If the distinction between a performer and a member of the public, making music for their own entertainment in a public house, presents a problem. This distinction can be clearly and easily demonstrated in the quite different relationship the publican has with them.

This difference should be immediately obvious to any competent enforcement officer following the Cabinet Office Enforcement Concordat of March 1998, before they proceed with any threats of prosecution.

The performer is employed by the publican to perform. If the publican does not want them to perform, they inform the performer and the performer will not turn up on the night, ready to perform.

The member(s) of the public has usually asked the publican's permission to make music in their public house, and is there because they are a customer. If they are a customer who has come to the pub largely in order to make music and the publican is forced to ask them not to make music, the publican knows this will upset the customer and they are unlikely to come again.

A successful publican is one who does not upset their customers. The licensing authority should recognise this and not place the publican in an impossible position. They should certainly not do so when there are no issues of noise or public safety.

In the case of an informal tradition music session, taking place on licensed premises, with publican's permission, it is quite clear that there are, no performers.

There are only customers providing their own entertainment.

Thus the number of them playing is not relevant.

They are using only their voices or non-amplified instruments.

There are no resulting issues of noise or public safety.

Therefore the requirement for a Public Entertainment Licence under section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964, is clearly not applicable, under these circumstances.

It would appear that the present situation, where central government has indicated that the Section 182 requirements are to be removed, but they remain in existence and still form the licensing authority's bible, is possibly the worst of all worlds.

Publicans, aware of the government's intentions will be understandably reluctant to pay additional funds for a PEL, and enforcement officers seem to be determined that the publicans will not get away with more than two performers, without one.

Sessions, clubs and other informal musical gatherings in pubs, appear to be taking most of the flak of this unsatisfactory situation.

An analogy (that is possibly a little OTT), would be one where those responsible for WW2 concentration camps, seeing that the camps were shortly to be liberated and a new order would be shortly set up, ignore that fact and then set about implementing their current orders, with an increased zeal.