I can't credit this joke to anyone as it appeared on the petition site as anon.

Q What's the difference between Dr Howells and organic yogurt?

A One supports a live culture............

Or one comes in a little pot, and the other is a little potty?

This from Dr Howells, in The Stage
23 January 2003

I am grateful to The Stage for giving me the opportunity to
explode some of the urban myths that are circulating about how
the government's reforms of the licensing system will affect live
performances. We have consulted artists and performers in
drawing up the licensing bill and we are listening to people's
concerns.

The last thing that any of us would want to do is threaten the
traditions of performance that have been at the very heart of our
nation's cultural life for hundreds of years. There is concern that
the new legislation will make staging performances prohibitively
expensive. In fact, the opposite is the case. The current licensing
system discourages premises from staging performances, the cost
of entertainment licences in many areas is ridiculously high and
many local authorities attach unnecessary conditions to the
licences.

Under the new system, the cost of a premises licence authorising
three licensable activities will be the same as that of one. For
example, any pub that applies for permission to sell alcohol can
apply to stage entertainment at the same time at no extra charge.
We currently expect premises licence applications to cost between
£100 and £500 (a one-off fee) with an annual charge of £50 to
£150. The fee for a premises licence will be the same whether the
applicant seeks permission to sell alcohol only or to have
regulated entertainment as well. Under the existing system,
premises licence applications can cost up to £20,000 per annum,
depending on location. So the bill can represent an enormous
reduction in the cost of obtaining a public entertainment licence
for live performances.

We will also be issuing guidance alongside the bill that will make
it clear that any conditions attached to licences must be tailored to
the needs of the particular premises. The issuing of swathes of
unnecessary and irrelevant conditions will become a thing of the
past. Some artists are concerned that the bill makes it an offence
to carry out a performance without a licence and that the potential
punishments are a prison sentence of up to six months or a fine of
up to £20,000.

It is understandable that some people find these penalties
intimidating but I must stress that these are maximum penalties
and, as with all offences, the courts would, on any conviction,
decide the appropriate punishments depending on the facts of the
case. Where, for example, the public have been put in danger,
such maximum punishment may be appropriate. What is more, the
bill includes a specific defence of due diligence because this bill
is about deregulation, not incarceration.

I realise that some people believe a licence should not be required
for unamplified music as existing legislation provides sufficient
safeguards. However, I do not accept that certain types of music,
such as acoustic folk music, are never noisy and should therefore
be excluded from the new regime.

It is the government's responsibility to balance the needs of
performers, organisers, businesses, residents and customers. Our
reform proposals are designed to be proactive, not reactive.

The bill will bring a less formal system for temporary activities.
Under the new regime, anyone aged 18 or over can hold up to five
of these per year, or 50 if they are a personal licence holder, under
the authority of a temporary event notice. Each event can last up
to 72 hours and up to five events can be held at one premises in
any year, although no more than 499 people can be on the
premises at the same time. To carry on a permitted temporary
activity only a simple notification to the licensing authority and
the police and a small fee of around £20 is required.

Some of the more unhelpful rumours that have been circulating
(and which I see everyday in correspondence from members of
parliament writing on behalf of concerned constituents) relate to
live music performances that might be licensable under the new
regime. I therefore categorically state that the following will not
be licensable:

1) church bell ringers practising n the testing of equipment in a
music shop

2) studio recording sessions n rehearsals at a practice studio or in
a private house (to which the general public are not admitted)

3) school concerts where the general public are not admitted n
music lessons

4) singing 'happy birthday' in a restaurant

5) musicians paid to perform at a private party - including a
wedding - for which those attending are not charged and to which
the general public are not admitted.

I have sought here to address the most ridiculous claims made by
those who purport to be campaigning on behalf of musicians but
who are in fact diverting them from the more realistic and positive
aspects of the bill.

I am also aware that there is a strong feeling that our plans to
remove the exemptions for performances held in churches outside
Greater London but not connected with a religious service or
event will have a negative impact on the national music scene.
Again, I would like to reassure you that we have made a
commitment to reconsider our position on the licensing of
churches and that we will announce our conclusions as soon as
possible.

I believe that the reforms of the licensing bill will give the arts in
England a new lease of life rather than be its death knell, as some
are suggesting. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is of
course responsible for the arts as well as alcohol licensing
legislation and we are not in the business of sacrificing one to
achieve the aims of another.

I can assure you that we continue to have both performers and
their audiences at the forefront of our minds as we take the bill
through the Houses of Parliament.

Dr Kim Howells is parliamentary under-secretary at the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport