The objectives referred to in S1.9 cannot be achieved if these activities remain licensable because the premises themselves are "entertainment facilities".

That is exactly my point. No matter how-well intentioned you may think the DCMS are the words of the Act remain what they are. What is proposed cannot happen unless the words of the Act regarding the provision of the premises are changed and this is not proposed. So the the whole thing is a nonsense.

The DCMS could have taken this opportunity to also remove "premises" from the definition. They have not done so. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the premises do not need to be licensed.

I am not sure that I agree that this is the only conclusion to be drawn.

The other, perhaps more likely, answer is that it is yet another cock-up by the DMCS

Not even the DCMS can simply wish the words of the Act to say something they would prefer it to say.

Would you accept that the above words (in the Act) make it quite clear that Entertainment Facilities [as defined in the words of the Act below], consist of making premises available?

Could you really argue, that a session is not a case of premises being made available to enable persons to entertain themselves in making music and dancing?