Only two errors in what you write, Shambles:

a)    The promise is that there is no extra cost for inclusion of entertainment, plays or films.

Over many years, various Ministers and spokespersons have ignored the Act's words and made many lofty claims in Parliament, the media and elswhere, for the Bill/Act's postitive effects and for its limited financial burdens on premises wishing to provide regulated entertaiment. I was rather just lumping all these fine claims and promises together.

If you include PRS licence fees - even the promise you refer to is hardly the complete truth. One could argue that PRS fees are not extra to premises already paying for them. However, when the Act is sold as encouraging new live music venues, these additional PRS licence fees may come as a bit of a shock to a licensee who accepted the Government's word that they would not be liable for any extra costs for providing entertainment for the first time, under the Act.

b)    You need to appreciate that the Act establishes a premises licence which applies to every premises that hosts anything that is licenseable. It is only needed if a licencable activity takes place. Consequently, the incidental music exemption is an exemption that allows incidental music anywhere in the country, not just in pubs.

I think that I do appreciate this and I am not sure that I was saying anything different but perhaps not wording it very well. Just pointing out that pubs had to pay the LA in their Premises Licence to provide drink anyway but other places not serving alcohol, like the cafe example - only had to pay for a Premises Licence and annual inspection charge, if they wished to provide regulated entertainment. Or indeed any other licensable activity like late night refreshment.

The incidental live music exemption does indeed apply everywhere and not just in pubs (which is at least an improvement on the old 'two-in-a-bar-exemption) - we just have to get our LAs to establish what incidental live music is, or is not.