The Stage

MU criticised for refusing to challenge Licensing Act

Published Wednesday 20 September 2006 at 11:50 by Nuala Calvi

The Musicians’ Union has been accused of failing to protect its own members after it turned down a motion, signed by more than 100 performers, calling on it to take a stand against the government’s Licensing Act.

Members claim the act, which scrapped the old ‘two in a bar rule’ allowing venues to host live music without a licence, has led to many freelance musicians losing gigs in smaller venues. They say that the union is refusing to speak out publicly on their behalf.

A motion penned by drummer Stu Butterfield and signed by 112 performers, including celebrated jazz trumpeter Henry Lowther, called on the union to “include, as part of its clearly stated policy, a strong oppostition to the Act as far as it affects casual gigs and the associated employment of musicians in small venues”.

However, the MU’s executive committee voted against the motion and assistant general secretary Horace Trubridge has written to signatories, informing them that the union cannot support such a policy because there is insufficient evidence to back up claims about the damage caused by the Act. Trubridge said there had in fact been a “widely-acknowledged boom in live music” in the UK.

However, Butterfield insisted: “I’m not aware of any such boom in the sector that I work in. I’m actually trying to get my union to acknowledge that I’ve lost work but they don’t seem to be prepared to accept it.

“They should be protecting and doing their best for their members. As far as I’m concerned they’re not.”

Members say they are confused because the union carried out a survey earlier this year to discover how the Act had affected live music and concluded there had been “a marked drop in live music in smaller venues, especially the ones that previously benefitted from the ‘two or fewer performers’ exemption”.

Now, the union says that when it contacted those surveyed, it found only one example given in London had actually been a direct result of the act. “We would need hundreds of examples to change the law,” Trubridge said. “If we publicly announce that we oppose the Act we won’t be able to influence how it is being employed at the moment, because civil servants and ministers won’t talk to us.”