Licensing - MU mixed messages.
Roger Gall
On 9th October the Musicians Union issued a short statement backing new
entertainment licence exemptions for venues up to 200 capacity, and
announcing its participation in the Equity demonstration to that end outside
Parliament:
http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/site/cms/v4_newsArticleView.asp?article=900
But an MU statement yesterday, 30th November, appeared to endorse licensing
for any venue wishing to promote regular live music:
http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/site/cms/v4_newsArticleView.asp?article=904
It included this quote from assistant general secretary Horace Trubridge:
'We want to see venues using the incidental music exception as an initial
foray into putting on live music. If it works for the venue, then the next
step would be to have regulated entertainment added to the licence. For
instance, if a restaurant tries some live jazz on a Wednesday then wants to
extend it to other nights and advertise the acts, it could do so through the
minor variations process, which is much cheaper and quicker than applying
for a full variation.'
There was no mention of the union's position on new exemptions, or indeed
their policy position that live music should be outside the licensing regime
altogether. Read without this context, as it would be by many journalists,
the statement could readily be taken as an endorsement, in principle, for
the licensing regime as it stands.
It is of course in members' interests that the MU pursues every available
means of increasing work opportunities. Working with DCMS and the Local
Government Association to that end is not merely desirable, but obligatory.
These pragmatic alliances do not mean, however, that the case for exemptions
must be suppressed. Indeed, if the union were committed to the case for new
exemptions, this message would surely be reinforced at every opportunity.
But by pouring cold water on the Number 10 licensing petition [
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/livemusicevents/ ] and issuing mixed
messages to the press, the case for exemptions is undermined. The question
for members must be 'why?'.
ENDS