I forgot to put a link in for that - but when I went to find it to post it, it appears to have been taken down. It's from a speech made by Kim Howells to "Modal 2002", but it doesn't seem on the net that I could find, since yesterday.

Another bit of classic Kim Howells I found while looking for it was -his letter to uk.music.folk in October 06, 2002

This contains a passage where he tries to wriggle out of his promise made on the Mike Harding show with one of the most remarkable examples of political legerdemain I have ever seen.

Remember his promise made in July in respect of sessions and singarounds was that "There shouldn't be a problem. A long as money isn't changing hands then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence."

So in October he wrote: "...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. Spontaneous
entertainment not undertaken for profit or gain would not be affected."

That "it can be argued" is incredible. Anything can be argued. Kim Howells using the term as a way of avoiding actually saying something he knows is very shaky indeed and thoroughly dishonest in the ,light if his previous promise - but in doing so he manages to present it as valid. Avoids even saying whether the publicising has to be done by the licensee, or even whether any extra customers do actually turn up.

There's a lovely Catch 22 here. If the musicians are given drinks by the landlord, they are playing for reward, and the sessions is caught that way. If they buy their own drinks, the landlord is profiting by their presence and the session gets caught that way.

Of course if Howells actual words were in the Act, a very good case indeed could be made that "spontaneous" should cover events where the initiative came from the musicians rather than from the landlord. A lot of people seem to assume that "spontaneous" has to mean the same as "impromptu", "done on the spur of the moment", and it doesn't. It means happening without external prompting - like spontaneous combustion. However since the word spontaneous does not appear anywhere in the Bill it is I imagine irrelevant.