I have sent the following -

Can he be asked, without referring to the 'incidental' amendment, which original words of the Bill, and which aspects of sessions now include them as licensable, and why he stated on the show that they would not be licensable - if they were unpaid etc?

It has still not been clearly established, which words of the Bill, and which aspects of sessions include them as licensable.

For despite the answer he gave to my question on his last appearance on the show, that they were not, it was Dr Howells' latest position that sessions were licensable. It is rather important to know this, for if as looks likely, we will have to rely only on guidance, as this will enable the focus to be correctly directed to enable sessions to be safe from ALL Local Authorities.

In yet another change, in the Common's Standing Committee on April 1st, Dr Howells now seems to be relying, to exempt sessions, on the imposed Lord's amendment extending the Government's own exemption for incidental recorded music - to now include live music.

Strangely, as it was the Government' who introduced the word to the Bill, they claim not to understand it and are not prepared to define the word, to enable the exemption to be of much practical use, other than to further confuse us all and to pass the buck right back to local authorities.