I can see that rightly the requirement and push here is to have a session locally rather than to make a local political issue out of it - but it would be a shame if the initial enthusiasm of all concerned were to be blunted by licensing legislation - as so many other sessions have been. It would be nice to pretend that such considerations were not a concern but sadly they have a way of affecting these things - whether we like it or not.

The timing is interesting. It is unlikely that any licensee will be prepared to pay for a full PEL just to enable this session to take place legally under the current legislation. For these run yearly from a set date - say July to July and as the new licenses can be applied for in February 2005 - it would not be a good financial move as application now would be unlikely to produce one for about 3 months anyway - but the session could most probably continue for this period, if the application was made.

There are two remaining options. First to just to start-up and hope with the risk of the session having to be halted or secondly to wait until the new Premises Licence can be applied for.

If in February the licensee applies (with no additional cost) for entertainment permission with their Premises Licence, the session (and other live music) will of course be able to take place. The question that can't really be ignored by anyone, including the local licensing authority is does the session actually require either a PEL currently or entertainment permission with the new Premises Licence when the new Act come into force?

These pub sessions only fall foul of the current legislation because (most) LAs consider the unpaid participants to be (more then two)'performers but they will not need entertainment permission under the new Act if the session is not considered as regulated entertainment but as as 'incidental' live music. Sadly and unhelpfully nether the word 'performer' or the word 'incidental' are currently defined in the legislation or yet legally determined by case law.

Official advice - if sought now from the local licensing authority would most probably be for the pub to obtain the PEL and as the licencee is unlikely to wish to pay for this - at this late stage - the official future for this session would seem to be uncertain.

Perhaps the way forward is to start-up but get the councillors handle it for you and the licencee - to be open about the true nature of the event and the difficulties. And to officially process the question but to get them to enable the session to continue in the meantime, until a committee decision can be made. Given the time this would take - the new law would probably be in force by then. This would both enable the session to start now, and start the process that will show councillors the risk that is presented to these activities by licensing legislation, to enable them (rather than their officers) to address the issue locally and include this consideration in the local licensing policy that they are currently working on.

To stall for a little longer - an official visit to the session (when it could be ensured that only the same two musicians were playing) would establish to the officer's satisfaction, that the event (at least as witnessed) was exempt from the current licensing requirement.....