The following, in their own words, is the how the Governments (clear) position re sessions and singarounds has evolved (and is still evolving).

This towards a position where the only live musical activity that will not be considered to be a licensable public entertainment and a criminal offence, without advanced official permission, is a totally spontaneous and one-off burst of singing or music making. The type that has never been threatened by any entertainment licensing regime.

I place these facts here for people to use to enable them to contact their MP's to request from the Government that common sense will yet prevail even at this late hour.

The DCMS's Ronnie Bridgett made the following reply to Weymouth and Portland Borough Council on 04/02/02.
It is not planned that the new system will give an exemption to any forms of entertainment. The proposal is that all activities to be held on a Premises Licence (including non-amplified music) would need to be revealed in the operating plan put for approval to the licensing authority. The authority could only impose conditions on the Premises Licence which protect public safety and prevent disorder, crime and public nuisance.

Dr Howells in a letter to Michael Portillo 14/03/02
However, under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 a public entertainment licence is not required if music or dancing is performed by less than three performers on licensed premises i.e. the 'two in a bar rule'. The rule is intended to apply to public performances put on by a public house to entertain the public and should not prevent ordinary people singing together or dancing in public houses.

The following question from is from Hamish Birchall.
But the Government now proposes that, in addition to the risk assessments employers have a statutory duty to undertake (taking into account all activities in the workplace), 'all activities to be held on a Premises Licence including non-amplified music would need to be revealed in the operating plan put for approval to the local authority'.
Do you envisage licensees being required to declare whether or not customers will sing - unamplified - for their own amusement?

And the (03/04/02) reply from Ronnie Bridgett of the DCMS.
We do not anticipate that premises licences would have to include such an element.

From Mr Bridgett to Richard Bridge 08/04/02

You ask me to explain how the two responses can be reconciled. In response to the question - will criminal offences be committed by customers who spontaneously break into song, our advice is that we do not anticipate that spontaneous singing which does not constitute a "performance" under the terms of the Bill or is not undertaken or organised for "reward" as defined in the Bill, will be within the range of the licensing regime. Whereas a musical "performance" as defined in the Bill by a single musician undertaken for "reward" (either his own or the organiser's) will be subject to the licensing regime. It is for Parliamentary Counsel to decide how in terms of draft clauses to give effect to that policy.
And
Accordingly, whenever a group of people in a bar break into spontaneous song, the licensee would have to
decide the point (noise level) at which he is at risk of being closed by the police because of "excessive noise" which might be disturbing the public. This is an important point for context and explains why it would not be necessary to bring spontaneous singing (music making) within the licensing regime as adequate public protection would already exist

Dr Howells on Radio 2's Mike Harding Show. Broadcast 17/07/02.
Kim, if I can just go on to some questions we've had sent in from listeners, very quickly, because I do realise you've got to get off to the house and various other things … Roger Gall has emailed us to say, and I quote, "When you introduce this new licensing system, if pubs don't have an entertainment licence, will sessions and singarounds be banned?"

Yes, I suppose they would be. The landlord would need to get an entertainments licence to cover himself or herself …

But this is not for gain, is it, you were talking about …

Oh, I see, I am sorry, I'm sorry, I thought that you meant it would be professional musicians being paid …

No, just sessions and singarounds, people just playing for their own fun.

No, they certainly wouldn't and I'm very keen that we should make sure that that facility is there. There shouldn't be a problem. As long as money isn't changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence.
The Secretary of State has later written to Hamish Birchall, to say that the Government intends to regulate: - "commercial performances of music or those for private gain, but not those involving performers singing together for private (sic) amusement.

Are we now back to this music making having to exclude the public, in order for it not to be licensable -
in addition to it also being required to be spontaneous and non-rewarded?

Is it not bad enough that the Government are going to scrap legislation that maintains that the act of three people singing in a pub, automatically makes the premises unsafe, only to replace it with so-called deregulatory proposals that now maintain that the act of one person singing in a pub, automatically makes the premises unsafe?
I suggest that if any of the folk community were somewhat reassured by the clear statement made by Dr Howells on Mike Harding's programme, that they contact their MP and ask them to try and establish exactly what is now proposed and if their MP is supporting this.
faxyourmp.com

STOP PRESS

In addition to the above, the advisors to Dr Howells have finally managed to get him to sign his name to the following, which contradicts the reassurances made by him on the Mike Harding Show (above).

From a letter of 04/09/02 from Dr Howells to Rt Hon Chris Smith MP.

We recognise the importance of having a reliable definition of what constitutes a public performance and it is clear that if a musician or other performer is accepting money for a performance then it would be regarded as a public performance.

Similarly, it can be argued that any performance by unpaid performers, which was publicised with the expectation of bringing in extra customers and consequently extra revenue to the licensee would meet the definition of public performance.

If a member of the public engaged in a spontaneous rendition of a song on the piano, inviting a sing-a-long [sic], it would not be considered public entertainment.

I must reiterate, however, that even where a performance is regarded as public, the main current deterrent of an exorbitantly set licensing fee would no longer be available and there should therefore be greater freedom for all musicians and singers.