Mr Caborn said that the exemption '.... would take public safety out of the hands of the experts and putting it in those of amateurs.'

In the case of the London places of worship that the Bill has exempted from the hands of the 'professionals' - where the good Lord is in charge of public safety - does Mr Caborn then consider God to be an amateur?

My MP - [Labour Majority 26] - who was on the Standing Committee of the Licensing Bill - but so far had voted for the Government on every division - was in Germany on the 24 June!

I was not present on Tuesday because I was in Germany all day as part of a Defence Select Committee visit. Sadly this prevented me taking part in the final moment for the licensing bill which has occupied so much of my time.

Had he been there I suspect he would have voted the Lords small events amendment out and for the new Government amendment - again to Party instructions.

He eventually did comment on the Governments new amendment and I responded as follows -

>snip< Safe capacity limits on all venues would have required all venues to check customers in and out, using door staff as in nightclubs. This was an unrealistic burden on the industry.

Dear Mr Knight

Can you establish from Mr Caborn the answers to the following?

Will he confirm that currently ALL premises with PELs have to have a maximum safe capacity limit imposed - and as most of these premises manage to do this perfectly well without bouncers- where is the unrealistic burden currently presented to the industry?

In most premises with safe capacity limits and PELs - these limits can be maintained currently without bouncers - where is it written that all venues under the Bill with Premises Licenses and imposed safe capacity limits will have to employ bouncers?

Does the Bill require all Premises Licence holders to automatically have an imposed safe capacity limit ?

Does the Bill require all Premises Licence holders applying for entertainment permission to automatically have an imposed safe capacity limit - as is current practice?

Why is currently imposing a safe capacity limit on all PELs, not an unrealistic burden on the industry?   

Why would imposing a safe capacity limit on all premises under the Bill be an unrealistic burden on the industry?

Can this new and presumed unrealistic burden on the industry be quantified?

Given the objectives of this Bill - should this new presumed burden on the industry be considered to be more important than ensuring that the public are not placed at risk of overcrowding, by placing a safe capacity limit on premises?

Given the objectives of the Bill - are the public being placed at risk by not insisting that all premises have an imposed safe capacity limit to ensure that premise are not overcrowded?

ends