Time to tune in to PRS tariffs

There has been some confusion over the relevance of a particular Performing Right Society (PRS) tariff to the pub trade, and this is hardly surprising.

The tariff in question is known as LP — presumably standing for "light popular"— and is for pre-arranged ticketed events at which a range of music is played. It is not the pub tariff, which is entirely different and is negotiated between the PRS and various user representative groups, principal among which is the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA).

It is therefore slightly misleading to suggest that many pubs would be affected by the proposed changes in the structure of this tariff, which has been in place for more than 20 years. In fact, the pub trade was not even on the consultation list!

According to my sources, it is likely to be relevant only when a licensee hires or lets out a function room to an independent promoter who himself sells tickets for the event. It is the organiser in this instance who is liable to the PRS for any copyright fees due and has nothing to do with the pub's own PRS licence.

However, the advice in such cases is for the licensee to put a disclaimer into the agreement or contract which clearly makes the promoter liable, and even to contact the PRS so that they know who is responsible. It is not necessary for the licensee to deal direct with the PRS and pass on the bill; nor is it necessary for the pub licensee to provide audited receipts and other data on such events to the Society.

The reason for the consultation is not, as has been reported, to hand out a significant reduction in payments — what royalty organisation in its right mind would do that? It is to tighten up on the administration and to ensure that the PRS gets its full copyright entitlement. Income has fallen because of the shrinkage which has occurred in the pub trade and the copyright societies are desperate to get their hands on more money if they possibly can, hence the fierce fight by the PPL to defend its huge tariff uplift recently, which fortunately was not successful.

So existing PRS licensees should not worry unduly about this tariff, which will only apply in the minority of cases. However, those who hire or let out facilities for other users for public (as opposed to private) events where tickets are sold, should be aware of their responsibilities.

Q&A​

Late payment charge​

Q.​ I have been advised that PPL (Phonographic Performance Limited) are charging an extra 50% of the annual fee for late payers. It was anticipated that the penalty would be applied to those who had operated without a licence at all, rather than those who had paid for years and were, for various reasons, a couple of days late on renewal. Surely this is excessive?

A.​ As you aware there was a recent High Court ruling on the PPL tariff which has resulted in a rebate for many thousands of licensees. It was a complicated settlement, however, and it would appear that this late- payment penalty is built into the final agreement and does affect late payers who pay after the stated period on the invoice, which is usually 28 days or thereabouts.

Until now, PPL have tended to send their invoices out late, after the renewal date, but more recently they have been sending them out in advance of that date, seeking payment within the stipulated period. Failure to pay promptly will trigger the 50% surcharge.

As far as I can discover, this does not apply to the Performing Right Society (PRS), which only imposes a 50% hike if it discovers you without a licence at all, and of course this only applies for the first year.

I agree that it does seem a very high charge for a payment which may in certain cases only be a few days late. However, at this stage there is little the trade can do about it, as it forms part of the overall High Court agreement on the reduced tariff.

Young festival barman​

Q.​ At the weekend I was at a friend's pub, where he was running a beer festival. On his stand he had his son who is 16, who was pouring pints for customers all the time. Admittedly, he was only taking vouchers, not money, but isn't that against the law?

A.​ Actually, it is not. Although the young man is underage in the sense of buying and consuming alcohol, he is not covered by the same law when he is working in the pub.

It actually makes no difference whether the beer was given in exchange for a voucher or actually paid for in money. The "sale" was supervised by the person who holds the premises licence and probably is the DPS as well. So the exemption now contained in the 2003 Licensing Act will apply.

The Act now prohibits unsupervised sales by minors, but does not prohibit such sales entirely. In your example, the complete sale was supervised by a person qualified to do so. As a result, no law was being broken.

However, if the young man was at the stall on his own, he would not be allowed to sell alcohol to anyone, because the supervision required by the Act is for each and every sale.

You cannot give a blanket authorisation to a young employee at the beginning of a session.

Is snake-bite illegal?​

Q.​ Can you settle an argument between my husband and me? I say that we are not allowed to sell beer-and-cider mix as it is illegal; he says it isn't. Who is right?

A.​ Technically, he is. There is no actual law preventing the service of this drink, not even in half-pint quantities, as some people think.However, there is a pattern of refusal to serve this in many parts of the country, which is based on the credible conclusion that it leads to drunkenness and disorder and is favoured by certain people who intend to get drunk quickly. Whether or not this is true, the licensee has an absolute right to refuse service, and saying that the drink is "illegal" is perhaps an easier way to avoid a confrontation in the bar.