More gems, I like this one..Dr Howells - We should be slow to impose additional burdens without justification.*Smiles*

Standing Committee - 10 April:
Dr. Howells: The knife falls at 5 o'clock and we want to make progress on other matters. However, this issue is important and I want to make one thing clear: we have no objection to the concept of capacity limits. Indeed, the Bill will allow a capacity limit to be imposed if, in the view of the licensing authority after receiving representations from the expertsthe police, fire and health and safety authoritiesit is necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
The idea that a capacity limit is useful or necessary in all cases is wrong. I understand that capacity limits can be useful for nightclubs or the large pubs about which the hon. Gentleman has been waxing lyrical. I have no problem with that.

As Dr Howells should be aware, his department have been advising us all that PELs are the ONLY way a safe capacity can be imposed on premises. It is also a fact that a safe capacity is currently imposed on PEL application in all premises, whatever their size. In an extraordinary and major departure, he now saying that this practice is wrong!

How is he going to ensure that local authorities do not continue to do it wrong and impose a safe capacity as a condition on only, and every entertainment permission application, as I am sure is their intention? At this point to save us all grief, perhaps he could be asked to establish if this is their understanding and intention and that fight can take place now?

Imposing safe capacities for every PEL issued is currently standard practice, even for small country premises, and I see no reason that it will not continue as a condition for ALL entertainment permissions, as it is the main safety argument used in favour of blanket entertainment licensing (the reason in the White Paper being that large numbers of people can be attracted).

In fact when the MU have pointed out that this is current practice for some liquor licence applications, the Government have up to now, wrongly argued that magistrates do not apply safe capacities for liquor licence applications and this limit can only be imposed on premises via PELs. The following conversion is welcome , if late.

Dr Howells Much has been made of the so-called vertical drinking establishment as the Bill has progressed. Indeed, capacity limits are often imposed through the existing licensing system on premises of that nature, which is only right and proper.

We firmly believe that there is no need for a quiet restaurant, small country pub or countless other premises to have a mandatory capacity limit in all cases. If a mandatory capacity limit is imposed, the inevitable consequence will be increased costs to those running such venues as they would have to employ staff to count people in and out. That would be a big burden to impose on nightclubs. We should be slow to impose additional burdens without justification.

This is welcome but inconsistent nonsense, if the Government continue to maintain and support, as they have, the additional burden (with little justification) that all premises holding public entertainment must have safe capacities imposed as part of their application, and if they do not in the Bill, regulate the local authority to prevent this standard practice, justified on public safety grounds from continuing on the 'ticking' of the now famous box.

Currently ALL premises with PELs have imposed safe capacities, whatever their size, and this is managed without 'bouncers' being on the door of every village hall or country pub, to count people in and out.

However, it seems to have been accepted that the only way to enforce safe capacities, is by having 'bouncers'. So if you don't want 'bouncers' at your pub or club, you don't want a safe capacity.

This is a backward scare tactic and a dangerous approach to public safety. All premises may not have a pressing NEED for a safe capacity imposed by our experts, but it would be difficult for the Government to argue against , in the light of the two recent US incidents that it may well be a sensible precaution. In truth it is difficult to see it as any additional burden, when all Premises Licences applications, requiring entertainment or not, will require inspections anyway.

As Dr Howells considers that all premises now do not require this, and distinctions can be made between nightclubs and small country pubs for alcohol consumption, then the Government's justification of making all live music in all premises subject to blanket entertainment licensing on the grounds of public safety is clearly ill-conceived, illogical and dangerous. Safe capacities are sensible measure to ensure the public's safety, and should not be picked up, and later dropped for the sake of expediency , like a political rugby ball.

Dr Howells The amendments would strip the new system of much of its in-built flexibility to tailor itself to individual circumstances. When it is necessary to have a capacity limit, the Bill allows that to happen and when it is not necessarythis is for the expertsthe Bill does not require one to be imposed.

We are keen on greater flexibility for licensed premises and for capacity limits to be imposed only when necessary. That is why the Bill reflects the current system.

Entertainment or not, the problem is ensuring the safety of large numbers of people.

If Dr Howells considers that safe capacities can be introduced only where necessary, then logically the same approach MUST be taken, and would be applauded by most of us, for the regulation, only where necessary - of live music.

If this logic is not accepted, then the only other fair route is to have the experts impose safe capacities on ALL Premises Licence applications at the time of their first inspection, irrespective of whether regulated entertainment is provided.

This would make all our public buildings safe and have the advantage that no one would be ever be required to specify was or was not regulated (or public entertainment). The Bill's problematic Schedule 1 can be disposed of and the vital issue of safety can cease to be devalued by being used by some local authority officers as an excuse for official oppression.

Then a single musician will never have to establish if they were playing the same instrument for demonstration purposes - for educational purposes - with a view to making a profit - as part of a religious service - if they were sufficiently in the corner of the premises - or if they needed a licence when the moving vehicle they were playing from, stopped at traffic lights......................

If this Bill deregulates entertainment licensing - then I have never written a long-winded E mail, letter or message, in all my life.