This debate on the legal niceties is interesting. Unfortunate that all this has to come from a "de-regulatory" bill.

But in practice most of the enforcement will be by the licensee, will it not? If he/she thinks there may be a licence problem caused by the incidental rendition of "Flowers of Edinburgh" by the bloke in the corner with a fiddle, he is more likely to turf him out than listen to legal arguement as to "incidental" or not. This I think is the real problem. I know of a pub which had "sessions" under old legislation without PEL. There was an aurgument with local authority enforcers, who were probably technically correct. The following week the BBC came and filmed the session, ridiculing the enforcement. But soon after that the pub was inspected for electrical safety, food hygiene and just about everything else. It closed down, re-opened on session night as a private "club" but then closed for good to musicians under a new licensee.

As I say this was under PEL legislation.   If only the new Act exempted acoustic music from requiring a licence all would have been well. But the so called Jazz loving Kim Howells spoke in the debate that some Jazz needing amplification and because of this the baby was flung out with the bath water.

Maybe a change of Government will correct this. I have lobied by local MP long and hard on this.