I did have my three minutes of fame and this is what I said.

The customer's musical activities, unpaid and for their own enjoyment, at The Cove House Inn, the activities that started this whole affair locally. Never asked for, or ever required a change of law to enable them.

It is the risk presented to such valuable community activities that I wish the members to address.

This activity only required a PEL, on the evidence of one officer, that this was a public entertainment and the customers were performers.

When faced with prosecution, if the licensee had not then applied for a PEL, this activity would have been lost. This is the risk. I refer to.

For five years or so, and to date. An identical activity takes place in another pub locally, free of any enforcement action.

My wish is that this activity can continue, free of the risk presented by any future enforcement action.

For then, if this licensee does not apply for a PEL? This activity will be lost.

Could the members please establish, if as the Licensing Authority, they could remove this risk NOW?

Members have not been presented with the Government's view that: "Whether members of the public who sing on licensed premises count as performers is a matter for the licensing authority to decide, depending on the circumstances.". The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Lord Bassam of Brighton, replying to the specific question in The House of Lords 11 December 2000.

Do the members really want the council to hold their current position, that members of the public, if they regularly sing, are performers in a public entertainment?

Have the officers ever claimed or demonstrated to the members that this is the best policy for this Borough?

Are the members prepared to defend this publicly, as the best policy for this Borough?

This committee has endorsed this policy under the impression that the law makes them do this.

Clearly performers are paid or obligated to perform to an audience. That is a public entertainment.

Surely this sensible definition is the best and safest one, for this Borough?

The case law precedent, that 'customers solacing themselves with music' is not public entertainment. B –v- M, has not been presented to the members.

As Mr Locke accepts in the report, this precedent conflicts with the Legal Sections's example from 1793. Why does Mr Locke in his report, then defer to the Licensing Section on this matter of law?

Because of these conflicting legal views, can I request that the members take impartial specialist legal advice?

First to establish if the Committee could, choose to hold the sensible definition of the word performer, if they wished

Second to decide what definition they may then wish to hold, and are prepared to defend , as the best one for the public of this Borough.