After the Lords let the small premises amendment drop, because the Liberal Democrats changed sides, I sent Lord Redesdale, their leader in the Lords, a somewhat sarcy comment - and it clearly upset him, because he sent me back a response indicating he thought it was unfair.

And then Hamish Birchall of the Musician's Union (clearly having heard from Redesdale in similar terms) sent me an email outlining the situation, and pointing out that Redesdale has had some useful input into the campaign, which I have no doubt is true.

Anyway I thought it should be posted here, so I asked Hamish's permission first (because you shouldn't pass on emails without doing that).

And here is what Hamish wrote back-

"It's OK with me if you post my email about Redesdale's role on the Mudcat. It is clear to me now that on Thursday 03 July neither Peers or MPs understood how that last minute amendment of an amendment worked. This is not surprising - it is genuinely difficult. Peers voted it through trusting the advice they had been given by civil servants, which subsequently turned out to have been not quite the whole picture - as usual."

I think this helps explain why it is that there have been newspaper stories talking about how the government have amended the bill so that un-amplified music is exempted. They have been printing what they thought was the truth, on the basis of misleading Government briefing - and Members of parliament and Peers appear to have gone along with the Government under the same mistaken impression.

So it's maybe a matter of naivety rather than treachery. But you really would think that they'd have learnt by now. You cannot afford to take anything on trust from the Government.

Anyway, here is Hamish's piece about the naive but not intentionally treacherous Lord Redesdale:

I understand from Lord Redesdale that you (and others) feel betrayed by his decision to vote with the Government last Thursday, rather than support the Conservative small events exemption amendment.

I know why you feel very strongly about this - I do myself - but it would grossly unfair to focus blame on Lord Redesdale for the loss of this exemption and, in doing so, disregard what he has achieved over several years. He has done more work on this Bill in support of musicians than anyone else in the Lords. Without his support we would not have kicked off the campaign in 2001 with successful media events. None of the benefits won in the Lords could have been won without the backing of the Lib Dems. We would not have the 'incidental' exemption, which now seems to be wider than at first thought, nor would we have had any of the concessions for unamplified music, or folk dance.

The consensus in support of Baroness Buscombe's small events exemption had begun to waver before Lord Redesdale was put under considerable pressure by the Government to agree a compromise. The letters predicting virtual anarchy if the exemption were to succeed sent to all Peers by the police and Local Government Association played a significant part in undermining support for the exemption. By last Thursday, the general feeling in the Lords was that a compromise should be reached. This was, of course, all meticulously orchestrated by the Government and its officials. The person ultimately responsible for this and the illogical and in some cases absurd provisions in the Licensing Bill, is the Secretary of State at the DCMS, Tessa Jowell.

Ironically enough, the last minute concessions strengthen the human rights case against the Bill. The Secretary of State must make a declaration on the face of the new Act to the effect that it is compatible with the European Convention. But the new concessions give rise to further obvious incompatibilities. For example, it would be a criminal offence to organise an unlicensed public piano recital in a library, or even your own home, but a concert of folk dance with accompanying live unamplified music would be exempt.

Indeed, having now checked with the DCMS, it seems Lord Phillips of Sudbury was correct in pointing out that the concession for amplified and unamplified live music in pubs is totally contradictory. A pub licensed for amplified live music will not, initially, be subject to noise conditions and the music could go on all night. This quite clearly incompatible with residents' rights to a quiet night's sleep under Article 8 of the ECHR. However, a pub licensed only for unamplified live music may not allow a performance between midnight and 8am.

The reality is that in order to save face with this Bill, Ministers and officials have continually shifted the goal posts in order to justify the unjustifiable. They have misrepresented safety law on the basis of uncorroborated assertions by unqualified officials, misquoted unpublished reports about noise, failed to disclose important representations made by the police, and misrepresented the powers available under existing alcohol licensing law. This cynical disregard for truth, and contempt for the democratic process, is where the real problem lies.