Speech at the Musicians' Union conference on music streaming bill

It is time we brought the rules on music streaming up to date

It is time we brought the rules on music streaming up to date – so that more musicians can make a living

I love music. I love to sing, play, and even write and record my own songs. For me creativity is in and of itself a good thing. But for some people it’s also their living – and they deserve fair remuneration when others profit from and enjoy their creative output.

I also love music streaming. Who wouldn’t want to be able to access all the world’s music from a device in their back pocket? For those of us who grew up saving our pennies to buy the latest David Bowie record, streaming is a modern-day miracle.

So why am I, along with MPs from across the House of Commons, proposing a new law in parliament about how artists are treated in this new world of streaming? For me it’s mainly about helping young talented people from ordinary backgrounds to have a fair chance of a career in music.

The problem is that the people whose creativity everyone is enjoying are the ones who are not getting a fair reward, while others, the major corporations who run platforms and record labels, are raking in a fortune.

Streaming is a completely new way of consuming music. In some ways it is more like radio than a record, particularly when an algorithm carries on playing songs it thinks you might like but haven’t requested.

What’s all this got to do with parliament and the law? Performers get paid when they play live, or from royalties for the use of their songs and recordings.

In the last year and a half live performance has been largely impossible due to government Covid-19 restrictions. Naturally this has focused musicians’ attention on what they get paid from their recordings and compositions

The law on copyright states that if you performed on a record that is played on the radio you are entitled to a payment. That same right does not apply in the UK if your recording is listened to on a streaming service like Spotify. My bill would bring the law up to date by creating a new right for musicians to an additional share of the revenue from streaming.

This is particularly timely because the stated aim of streaming companies, like Spotify, is to replace radio as the way that people mostly listen to music. If that happens, and the law remains the same, musicians could lose that small but valuable source of income which helps to supplement their other earnings from making music.

Many famous names in music have written to the prime minister in support of this change, but they acknowledge this is not really about them.

This is all about creating the right future structure for a secure career in music. I want young people to be able to aspire to make a reasonable living from original music. I want them to be able to make music that people will love and appreciate, and to get a fair share of the money people pay to listen to it.

Let’s be clear, not every talented person will be able to make a living out of music, but there’s something wrong with a system where record industry executives get massive salaries and share options when, as we heard recently on the Culture Select Committee, some award-nominated artists can’t afford to pay their rent.

My bill would play a part in helping to create an environment where more talented people can have that opportunity to make a living out of their creative skills.

UK government needs to urgently plan for the return of live events

Live Events: Government-backed Insurance
23rd March 2021

Kevin Brennan Labour, Cardiff West
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and it is also a pleasure to be part of this cross-party supergroup this morning, which has got together to work across party lines and to argue for proper insurance indemnity for events this year from the Government.

I thank the Minister for her attendance, although, as Steve Brine—who, like me, is on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee—has just said, we would really like to hear from the Treasury, because we would like to know what it has made of all the representations that have been made to it by the industries that we are talking about today. For fronting up for the Government time and again, the Minister deserves some kind of award, but we need to know the answers, and one wonders whether they are currently locked away in a vault somewhere across the road in the Treasury. We want to know what the Treasury really thinks.

As the hon. Member for Winchester did, I will focus today on festivals and live music events, but I will also say a little bit about theatre. I will not go through the whole set of statistics, as the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Winchester have already done. Suffice it to say that one statistic for Cardiff is that across the river from my constituency, in the Principality Stadium, Ed Sheeran played four nights in a row in June 2018 to 60,000 people a night, which is nearly a quarter of a million people over the course of just a few nights. I do not need to spell out to hon. Members and to people watching this debate the economic impact of such events, and their importance to the economy of Cardiff and to the wider economy of south Wales.

In talking about festivals this morning, we want the Government to provide some clarity. If it is the case that it is not going to be possible for them to underwrite events and if it is going to be the case that they do not think that they will stick to their irreversible timetable and will probably have to impose further restrictions in the future, they should say so, because at the moment the sector is being led along on a string effectively and is unable to progress appropriately.

I have heard it said that the Government think that because festivals and live music events are selling tickets they do not need insurance, but of course normally—in a normal year—that ticket revenue would be used to do the build and provide the infrastructure to put on things such as festivals. However, this year is not a normal year, because festivals cannot get any cancellation insurance; they cannot get insurance against not being able to proceed, which would normally be available in the market, as the hon. Member for Winchester said. As a result, that money would have to be returned to ticket purchasers if the event was unable to go ahead and there would be a huge impact on those trying to put on festivals and also further down the supply chain.

That is why the hon. Gentleman—who, as I have said, is on the DCMS Committee, like me—was quite right to draw the attention of that Committee and of the Minister to the possibility of money being taken from people that will never be returned to them, and potentially fraudulent activity taking place around the festival scene this year without the kind of certainty that insurance provides. So we need either insurance to be underwritten for the sector to be able to restart or a clear indication that festivals will not be able to take place and financial support to allow the sector to survive into 2022.

Other countries are doing things about this situation.

Jamie Stone Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Armed Forces), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Defence), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
The hon. Gentleman is making a splendid contribution to the debate, which I really appreciate. Does he agree that the longer we delay in getting these events up and running, the more danger there is of people losing momentum and even deskilling, in terms of performance and generating public enthusiasm?

Kevin Brennan Kevin Brennan Labour, Cardiff West
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have praised the investment in the culture recovery fund, which the Minister will mention in her remarks at the end of the debate—she has to do that; it is an important riff for her as the Minister. There are criticisms, however. In the 1980s, we had the concept of the neutron bomb, which was developed so that it would kill the enemy but not destroy the buildings all around. In a way, the culture recovery fund is a wonderful thing, but if it just saves the buildings and some infrastructure, but does not protect the people in the sector and the skills that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that will be an additional cost. He is right to make that point.

I was going to mention what is happening in other countries. The Danish Government have announced an event cancellation fund of €67.2 million. The Dutch Government have just announced an insurance fund of €385 million. Finland’s Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment is working on a Government-backed insurance scheme for summer events, to be finalised by the end of the month. The Estonian Government have a scheme. The Germans have a similar fund, of €2.5 billion, to cover promoter risk. I could also mention schemes proposed by the Austrian, Belgian and Norwegian Governments. Such a scheme is not without precedent, because there is a precedent in the creative industries in this country, in the film and television sector. All that many people in the industry are asking for is a similar scheme. It is vital for live music events and festivals that action is taken.

I want to speak briefly about theatre. The theatre sector, and UK Theatre, have been lobbying Government hard for months. Many people involved in theatre production are also involved in film and television production, and they do not understand why the Treasury could provide an insurance indemnity scheme for the film and television industry, but could not provide an identical scheme for the theatre sector, as UK Theatre is asking for. Without a return to normal for theatre production, there will be a huge negative impact on the total economy, including loss of tax revenues and economic activity. That will be felt particularly badly in city centres and some towns.

The insurance market is not offering a scheme of this kind, and it is clear that it will not offer one for the foreseeable future—into 2022 at the very least. The risk exposure figures have been provided to Her Majesty’s Government by, for example, UK Theatre and the new umbrella body for the live sector. The Treasury has not publicly said what is wrong with those figures, and that is what we need to know—if it does not agree with what the sector is saying, it should say so.

We need to hear from the Minister not only about the culture recovery fund, although we understand how important it has been, but about the discussions between her and the Secretary of State and the Treasury. What have the discussions been like, and what is the Treasury saying? If it will not be possible to provide an underwriting insurance scheme, the Government should come clean with the creative industries, so that they can plan accordingly, and Ministers should offer support to help them through to the next stage of this dreadful pandemic.

The UK government has badly let down the creative industries during pandemic

Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
10th March 2021

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, Julian Knight. Although we are on different political sides, those of us who serve on the Committee are in complete agreement on these issues.

Last week, when we debated the cultural and entertainment sectors, I made a few points on which I thought the Government could act in the Budget. The first related to the plight of freelance musicians, artists and others who have been excluded from the Chancellor’s criteria for support. I pointed out that in Wales some funds have been set aside for support, but that what we really needed was cross-UK action from the Chancellor. The Chancellor has done the very minimum in his Budget, by simply recognising that it has been so long for some of the excluded—that is, the newer self-employed—that they have now become eligible for the self-employment income support scheme. He has done nothing to support those excluded by his arbitrary criteria. He has decided that they are to be treated as second-class citizens. It is deliberate and unjust, and it will not be forgotten by musicians, artists and others who have been snubbed.

My second point was on the need to help to restart the live music sector with, as the Select Committee Chair said, a Government-backed insurance scheme. Our Committee wrote to the Chancellor to call for such a scheme and the response from the Government was a classic example of blinkered Treasury thinking. The insurance market cannot provide the cover needed for festivals because of covid uncertainty. The Government say that they have an irreversible plan for reopening; were they to underwrite a scheme, that would show confidence in not only live music but their own pronouncements. If their own words turned out to be true, they would never have to pay out anything.

Other countries have taken similar action, with much lower vaccine roll-out rates, and of course it is being done for film and television. For the want of a tent peg, many festivals will have to be collapsed this summer. That is the Chancellor’s second failure of policy and action. As the Select Committee Chair pointed out, there are now opportunities for the scammers and outlaw companies such as Viagogo to take advantage by once again ripping off people who want to buy tickets for events that might never happen and might never exist.

Thirdly, the Chancellor should have announced a scheme to ensure that musicians and artists could resume touring in EU countries. I note the launch of the “Carry on Touring” campaign’s website today. On social media today I saw the case of someone called Ed Lyon, a classical musician who has just spent six weeks and £945 to obtain a work permit for Belgium. Previously, in normal times, he could have just hopped on a train. The Chancellor is utterly complacent about the loss of export earnings to UK that this continuing fiasco will bring. Lord Frost is now his Cabinet colleague. Why has he not been told to do the job that he so abjectly failed to do in December when he delivered a no-deal Brexit for artists, musicians and their ancillary support industries?

This Budget, despite some investment, did not do nearly enough to save jobs and support growth in the creative industries—the sectors with the fastest growth potential. It has left freelance workers out in the cold, it has thrown a summer of music into a muddy field of uncertainty and it has closed the gate on touring for our creative artists and musicians. Far from doing “whatever it takes”, it has taken away the opportunity to create.

Speech on Covid-19 and the cultural and entertainment sectors

Covid-19: Cultural and Entertainment Sectors
2nd March 2021.

I, too, welcome back to the House my dear friend and constituency neighbour, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend Jo Stevens.

I wish to make four quick points. First, others have mentioned the plight of freelance musicians and artists, who have been excluded from support because they do not fit the Chancellor’s criteria for support. The criteria were drawn up hastily, and there was an excuse for that, but they were not amended when it was clear that they had arbitrary and negative consequences—for which there is no excuse—for many artists, musicians and others. Tomorrow, the Chancellor has another chance to put that right. In Wales, funds were set aside to help freelancers, but what is really needed is action from the Chancellor to support those who have been excluded, as called for by the Musicians’ Union and others.

Secondly, we have missed the live music sector and could all do with a summer of live music events and festivals. The issue of insurance has already been mentioned in the debate. Last week, I received a written answer from the Minister for Digital and Culture that said:

“As such, HM Treasury does not believe that now is the right time for an insurance intervention.”

Well, if this is not the right time for an insurance intervention, there never will be an insurance intervention from the Treasury. This is typical Treasury orthodox thinking. Now is the time for an insurance intervention to make sure that we can have live music back this summer. It would be the best boost not only for the industry but for morale and the economy.

Thirdly, covid has been hard enough for the music industry in itself but, combined with the negligent no-deal Brexit for musicians and touring artists, it is a double dose of disaster. Covid was unavoidable; the consequences of a failure to do a deal on touring were not only avoidable and predictable but predicted. A small window now remains to fix that before many successful British businesses are ruined by this negligence. That should be a priority for the Government.

Finally, let me look to the future. Covid has killed live music, but it can be revived. As we have heard, covid has also shone a light on the inequities of the new economics of music streaming and how it is failing to deliver for music songwriters and composers. The House may know that the DCMS Committee is conducting an inquiry into the matter. Some change is happening already—at 2 pm today, SoundCloud announced that it is going over to fan-powered royalties and a user-centric system, which is a step forward by the industry—but as well as the industry the Government should be prepared, if necessary, to reform the law in favour of creators and away from wealthy corporate market powers. They have been enjoying a gold rush from streaming; after the gold rush, let’s have a “new home in the sun” for our brilliant musicians and songwriters.

Letter to constituents: Black Lives Matter

I was deeply angered by the brutal murder of George Floyd in the USA, adding yet another victim in a long list of black men who have needlessly died at the hands of the police. Protests all over the world including in Cardiff have highlighted the desperate anger and utter exhaustion of BAME people after decades of activism has been met with woefully insufficient action.  It is sad for me to reflect, as someone who joined the Anti-Apartheid Movement, Anti-Nazi League and marched with the Rock Against Racism campaign as a 15 year old schoolboy in the 70s, that racism is still a feature of society. It is shocking that a campaign called Black Lives Matter should be so essential in 2020. I also recognise that as someone with a significant platform I must amplify their voices and stand in solidarity with them.

I will continue to participate in the strong tradition in the Labour Party of fighting against both overt racism and the less visible racism which exists within the structure of our society, disproportionately resulting in BAME people having less job security, lower wages, inferior access to higher education, housing and jobs in large parts of the economy, and less safety in their day-to-day lives.

I was proud to see people of all ages and backgrounds in Cardiff join together spontaneously and peacefully in the city centre in condemnation of years of inaction. As you know regulations have been put into place by the Welsh Government to stop the spread of the spread of Covid-19 and save lives which includes a ban on mass gatherings, including protests  but it is commendable that organisers cooperated fully with the police in arranging last Sunday’s demonstration in the city centre, and that social distancing was maintained throughout. In the interest of preventing further spread of the virus, I would encourage people to refrain from meeting physically for now, and to follow social distancing guidance, particularly given that we are fighting a virus which kills BAME people at four times the rate it kills white people. We must use this time, in the eloquent words of Killer Mike, to plan and organise until it is safe to come together physically once again.

Our Labour Shadow Secretary for International Trade, Emily Thornberry MP, has written to the Secretary for International Trade, Elizabeth Truss MP, asking for exports of British-made riot control equipment being used to attack unarmed protesters and journalists to be immediately stopped. You can find her letter here in full: https://twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/1267900461090291714.

I have added my voice to these demands, and have written a letter to the Secretary of State for International Trade regarding the suspension of export licences for the sale of these products being used brutally and indiscriminately by police in the US during the ongoing protests. The UK Government has a duty to condemn police brutality across the world, and ensure than it does not grant licences for exports of products which might sustain and support the violent suppression of peaceful protest.

I have written to the Foreign Secretary asking him to lobby his US counterparts to stop what appear to be violent, targeted attacks on peaceful protesters and journalists covering those protests. Progress can never be achieved if the basic rights of our democracies, such as the right to a free press and the right to free speech and protest, are eroded.

I have also written to the Welsh Government's Minister for Education, Kirsty Williams AM, to ensure that the curriculum in Welsh schools thoroughly and critically addresses BAME histories in Wales and the UK, and integrates the stories of positive BAME people’s contributions throughout our history.

As a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in the House of Commons, I also feel it is my duty to hold large social media companies to account in tackling fake news and removing poisonous and racist content from their platforms.

Lastly, a number of people have written asking me to urge the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock MP, to publish the Public Health England report into the effect of Covid-19 on BAME people. Following pressure from the Labour frontbench team, the UK Government decided to publish its report, which showed that:

“…being black and minority ethnic is a major risk factor. This racial disparity effect holds after accounting for the effect of age, deprivation, region and sex.”

The Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary, Marsha de Cordova MP, and Shadow Health Secretary, Jonathan Ashworth MP, have both expressed their deep disappointment, however, that the report fails to address structural inequalities or put forward any recommendations. They have called for a risk-assessment to be complied for businesses to ensure that they do everything to protect their workers, similar to the risk assessment tool published by the Welsh Government which you can find here: https://gov.wales/written-statement-all-wales-covid-19-workforce-risk-assessment-tool.
 
Rest assured that I am here to represent and amplify your voices as my constituents in the battle against racism in all its forms.





Kevin Brennan MP
Cardiff West

Blog: UK Government are trying to avoid Select Committee scrutiny

A Treasury Select Committee.

Back in 2001 we established the principle that the Government Ministers did not nominate individuals as Select Committee Chairs - now they are trying to overturn that principle by inventing a new post with no proper election. Until now the Liaison Committee made up of all elected Select Committee Chairs have chosen a Chair themselves not had it chosen by Ministers - which raises some questions about the Government's sudden urge to pick the Chair itself.

Who decided it would be a good idea suddenly for the Government to pick its own Chief Scrutineer?

Imagine the fuss if they tried to pick the Head of the Press gallery (and pay them) - this is the person who would lead and direct questioning of the Prime Minister.

How many people were asked to apply for this new position?

How was it decided that the House of Commons should not be allowed to elect this position through the normal procedure of an election of candidates nominated by colleagues in a secret ballot?

The Government originally tried to sneak this proposal through on a motion outside normal standing orders but it was spotted and objected to - why is it still being pursued when Liaison Committee could have been set up as normal had it been dropped?

This is what happened in 2001 when the then Labour Government had to abandon picking Select Committee Chairs like this because the House would no longer tolerate the Executive acting in this way despite the Government having a huge majority.

At this time of crisis holding Govt to account is more important than ever - it is not the time for Government cronyism and patronage to determine who is Parliament's Scrutineer in Chief. Chairs of Select committees and independent government backbenchers should make it clear that they won't tolerate this power grab by Number 10.

Neither should Scottish MPs including the SNP allow the Government to hold the setting up of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee to ransom until it gets its way which has been their tactic so far.

Sensible Ministers who are on the payroll - and therefore afraid to vote against what should be an unwhipped House matter - should tell Jacob Rees-Mogg and number 10 to drop the whole grubby scheme.

The Speaker should ensure that this can't be sneaked through under the cover of novel digital procedures in a virtual House of Commons.

Blog: Fake news doing the rounds on social media

IPSA are completely independent from MPs or parliament.

I just want to reassure people regarding the fake news doing the rounds on social media.

MPs have not received any pay increase as a result of the Coronavirus.  The budget for office costs is not pay but a completely different budget which can only be used for costs such as rent, rates, utility bills, equipment etc for my constituency office which is normally open to the public. Many of these business costs are fixed whether the office is open or not, and therefore will have to be paid. The office has now had to close under the COVID20 regulations because it is possible, with some assistance, for staff to work from home.

The fake reports doing the rounds on social media actually relate to this allowance for office costs such as equipment, which has been increased by the independent standards authority (IPSA) over whose decisions MPs have no say.  IPSA say they did this so that dedicated constituency staff can have what access to what is required to continue to work from home and deal with urgent casework, such as people stranded abroad, or destitute, as well as processing other correspondence and calls from constituents.

As you might imagine there has been a very significant increase in representations from constituents in need of assistance in the current crisis.  For my hardworking office staff working from home that means they need to be able to deal with calls, emails and correspondence, as well as communicating with Government departments (including overseas) as well as other public and private institutions.  They are not usually home workers. They should not be out of pocket for being required to do their job in another location.

For information, because I am able to run a joint office with my Assembly colleague Mark Drakeford I don't anticipate having to spend more that the existing Office costs budget in the current financial year despite these extra costs.  But other colleagues whose existing budget is fully committed may well have to access the extra budget for reasons outlined above.

Finally, just to be clear none of these funds come to me personally, and neither will I require any expenses personally for home working as my old laptop is still functioning, as you can tell from this.

Best wishes



Kevin