And of course noone asked him about the situation of any place which wanted to allow people to play music, but which doesn't have a licence to sell alcohol and doesn't want one. The bill specifically defines "premises" where licences are required as "any place".

In America "coffee houses" are, I understand, where a lot of the folk music happens. Back in the 50s and 60s, that was true in England - but it became illegal with the same law that brought in the two-in-a-bar extension for pubs. There wasn't any such extension for other places, and that kind of music scene faded away.

And he wasn't challenged about the promise about not interfering with people playing for their own enjoyment with no money changing hands, which he made on that Mike Harding show,

Kim Howells is a puzzle - he appears to be intelligent enough; but at the same time he seems quite unable to grasp obvious points.

Here's a theory I came up with in the pub at an (illegal) session today.

Howells is ambitious, he wants to be known and he knows that it is important to get in the papers and become identifiable to the public.

He has succeeded in doing this remarkably effectively by well placed and well timed sound-bites which stirred up a bit of controversy and a dis-proportionate amount of press attention. I suspect that he is now significantly better known to the public than most other ministers at a similar level in politics.

The logical thing for him would be to throw in an amendment in line with what he said in the Mike Harding show, at a stage when he has milked this whole thing for maximum effect. This would immediately ensure him further, and probably on the whole favourable, press coverage.

I will not be the least surprised if this in fact happens. If it does it would be best done at a time when the papers are not too taken up with other matters, which could be a bit of a problem, what with the war on the slipway for launching.