Songwriters and Composers: Remuneration

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I call Kevin Brennan, who is wearing a particularly musical tie, to move the motion.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered remuneration for songwriters and composers.

Good morning. It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I should at the outset declare that I am a member of the Ivors Academy, PRS for Music and the Musicians’ Union, and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on music.

Last night was quite special because some of us, including the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, were invited to Abbey Road Studios in St John’s Wood for an event in the famous Studio Two, where the Beatles recorded the vast majority of their material that has ever been released. We were treated to a wonderful performance by a young singer called Olivia Dean, who is also a songwriter; she performed her song “The Hardest Part” quite beautifully for us. I predict big things for her in the next 12 months or so. It was a reminder of the wonderful talent for songwriting and composing in this country, and the great legacy we have.

I was fortunate recently to help host the Ivors Academy’s composer week here in the House of Commons, when several composers came to celebrate great British achievement in composing. That great legacy is also a live one, with young performers such as Olivia Dean. The legacy of Abbey Road itself is not just the Beatles, but Pink Floyd and many other great artists, including more recently Stormzy, Adele and Ed Sheeran. But behind some of those great performers are often professional songwriters. Amy Wadge, who lives quite close to my constituency in south Wales, is behind some of Ed Sheeran’s biggest hits, as she co-writes with him. We should remember not just the artists, but the songwriters and composers.

Visiting Abbey Road last night reminded me that we should protect the legacy of our great recording studios, including the Maida Vale Studios, which the BBC is now selling off, and which there is an opportunity to keep, as a going concern, as a recording studio. It would be a loss to the country if the studio were sold off for flats, rather than maintained as a recording studio.

This morning I want to talk about three things to do with songwriters and composers, and give the Minister an opportunity to respond. First, the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport wrote a groundbreaking report on the economics of music streaming, which contained a series of recommendations in relation to songwriters and composers, as well as to performers. I know the Minister has taken a close interest in that inquiry, particularly in relation to some work going on in the Intellectual Property Office. I am glad to see him back in his role; we discussed a lot of these matters when I introduced my private Member’s Bill, the Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians, Etc.) Bill, into the House of Commons a year ago. He made several commitments at that stage that I hope he might revisit a little today.

Secondly, I will talk about composer buyouts and the growing problem they present to our songwriters and composers, and the threat to the future pipeline of songwriters and composers.

The third point I will discuss—to give the Minister a heads-up—is artificial intelligence and the implications of the data mining of musical works.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman; he is a dear friend of mine, and a dear friend of many. On the Back Benches we like his wit—we will probably get some of his wit today at Prime Minister’s Question Time. It is a delight to hear him talk with passion on a subject that means so much to him. Does he agree that the unfair disadvantage for the songwriters and composers who have made their breakthrough via a viral song on a social media streaming platform, only to receive a minimal payment, must be addressed by Government? The industry has had more than enough time to fix it, and it has refused to do so. I believe there is clearly a legislative requirement—the broken record will not be fixed.

[Kevin Brennan]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that he is a bit of a musician himself. I am not going to go into lengthy detail about that issue this morning. However, suffice to say, the recent Competition and Markets Authority report into competition issues in the music industry, and, in particular, into the cross ownership of both publishing and recording rights of the major record companies, did not decide to proceed to a full market investigation. In a way, it threw the ball back to the Government, by saying that it

“is not to say that we think the market gets a ‘clean bill of health’ or cannot be improved further… We think it is a matter for the Government and policymakers to determine whether the current split is appropriate and fair, and to explore whether wider policy interventions are required, for example those relating to the copyright framework and how music streaming licensing rates are set.”

I note that in France, for example, a form of equitable remuneration—to use the technical term—which is a guaranteed payment when music is streamed, was successfully introduced recently. The research into equitable remuneration from the Intellectual Property Office research programme is over three months late already. Will the Minister update us on what is happening in those groups that were set up in the Intellectual Property Office? What is happening in relation to the research?

I also put this to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, yesterday at the DCMS Committee, but can the Minister take a closer interest and put some ministerial input into driving that work further forward and bringing it to a conclusion? There has been some turmoil and changes in Government since we discussed this a year ago, but I know he had hoped it would have been done by last September, and for a number of reasons—not entirely his fault, and because the work is complex—the work is still incomplete. Some ministerial input is what I am calling for.

When we discussed this a year ago, the preference was that the industry should come to an agreement. That is what it has done in France to improve remuneration for songwriters and performers. If the industry did not do that, the Government were prepared to consider action. I remind the Minister of that, and ask him to respond today as to where he and the Government stand now.

The CMA concluded that it does not have the power to determine whether the current split is appropriate and fair. In the United States, things are done differently—it has a copyright court that determines those things. The judge there described some of the assumptions that the Competition and Markets Authority made about the problems that might be caused if the split was changed, and how that might disadvantage songwriters or other artists, as “heroic” assumptions. I was surprised to see that in the CMA report. But if the CMA does not have the power to do it, and it is instead a policy issue for the Government to resolve, what avenues are the Government pursuing and exploring to resolve the issue?

The second point I will mention is the issue of buy-outs. Parliament has determined, over many decades, that songwriters and composers should be entitled to a royalty when their work is performed or recorded. It did so because it recognises that the creative act involves the creation of intellectual property. That is extremely important, and many people do not understand that it is a key source of income for songwriters and composers.

This is nothing new; throughout history, people have wanted to get their hands on composers’ and songwriters’ money and get a piece of the pie, whether it is Colonel Tom Parker with Elvis Presley or whoever else. In recent years a particularly pernicious practice has emerged among some media companies of demanding up front, when they commission a piece of music—perhaps for a TV series or film—that the composer or songwriter signs a contract that waives their right to royalties, which they have a right to for their lifetime and beyond. It was Parliament’s intention that that should be the case.

Some might say, “Well, that’s their choice. They don’t have to sign the contract. A contract is something entered into equally by two parties,” but the power dynamic is weighted towards the powerful media companies. Composers know that they will end up on a blacklist of some sort if they do not agree to sign away some or all of their rights. They are often prepared to do some of that, but they are increasingly being asked to completely give up their rights to royalties when they are commissioned. Some composers got in touch with me before this debate and described the practices of one particular media company called Moonbug. When it commissions works from composers, it demands that they give up 100% of their royalties.

The Government might say, “This is a private matter. It is a contractual matter,” but there is room for Government leadership. They should support a code of conduct for the industry to make sure media companies are not routinely able to get away with this pernicious practice, which is becoming more and more common.

The third thing I want to talk about is artificial intelligence and the potential threat to our songwriters and composers from a decision that the Government announced earlier in the year—I understand they are now reviewing it. I have spoken to the Minister about this privately, and I have expressed my concerns. I know other Members have done so too, as have stakeholders in the music industry.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate and on his superb leadership of the APPG on music. Does he agree that the proposed text and data-mining exception to promote AI would remove the need for a licence to reproduce copies of original works, so would remove any opportunity for performers and creators to be remunerated for their talent and work? Furthermore, because there is not an opt-out for performers and creators, it will have a severe detrimental effect on their creative personality, because in the future it will be done by a computer.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Lady has made part of my speech for me, so I thank her for that. She emphasises the point that I wish to make. To be clear, if the Government’s original position on this matter were to be maintained, any tech company could freely data mine creative output, including musical works, to produce, using artificial intelligence, not an exact copy of that music but a kind of facsimile, in order to commercially exploit it. The composer would not have any ability to give permission for that and rights holders would not be able to license it. It seemed strange for a Conservative Government to trample over property rights in that way. I hope it was a decision taken in some of the turmoil that has been going on recently in government, and that they will actively reconsider it.

I spoke to the Secretary of State at the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee yesterday, and she indicated that the matter is under review. I pressed her on the Government’s likely direction of travel and whether it would go back towards allowing reasonable exemptions, perhaps for academic purposes, as long as it really is for that reason and is negotiated properly with rights holders and the industry, but not allowing free access for people to exploit other people’s work and, in a sense, be able to pickpocket their intellectual property, then reproduce it in a slightly different format using artificial intelligence. The implications of that for songwriters and composers and their ability to make a living is quite considerable in future.

I hope the Minister can tell us a bit more about the review and why the Government came to such a conclusion originally. I understand why he might want to promote tech. We all want to see innovation using technology, but it cannot be done at the expense of people’s creative rights and intellectual property. When he responds, perhaps he will tell us about the timeline for the review and about who he is listening to on this subject, and perhaps he can lean into what the direction of travel is.

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (George Freeman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone—in the warmth of your chairmanship in this cool room this morning. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) on securing the debate and on his ongoing work in this field. I welcome the chance to update him on the progress that has been made and to re-emphasise the message that I gave at the Dispatch Box several months ago before the turmoil of the summer. I want to reiterate the commitment made by my officials, the Government and me to get the issue right and to strike the right balance and continue the pressure that I know he welcomes in trying to secure that.

I am here as Minister for Science, Research and Innovation in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and as Minister with responsibility for the Intellectual Property Office. I also co-chair the Office for AI with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I am also here as a Member for Parliament and a citizen of this country who is very cognisant and aware, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West has highlighted, of the role of music in our society and our economy. I am the husband of a theatre director, Fiona Laird, who has composed her own music. I have watched her go through the motions as a creator and as a musical theatre director. She composed the music for her recent Royal Shakespeare Company production of “The Merry Wives of Windsor”. We have a friend, a digital entrepreneur in the music scene, who uses the global streaming revolution to get a foothold as a minor artist in this incredible global economy. I therefore have some personal feel for the challenge, and I know how strongly the industry respects the commitment of the hon. Member for Cardiff West to try to get the balance right.

The strengths of the UK music industry are a major part of our economy. It contributed £4 billion to our economy in 2021, and probably more this year. A key component of that is exports. British music brought £2.5 billion into the UK in 2021. It is also a major force for soft power. Next week I will be in Japan making a speech on global science soft power. I suspect the Japanese associate the UK with the Beatles, Ed Sheeran and the fabulous creative artists we saw celebrated in the Jubilee, as well as with our science. They go together as global projections of our values as a democracy and a creative powerhouse in the world.

I absolutely share the hon. Member’s view that songwriters and composers should enjoy a fair share of the value. The challenge is to make sure we get a framework in the UK where that is true—it is a lived experience and reality—without unilaterally moving so hard or fast that we undermine the sector. We must try to establish best practice, which fits with the wider work I am doing on innovation and regulation. This country has an opportunity to set the global standards in many of these sectors, which could then, through our soft power, become international standards. That is how we see this.

The principles of fairness and sustainability underpinned the inquiry by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee into music streaming, which kicked off so much of this. I want to reassure Members that those principles absolutely underpin the Government’s approach. I will address the issues that the hon. Member has raised and give him the update that he asks for. On streaming, we kicked off a significant piece of work on data, which the Intellectual Property Office has completed. The data gives us a good grasp of what is going on, which is key to fair remuneration. Too often, information that identifies songwriters and composers, along with their works and owners, is incomplete, inaccurate or missing entirely, which means that creators often face delays in being paid, and some are not paid at all. That predominantly affects not rock stars and superstars but the smaller creators on modest incomes, who depend on that data for their livelihoods.

That is why, since the DCMS Committee’s inquiry last year, the IPO has established a working group on metadata, which we have tasked with developing industry-led improvements. These are complex issues and there is no silver bullet, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but the working group has made real progress on a good code of practice on metadata and a two-year roadmap for industry to deliver tangible improvements through education and technical solutions. That output is very close to completion. Since returning to office a month ago, I have asked to see it, so that I can ensure that it reflects the undertakings that I gave to the hon. Gentleman and the House. Officials in the Intellectual Property Office will share it with the music industry more widely very early in the new year to seek final agreement.

Similarly, the IPO has established a working group to develop a code of practice on transparency. That code is also close to completion, and we will be seeking wider industry agreement on that early in the new year, too. I hope and believe that those actions on data and transparency will achieve their aim: real improvements in the fair remuneration of songwriters and composers, and songwriters enjoying more timely and accurate data payments as a result of the improvements in data. Those are key elements of the package.

Let me turn to competition and the distribution of revenues. However good the data is, many feel—the hon. Gentleman made this point very well—that the share of streaming revenues that go to songwriters and publishers, particularly the smaller creatives at the lower end of the pecking order, as it were, is too low. It is key that the remuneration is fair and internationally competitive. Let me break those two points down. As the hon. Gentleman said, the CMA published its final report on the market for music streaming last week. The report was launched after the DCMS Committee and the Government encouraged the CMA to look into this and other claims.

We read the report carefully. As the hon. Gentleman said, it found no suggestion that publishing revenues were being deliberately suppressed by distorted or restricted competition. The report also set out the fact that the overall share of streaming revenues enjoyed by publishers and songwriters increased from 8% in 2008 to 15% in 2021. At the same time, the share enjoyed by the recorded music industry has remained steady. It is true that the publishing share has declined slightly since 2017—from 17% to 15%—but during that time overall publishing revenues paid out by the larger streaming services in the UK have more than doubled. More and more money is being paid out to songwriters and publishers from streaming, which is great. Because songwriters typically enjoy the largest share of publishing royalties—an average royalty rate of 84% in 2021—the vast majority of the publishing share is going to songwriters.

The key point, however, is whether streaming revenues are fairly distributed within the ecosystem. There are still many who feel justifiably that the devil is in the detail. They want to know how that overall number is allocated, and think that we need to do more to ensure that the allocation is fair. The question of how revenues are distributed between artists, songwriters, record labels, publishers and streaming platforms is complex, and we have a responsibility to ensure that any arrangements work for the industry as a whole. There is no perfect solution, but I repeat that there is more that we can do, by working with the industry, to get closer to something that is widely recognised as fairer.

Record labels and publishers each play an important role in supporting and investing in British artists and songwriters. We do not want any unilateral or dramatic reapportionment to undermine the UK sector, but we want to ensure that we do right by the next generation of talent, which we require to feed the whole sector. The Copyright Royalty Board in the US recently laid down that song rights holders should receive around 15% of streaming revenues, which is similar to what we have achieved in the UK. Given that, and given the movement in France, which the hon. Gentleman highlighted, it is interesting that there is a global movement towards ensuring that this growing sector is based on principles of fair remuneration.

I will come on to the changes to copyright law. The DCMS Committee recommended several changes aimed at improving remuneration, including a right to equitable remuneration for streaming, a right to regain ownership of copyright, and a right to renegotiate contracts; those are measures that the hon. Gentleman brought forward in his private Member’s Bill. I made it clear at the time that further consideration of those measures was an active priority, and that remains the case. We have seen some positive action from some in the music industry on remuneration for creators. The three major record labels have agreed to disregard unrecouped advances in older contracts, which means that many artists are now being paid from streaming for the first time. Several independent record labels have announced minimum digital royalty rates in their contracts of 25% or more, even for contracts agreed prior to streaming. There has been some progress and these steps are welcome, but I appreciate that creators want to see more substantial and wide-ranging action on remuneration; that is why, in the coming months, we will be actively considering the evidence from the research, as well as the voluntary action taken by the industry, and weighing up our approach on remuneration.

I will come on to a specific proposal that I am making to bring all of this together, including looking at the text and data-mining issue, which is my next point; it is causing real concern for rights holders. As the hon. Member for Cardiff West was kind enough to say, I was out of office when this reform was announced. In the few short weeks I have been back, I have already met with the DCMS Minister for the creative industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), to highlight the fact that we must get this right. Of course, the UK wants to be a leader in AI—we are, and we want to continue building on that, but we must not allow that support to undermine our creative industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster absolutely agrees with me, and we have established a small taskforce of officials between the two Departments to ensure that we get this right. Following that meeting and this debate, I propose to convene a roundtable between DCMS and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy of the key voices across the sector to look at the whole issue. It will look at the rate of progress, the report from the Intellectual Property Office and the CMA, and the AI piece to see if we can get a proper settlement that everyone acknowledges would be fair and reflects the principles that we have set out, which—I will repeat again—are absolutely fundamental to our approach.

I believe deeply that, if we get this right, we can establish a Government-supported but industry-led code of conduct that will be respected around the world. It will improve and continue the process by which the industry is improving and ensure that we continue that momentum, so that it does not require private Members’ Bills to keep nudging the industry and we have leadership in setting the standards for fair remuneration that are the envy of the world. As the co-chair of the Office for Artificial Intelligence and Minister with responsibility for the Intellectual Property Office on this issue, I will suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster and I convene that roundtable; I will obviously be in touch with the hon. Member for Cardiff West and the DCMS Committee.

In closing, with two minutes on the clock, I will highlight the fact that we believe that there is an opportunity here. The industry has shown willingness to move in the right direction. The Government signal that our preference is not to legislate; our preference is to encourage the industry to move in the right direction but, if we must legislate to get this right, we reserve that right. However, our preference remains to avoid that—not least because we would like to get a quicker solution for the benefit of all those in the industry.

[Kevin Brennan]

I understand what the Minister asked, because we have not discussed it previously, but I do not want the point about composer buyouts to be lost in the discussion. I welcome what the Minister said about convening a roundtable and his continued commitment. We need a discussion at some point about the implication of the increasing trend for composer buyouts.

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record; I will put it on the record that we will include that in the roundtable discussion. I will pick up the detailed point that he made and write to him on it, because that is part of the mix. I hope that the House and the hon. Member for Cardiff West can see that we are making progress, and I look forward to working with him on this in the months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2022

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank the Minister for his elucidation of the draft regulations before us. He is quite right that the warm home discount is a crucial support for people under the present circumstances, particularly people in fuel poverty, of which there has been a huge increase as a result of the sky-high energy prices we are suffering.

The warm home discount has been a very important scheme in the past; with this change, it remains an important scheme for the future. For that reason, we do not intend to push for a Division this afternoon, not least because we want this scheme to go ahead as soon as possible, so that we can get money out to people who need it the most.

I do not have any in-principle criticisms of the warm home discount to put to the Minister, but I do have a number of detailed points that I hope he will respond to. They relate to some of the details of how the new scheme is going to work. It is a substantially new scheme. Although it is a rollover of the warm home discount from 2011 onwards, there are a number of new features to this scheme that, as the Minister has set out, look to add a number of groups of individuals who previously would not have got the warm home discount. They will now receive it and, most importantly, will do so automatically, without having to apply for it.

The Opposition would have liked to see group 2 of the warm home discount expanded further. One could have a debate another day about exactly how far that expansion might go. I hope the Minister will keep the wider groups that could benefit from the warm home discount under review, but we are where we are as far as this particular piece of legislation is concerned, so that is what I will confine my remarks to this afternoon. Core group 2, to which the Minister referred, will replace the previous broader group who had to apply for the warm home discount. Crucial to this piece of legislation is the placing of the automatic award on the basis of understanding the circumstances being experienced by members of that group. There are, however, some concerns about how fair the arrangement for getting the automatic discount into people’s hands actually is.

The Government will decide what high energy usage—one of the criteria for core group 2—consists of, and they say they will look at the physical characteristics of houses and the correlation of those houses to low income. That will be core group 2, but a number of other people will most certainly still be in fuel poverty, particularly those in rented accommodation. They will be on low incomes and possibly have a disputed level of energy use—because that can be an inexact science on occasions—yet they will not be receiving the benefits that automatically give access to the award. More than 50% of fuel-poor households probably do not have such benefits, so the extent to which the provision will get hold of fuel-poor households for core group 2 is a matter of some question. Indeed, given how the legislation is set up, if a household is not selected as part of core group 2, but should have been, that will be difficult to contest. Does the Minister wish to comment on making it easier to get into that core group 2 for people who think they should be in it but are not?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On core group 2, the impact assessment suggests that, overall, the increase in the amount of money that will be spent on the policy will go up by about 6.7% over the period in question, but the amount allocated to core group 2 will be only 3.1%. That particular group’s allocation within the policy, over a period of time when we know that energy prices are rising sharply and inflation is high, is lower than the overall policy spend. Does that emphasise the point my hon. Friend is making?

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend’s intervention emphasises my point. It also emphasises the danger of the scheme itself being price capped, and of the criteria for high energy use and how they relate to the physical characteristics of the low-income home being tweaked to fit in with the ceiling figures that my hon. Friend mentioned. I am sure the Minister will want to assure us that that will not be the case for how core group 2 develops.

We have other concerns with the detail of this instrument. When there is an issue with an energy company that is supplying a household—if that energy company goes into administration or disappears off the face of the earth entirely—the supplier of last resort who takes over from that energy company should take on the full obligation of the failed supplier. The Department has still not put into place an actual obligation for it to do so in this iteration of warm home discount guarantees and in the legislation.

It may be that the Minister considers that so many smaller energy companies have gone bust already that there is no need to have that obligation, because there are not many more that can go bust. I think we ought to keep a close eye on whether energy companies are either refusing or dodging the consideration that they should take on the full obligation, exactly as it was in respect of the energy company that the person was with before the change to supplier of last resort took place.

I am happy that the draft regulations include a reduction in the threshold that obliges energy companies to be involved. The Minister will know that there were a number of occasions on which switching resulted in someone thinking they were getting a warm home discount but not getting one because of the size of the customer base of the company they were switching to. That will be substantially resolved by the reduction of the number in the obligation threshold. It is tapered over years, so it goes down toward zero. That does not itself solve the problem of the supplier of last resort and the obligations that come from it. I hope the Minister can have a look at that for the future.

An overall point I would like to make about the terrain within which this change is being made is that it really is not strictly correct to claim—I am afraid the Minister is prone to doing so—that the money spent on this scheme, both historically and now, is somehow money that has come from Government. It does not come from Government. There is an obligation on energy companies to provide warm home discounts and then retrieve the money they have spent on those discounts from other customers. This particular iteration of the warm home discount is no different in that respect. It expands the total envelope available to £475 million, with a four-year extension, and it increases the payment by £10 to £150 a year. That extension will be recovered by the energy companies from customers, and in some instances they will actually be taking money back from people who receive the warm home discount so that they can give the discount in the first place.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, that is indeed an alternative. That money could come from general taxation, as it does in some of the Government’s recent schemes—the boiler upgrade scheme, for example, is Exchequer funded. The money would come out of general taxation, but that is a very different issue from customer bills at the moment. Arguably, it is much more equitable in terms of the effect it would have on customer bills.

I am concerned about the extent to which a lot of Government schemes, such as the green gas grant and so on, are effectively funded by levies. Those levies go on customer bills. In this instance, according to the impact assessment, the measures we are debating will likely pass on to customers an increase from the £14 under the previous warm home discount scheme to about £19 for a dual-fuel account. That is no mean increase.

In the impact assessment, the Government estimate the increase of £5 a year in the average energy bill and state:

“However, given other price protection in place, including the energy price cap, the Government believes this is appropriate for providing help to an additional 750,000 households in or at risk of fuel poverty.”

The Government think it is fine to do that. However, that £5, therefore, together with probably £90 to come from the socialisation of suppliers of last resort and with a number of levies from other people, will be included in the price cap. As the price cap goes up next year, it will take account of the fact that about £100 of the increase is now on socialisation of the expenses to be incurred by energy companies, which have been taken account of by Ofgem in order to bring the price cap into place. That will add substantially to bills at a time when the last thing we should be doing is adding anything more to customer bills in general, given the desperate circumstances we are in.

I would advocate placing the increase into the same regime as that for the boiler upgrade scheme, putting it in as Exchequer funding. That has to be paid for, but it will be by a different and wider group of people, not by individual customer accounts as they come through.

[Kevin Brennan]

An alternative would be to pay for a scheme of this kind through progressive taxation, spreading the burden more fairly towards those who can afford to pay. In the Government’s own assumptions in their impact assessment, is it not the case that the impact will be to reduce energy usage by many of the customers whose bills increase? Therefore, those who do not qualify for the warm home discount and are just above that level might also find themselves in difficulty when heating their homes and running their appliances.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed. It will be precisely the households that are in considerable difficulty and just outside the scope of this measure, expanded though it is. They will be coughing up to sort out the people who are within the band and, in so doing, ironically, might put themselves in fuel poverty as a result of contributing in that way.

The time is right for a review of not just the arrangements for energy initiatives, but whether the principle of levies to support such an arrangement ought to be put aside, at least for the time being. I note that in 2016 the Minister’s Government said that there would be no new levies until 2025. However, the Government have substantially moved away from that. I am not saying that we should not press ahead with the measures; I am saying that we should expand them if necessary, but that they should be funded by progressive general taxation, so that those who are able to afford them more contribute, and that those who are able to afford it less are protected from the consequences of the socialisation of the arrangements, as we have seen this afternoon.

I hope that my comments will be regarded as constructive in consideration of the legislation, but that the Minister will take good note of my questions and thoughts to guide the policy as it goes through, so that we will be able to reflect shortly that this is a fair, expanded policy that hits fuel poverty in the way that we hope it will.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to contribute this afternoon. I echo a lot of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test from the Front Bench, but I have a few questions based on what the Minister and the Government have said their policy intentions are.

I wonder whether the Minister could explain what the impact of this change in policy will be on disabled customers. From his remarks and what the Government say in the explanatory notes and impact assessment, some disabled citizens who currently qualify for the warm home discount may no longer qualify under the changes. The Minister referred to core group 2 and means-tested benefits and so on, and he went on at one point to say that there would be some kind of initiatives for disabled people. Will the Minister elucidate that for the Committee? How many disabled people will be affected by those changes, and what will be the effect of the Government’s new initiative? I did not quite understand what that meant in practical terms for disabled people.

The Minister referred to 2.8 million people benefiting from the policy, and I was unclear whether he was saying that that referred to people in core group 1 or whether 2.8 million is the total figure. Government material on this refers to around 3 million people being able to benefit from the policy. I accept that the Minister might say that 2.8 million is around 3 million, but it is 200,000 fewer households across the country than 3 million. That is 300 households in each constituency. The Government’s impact assessment says that 3.2 million people are affected by fuel poverty, so that is another 200,000 on top. That would mean that on average 600 households in fuel poverty in each one of our constituencies—I accept it will be different from constituency to constituency—are unlikely to benefit from this programme. Half of those households would fall into that figure of 3 million were the Government planning the policy in such a way that could cover 3 million people rather than 2.8 million.

I suppose my question, Minister, is: why did the figure settle at 2.8 million rather than 3 million, which the Government were indicating was the sort of target they were looking for in assisting people? In the exchanges I just had with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, we were pointing out that some people are just on the edge of this policy, and the Government admit in their own figures that they are in fuel poverty. That is what it says in the impact assessment. On page 10, it says that there are 3.2 million households. In fact, it gets slightly worse. I was digging down, and on page 25, it says there are 2.79 million. That is another 10,000 households down on the Government’s original target. That is a significant number of households when adding it up across our constituencies. Would it be possible, when designing core group 2—where there is, I believe, some flexibility around the definition of those who will be helped—to include more of those households that are not covered by this policy but are, under the Government’s definition, households in fuel poverty?

I accept that the Government have set an envelope, and as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is not an envelope based on Treasury funds or taxpayer money. It is an envelope of funds that will affect people’s fuel bills. That is significant in this time of high inflation and high, rising energy costs. It is significant that at least 400,000 households in fuel poverty will not be covered by the warm home discount change, and that 200,000 of those might have expected to be, given that the Government’s initial target was 3 million, rather than 2.8 million. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us further.

[Greg Hands]

I thank the Opposition and welcome their support in principle for these important measures, which will expand the scheme and deliver more money to people, in particular over the course of this coming winter. It is important that we do not lose sight of the centrality and importance of what the Government are doing, on top of the other bill-support measures that we have introduced—to which I will refer, because they are relevant to some of the questions I was asked.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test always gives such proposals a forensic eye. He correctly said that this is money not from the Government, but from other bill payers He was absolutely right and we should not lose sight of that. His proposal, if I understood it correctly, was to expand the numbers, which the hon. Member for Cardiff West also said. It is worth pointing out, however, that expanding the numbers of those who receive the benefit would add to the effective cost, and that would be passed on by the supplier to those who are paying. We should not lose sight of that. He calls for more people to be given it, and I am open to that. If he wants to send me a proposal of how he thinks the warm home discount would look under Labour, perhaps with some costings and the possible impact on the other bill payers, I am happy to look at it.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister makes a reasonable point, as ever, but his civil servants could work up such a proposal for him. However, what was the reason for the policy choice he made to cover only 2.79 million households, when the Government’s own figures state that 3.2 million households are in fuel poverty?

[Greg Hands]

I am coming on to that in a moment, but let us not get away from the increase that we have just made: the 2.2 million people who currently qualify will rise to 2.8 million people. That is a significant expansion of the scheme. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test was right that going from £14 to £19 is no mean increase for other bill payers, and we should not lose sight of the wider impact of the scheme on other bill payers, but with all such things, it is a question of getting the balance right.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the automatic discount. One of the great things about its automatic nature is that it greatly reduces the administrative costs. When something becomes automatic, rather than on application, we reduce costs greatly. The recipients we reach will be more vulnerable households and, within the group, the households will be more vulnerable than those in the previous broader group. That is an important takeaway: more households, and the ones we reach are likely to be more vulnerable than under the previous scheme. The new scheme will be less bureaucratic and have lower costs, targeting more people who are in real need, compared with the existing scheme.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test said that 50% of fuel-poor people are on means-tested benefit, but that figure is actually 69%. That, too, is an important consideration. I think he asked about—he implied—some sort of appeals process for those who might feel aggrieved with the automatic nature of the process. We will provide a digital helpline service, working closely with consumer organisations such as Citizens Advice and National Energy Action, to ensure that we put the best arrangement in place to support those who feel that the scheme has, for example, not adequately assessed their energy costs or some element of their particular household energy circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman asked about looking into the SOLR process to guarantee warm home discount rebates. He is right: the suppliers of last resort are not obliged to take on the warm home discount obligation of a failed supplier. However, we have had more than 20 of these SOLR processes—particularly in the course of the last year and especially last autumn. All suppliers of last resort have so far honoured their obligation in the past. We would expect them to continue to do so. Ofgem takes into account when appointing a supplier of last resort whether the new supplier intends to honour the obligation of the warm home discount.

I will turn now to the points raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff West on the impact on disabled customers. For the broader group, it is currently an application process, and making it an automatic process is likely to overall benefit disabled consumers. It is also worth pointing out the new support that has been announced. Disabled people will be supported with a cost of living payment coming up this autumn. There will be £150 on top of the other arrangements. They could well be receiving the new £650 grant for the lowest-income households. We are already here talking about an £800 extra for many disabled customers. It is characteristic of the hon. Member for Cardiff West to drill and dig deep into the numbers.

[Kevin Brennan]

Before the Minister moves on, can I pick up on what he just said about disabled customers? In the explanatory notes, the Government say that fewer households in which a person is in receipt of a disability benefit will receive a rebate. My question was: if fewer households in receipt of disability benefit will receive a rebate, what is the effect of the measures he is suggesting in this new scheme on people who will not receive a rebate anymore?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I repeat what I said earlier. More vulnerable households will be receiving this benefit. Within that group, it will be the most vulnerable households that receive it. I think that is a really important thing to take away. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific numbers, if we have them, of disabled recipients currently in the broader group compared with what we think it might be in core group 2.

The hon. Gentleman has looked at the numbers and compared 2.8 million with around 3 million. We might have a debate on rounding, but I do not think it is fundamentally wrong to say somewhere around 3 million and then for the actual number to be around 2.8 million. I do not think that I was being disingenuous. What is important here is not his missing 200,000, but the fact that the Government are adding 600,000 people to the number of recipients, so it is rising from 2.2 million to 2.8 million. The hon. Gentleman may say there is a missing 200,000, but I say there is an extra 600,000 who are getting it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to propose an alternative costed scheme to me, I would be happy to look at it.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think that is slightly unfair of the Minister. I am only quoting the figure that was in the Government’s own White Paper and is at the beginning of their impact assessment and explanatory notes, which were both presented to the Committee today. It is not my figure; it is his.

[Greg Hands]

We may just disagree on rounding. It would not be the first time that 2.8 has been rounded up to being around 3. We can agree to differ. My point is that there are not 200,000 missing people; there are 600,000 extra people.

Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians, etc.) Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Friday 3rd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, a distinguished Back Bencher and former Minister, for raising that point. I myself have had private Members’ Bills, including ten-minute rule Bills, adopted by the Government; I have withdrawn them on the basis of an undertaking from the Minister. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Cardiff West, and obviously I understand that he wants to make his point, but I ask politely at the Dispatch Box, for the record, whether he might be prepared to withdraw the Bill today, work with me on tackling the measures in it, and bring it back in due course if he feels that the measures that I have put in place are inappropriate.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for the approach that he is taking. We have discussed the matter before, but I think that it is important for the Bill to have at least a chance to proceed into Committee. This is a long process, as he says, and the Government control the timetable, so my view is that the Bill is a bus that he could reupholster along the road to make it fit for purpose so we can all agree on it, and that the House should have the opportunity to express its opinion. I know that he understands that.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

Yes, I was just coming to that. We have already started work through the CMA, the Intellectual Property Office and the taskforces that I will describe in more detail in a moment. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have agreed that we want to get information back within a matter of months and come back to set out the Government’s proposals within a matter of months. We aim to come back with a substantive response in the summer—certainly no later than September. It slightly depends on what we hear, but if we can avoid legislation and solve the problem in some other way, that will be our first instinct. Indeed, I want to make it clear that if we conclude that legislative change is the only way to achieve what the House is looking for, that is very much open to us. However, our instinct is not to rush to introduce a private Member’s Bill to solve the problem, however well intended the measure, but to do the work and come back quickly to the House with a set of proposals. If that suggests that we need to make legislative changes, we are open to doing that.

I shall begin to set out the specifics of that work and what we are doing, and make it clear that the point about fairness that has been made by colleagues across the House sits at the heart of that. We want a fair streaming environment in which the UK music industry can thrive and artists are properly rewarded. Fairness is a broad concept, and one to which we can all sign up, but it has many different aspects in this complicated industry. The Bill proposes a number of specific measures aimed at making the streaming environment fair, which we think is a laudable aim, but it is simply not yet clear that the impact of all those measures has been fully assessed or whether there are others that do not require legislation but which might have a similar impact. We have not ruled out legislation to introduce any of the measures in the Bill or indeed others, should our work suggest them, but we are concerned that interventions such as this made at pace could have—and, indeed, we think would have—significant consequences across the industry, as the correspondence that I have flagged has indicated. We do not want to cause a crisis of confidence in the UK digital music sector, and cause a disinvestment, creating a bigger problem by moving too hastily without taking the chance to listen to all those who have a stake.

We have to get this right in a complex ecosystem and supply chain. The first step is to gather proper evidence from all of those who have concerns before deciding what Government action we will take. If the hon. Member for Cardiff West, a distinguished former Minister, was in my shoes he would be saying something very similar. To that end, we have commissioned research, as I say, into a number of measures from the Competition and Markets Authority and the Intellectual Property Office, and we are liaising with industry stakeholders. We want to work closely with industry and, as it is watching this debate closely, I wish to make it clear that we think that there is a problem. We want to make sure that we get it right, and we want to work with it to get the right measures in place. We would prefer that not to be legislative, but if we cannot find a solution with the industry we hold open that opportunity. We are not saying today that we will not legislate—we will if that is the right thing to do.

In spring this year, we will consider all the evidence that we receive and will think through how we need to respond. That will include consideration of measures on all the elements in the Bill: equitable remuneration, contract adjustment and the right to recapture works, as well as other possible market interventions. I want to make it clear that I am working closely with the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure and, indeed, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who is a distinguished author and has a strong understanding of the issues of royalties, as well as the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Our aim is simply to ensure that the UK is the best place in the world for musicians to come and practise and find audiences globally, and to harness the benefits of digitalisation, because we have created an ecosystem that is fair, innovative and competitive, both for individual artists and for the UK. To do that, we think that it is right to consider these issues sensibly and properly, as one would expect a Government to do.

This week, I have spoken to about 40 colleagues, and I have probably heard another 40 today. It is great to hear from colleagues from all parts of the House. Even the Scottish nationalists have paid tribute to the Government’s listening on this, which is a nice thing to hear. I attended the Government’s music stakeholder contact group on Wednesday, and heard the views of 11 stakeholders. I am grateful to them and to others who have contacted us this week with their thoughts. I have had a constructive meeting with the hon. Member for Cardiff West, who—I want to pay tribute to him again—is a passionate advocate. We would not be having this debate if it were not for him and colleagues on the Select Committee.

Interestingly, today is the birthday of Ozzy Osbourne, the former lead singer of Black Sabbath, who, through the power of music, overcame learning disabilities and a difficult upbringing to become one of rock’s elder statesmen. That speaks to the power of music, not just to give us all joy but to create opportunities for people who might otherwise struggle. Today is also the anniversary of the release in 1984 of Band Aid’s “Do they know it’s Christmas?”. It is a day that I will never forget, because I played football for 24 hours, listening to that one track. It is ingrained in the very DNA of my subconscious as a result.

This is a good day. I also reflect that this is not the first time that the House has considered the issue. I am old enough to recall Tim, now Lord, Clement-Jones’s Live Music Bill in another place, testing parliamentary support on more than one occasion before the then Government were evidentially satisfied that they could support a version of the Bill becoming the landmark Live Music Act 2012. It is worth recognising that we are not the first group of parliamentarians to consider this issue, but the pandemic has revealed the urgency of our dealing with it. That is why I have given the response that I have. Let me be clear that the Government do not rule out legislation; we are just not prepared to rush to adopt a private Member’s Bill without working with all stakeholders, including the hon. Member for Cardiff West. He may want to force a vote, but I hope that he hears my commitment in good faith to work downstream.

The key is evidence-based policy making—and, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would not expect me, as a science Minister, to believe in anything else. These are far-reaching measures for which the Government must build the evidence base so that we are satisfied that what we propose is right. It is also so that, in terms of transparency, people around the country can see that we have listened to all the stakeholders and taken a balanced view. To intervene now without first doing that would be rash.

The UK music industry is, as many colleagues have said, at the heart of our arts and culture sectors and, from the Beatles to the Rolling Stones and from Ed Sheeran to Stormzy, it is the envy of the world. There are also a whole lot of names who I had not even heard of but who have huge digital followings around the world. It is hard to overestimate the value of the sector.

I will share some statistics that are worth thinking about. In 2018-19—pre-covid—the UK music industry contributed £5.8 billion to the UK economy, up 11% from 2018. That suggests that the industry is in pretty rude health: it is growing and expanding. In 2019, pre-pandemic —this is quite interesting—the median reported income for musicians currently signed to major record companies was £51,000, for musicians signed to independent record labels it was £20,000, and for self-releasing artists it was £13,000.

The challenge that we all face is how we ensure that we create an ecosystem in which those hitherto unknown, often young—but not always young—independent breakthrough artists get the benefits of digitalisation and streaming to help them generate revenue in myriad ways. Sadly, the “Music creators’ earnings in the digital era” report found no evidence that there was ever a time when recorded music was the basis of substantial income for most musicians, even in the 1990s when revenues in the music industry were higher. It is difficult to compare the number of musicians who can earn a living from recorded music in the streaming era with the download or CD eras—let alone the tape era—because of the difficulties in assessing data.

One commitment I want to make to the House today is that we are looking to collect data both in the UK and internationally so that we can make policy on the basis of actual fact about the impact of reforms around the world. Of course, the Americans made reforms recently, and there have been others in other parts of the world. A key part of this dynamic sector is independent labels such as Rough Trade, Domino and Beggars Banquet—there are so many that I could not list them all, and I do not intend to. We want to continue to support them, and when they write to say that they are worried that the Bill—well intended though it is—will undermine them, we are concerned. [Interruption.] I thought that an hon. Member wanted to intervene.

Let me turn to the level of Government support for the sector.

[Kevin Brennan]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I put the question, I would like to say that I am delighted to learn that it is Ozzy Osbourne’s birthday as my late brother Barry Evans worked on one of his American tours.

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I certainly do not seek to do that. Proposed new section 187B(2) of the 1992 Act says:

“The information to be disclosed is all information relating to the employer’s undertaking (including information relating to use of agency workers in that undertaking) which is in the employer’s possession, or that of an associated employer”.

There is a double requirement, so “all information” does seem to apply.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I hope it is a point of order and does not just disturb the debate.

[Kevin Brennan]

At what point does a debate on Second Reading, when we should be debating the general principles of a Bill, turn into a Committee debate in which we parse one or two words in individual clauses? I believe that is a reasonable point given how the debate is currently developing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Basically, a Second reading debate is very wide-ranging and hon. and right hon. Members are entitled to raise issues that they feel might be problematic if the Bill were enacted. This is a very wide-ranging debate that on another occasion I am sure the hon. Gentleman would appreciate enormously.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, it is not correct. There was no need for the 7 o’clock motion to be moved, because of the terms of the business of the House motion relating to today.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I intervened on the Leader of the House to ask about the possibility of introducing proxy voting to enable people to vote remotely during the current way in which Parliament has been organised, and the Leader of the House said that that matter had been referred to the Procedure Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is in her place. Today at Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister said that the Government were proposing to introduce proxy voting. Have you had any notification from the Government that they intend to table a motion tomorrow introducing proxy voting for Members other than those who are on maternity leave, and to provide time for that matter to be debated and voted on?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Now, I thought that we were doing very well, because all the other points of order that I have just taken were real points of order, and it is such a pleasure to have real points of order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will be able to ask those questions tomorrow.

Before we move on to the next item of business, which is the Committee stage of the Bill, in order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next item of business, I am now suspending the House for five minutes. I would be grateful if hon. Members would leave the Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Since it launched in April 2016, Ceramic Valley enterprise zone has been a fantastic success: it has attracted private sector investment and has already secured 1,000 new jobs in Stoke. The Government are prioritising levelling up, as the Prime Minister continuously reminds us. We will want to reflect on those things, such as Ceramic Valley enterprise zone, that have worked and see how we can support them further.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

One interesting statistic in the figures released today by the Office for National Statistics figures is that for the first time more than 5 million people in the UK are self-employed. Will the Minister responsible for small business undertake urgently to push forward the work she has been doing on shared parental leave for freelancers and the self-employed? That will be particularly helpful to women in the workforce.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the self-employment market. We committed in our manifesto not only to look at self-employment but to make sure that the UK is the best place to work, and we will make sure that that includes flexibility. He will know that we are bringing forward an employment Bill. We are determined to make the UK the best place to work, and that includes shared parental leave and working with families to make it easier for women to get back into work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

Having had the privilege of visiting the ceramic valley enterprise zone during a recent visit to Stoke-on-Trent, I am delighted to confirm that, once completed, it will have created over 7,000 jobs and redeveloped 140 hectares of former brownfield land. I hope to continue to work with my hon. Friend, who is a redoubtable campaigner for his constituency, to see what more can be done to expand this hugely successful site.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

May I take this opportunity to say to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) that although she and I strongly disagree on various issues, including on the future of modern capitalism, we should be proud to have a shared commitment to reaching net zero emissions? Since our last oral questions session, the UK has become the first major economy in the world to pass laws to end its contribution to global warming by 2050, and companies from around the world are choosing to develop green technologies here in the UK. Last week I launched the new electric Mini, built in Oxford; the week before, Jaguar Land Rover announced that it is making a range of electric vehicles; and in an hour’s time I will be launching Lotus’s new electric hypercar. So, in keeping with what appears to be a new tradition of sharing pre-holiday gifts across the Dispatch Box, I would like to provide the hon. Lady with a small symbol—this model Mini—of what I hope will be our efforts to support our automotive industry, of which we are very proud, in its shift to a greener future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I apologise; I am ahead of myself. I was so captivated by the Secretary of State’s munificence that I neglected the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), which I must tell all observers is a very risky enterprise. Let’s hear from the fella.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will not take it personally, Mr Speaker.

While the Secretary of State is in the mood for holiday gifts, the latest Government statistics show that 61% of those working in music, performing and visual arts are self-employed, so will the Secretary of State update shared parental leave rules to include self-employed people to prevent talented women from having to leave their careers in the creative industries and other industries when they have children?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are evaluating the responses we have had from the creative industries and others on that issue. I fully recognise that it is an unresolved matter that we will address during the months ahead.

Amazon and SMEs

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Kevin Barron to move the motion.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Amazon and the treatment of SMEs.

It is Kevin Brennan, actually, Mr Chope. I was once briefly knighted in the Mail Online by a journalist making exactly the same mistake, but I always consider myself more shovelry than chivalry.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate today about Amazon. I will tell a story about my constituent, Roland Brana, who this year should have been celebrating 20 years of his successful and growing family business, selling motorcycle protective clothing. He spent 11 years as a sole trader, then eight years as a limited company, and in each year he achieved continued growth. It was a successful, viable business with quality products that were competitively priced and in demand.

In 1999 his business, Bikers Gear, began importing self-designed own brand motorcycle clothing from a factory in Pakistan and sold it online via his own website and on eBay. In 2001 he opened a high street shop in Barry, south Wales, and in 2002 he accepted an invitation from Amazon to become a merchant on its newly launched non-video and book UK marketplace. His business continued to flourish. In March 2010, Bikers Gear UK was incorporated as a limited company and in 2013 the brand launched across Europe via Amazon’s European platforms.

In 2013 Bikers Gear registered for VAT in both Germany and France, and in 2014 a German and French speaking customer service team was launched, based in Leipzig. In 2015 Mr Brana completed EU-wide registration of the Bikers Gear trademark logo. This should be the story of a lad from a council estate and a single-parent family who made good. Instead, it is the story of a small businessman who finds himself having to start all over again, having had to close his business, because of the way that his small company, Bikers Gear UK, was treated by the global conglomerate Amazon.

The real problems started when Amazon approached Mr Brana in May 2016 for a retail manufacturer partnership. He accepted that as an opportunity for the business to go to the next stage. He would concentrate on expanding the manufacturing of the product and Amazon would concentrate on selling. Amazon forecast great potential for growth. He was aware that one of his manufacturers in Pakistan had a family relative trading in Australia, who sold similar motorcycle garments, so in 2010 he created an image user agreement to protect his online images from any potential infringement by this Australian brand.

Following the agreement, during 2017 Mr Brana began to receive offers of orders for more than €1 million from Amazon. To begin with he could not accept many of the orders because of delivery windows and not holding enough stock in south Wales. The problem lay with his main supplier in Pakistan, which was refusing many large purchase orders. He took action to drop this supplier. Because of this and complaints from Amazon regarding poor order acceptance rates, Mr Brana travelled to Luxembourg twice in 2017 and met Amazon buyers. Mr Brana reassured them that he would increase the stock in the south Wales warehouse to improve the order acceptance rate for 2018. He explained to Amazon buyers that the low acceptance rate was due to the problem at one particular factory, and explained that, to resolve the supply issue in 2018, he planned to introduce another supplier. He informed them that he would personally be investing £75,000 to increase his holding stock as he was fully committed to the Bikers Gear UK business, and that he would do so by re-mortgaging his home.

In 2018, Mr Brana approached Barclays Bank, obtained the mortgage and, as promised, began increasing the stock in his south Wales warehouse. All should have been well but, at the same time, he noticed that the Amazon order had by now almost stopped. He started investigating and noticed that the Australian brand had started selling its brand on the Amazon UK platform. At that point, it appeared to be offering different garments from the Bikers Gear UK garments and not selling products with his barcode or European article number—now known as the international article number—that delineated the product on websites. With the exception of the new 2018 range, however, no orders were being received from Amazon by Bikers Gear UK. Even its best-selling garments were not being ordered.

Mr Brana presumed that Amazon holding stock would run out and he would be able to return to selling the garments successfully, as he did prior to the 2016 Amazon agreement. He started checking the website stock level, which is clearly visible when someone makes a purchase on the Amazon website. It would state things such as, “Four left in stock—more on the way.” He checked back days later, and the stock available had gone up on his product from four to 18. It was clear that, even though Amazon had not purchased any new stock, its inventory was going up, not down. Something was clearly wrong.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent is not uncommon. Many people who allowed Amazon to take the business end away found that Amazon started to sell on their behalf and their business was squeezed. In Germany, a company called Cancom said:

“To team up with Amazon is like to team up with the devil. We team up with Amazon but not in a transactional area.”

This is a common business practice of Amazon’s.

[Kevin Brennan]

I can only say that I know my constituent would entirely endorse the view of that German company given his personal experience. As I outline the rest of the story of what happened, I think it will become clear why.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am aware that SMEs make some £2.3 billion in sales through Amazon, so there is potential for small and medium-sized enterprises to do well. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating regulation through the Minister’s Department and through Government to ensure that both companies that use Amazon and Amazon itself can benefit from the sales? I think it is important to do so.

[Kevin Brennan]

We all understand the importance of online sales to small and medium-sized enterprises, and the huge opportunity that this kind of tech platform has given small businesses. That is to be welcomed, but with that comes a responsibility on tech platforms wielding huge market power to treat small businesses fairly and in an ethical fashion, and I am afraid that that is not what has happened in this case or, as we have heard, in other cases.

As I described earlier, the stock on the website was going up, even though Amazon was not ordering any new stock from my constituent. Something was clearly wrong. He contacted his account manager, who refused to help other than by passing him a link on the Amazon website to report any infringement. He contacted intellectual property lawyers, who advised him to test purchase his own brand listings on the Amazon website. The test purchases, which were advertised as his brand, proved when they turned up to be the Australian brand.

Astonishingly, and in my view dishonestly, Amazon were using his Bikers Gear UK brand to pass off another different brand supplied by the Pakistani factory he had previously ceased trading with. The factory was using Bikers Gear UK garment patterns. He could not establish any line of contact, and by now his Amazon account manager was bouncing back his messages with the message, “mail box unable to receive your mail”.

In effect, Amazon had pilfered all Mr Brana’s data, his brand name, his product reviews, his barcodes and his customer base. He had lost 75% of work for the past eight months and he would have to liquidate the business before he fell into heavy debt. With September approaching and the bike season closing, he would be in danger of running up debts with good people with whom he had been trading for the past 18 years. As a result, Mr Brana lost his family business and his family lost their jobs in that business.

How could that happen? When Bikers Gear made a commercial decision to end the relationship with its main supplier in Pakistan and move production to a new, modern factory, those suppliers contacted Amazon’s buying team in Luxembourg, requesting to supply Biker Gear UK’s garments direct to them. Mr Brana has seen email evidence from Amazon showing that the Pakistani supplier had made contact with Amazon in Luxembourg. The content of that email was that their factory could supply the garments to Amazon directly. The factory had obtained important Amazon contact email addresses when Mr Brana had failed to remove Amazon’s email contact details from a forwarded message to the factory earlier that year.

In January 2018, Amazon started taking supply from the Pakistani supplier. There was a very slight change to the logo on the garments it supplied to Amazon, but in essence they were Mr Brana’s designs. It was as if someone reversed the tick on Nike trainers, which I am sure you are aware of, Sir Christopher, and then passed them off to the public as an original pair of Nikes. Amazon was by now passing off the non-registered garments to Mr Brana’s European customers, using all his data information.

Within eight months the Bikers Gear company was in financial difficulty and unable to continue its legal action against Amazon. In August 2018, this law-abiding, taxpaying company went into liquidation. Seven people based in the UK lost their jobs, five full time and two part time. The five full-time workers claimed redundancy money from the Government totalling between £25,000 and £30,000. Bikers Gear UK, in its last full financial year’s trading from April 2016 to April 2017, had a turnover of more than £1 million and the company paid taxes and duties approaching £150,000 across the European Union. Today, Amazon continues to pass off those garments to the public.

The Bikers Gear UK business grew organically year on year by reinvesting profits into the company and growing the Bikers Gear catalogue. Ironically, in January of this year, Roland and his company were invited by Lord Eric Pickles to take part in the 2019 Parliamentary Review, originally set up by David Cameron and co-chaired by David Blunkett, to share knowledge and good practice and to raise industry standards. Under the circumstances, Mr Brana felt unable to take up that invitation.

This is a cautionary tale for small businesses: a successful small business sells via Amazon, and Amazon offers a partnership to expand the cake and to take a slice, instead of which it effectively takes the whole cake. Mr Brana now deeply regrets having gone into partnership with Amazon. Far from helping his small business to grow, Amazon effectively cloned his business and starved the original. Amazon is too big for Mr Brana to take on. He is now having to start all over again with his new brand, Black Tab Motorcycle Clothing, and a small retail shop, again in Barry, south Wales. I say to the Minister that that is the type of predatory capitalism being practised by some big tech businesses that the Government need to be aware of and act on, and I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to protect small businesses and people such as my constituent, Roland Brana, from being drowned in the vast waters of Amazon and other institutions of the new high-tech plutocracy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right: one of the things that we are committed to is making sure that we continue with our world-renowned competition regime. It is right that, even at a ministerial level, we are independent of the CMA, but we work very closely with the CMA on priorities, and looking at supply chains is a key area for all mergers, as is how we protect consumers and markets in future.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

6. What recent representations he has received on introducing shared parental leave for self-employed people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)]

My Department and the Department for Work and Pensions recently met Parental Pay Equality, which is campaigning to extend shared parental pay to self-employed parents through changes to maternity allowance. We are exploring ways to support self-employed parents further.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Has she read the recent “Balancing Act” report from Birkbeck University and Parents in Performing Arts, which shows that 72% of freelancers would like to take shared parental leave if they were allowed to? This policy would not cost anything, but it would improve equality and productivity at the same time. Will she—not just officials—undertake to meet the parental pay and leave campaign and listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), who has a ten-minute rule Bill on this issue?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I will always engage with anyone who has a view on this particular issue. We are evaluating shared parental leave and pay to look at the barriers to take-up, including those affecting self-employed people and mothers, particularly, who qualify for maternity allowance. We are currently evaluating that and we will be reporting on that next year. However, I will meet with those people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I do think it is necessary to keep it under review, hence the Green Paper, because with the rise of new technologies, there are new challenges for regulators and new perspectives are required on mergers. We have increased the funding for the Competition and Markets Authority. My hon. Friend will have noticed that I appointed as chairman of the CMA Andrew Tyrie, who I think everyone on both sides of the House would recognise is a good, robust champion of the consumer.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

22. One of the ways in which consumers are very often ripped off is through the practice of drip pricing in online purchases—particularly through the practice of outlaw companies such as Viagogo, for example, which uses it. What work is the right hon. Gentleman doing in relation to that and with his colleagues from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Again, this is at the heart of the Green Paper, which looks at how new technologies can disadvantage consumers. In fact, in the case that he mentions, prosecutions are in train. Very robust action is being taken against that kind of abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight a concerning issue. My officials are meeting representatives of the wood panel industry today, but I would be delighted to follow up with a personal meeting with him and his constituents.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

T8. May I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), on the recent birth of his daughter? In doing so, I remind the House that, as an office holder, he was unfortunately unable to take up shared parental leave—at least, that is certainly what he told the media. Does he have any empathy with people who cannot take up shared parental leave, and will he extend the provision to allow families who are working freelance, particularly in the creative industries, to get the flexibility they need to maintain their careers?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. Having just returned from my paternity leave, I reassure him that, although I am not legally allowed to take shared parental leave, the Government are very supportive of Ministers being able to take up such provisions. The Government want more families to benefit from the joy that comes from shared parental leave, which is why we have invested over £1 million in an advertising campaign to increase take-up.