I have just read the JCHR report.   They seem to miss the rather obvious point that if the Act does apply equally to amplified and unamplified music, it is very hard to see how both applications cn be proportionate. They hardly note at all that the exemption for Morris discriminates against other European (and other) cultures.

They also miss that the exemption for music as an integral part of Morris (like kind etc) - applies only to non amplified music. Difficult to see how they can accept that the Act does apply equally to amplified and non amplified music.

The idea that the JCHR now accept that live music and broadcast/recorded music are treated equally is of course wrong.   

Interesting also that it would appear that as long as the statement of compatabilty is made at the introduction of the Bill - any subsequent amendments (and rubbish like this) if voted for - automatically become OK with our HRA.......

Mr Caborn making the point that no one mentioned opposition to the Church exemption in the debates is a good one. Had the JCHR been able to meet and make this point in their report in time - it would have been impossible for this NOT to have been mentioned.