Medieval theologians were sharply divided over just how many angels could dance on a pin-head. Who counts as a 'performer' under s 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 is an equally spurious debate.

The fundamental principles are: everyone's right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, [and] enjoy the arts... (Article 27.1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948); and the right to freedom of expression (Article 10, European Convention etc etc).

Local authorities may only interfere when public safety is genuinely at risk. Establishing whether this is the case is a statutory duty shared by the licensee and the local authority Environmental Health dept.

Public disorder issues, inside or outside premises, are dealt with by the police under separate legislation.

Where there are no noise or safety concerns, local authorities, as 'emanations of the State', have a duty to encourage local cultural life. But the primary legislation itself (s 182), excessive fees and conditions, and the strangulation grip of enforcement combine to violate these basic rights.

The only plausible argument I have heard for retaining a separate licensing system for public entertainment is that it allows local authorities to tailor other types of condition (parking restrictions, for example)specifically to the premises and the entertainment in question, and that a PEL gives local people have a sense of control of what is going on in the neighbourhood. This is the line local authorities will take in defending their need for strict regulation of public entertainment.

While the first part of that argument is achievable under existing health and safety legislation, the second is more problematic.

The word 'licence' is very reassuring for certain people -it has a ring of authority, even when its function is virtually redundant. The deep divide that exists between kill-joys and good-timers in this country means that it won't be easy for one section of the community to let go of the absurd idea that even a pub sing-along should be licensed.

Entertainment licensing per se was first codified in the 'Disorderly Houses' Act of 1751. The rationale was explicit: 'The multitude of places of entertainment for the lower sort of people is another great cause of thefts and robberies, as they are thereby tempted to spend their small substance in riotous pleasures and in consequence are put on unlawful methods of supplying their wants and renewing their pleasures'.

The relish with which licensing departments enforce PELs surely harks back to these attitudes.

The Government's licensing White Paper (Time for Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of our Licensing Laws), published last April, was negative about musicians.

There were two specific references: one explaining that s 182 should go because two musicians with amplifiers can make more noise than a band without; the other identifying a risk that musicians could face reduced opportunities for work when s 182 is scrapped.

In other words, the Government knows that the new licensing regime would simply allow local authorities to fall like ravening wolves on all types of entertainment. And I have letters from Camden's Prosecuting solicitors expressing the view all public entertainment should be licensed 'for reasons of public safety' - a view shared by many local authorities.

So it is essential to keep up strong lobbying of local authorities (arts departments), MPs, the Department of Culture, the Home Office, the Arts Council, and the Church of England (Board of Social Responsibility) and to generate as much media coverage as possible. I feel sure that if it were widely known that folk clubs are being forced to perform in secret locations, this would be a great story for local and even national tv. Someone must know a good producer or two...?

Ultimately it is only by a shift of public opinion that the law will be changed so as to end the present oppressive regime.

ham.drum@virgin.net