Motion 4

Proposed: Roger Culcheth

Seconded: Ken Wigfield

Policy Respondee: Clive Davenport

Region: Worcestershire

Personal votes for: 189

Personal votes against: 15

Branch votes for: 123373

Branch votes against: 5107

In proposing the motion, Roger Culcheth made the case with the following points:

There are 40 different types of licenses for different categories of businesses such as hotel, pubs, shops and offices.
Cost of licenses are subject to index linked annual rises
Broadcasters already pay substantial royalties to the PRS - around £155 million
Commercial radio pays annual royalties of £56 million - therefore the PRS have already had an income from the prime supplier of music i.e. the broadcaster
License fees paid by business are in effect a double whammy
FSB has lobbied PRS and gained a new reduced tariff of £44+VAT for workplaces with 4 or fewer employees - advert carried in First Voice
This does not recognise the many small businesses that have no dealings with the general public
FSB not denying composers, songwriters, musicians or singers rewards for their efforts
Simply asking that a license is not required by any business which employes less than 5 people or where the business does not have general public attending in majority of circumstances

Ken Wigfield seconded the motion and made the following points:

The legislation discriminates unfairly particularly if the small business is run from a room in or next to the proprietor's own home
With workshops, Health & Safety rules prevent anyone else entering yet they still have to pay for a PRS license
Vigorous pursual by the PRS when music heard playing in other parts of the home
Examples given include lone-parents working from home and employees using their own personal MP3 players being asked to pay
Business not using radios in their workplaces for commercial gain should not have to pay

Clive Davenport responded on behalf of Policy with the following comments:

The Act does not describe a specific charge for small businesses or for those employing specific numbers of people but it does describe what is private space and public space (a definition that is only relevant to this Act)
Concern at the 'bully-boy' tactics
Calls from members about a complete exemption for small businesses, but this does not have any support from Government or the PRS
Legitimate concern about small businesses being asked to pay again after large broadcasters such as the BBC or ITV have already paid money to the PRS
Largest area of concern is around the definition and possible adverse impact on the other business legislative areas such as Health & Safety and licensing and potential for increasing costs to small businesses
PRS have recently written to the FSB requesting further discussions to address issues connected to charges and processes
This may be a quicker and more effective way of reaching agreement than by attempting to change the legislation

Supporters of the motion made the following points:

Are concessions being offered because the legislation has yet to be tested in the courts and there is a possibility that cases may win?
Cannot compare small businesses with McDonalds
Non-recoverable costs of fighting case will exceed payment of the £44 fee
Company cars where radio is playing could breach regulations if they listen with the windows down

Against the motion:

FSB has done a good job in getting the reduction and £44 is a small price to pay
Should continue to work with the PRS rather than try to change the law
Not a good use of FSB time in fighting for change
Concern about the impact on other areas of legislation

Right of Reply: