This exchange with my MP.

At 15:25 09/07/03 +0100, you wrote:

So - yes acoustic remains licensable, but adding entertainment to the operating schedule for a licensee should not carry any extra cost for acoustic music and should be encouraged by activists like yourself.

My encouragement to this end is a matter for me but it should be pretty clear by now that performers have always been and sadly remain rather short on any control they can exert over third parties - like licensees, local authority officers and the like.

Which is why hopes were so high when our Labour Government proposed to reform the current out-dated entertainment licensing regime. They have failed us and Labour MPs have failed us - but now seem to think that making these illogical measures work, is up to us!

Sorry for the confusion but I am delighted that the bill has now gone through unopposed in Parliament.

Jim

Your delight is not shared by many. Is this the simplified regime you claimed it would be? And it would now appear that It only went through in this form because the Lib Dem peers on the 3 July were under the same impression as you and your fellow back-bencher - i.e. that the Government had given more ground on non-amplified music than they actually had...........

Good intentions are not enough and it is quite wrong to expect your constituents to share your 'rose-coloured' glasses
just because these are your Government's best practical efforts. The chance was missed in the Committee stages to improve this Bill - where you and your side chose to play political games instead.

Can you advise on progress on obtaining a response from Mr Caborn on the questions I requested answers on? In particular those concerning safe capacity limits? Also so the letter to the LGO, that I requested and your latest thinking and progress on changing the local policy/interpretation and enabling the New Star session to re-start?

Can also you please establish from Mr Caborn confirmation and advice - arising from the following?

The conditions for non amplified music.

Is it correct that my freedom of musical expression in the form of non amplified music that is not an integral part of Morris dancing - and [along with amplified music] is not incidental or spontaneous - can only take place where the following conditions are already met?

A premise licence.
Advanced permission for entertainment contained in the Premises Licence.
An imposed safe capacity limit.

And that without these, this form of cultural musical expression will be illegal?

The practical application of the Government's amendment ; re conditions.

In reality and for practical reasons - there is very little conventional non amplified music in pubs and it is unlikely that anyone would apply for entertainment permission to provide only this. Any application would be for some form of amplified music - even if this was just for one microphone.

In addition to the requirement already for Premises Licence, Entertainment Permission and a safe capacity limit - any non amplified music will also be subject to any further conditions the local authority may make on the Premises Licence or optional entertainment permission.

If the licensee or owner agrees to these - conditions other than those for public safety or crime and disorder will not take effect. Nothing is preventing a local authority from insisting on first making them conditional however.

So if the licensee or owner does not agree to the local authority's conditions or does not undertake measures to comply with them - the entertainment permission will not be granted.

That after all is the very nature of these advanced conditions. So even if non amplified music would not require these conditions and they would not have effect if they were applied to the premises - my freedom of musical expression would have been prevented on these premises - where there were no grounds to do so.

Of course the same also applies, if the licensee or owner chooses not to apply for the optional entertainment permission at all.

Even if the present PEL take-up figure was increased from 5% (which would not be difficult) and to say 50% - that would still mean that the Bill's measure will prevent non amplified music from taking place in half of the nation's pubs.

Can this limit to my freedom of musical expression really be justified and proportionate on the grounds of public safety and crime and disorder?

The Government appear to have lowered their expectations and now talk now about a change - if a future review shows a decrease in the number of venues. I suggest that it may already be too late by then but - how is this to be measured? What increase in the entertainment permission take-up figure from its current 5% would the Government consider to be successful? Surely anything less than 100% would be a huge failure?

Safe capacity limits

Currently all premises with PELs have safe capacity limits automatically imposed upon them. If for example a pub obtains a Premise Licence and does not apply for the optional entertainment - will a safe capacity be imposed? If not - what is the justification for this?

As now, and in practice - will a safe capacity limit be automatically imposed on all and only premises applying for entertainment permission? If so - what is the justification for this?

I would suggest that all the conditions above - just to permit non amplified music are totally over the top, as surely just the safe capacity limit alone (on all premise) is perfectly sufficient to deal with any advance public safety or crime and disorder issues presented by this?

Perhaps it could be explained how the current entertainment licensing system alone manages to deal with the scare tactic of the advanced threat of a right-wing heavy-metal punk band, promoting guns etc, and why the simple small events exemption proposed in the Lords, could have possibly made this issue worse?

The point is that entertainment licensing has historically been misused to raise money and to impose one kind of morality or personal tastes upon us - all under the cloak of public safety.

So many other legislative measure have been or are about to be introduced that make reliance on entertainment licensing largely a thing of the past, especially for small events on regulated sites. We can afford to take these particular stabilisers off of our bike now.

It is to this Government's great and lasting shame that it resorted to these last minute scare tactics , whilst ignoring the very real risks and concerns expressed by ACPO toward unregulated broadcast TV football events and the real concerns of JCHR.

JCHR could not discuss the Licensing Bill in this final form before the Secretary of State was due to declare it compatible with the HRA. This was because they could not get enough people free to attend. I can't help wondering who were those that cried off...

Looking forward to you and your minister's reply to these questions and to some clarity.

Roger