Gov't - U-turn on up-front ban!

Location > Networking > Forum > Gov't - U-turn on up-front ban!

	Topic: Gov't - U-turn on up-front ban!
Posted : 01/02/11 / Views : 1127 / Replies : 12 /
CliveHurst 1001 posts last on: 07/02/12 send private reply	According to 'The Stage' today: Minister's up-front policy is a ‘shambles' - unions Published Thursday 18 March 2010 at 11:30 by Matthew Hemley Equity and Bectu are demanding urgent talks with ministers following news the government has performed a U-turn on legislation aimed at banning up-front fees once and for all. Bectu general secretary Gerry Morrissey and Equity general secretary Christine Payne have written to business minister Pat McFadden after it emerged that rules due to come into force this year, which were set to ban agencies taking up-front fees from extras, walk-ons and background artists, have been severely watered down. In their letter, the union representatives have labelled the move “totally unacceptable” and claim there is no justification for changing the legislation, which was unveiled in November 2009. Bectu national official Spencer MacDonald labelled the affair “a shambles”. He added: “This latest U-turn by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is a clear sign of a department in crisis which doesn't have an organised plan to combat rogue agents.” Click: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/27595/ministers-up-front-policy-is-a-shambles- I would remind you what was said in November 2010, in 'The Stage': In a government consultation carried out earlier this year to determine how best to tackle rogue agents, many bodies - including Equity and Bectu - called for a licensing regime to be introduced. However, responding last week, the government said it had concluded that licensing would “impose unnecessary regulatory burden on all labour providers”. Its decision has been criticised by Equity walk-on councillor Clive Hurst, who said he was “astonished” by the government's refusal to insist all agents had a licence. He also raised concerns that the categories of performers the government has decided to protect from up-front charges would be difficult to define. Hurst said there was no “legal definition” between an actor and walk-on actor, and claimed this would create loopholes in the law. But a spokesman for the government described ‘actor' and ‘walk-on' as industry recognised terms, and said there were plans to issue guidance to clarify the definitions of actor, background artist, extra and walk-on before the regulations come into force next year. Click: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/26238/legislation-banning-up-front-fees-for What an utter farce!

[add comments | all topics]

1 2 Next

	Reply #1
Posted : 18/03/10
Allan.OKeefe 710 posts last on: 07/02/12 send private reply	Tells you just about everything you need to know ... about this Government !!!!.

	Reply #2
Posted : 18/03/10
GUY5 395 posts last on: 07/02/12 send private reply	If this is a U-Turn we should inform All to Pay No Fees - Regardless of Promises. Educating people is the way forward but a FULL BAN would back this up!

	Reply #3
Posted : 31/03/10
CliveHurst 1001 posts last on: 07/02/12 send private reply	The government laid new revised (proposed) EAS Regulations to Parliament, on 11 March, but neglected to tell (anyone) the entertainments industry, until I questioned them on it earlier today... Click: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/draft/ukdsi_9780111497326_en_1 But, we still do not know when they will be debated by Parliament! Some things never change... **;^))

	Reply #4
Posted : 24/06/10
CliveHurst 1001 posts last on: 07/02/12 send private reply	Yesterday the 'House of Lords' debated the watered down banning of some fees, as per the above link... This is what was said: Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2010 13th Report Joint Committee Statutory Instruments Motion to Approve 8.06 pm Moved By Baroness Wilcox That the draft order laid before the House on 23 March be approved. Relevant document:13th Report, Session 2009-10, from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to introduce these amendments to the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. The regulations we are debating today govern the conduct of the private recruitment industry. This sector is of course a crucial part of the UK labour market, enhancing its strength by helping to maintain the right combination of flexibility for both workers and employers. It has grown significantly in recent years. There are now some 16,000 agencies, employing around 1.3 million agency workers in a huge variety of organisations. The sector as a whole is now worth about £24 billion a year. It is also hugely innovative, and the advent of the internet and broadband in particular has resulted in a paradigm shift in the market for recruitment services. The e-recruitment market alone was worth around £0.5 billion in 2007 and had been growing at around 25 per cent a year. The flexibility the sector offers the labour market more generally and its capacity for innovation will be essential for building a sustainable economic recovery. Workers themselves value the flexibility and choice that agencies can offer them. For many people, agency work offers them the opportunity for greater freedom to choose their hours and conditions of work, and gives those that have been out of the labour market for a while a quick and easy route back into paid employment. For many, a temporary placement leads to a permanent position. But we know that agency workers can in some circumstances be more vulnerable than their permanent counterparts. It is important that they have appropriate protection, for instance to ensure they are paid what they should be paid, and that they are not exploited by the small number of unscrupulous operators. This brings me to the regulations that we are debating today. These regulations were laid shortly before the election by the previous Government, and I am grateful to my noble predecessor for proposing a commendable set of measures that in my view should attract cross-party support. To proceed with them now is the right thing to do. They focus on two areas of interest to two quite different audiences. First, they will protect potentially vulnerable work-seekers by tightening the restrictions on the charging of upfront fees in the entertainment and modelling sectors. Secondly, they will reduce regulatory burdens by eliminating unnecessary suitability checks that all agencies placing workers into permanent posts currently have to carry out. The Government have concluded that these measures are consistent with the new approach we will bring to regulatory policy because they are, as a package, burden-reducing. Although the measures to increase protections around upfront fees will have some cost impacts in part of the sector, these will be more than offset by the reduction in burdens on the sector as a whole regarding suitability checks. The Government's new Reducing Regulation Committee has been consulted and has concurred with this analysis. I turn now to the detail of the proposals. Their first objective is to tackle a long-standing issue that has tarnished the reputation of agencies in the entertainment and modelling sector for too long-namely the exploitation and abuse by unscrupulous agencies of the current provision for an upfront fee. The conduct regulations currently allow agencies to charge upfront fees in this sector in certain limited circumstances. This is in recognition of the long-established industry practice of using publications such as casting directories as a means for introducing artists to would-be clients. Fees are generally charged in such circumstances to offset the cost of production of the publication. There are many reputable agencies that operate this business model and provide a valuable, well regarded service and a legitimate route to work. However, there is unfortunately also a tradition of abuse of this provision by the unscrupulous. Typically, they target the young, and often vulnerable, with unrealistic promises of work, preying on their hopes of a more glamorous lifestyle. An event will often be organised, typically in a town-centre hotel, and hard-sell tactics deployed to persuade people to part with their money on the promise of work that never materialises-and was never going to materialise, because there was never going to be any serious attempt to find it. As I say, this problem is not new and noble Lords will recall that I have argued in this House for tougher action to tackle this issue in the past. Most recently, a seven-day cooling-off period was introduced in 2008 to allow individuals to better assess-away from the limelight of the audition or photographic session-whether what they have been told is realistic and whether they want to proceed. It is clear that this has not proved effective. There has continued to be a steady stream of complaints to the Employment Agency Standards inspectorate, and a public consultation in 2009 confirmed that there remains widespread concern about this issue. It is therefore now right to take more decisive steps to tackle the problem once and for all. The statutory instrument will now amend the conduct regulations to ban outright the charging of upfront fees to would-be models, who are the target in the vast majority of these scams. This should not be of undue concern to reputable modelling agencies, which will instead be able to charge commission on actual work found-the basis on which the rest of the agency sector operates. The absolute ban will not, however, extend to the placement of other entertainers, such as actors, musicians and extras. The risk of abuse is significantly lower in these sectors and a ban would have a disproportionate effect on perfectly legitimate businesses. Those in the casting directory business, for example, will still be able to charge an upfront fee as a legitimate part of their business model. However, the amendments will also significantly enhance the protections that this group has to further guard it against the tactics of any unscrupulous agencies, and discourage the disreputable operators in the modelling sector from simply shifting their target. The amendments will extend the current seven-day cooling-off period to 30 days for this group, which will also enjoy other strengthened rights-for instance in terms of cancellations and refunds over this period. Click/copy & paste: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100623-0011.htm Can someone tell me what happens - where an agency offers work to both models & extras??? Hmmm.. **:^))

Reply #4

Posted : 24/06/10

CliveHurst
1001 posts
last on: 07/02/12
send private reply

Yesterday the 'House of Lords' debated the watered down banning of some fees, as per the above link...

This is what was said:

Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2010
13th Report Joint Committee Statutory Instruments

Motion to Approve
8.06 pm
Moved By Baroness Wilcox

That the draft order laid before the House on 23 March be approved.

Relevant document:13th Report, Session 2009-10, from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to introduce these amendments to the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003.

The regulations we are debating today govern the conduct of the private recruitment industry. This sector is of course a crucial part of the UK labour market, enhancing its strength by helping to maintain the right combination of flexibility for both workers and employers. It has grown significantly in recent years. There are now some 16,000 agencies, employing around 1.3 million agency workers in a huge variety of organisations. The sector as a whole is now worth about £24 billion a year. It is also hugely innovative, and the advent of the internet and broadband in particular has resulted in a paradigm shift in the market for recruitment services. The e-recruitment market alone was worth around £0.5 billion in 2007 and had been growing at around 25 per cent a year. The flexibility the sector offers the labour market more generally and its capacity for innovation will be essential for building a sustainable economic recovery.

Workers themselves value the flexibility and choice that agencies can offer them. For many people, agency work offers them the opportunity for greater freedom to choose their hours and conditions of work, and gives those that have been out of the labour market for a while a quick and easy route back into paid employment. For many, a temporary placement leads to a permanent position. But we know that agency workers can in some circumstances be more vulnerable than their permanent counterparts. It is important that they have appropriate protection, for instance to ensure they are paid what they should be paid, and that they are not exploited by the small number of unscrupulous operators. This brings me to the regulations that we are debating today.

These regulations were laid shortly before the election by the previous Government, and I am grateful to my noble predecessor for proposing a commendable set of measures that in my view should attract cross-party support. To proceed with them now is the right thing to do. They focus on two areas of interest to two quite different audiences. First, they will protect potentially vulnerable work-seekers by tightening the restrictions on the charging of upfront fees in the entertainment and modelling sectors. Secondly, they will reduce regulatory burdens by eliminating unnecessary suitability checks that all agencies placing workers into permanent posts currently have to carry out.

The Government have concluded that these measures are consistent with the new approach we will bring to regulatory policy because they are, as a package, burden-reducing. Although the measures to increase protections around upfront fees will have some cost impacts in part of the sector, these will be more than offset by the reduction in burdens on the sector as a whole regarding suitability checks. The Government's new Reducing Regulation Committee has been consulted and has concurred with this analysis.

I turn now to the detail of the proposals. Their first objective is to tackle a long-standing issue that has tarnished the reputation of agencies in the entertainment and modelling sector for too long-namely the exploitation and abuse by unscrupulous agencies of the current provision for an upfront fee. The conduct regulations currently allow agencies to charge upfront fees in this sector in certain limited circumstances. This is in recognition of the long-established industry practice of using publications such as casting directories as a means for introducing artists to would-be clients. Fees are generally charged in such circumstances to offset the cost of production of the publication. There are many reputable agencies that operate this business model and provide a valuable, well regarded service and a legitimate route to work. However, there is unfortunately also a tradition of abuse of this provision by the unscrupulous. Typically, they target the young, and often vulnerable, with unrealistic promises of work, preying on their hopes of a more glamorous lifestyle. An event will often be organised, typically in a town-centre hotel, and hard-sell tactics deployed to persuade people to part with their money on the promise of work that never materialises-and was never going to materialise, because there was never going to be any serious attempt to find it.

As I say, this problem is not new and noble Lords will recall that I have argued in this House for tougher action to tackle this issue in the past. Most recently, a seven-day cooling-off period was introduced in 2008 to allow individuals to better assess-away from the limelight of the audition or photographic session-whether what they have been told is realistic and whether they want to proceed. It is clear that this has not proved effective. There has continued to be a steady stream of complaints to the Employment Agency Standards inspectorate, and a public consultation in 2009 confirmed that there remains widespread concern about this issue. It is therefore now right to take more decisive steps to tackle the problem once and for all. The statutory instrument will now amend the conduct regulations to ban outright the charging of upfront fees to would-be models, who are the target in the vast majority of these scams. This should not be of undue concern to reputable modelling agencies, which will instead be able to charge commission on actual work found-the basis on which the rest of the agency sector operates.

The absolute ban will not, however, extend to the placement of other entertainers, such as actors, musicians and extras. The risk of abuse is significantly lower in these sectors and a ban would have a disproportionate effect on perfectly legitimate businesses. Those in the casting directory business, for example, will still be able to charge an upfront fee as a legitimate part of their business model. However, the amendments will also significantly enhance the protections that this group has to further guard it against the tactics of any unscrupulous agencies, and discourage the disreputable operators in the modelling sector from simply shifting their target. The amendments will extend the current seven-day cooling-off period to 30 days for this group, which will also enjoy other strengthened rights-for instance in terms of cancellations and refunds over this period.

Click/copy & paste: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100623-0011.htm

Can someone tell me what happens - where an agency offers work to both models & extras???

Hmmm..

**:^))

	Reply #5
Posted : 24/06/10
leeravitz 1543 posts last on: 5 hours send private reply	I would assume that the provisions suggested to 'discourage the disreputable operators in the modelling sector from simply shifting their target' are intended to undermine the possibility that an agency can simply claim that all work that is going through it is designed for actor/models, and that a fee is, therefore, acceptable to charge. It sounds as if the intention is to level restrictions around the charging of fees so that e.g. refunds can be demanded within given periods if satisfaction is not met with, and failure to pay the refund will be rendered legally actionable (or, at least, I would hope so). This is not by any means cast iron protection against the unscrupulous, but it might, indeed, make it harder for them to operate long term scams, I suppose.

Reply #5

Posted : 24/06/10

leeravitz
1543 posts
last on: 5 hours
send private reply

I would assume that the provisions suggested to 'discourage the disreputable operators in the modelling sector from simply shifting their target' are intended to undermine the possibility that an agency can simply claim that all work that is going through it is designed for actor/models, and that a fee is, therefore, acceptable to charge. It sounds as if the intention is to level restrictions around the charging of fees so that e.g. refunds can be demanded within given periods if satisfaction is not met with, and failure to pay the refund will be rendered legally actionable (or, at least, I would hope so). This is not by any means cast iron protection against the unscrupulous, but it might, indeed, make it harder for them to operate long term scams, I suppose.

	Reply #6
Posted : 24/06/10
Linda.Large 80 posts last on: 07/02/12 send private reply	Thanks, Clive, for your interesting post. I notice Baroness Wilcox was vague about her reasons for including only models. If I were an unscrupulous modelling agent I would change my scam and gear it to actors, I don't think this legislation would deter me from continuing the scam. The 30-day cool-off period is an improvement but still not long enough, in my opinion. Who is the nitwit who thought 7 days was reasonable in the first place? I think in the current economic climate there'll be even more of these scammers.

Reply #6

Posted : 24/06/10

Linda.Large
80 posts
last on: 07/02/12
send private reply

Thanks, Clive, for your interesting post. I notice Baroness Wilcox was vague about her reasons for including only models. If I were an unscrupulous modelling agent I would change my scam and gear it to actors, I don't think this legislation would deter me from continuing the scam. The 30-day cool-off period is an improvement but still not long enough, in my opinion. Who is the nitwit who thought 7 days was reasonable in the first place? I think in the current economic climate there'll be even more of these scammers.

	Reply #7
Posted : 24/06/10
CliveHurst 1001 posts last on: 07/02/12 send private reply	Linda, Wrote to Baroness Wilcox twice, before the debate, plus one phone message. No response. It does not seem to matter what legislation is introduced, since there are no penalties if bogus agencies ignore them. There is no obligation either make agencies refund illegal charges - since the government department (Employment Agency Standards)has no such powers. Nothing will actually change, these new so called safeguards - will have little or no effect, especially as we still do not have agency licensing on the agenda. No performers is safe, since we do not know who these agencies, who runs them or even where they are... This is what 'The Stage' said today, click: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28698/calls-for-tory-rejection-of-all-up-front-fees There should be a follow up story next week, I hope! **:^))

Reply #7

Posted : 24/06/10

CliveHurst
1001 posts
last on: 07/02/12
send private reply

Linda, Wrote to Baroness Wilcox twice, before the debate, plus one phone message. No response.

It does not seem to matter what legislation is introduced, since there are no penalties if bogus agencies ignore them. There is no obligation either make agencies refund illegal charges - since the government department (Employment Agency Standards)has no such powers.

Nothing will actually change, these new so called safeguards - will have little or no effect, especially as we still do not have agency licensing on the agenda.

No performers is safe, since we do not know who these agencies, who runs them or even where they are...

This is what 'The Stage' said today, click: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28698/calls-for-tory-rejection-of-all-up-front-fees

There should be a follow up story next week, I hope!

**:^))

	Reply #8
Posted : 24/06/10
CliveHurst 1001 posts last on: 07/02/12 send private reply	Please excuse my grammar today... Only 2 hours sleep yesterday. :)

	Reply #9
Posted : 28/06/10
CliveHurst 1001 posts last on: 07/02/12 send private reply	This is the follow up story in 'The Stage'... Click: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28702/up-front-fees-proposals-approved-by-house-of This is my letter to 'The Stage', for possible publication: Let me correct once again, the (new) governments bogus - propaganda claims, "Up-front fees proposals approved by House of Lords" (The Stage Online, June 24). Baroness Wilcox makes the astonishing claim, that most agencies that do charge up-front fees - are "reputable"? This is completely contrary to all of my research over the last 13 years. Clearly the head of 'Employment Agency Standards'(EAS), is feeding the House of Lords - with grossly untrue statements. I have previously asked the EAS to provide statistics proving such claims. Yet the EAS cannot provide any. Why? The EAS do not even know how many entertainment agencies there are out there, or how many re-appear under a different name. In fact the EAS do not have any statistical information about the number of agencies - that do charge up-front fees. What is an up-front fee? It is any fee that an agencies charges you, prior to actual paid work being given. The Stage states, "there will be a complete ban on up-front charges in relation to models". This again is simply not true… All up-front photograph has not been banned. Only a 30 day cooling off period, which means nothing! This is where model agents state, "no registration fees, no commission, but if you need a portfolio we can help" When you get there you are told that your own photography is not up to their standard and you need to pay more, £200 to £1,750 extra and of course there is a charge too, for the so called "test shot". But the most ludicrous statement by Baroness Wilcox, is the one, "The risk of abuse is significantly lower in these (acting/extra) sectors". What is this claim based on? Absolute rubbish! After 4 years talking to the Conservatives, is this really the sort of response that I should now be getting - from them? See http://www.youtube.com/user/CliveHurst#p/a/u/1/UaAvywRTQW8 No EAS Regulations - that are ever put into place, actually mean anything. There are no fines/penalties imposed if agencies ignore them. The EAS have no powers to ensure refunds. You have to seek your own remedies. We were deceived by Labour, will the Conservatives be any better? Well I certainly know that BIS Minister Mark Prisk is up to speed on this issue - since 2007. I hope he can make the difference! **:¬))

Reply #9

Posted : 28/06/10

CliveHurst
1001 posts
last on: 07/02/12
send private reply

This is the follow up story in 'The Stage'...

Click: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28702/up-front-fees-proposals-approved-by-house-of

This is my letter to 'The Stage', for possible publication:

Let me correct once again, the (new) governments bogus - propaganda claims, "Up-front fees proposals approved by House of Lords" (The Stage Online, June 24).

Baroness Wilcox makes the astonishing claim, that most agencies that do charge up-front fees - are "reputable"? This is completely contrary to all of my research over the last 13 years. Clearly the head of 'Employment Agency Standards'(EAS), is feeding the House of Lords - with grossly untrue statements. I have previously asked the EAS to provide statistics proving such claims. Yet the EAS cannot provide any. Why?

The EAS do not even know how many entertainment agencies there are out there, or how many re-appear under a different name. In fact the EAS do not have any statistical information about the number of agencies - that do charge up-front fees.

What is an up-front fee? It is any fee that an agencies charges you, prior to actual paid work being given. The Stage states, "there will be a complete ban on up-front charges in relation to models". This again is simply not true…

All up-front photograph has not been banned. Only a 30 day cooling off period, which means nothing! This is where model agents state, "no registration fees, no commission, but if you need a portfolio we can help" When you get there you are told that your own photography is not up to their standard and you need to pay more, £200 to £1,750 extra and of course there is a charge too, for the so called "test shot".

But the most ludicrous statement by Baroness Wilcox, is the one, "The risk of abuse is significantly lower in these (acting/extra) sectors". What is this claim based on? Absolute rubbish!

After 4 years talking to the Conservatives, is this really the sort of response that I should now be getting - from them? See http://www.youtube.com/user/CliveHurst#p/a/u/1/UaAvywRTQW8

No EAS Regulations - that are ever put into place, actually mean anything. There are no fines/penalties imposed if agencies ignore them. The EAS have no powers to ensure refunds. You have to seek your own remedies.

We were deceived by Labour, will the Conservatives be any better? Well I certainly know that BIS Minister Mark Prisk is up to speed on this issue - since 2007.

I hope he can make the difference!

**:¬))

	Reply #10
Posted : 28/06/10
NigelWinder 190 posts last on: 07/02/12 send private reply	I await an ELECTED House of Lords! On a successful tenancy claim against the landlord for nuisance caused by bad sound insulation in a block of flats, the landlord appealed to their Lordships. He was successful! The Lord concerned stated that the tenant could always move out and the landlord won his appeal!

[add comments | all topics]

1 2 Next

Please note: Messages written in the forum do not represent the views of Casting Call Pro, nor have they been vetted by Casting Call Pro staff. If you read something which you believe to be offensive or defamatory, please contact us and we will take the appropriate action.