I've just read through the whole of the Hansard section concerning the Bill. A quote from Lord Monson:-

"When I glanced at the Bill about 10 days ago I thought that it was a bit of a curate's egg but still basically edible... I feel that this particular egg needs a lot of legislative heat treatment before it can be safely consumed. How fortunate the nation is to have so many talented legislative masterchefs in this House ready and willing to apply remedial treatment to the Bill at later stages.

This pretty much sums up the Lords' reaction to the Bill. There were three Lords who used their ten minutes primarily on the music front, and several others flagged this as a secondary concern (public order being their primary concern).

Off-topic, but personally I'd rather see the Lords running the country than the Commons. The non-elected peers have got a damn sight more common sense than any elected representative! :-)

Regarding John Smedley's note:-

Licences will be granted only after inspection by the police, fire authority, health and safety inspectors etc, consultation with local residents and interest groups, and approval by the local authority... Any building to which the public are admitted should meet requirements relating to health and safety, law and order and noise nuisance.

And this is bad for why? I really would like to know how considering the concerns of the police and fire services for the safety of customers and the concerns of local residents over inappropriate licensing can be a bad thing? One Baroness, I can't remember who, mentioned that she assembled "literally a busload of local residents" every year to complain about the licensing of a local pub notorious for violence, and their concerns were rejected every time. Giving residents a stake in the licensing is surely the only way of solving those problems.

Churches, schools, village halls, libraries, pubs, restaurants, even private houses will have to pay up to £3,000 for a licence.

Where does this number come from? The only number I've seen so far was in Hansard, where a figure of £100-500 was mentioned for a one-off event such as a rave. And the proposal is and always has been that the license to stage music comes for free with the license to run a pub. In other words, the suggestion that it will cost a publican £3,000 to stage live music is, to put it *very* politely, misleading.

The concern about churches, cafes etc which do not have a liquor license and so do not get this for free are perfectly correct though, and this was one of the points raised in the Lords. This is one place I where I do agree with John Smedley and Shambles - the Bill obviously hasn't considered this as a separate case, and it should do.

Graham.