The Stage

No need to despair agency regulations

Published Tuesday 23 March 2004 at 10:15

While I have every respect for Bob James and what he is reported to have said (News, March 11, front page) and while I do agree that the majority of the details are correct, I do not share his sense of alarm and despair.

Like Bob, I was closely involved in the consultation process for the proposed regulations, along with my colleagues Chris Bray and Keith Stitchman, as representatives of the National Entertainment Agents Council (NEAC). While we have found the participating civil servants understanding and polite, we have had to accept that they have to balance the practical concerns with the wishes of their political masters.

The reason that I do not share that despair for all of our National Entertainment Agents Council members is that by conforming to our rules and code of conduct they have already been complying with the spirit of what will now be legislation from April 6 and July 6 respectively.

As to vouching for another agent with whom you are splitting a commission (as allowed providing that the work seeker comes under schedule 3, entertainment sector employees) it seems to me that if you are not happy with the way he proposes to do business, surely you would not want to do business with him? I do agree that to record what investigations you have made and when you made them does seem an unnecessary burden but these days perhaps it is prudent.

In relation to checking clients’ accounts on a regular basis of at least once a month and getting the figures looked at annually, is that not what all good agents do? I have grave reservations about the description of such an account as described in the new regulations. NEAC members are bound by their code of conduct to ensure that such accounts have trust status or otherwise properly protected account. My concern is what happens to the money belonging to artists in the hands of persons who deliberately put themselves outside the regulations.

A duty of care is surely already placed upon us when we act on behalf of another, otherwise we risk being accused of negligence and thus we will lose all credibility. However, I do share the concern that if we were found to have supplied a work seeker in circumstances that were not suitable, we could be placed in a position where we have to justify all the reasonable steps that we took to make sure that he or she was suitable for the task and that the task required of him or her was something that they could and were allowed to do in a safe environment.

I think that most of us would agree that up-front fees - a payment before a legitimate offer of work is made - is entirely wrong and the banning of this practice has been a mainstay of NEAC policy and code of conduct ever since the organisation’s inception almost 26 years ago. Nevertheless, an artist should be responsible for the provision of, or at least the payment for the provision of, his own publicity. If this publicity is in the form of a publication by the agent, it is right that the agent is permitted to charge the artist for such advertising for the purpose of obtaining employment if the artist so wishes and provided that such a publication is in existence for him to inspect.

There are, however, several companies being set up, particularly using the internet, that are making offers of employment conditional upon being supplied with payment. These organisations seem to be circumnavigating the legislation, sometimes under the umbrella of work seekers being placed upon an ‘approved suppliers list’, even for central and local government work.

There are many other observations that can be made but to help our NEAC members we are holding a detailed seminar on Saturday April 3 at Cheltenham Park Hotel. This is one of the many free services that we are offering to our members. The cost of the seminar would be £180 and bona fide agents wishing to attend could do so by arrangement and be awarded free membership of the council for one year, subject to the necessary references and matching up to the required specifications.

These regulations are lengthy, complicated and difficult to understand for most entertainment agents, who do not have the time to digest them while trying to go about their business in a proper manner.

The DTI, by its own admission, accepts that parts of these regulations and the definitions of some words or phrases will only find their true interpretation when their meanings have been established in a court of law. This to me does not seem good law. How can the Inspectorate be fair, even unto themselves, when nobody has established what is meant by certain words or phrases?

My biggest concern is this - how are persons going to be sufficiently informed to be able to comply with these regulations if they are not a member of one of the trade organisations or readers of The Stage?

Alan Pope

National chairman

National Entertainment Agents Council

PO Box 112

Seaford

East Sussex