Sorry about the length of this but I have found if i write it all down I can move on.

I have come to the firm opinion that a publican does not need any additional licence for a session to take place on their premises. They should of course give their permission and any conditions and requests that they make should be observed. Should the gathering become too large or disorderly, all of the control necessary is in the wording of the existing drinks licence. The authority can take the licence and thus the publican's livelihood away.

When a group of pub customers have a get-together involving say darts, pool, quiz nights or any other such shared interests, the above is the process they go through and will not be troubled by the local licensing authority. Even if the events are advertised and receive an audience, it is recognised that it is organised largely by the customers and for the customers. If these events involve a fee, it could be argued that a public entertainment is being staged in but in practice it is unlikely, if not unheard of that any action would be taken against these events.

When exactly the same process is undertaken for a similar event, where the event is organised by and for the participants, and this event involves music (or dancing), such as a session or sing-around, some council officials are making the case that this event then, constitutes a public entertainment. On the grounds that because there are more than two people making music, this event therefore needs an additional Public Entertainment Licence, on top of the controls that are already in place to enable the establishment to sell drink.

This would appear to be just because music is involved? Also because they suspect that it may well be an attempt by the publican to get around the paying for a PEL. For there is the loophole that if music is staged in a pub, but the number of performers do not exceed two, this is covered by the drink licence and does NOT need a PEL. There seems no end to the imaginative ways that the licensing authority's officers will twist this interpretation, all to the detriment of session and folk clubs. Some interpret it to mean that it must not only be not more than two at a time but must be the same two individuals all evening.

It largely explains why there are lots of single performers and duos playing in pubs. It is easier for publicans to limit the number of performers than to go through the inconvenience and expense of obtaining a PEL. Or easier still to knock the music on the head altogether.

Places that have paid for a PEL, understandably do not like places that do not hold them, staging (largely musical) entertainment, even when, using the loophole these are legal. In addition, from my conversations with ours, I suspect that individuals working in council licensing offices do not like this either. That partially explains the apparent zeal in which they pursue their quarry, without seemingly being able to see the effect or seeing it from any other view.

The threat of action from the authority to the publican, will usually be all that is required to ensure that the session will be asked to go elsewhere. The revenue gained from holding sessions and folk clubs, not being enough to cover the cost and unwelcome attention of the authority.

So if the licensing authority is using this strict interpretation of the law to pressure it's pubs to obtain PELs, it is not working. I feel very strongly that pressure should be applied to make to them stop, while we still have some places left to hold sessions. All that is being generated by this action and interpretation of the law, is bad feeling.

In fairness some authorities do not use this interpretation to sessions. Milton Keynes, I am given to understand, interpret sessions as participatory and not as public entertainment and therefore not needing any additional controls. A very sensible approach (from the home of our Open University), in my view and one I wish would be adopted generally. For I can imagine people in other countries being very mystified by all this.

There is also an issue of basic human rights here. The right of assembly and of expression have both being obtained for us very recently, by The European Convention On Human Rights, in The Human Rights Act (appearing in a pub near you very soon).

It would appear that non-musicians and some musicians are now unable to see music as anything other than public entertainment and this usually means paid public entertainment. People having been singing together for the sheer pleasure of doing so in public places, such as churches, without this being classed as public entertainment. This the way I feel this issue should be viewed. Maybe if the session was held in a church it be OK? Obtaining a drink licence for a church could be more of a problem though?

This is not in any way an attack on those professionals who try to scrape an honest living from what they do well and love. However they do have unions to look after their interests. There maybe the view held that an unpaid session could draw an audience from a paid performance in a nearby establishment. I don't know the answer to that one, but I do not think that the answer is to take away a musicians right to provide their services freely, if they should wish to do so. Sessions do however tend to be held on the 'dead' nights of the week, when the musicians are not at paid gigs and are able to attend, so they will very rarely clash with paid gigs.

The publican's also have their associations to look after their interests. What concerns me is there does not appear to be any official body that is looking after the interests of MUSIC, in this situation. It would seem to me that it is MUSIC that is losing the most out of these interpretations of the law, at a time when more and more people appear want to make music.

The fact that a law may exist does not mean that it is in the best interests of anybody, that some are enforced and to the letter. The penalties for sheep-stealing are pretty severe and also for arson in her Majesty's Dockyard, but would not be enforced in today's climate.. There are more than enough laws and bye-laws already, that if they were all enforced, would mean that no one would be able to do anything. We are in great danger, on this issue of 'throwing the baby out with the bath-water'.

It would seem generally and certainly in this case that, many peoples constructive and positive efforts to try and benefit many, can be undone by one single negative voice, raised for whatever motive to the licensing authority. Because one can do something, it does not always follow that one should.

This is an issue that up to very recently I knew little about and this despite often performing in pubs. I feel sure that when sensible people are given the facts, they will immediately see the folly of this interpretation of this law and will try and look to find some common ground. That is all I would ask.

The only answer I can see at the moment is for individuals to approach their local councillors and request that their licensing authority interpret this law in a common-sense fashion. This to ensure that MUSIC is not the only loser in a battle where making MUSIC should not even be an issue.