I've read Schedule 1 Part 1 Para 3 of the Act numerous times and I'm still baffled as to what is actually meant by "entertainment facilities". Indeed, I don't really understand the need for them to be licensed - if an entertainment facility such as a piano (for example) is used for performing music, then a licence is required because music is a regulated entertainment; if it is not used, or the music it is used for is not regulated (eg is incidental music) then why should it matter?

It would appear to be unnecessary for premises in general to be considered as an "entertainment facility", since any regulated entertainment must take place on premises of some kind. As the Act is so unclear I have turned to the Guidance Notes, which suggest (but again are not explicit) that "premises" means elements such as a dance floor. However the whole thing is so vague that nothing is clear, and it is impossible to tell what this clearly bonkers government had in mind when it passed the Act.

I think this is what the latest amendment is intended to correct. The consultation document clearly states that one of the reasons for removing musical instruments from the definition of "entertainment facilities" is to allow customers to entertain themselves using for example a pub piano - this can only mean that the act of entertaining themselves is not itself regulated entertainment, otherwise removing instruments from the definition would not achieve this aim. Likewise, if instruments are to be excluded but the premises themselves are considered to be "entertainment facilities" and thus licensable, this too would defeat the intention of the amendment.

The logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that customers can entertain themselves with music without needing a licence, and that if the amendment is passed they will be able to use musical instruments and similar items provided by the venue.