UK: Regulated To Death?
Safety Regulation in the Live Event Industry

Music Industry Lawyer and Senior Lecturer in Law, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, England, UK

Since the death of nine young music fans at the Roskilde Festival in 2000, the industry could not have faced a more challenging year than 2003. The tragic deaths of twenty one clubbers in Chicago on the 17^th February was followed within a week by the extraordinary scenes at the Station Club in Rhode Island when pyrotechnics ignited by the band Great White set fire to the sound-proofed interior of the club leaving hundreds of people dead and injured, including one member of the band. In July suicide bombers killed sixteen young people at the Krylya Festival in Moscow. In September a UK court awarded the highest ever level of damages for a performers injury; trapeze artist Suzy Barton fell twenty foot from a hot air balloon at the London Millennium Dome after her safety harness failed and received £510,000 for serious injuries. In the same week twenty members of the cast of a Sound of Music tribute were injured, some seriously, when a temporary wooden stage cover for an unused orchestra pit collapsed at the Alexandra Theatre in Birmingham, England.

Each of these disasters impact on the management of health and safety at live events but also give clues to the failings in the industry’s attempts to promote health and safety as being one of paramount importance. The Chicago was allegedly caused by security staff letting off pepper spray to break up a fight leading to audience to panic and a fatal crush at locked exit doors. The local fire chief pointed out that part of the club was supposedly closed to the public having previously failed fire safety checks. The Rhode Island tragedy was described by state Governor Don Carceieri as 'a real disaster’ and that ‘the building went up so fast no one had a chance'. It was estimated that over 300 people were inside the one story wooden building. The venue had a low ceiling club and had no water sprinkler system as it was too small to require one by law. It also had no pyrotechnics licence although the band claim that they had checked in advance with the venue and permission for their display was given. Reports at the time also suggest that the sound-proofing was not flame resistant.

Denmark’s Roskilde Festival was admired by many as a benchmark for a well run and safe event. And yet on 30^th June 2000 nine fans died in crowd surges. Many in the live music industry moved to rethink existing safety procedures and at the 2001 International Live Music Conference a important new panel of live music industry experts was convened named the Safety Focus Group (SFG). But industry event organisers must be aware that the natural reaction of legislators and administrators will be to pass more legislation and implement more stringent regulations.

In the United Kingdom event organisers are already subject to a myriad of legislative Acts of Parliament and associated regulations which are enacted to promote health and safety and to redress policy concerns such as noise pollution, consumer protection and drug abuse. Promoters and venue owners have to satisfy the satisfy the provisions of The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (and 1984), The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1992, The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, Civic Government Act (Scotland) 1982, The London Government Act 1963, The Public Entertainment Licence (Misuse of Drugs) Act 1997, The Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987, The Environment Act 1990, The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. This is not an exhaustive list!

One of the problems with regulation is that when rules and regulations are made without any input from the industry that such rules are meant to regulate, then those rules at best have little respect or moral authority and at worst are irrelevant to or impracticable within that regulated industry. Likewise when regulations are passed but not implemented or enforced then they can often cause more problems than they cure: Those who are regulated and initially implement changes and follow best practice can become lax where enforcement is weak and costs rise. Some never implement change or follow regulations at all. And of course some regulations are so nonsensical they are ignored by the world at large (even if behind the regulations there is a good idea). It seems almost unthinkable that the two February tragedies could happen in America. How could fire doors be locked? How could security staff create such a panic? How could there be no sprinkler system? How could a venue ignite in seconds?

Two examples of the failure of a regulatory framework can be seen in the management of the state managed National Health Service and the management of the national rail infrastructure in the United Kingdom. It was reported in October that the UK Government’s own Better Regulation Task Force had found that each NHS hospital was regulated by (at least) thirty six regulators and three more were planned by the Government. The target driven system had led to a number of reactions by the (regulated) hospital managers; to meet emergency admission times, injured people were kept in ambulances longer; to meet diagnosis targets, only patients who could be easily diagnosed would be invited to hospital. And as a target driven regulations proliferate, bureaucracy multiplies – there is now one manager for every bed in the NHS. The United Kingdom’s rail infrastructure is similarly regulated and managed by administrators. But since 1999 there have been three major rail disasters involving multiple fatalities in and around London at Hatfield, Potters Bar and Paddington where 31 died. An appalling safety record. Similarly in the United Kingdom the primary and secondary education system, Prison Service and the courts are in danger of becoming paralysed by often well meaning but ill-considered initiatives, regulation, change and ever increasing bureaucracy.

I am not advocating self-regulation as such: self-regulation has its own inherent risks and draw-backs. In Britain the status of the journalists, lawyers and politicians is arguably harmed to a substantial degree of self-regulation. What I am advocating is that the live event industry must involve itself in the regulatory process now and adopts best practice and change when necessary. What the live concert industry has to be aware of is that if it doesn’t put its own ‘house in order’ then regulators in Europe, United States and elsewhere will regulate for the industry. The UK’s Pop Code was and is a good example of a review of industry health and safety which did involve the industry and does work.

A good example of why the live event industry needs to be involved in the regulatory framework is the new Licensing Act in the UK. This will remove liquor licensing from magistrates to local authorities (against the advice of the licensed trade and the Magistrates Association). The Act will also remove exemptions for solo acts and duets from event licensing (they could previously play in pubs without the need for a licence) and pubs will face the administrative hurdles and costs in securing a licence. Even traditional sea-side Punch & Judy acts will now need a licence from the local authority. Both of these provisions faced stiff resistance from politicians of all parties but were implemented by the Government. Whilst the effects have yet to become clear I would suggest that unnecessary costs and bureaucracy will be the first direct result of the new legislation and it will hard to see whether or even if any difference is made to health and safety for patrons. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has estimated that the average UK business spends £11,000 on implementing new legislation, with over half of that burden falling on micro-businesses (those employing ten or less employees). One of the most obvious costs is the increase in employers, public liability and products liability insurance premiums the industry has faced to cover ever increased risk and liabilities.

The live event industry has a number of tasks ahead. Audiences are more different than ever – in terms of age, cultural background and size. Research is needed into audience behaviour and crown dynamics. Event organisers need to be educated and informed about relevant issues. Safety needs to be kept on the agenda and revisited and revisited. Here it is vital that representatives from the industry meet with and work with legislators. Venue operators, security organisers, artists and others with a stake in the industry need to be involved. Regulation won’t work either for the audience or the industry itself when it is imposed by those who regulate.

No one wants unworkable or counter-productive regulation. This can be self defeating and ‘corners are cut’. Surely what the industry needs to do is be pro-active; formulate workable policies; ensure the whole industry adopts basic levels of safety and welfare for all live events; ensure that staff have the right levels of training; think about health, safety and welfare when planning events and when implementing change. It can work; The Event Safety Guide published by HMSO with substantial industry input is used as a health and safety ‘bible’ by the UK concert industry. The Glastonbury Festival was plagued by over-attendance and safety problems towards the end of the nineties. The local authority which licensed the Festival was clearly concerned that it could no longer issue a public entertainment licence. In 2001 the Festival ‘took a year off’ to work on a solution to the problems. The Festival worked with a broad range of industry experts, the local authority, the police and others and came up with a formula which cured almost all of the initial worries which resulted in a good festival in 2002. Further changes in 2003 produced a peaceful, happy and safe festival this year. Changes made included a widespread multi-media campaign to stop members of the public without tickets coming to the Festival; a new and secure perimeter face, improved vehicle access to and from the site, on-site vehicle curfews at night; improved stewarding; constant liaison with the police; a carefully structured chain of command. It was a team effort and overall it seemed to work.

If the live event industry doesn’t make the necessary changes itself it will have only itself to blame when governments and regulators introduce waves of regulatory change – which may or may not be for the best. When that happens the future of the live events business itself may be in doubt.

Ben Challis is an entertainment lawyer in the United Kingdom and a visiting senior lecturer in law at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College. He edits the ‘Law Updates’ pages for the Music Business Journal www.musicjournal.org and has written the Legal Aspects chapter for the soon to be published Health and Safety Aspects in the Live Entertainment Industry (ETP).

NHS Must Satisfy 36 Regulators The Times 15^th October 2003

US Double Tragedy re-focuses Live Industry Attention on Event Safety ILMC Round The Clock News 24^th February 2003 www.ilmc.com

The Event Safety Guide (1999) HMSO

Mendip Say Glastonbury 2003 Was Very Successful www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk

Transport Failing Firms Says CBI The Observer, October 25^th 2003

Hill, I (2001) Contemporary Crowd Safety Music Business Journal www.musicjournal.og