smith, who attended the debate, said: "I believe licensing for live music venues of under 200 people between 8-11pm should continue so that the needs of local residents who may be affected can be taken into account as can safety and security concerns of concert-goers.

John King comments:
Henry Smith may not realise - as many people do not - that all premises licences converted in Nov 2005 inherited an embedded right to hold DJ events. In effect DJs were not licensed - as they did not require prior permission to perform.

Why then is this sudden concern over the capacity of 200 for LIVE music, when RECORDED music (and pub quizzes, dart matches, televised football etc) has been able to stay within the licensed capacity of the premises using existing legislation.

Any remaining supporters like MR Smith MP, of the expensive and complicated process involved in the ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing permission measures which are contained in the Licensing Act 2003, need to finally inform us of exactly what the ADDITIONAL concerns are, which do not currently arise at non-musical gatherings and which only this additional entertainment licensing permission is adequate to ensure the public's interests.

The whole premise of why ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing is still stated to be required - is the bizarre argument that, in places already risk assessed for the public to safely gather - the playing of live music (and live music only) creates such an ADDITIONAL risk to the public's interest that only ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing can deal with this ADDITIONAL risk.

What exactly is this ADDITIONAL risk that threatens the public gathered in pub or school in order to listen or play live music that is not present in the same venue for their other activities and for a performance of stand-up comedy (which does not currently require ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing) for example?

Again, it quite bizarre that the LGA Group lobby find themselves in general acceptance of the Govt's proposed removal of other activities, like the performance of a play - but not for live music which they still maintains presents ADDITIONAL risks but for which no supporting evidence is supplied.

It is also implied (by those who do not understand and by those who would intentionally mislead) that the current anti-noise legislation is somehow inadequate to protect the public's interest - but only it would appear in response to where there is any proposal to further remove ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing.

The further removal of ADDITIONAL Etertainment Licensing will certainly help live music but it will not have any effect on the level of actual noise concerns.