Jim Knight MP
My view on the latest amendment is that it is a genuine attempt to alleviate the fears that licensees will not want to include entertainment for fear of costly mitigation measures such as sound proofing. It would then be easier for them to include entertainment in their operating schedule, at no extra cost, and thus resolve the problem.

What a mess! I am amazed if you seriously saying, given all the scare stories from the Government and local authorities about needing additional licensing to deal with noise - that measures like the sound proofing of premises cannot be a condition of entertainment permissions.

If this is the case - I am even more amazed that the Commons have voted for it. I am not really surprised as the level of understanding of this Bill in Commons, seems to be very low and Labour MPs do as they are told.

But if in producing this amendment - the Government and the Commons has really accepted that (all) noise cannot be dealt with by blanket entertainment licensing, as the Lords largely have - why oh why can they not give us measures that really reflect this view?

But the amendment does not say such conditions can't be insisted on before permission is given. It just says when they are applied by a local authority, for pubs only with a premises licence and a safe capacity - conditions other than those based on the Bill's two objectives of crime and disorder and public safety - will have no effect.... It will be a little late by then.

As the pub will have already had to satisfy all four of the Bill's Licensing objectives in order to obtain a premises licence - there really is no concession. If there are noise concerns or objections - TO THE PREMISES LICENCE APPLICATION the premises will simply not get permission even if sound proofing would solve the problem. Possibly given this amendment - even if they offer to provide sound proofing!

If in fact the amendment was saying what you say it was - and Frank Dobson was questioning this point in the debate, and did not think much of it, if it did - the Commons or the Government did not seem too sure, but they voted for it anyway.

Does it mean that conditions based on all four of the Bill's objectives and measure like sound proofing can then be placed on pubs with a premises licence and a safe capacity of more than 200 (or indeed having imposed no safe capacity at all)? Is this not even more inconsistency?

If all this were so - it will not be much of a concession for say a cafe (or even a village hall) not serving alcohol. They would still have to apply for the premises licence - just to be able to provide entertainment alone and this amendment would not apply to them even if they had a safe capacity of less than 200, unless they did also provide alcohol.

So the local authority could insist on soundproofing, or even say, a condition that pictures on the wall had to be removed, on the grounds of protecting children from harm....

All this is a very good reason why this Bill should not be rushed - as it is being rushed.

Roger