Two of the Lords amendments are actually dangerous, becuase they fail to protect (I think) the Article 8 ECHR rights. Exempting ALL incidental music (and, incidentally, in my opinion music is "incidental" if it is not the primary but a subsidiary purpose of the business or event) is dangerous because it does not effectively enable the nearby householders to protect themselves.

The various duties on local authorities are not absolutely obligatory. If resources are inadequate, some shortfall in observance of the duties is permissible.

Consequently the government can point to this to justify reversal of some Lords amendments, and will try of course to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Therefore, I submit, the only way to provide both for article 8 and the more familiar article 10 freedom of expression) is properly in the bill to distinguish between the things that need regulating (generally amplified music) and those that do not (generally unamplified music) and to provide for schemes involving noise monitoring equipent in between.

However bear in mind that because the bill started in the Lords the government cannot use the Parliament Acts to force its passage, and if the lords stick to thier guns (and risk a constitutional crisis) the only way for the govt to force the bill through in their terms will be to withdraw it and re-start it in the Commons, so disrputing thier legislative timetable.