But if you say no live music etc, then the LA may say "NO licence until you put in (etc)". Or it may say "You can sell beer but you can't have any music until (etc)". If the former, all of the capital condition have to be satisfied before you can sell beer. So the landlord has to pay up. If the latter, the relaxation works.

For the reason I exressed - I don't think the so-called relaxation on any structural conditions can work (or was even intended to). But I do agree that how the tick box(es) is worded is crucial and this may just possibly enable the measure to have some small effect....We wait to see this guidance and the level of the charge.

So we have the passed it and the legislation is in place but - we still no real idea of what the most important aspects of it will be.


Why the rush? I am sorry Gareth but I am lifelong Labour supporter and I have heard all this same spin from my own MP - and I will not buy it. The idea that we upset Howells and Co and that this was even partly responsible for them continuing to ignore all the sensible and reasonably worded concerns being made to them - is just nonsense. If it were true - the stock of this Government, if it reacted in the childish, unwise and arrogant way you describe - deserves to be even lower than it currently is.

The hope was that finally we could see entertainment legislation that honestly addressed safety concerns rather continue to use these vital concerns as cover to enable all sorts of hypocrisy to take place. And I hoped that it would remove the fact that music makers had to rely on a third party to obtain permission for them. That as far as music was concerned - the glass would be considered in the future- by our officials as half full rather than half empty.

I refer to refusals for permissions to provide entertainment made on grounds of morality or of taste - under reasons like car parks being too small etc.

Let us look at the arguments used by the LGA and those they represent - who have duped and decoyed this Government's attention away from their excesses into supporting these bogus arguments.

Look at the objectives of the Act and then look at the reasons why certain activities are not covered or are exempt. The reasons vary from the costs presented to the industry or in the case of TV sport - because no one had requested it to be licensed.

We have long debates on whether an event is designed to make a profit etc - when all that matters is if the event is safe or the best way to ensure that it is safe without risking the activity.

At the very last minute we have the Government using the LGA's letter against exempting the proposed small events exemption on the grounds of safety - when this body had made no such opposition to the Government's own amendment to exempt any commercial entertainment in any place of public worship, from any licensing controls at all!

The US idea of house concerts was looking to gain ground in the UK - but of course that concept will not now be possible - not because it would be unsafe - but if it was designed to make a profit.

The answer of course would be to hold these concerts in your local church. It may not be very warm, safe or have any toilets but you could make as much noise or as much profit as you wished without any licensing controls.

Or of course you could hold the concert in your home - but always remember to ensure that a tame Morris side was also booked to dance.