Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Ultimately, what helps others should help ourselves, and lack of fairness of treatment, wherever it exists, deserves to be corrected.

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I rise in support of the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. One of the great joys of being British is that we hold high standards and pride ourselves on fair play. We have always traditionally upheld strong intellectual property protections and advocated for fair treatment of performers.

The order should focus on fair compensation for performers and the principle of reciprocity in international copyright law. By removing or limiting payments to certain foreign performers, we risk looking like we are undermining global standards of fair pay for artists and damaging our reputation as a champion of creators’ rights, because the order limits the rights of certain foreign performers to receive equitable remuneration for the public performance and broadcasting of their work in the United Kingdom. This is particularly unfair to artists from countries that are not party, as people have said, to the Rome convention or the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty—WPPT—as they will not have a legal right to remuneration and will now receive little or no payment for their work being commercially exploited in the United Kingdom, whereas other performers will.

I am sure—and I very much hope and expect—that the Government have read Equity’s cogent arguments on this issue, and I hope and trust that they will listen and act on the issues raised. As Equity pointed out, it is also unfair because this option was not consulted on properly, despite the Government’s protestation, and the Government should withdraw the SI and consult again properly on the new option. This order could even provoke retaliatory measures from affected countries. To be frank, given that the United States is now led by a heavyweight—that is the politest term I could muster—who shoots from the hip, this is even more dangerous and could lead to UK performers facing similar restrictions from abroad, and to British performers losing their right to equitable remuneration in key international markets, reducing their global earnings.

This order creates a two-tier system whereby some foreign performers continue receiving payments while others do not, even if their work is commercially successful in the United Kingdom. It undermines the principle that all artists should be fairly compensated for their work, regardless of nationality. As an addendum, if fewer performers are entitled to equitable remuneration, UK collecting societies may collect less overall, which might impact their ability to distribute royalties efficiently and affect the broader musical and entertainment industries.

In conclusion, this order undermines fair pay for performers and risks harming UK artists abroad, and it could even lead to unnecessary international disputes. So, instead of limiting performers’ rights, the UK should lead by example and ensure that all performers are treated equitably, regardless of their nationality.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I too welcome the Minister back. As the House will know, there is a long tradition in the creative industries that, before someone has a performance, you wish them the best by saying, “Break a leg”. I feel that that might not be opportune in this case, but I am very pleased to have the Minister back. I will keep my contribution brief, because the points have been well made.

As a former director of ITV and director of a TV production company—none other than that of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, funnily enough—I understand the importance of the creative industry. Of course, it is a massive industry in the UK, contributing some $124 billion a year. I know from personal experience that fundamental to a successful creative industry is a copyright regime that has the confidence of the people, that is seen as fair, that is trusted and that is transparent. I see this almost like four legs of a chair, and the problem is that, if you wobble any of those legs, you undermine all of it.

This is a complex area—I think we all appreciate that—and I appreciate that option 0A came out of an earlier consultation, with people and the civil servants being creative in order to come up with a solution. But my concern is that, by not consulting on option 0A in such a complex area, we can get into unintended consequences. It is only when you really talk to the people at the sharp end that you understand what the true industry impact might be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, rightly said, with this having a detrimental impact particularly on US rights owners, we are all aware of the unintended consequences it could have in what is, given all the sanctions, a very volatile situation. So we need to tread very carefully and, given that, it seems eminently sensible for us to consult the industry.

I appreciate that at this stage, regret Motions are normally seen as a bit of a slap on the wrist—I say that as a Minister myself not that long ago—but I ask the Minister to go back to the department and seriously explore whether we can do anything to take on board the view of the experts in this space. Their input is vital, and I hope that we can find a way through this.