The point about the incidental exemption is that - as it up to the local licensing authority (in all practical effect those who are employed by it) to interpret what is and is not to qualify. There is no formal application application process.

So in practice - the law is what those who are paid to enforce it, say that it is. The vast majority of councils simply ignore the fact that such an exemption exists. Rarely - and this would seem to one of those cases - in order to get them out of hole a council will find something form of music to qualify.

As the situation stands - on the rare occasions, usually due to avoiding embarrassment to them, when those employed to enforce licensing legislation wish an activity to take place (or already have allowed it to slip past them) - they will scrape around to find some bizzare interpretaion to pemit it.   

This situation offers no protection to the public, it must be ended and all music must be finally taken out of the hands of council employed vandals - while there is still some left.

The Tate Gallery, like many other places (pubs. clubs, schools, hospitals etc.) have already been made safe for the public. It is plainly nonsense for the LGA Group lobby to continue to claim and advise that the introduction of any form of live or recorded music will change this and will require the expensive process of additional entertainment licensing under the Licensing Act 2003.