Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Nigel Adams

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is going to have to settle for an answer from the Box. We are committed to making the UK the safest place to be online and the best digital economy in the world. As the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, we are developing legislative proposals at pace and we will bring forward a Bill as soon as possible.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

My father used to enjoy a weekly 10 bob yankee down the bookies, but he would have been appalled at the sheer volume of advertising and the dodgy practices that are going on in picking on vulnerable people in relation to gambling. The Government seem to be following rather than leading events in this regard, with today’s intervention from the NHS leadership adding to that. When are the Government going to introduce the new gambling Bill that is so long overdue? Will the Minister tell us that right now?

Football Association and Bet365

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Nigel Adams

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

May I welcome my hon. Friend to her place? I certainly will wish Scunthorpe United the best of luck—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Who are they playing?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Member asks who they are playing; I can tell him that as a youngster I used to be dragged along to Scunthorpe to watch Scunthorpe United. That was some years ago. I was a very lucky child.

The irony of this story having blown up this weekend is that the FA was launching its Heads Together mental health campaign. It could not have been any more badly timed. As I have said, we have given clear instructions to the FA to look into every avenue possible to have this deal changed.

Intellectual Property: British Economy

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Nigel Adams

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Adams]

Absolutely. I completely share my hon. Friend’s pleasure at IP’s inclusion. That tells us that the Government are taking IP, which cuts across so much of our country’s industrial policy, seriously. I am very much of his opinion.

The Digital Economy Bill, which is in the other place, has only three clauses on IP. I do not take the Government to task for that—it has been a long time since the previous legislation, the Digital Economy Act 2010, and there is much important ground to cover—but it serves to highlight the need to prioritise examination of the area in more detail.

To that end, I welcome the acknowledgement of IP’s importance in the Green Paper on industrial strategy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) mentioned, and the allocation of this important brief to the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who is known for his seriousness and attention to detail, as well as his great cricketing prowess.

From established phenomena such as the Beatles and David Bowie to emerging superstars such as Stormzy and Skepta—a great favourite of the Minister for Digital and Culture, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock)—and from our brilliant film and television exports to our technological innovators, such as those who created the bagless vacuum cleaner and the worldwide web, the UK has never been short of ideas.

IP is critical to our growing our tech sector, but I will focus my remarks on the creative industries, in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music and as a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. Other hon. Members will, I hope, bring up other areas of interest during the debate. This month, for example, the all-party parliamentary group on intellectual property held an inquiry into IP enforcement, which was incredibly valuable. I believe the report has now been published. The APPG chair, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), is in his place, so I hope that he will share more of that report with us.

This debate is about the importance of IP to the British economy and, to give a brief reminder, the numbers speak for themselves: the creative industries account for approximately 7% of GDP; for £187.4 billion in gross value added, according to Department for Culture, Media and Sport estimates; and for exports worth almost £20 billion. That does not even account for the cultural soft power of having such a powerhouse in our creative and music industries. I would highlight the 35% growth in the export value of the live music sector between 2014 and 2015, and the fact that five of the 10 top-selling artists globally in 2015 were British. As anyone who has turned on the radio recently or watched the Brit awards last week will know, 2016 was surely another great year for the music industry.

Now to the problems. Piracy is obviously one of the biggest threats to creators being allowed to capitalise on their own efforts and to see returns on any growth in interest in their work. Without that, not only will they not be able to continue to create, but they will certainly not be able to invest in mentoring or developing new talent. We should keep in mind that all such issues are interconnected for the industry. We encourage record labels to advance social mobility through pioneering apprenticeship schemes or engagement with at-risk youth, for example, but it is harder for us credibly to ask them to put into society when we are not also making serious inroads into getting our laws and regulatory regimes up to scratch in dealing with the new threats to creative industry revenues.

In that vein, I welcome the agreement announced last week between the search engines, such as Google and Bing, and the Intellectual Property Office, with the aid of the DCMS, on an industry code of practice for tackling piracy. In changes that are expected to be rolled out by the summer, search engines will modify their algorithms to demote piracy sites in results, making them harder to find. That is a good first step.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that welcome as that change is—along with him, we pressed for that during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill through the Commons—it is important for the search engines to follow through and genuinely and sincerely enforce the code, even without the potential threat of legislation hanging over them?

[Nigel Adams]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is a start. I understand we are the first country in the world to put together such a code of practice, but enforcement is really important, because without the ability to take a stick to the problem we are somewhat limited. I very much welcome the agreement as a start, but he and I both tend to speak on the side of creators, who would like to see even bolder measures. It is only one piece of the puzzle, but we need to welcome positive changes when they are made, so I commend Google and Bing on their agreement with the IPO. It is easy to bash big companies, but they should be commended in this case. I hope they will monitor changes in traffic to such sites, to see if the measure is having the intended effect, and share those results with us and with the creative industries in due course.

Last July, I organised a debate here in Westminster Hall on one small part of the topic, which was artist remuneration for online streaming. I highlighted the example of a songwriter who had told me how he was entitled to 25% of the revenue from a song he had written. It had had 3.2 million plays on YouTube, but the young man was hardly likely to retire on the princely sum of £5.39, which was what he received for those 3.2 million views. I have to report that since then, I have continued to hear similar stories, so I am keen for that to change. The area is ripe for more engagement between the Government and content hosts.

On the legislative side, the basis of the music industry’s concerns is the so-called safe harbour laws, which in the US, the European Union and the UK give user upload streaming services the same protection from copyright as host providers such as personal cloud locker services. That is despite the fact that they operate entirely differently and, more importantly, impact on the market in different ways. That is one area in which we could look now at what changes we might make once we have left, or while we are arranging to leave, the European Union. We need to build a consensus in the time available.

On the industry side, let me compare Spotify and the user-upload site Dailymotion. Both allow users to search for and listen to Adele’s track “Hello”, which is one of the fastest selling tracks of all time. Spotify is licensed to stream that track and therefore pays the artist, the songwriter, the producers, the musicians, the publishers and the labels—the people who are so crucial to the creation of that content. Dailymotion—rather an unfortunate name for a company—does not pay. Due to ambiguity in the safe harbour framework, user-upload services can claim to be mere hosts of their users’ content. As such, they are not required to share with creators the wealth that they generate. That is simply unfair. It would be great if all streaming services were proactive about improvement, rather than appealing to the lowest common denominator. I was in business before coming here, so I understand that the competitive world can be a difficult place, especially for such sites, but that does not change the fact that they profit from someone else’s intellectual property without paying them. I am a free marketeer, but that is not the free market—that is simply theft.

I stand ready to praise, both inside and outside this House, any steps that the Government or the industry take to improve the situation. I understand that a previous attempt by creator groups to reach a deal on streaming revenues with the industry went through 17 drafts over almost two years and ultimately ended in stalemate. Given that, if the Minister committed the Government to similar work to facilitate action on this issue as they undertook for the search engine code of practice, I would happily congratulate him immediately.

I am pleased to commend the “Get It Right from a Genuine Site” campaign, which is backed by major industry players such as the British Phonographic Industry—I am pleased that I pronounced that properly—and the Motion Picture Association, as well as the Government. The campaign educates people about the harms and dangers of piracy to both creators and their own identity security, which is threatened by dodgy sites, but there is significant evidence that the law in relation to illicit streaming is not sufficient.

USB sticks such as the Amazon Fire stick and boxes with Kodi software, which are used to facilitate the streaming of pirated material direct to users’ televisions, are a growing problem, because that material is made to look legitimate. A user buys such a device—on Amazon, ironically—which may be a legitimate tool for the storage and playback of purchased content, and then loads it with a program that sweeps the internet for high-quality streams. Such devices can also be bought fully loaded, with that software having been installed by a third party, many of which are criminal enterprises that profit from the mark-up that they charge.

As hon. Members who have seen demonstrations will know, the pirated content is well presented and well organised. There is a menu at the front end. One can have a brilliant array of television programmes and feature films, including those that were released in theatres only a matter of days beforehand or, in some cases, have not been released. One can even apply skins to the menus to make it look like the content is coming through a program such as iPlayer or a company such as Sky, even though every bit of content is pirated.

We normally go about agitating for legislative change by publicising a problem and then discussing solutions, but for a long time, companies affected by this problem have been reluctant to do even that, because it simply provides more air time for the instructions about how to load such programs and free advertising for fully loaded devices. Unfortunately, such devices are so widely known that trying to damp down publicity is no longer an option. Sky reported that six months ago, 14% of the population had access to a device that could be used for pirated technology. That figure is now nearer 19%. Uptake is highest among 30 to 50-year-olds, a group who were previously less likely to access pirated material because of the more dodgy nature of online streaming sites and file-sharing programs. As of only a couple of weeks ago, there were more than 2,000 search results for pre-loaded devices on Amazon Marketplace.

I understand that Amazon has taken action to require pre-approval to sell such devices and, if that is the case, I am pleased to hear it. I guess that it decided to do that because pirated streaming affects its own legitimate streaming business. However, it is still incredibly easy to access such devices through other platforms, such as eBay and Facebook, and for users to load the software themselves. It does not take a genius to follow a guide and load all this stuff on to a box.

As the Minister is probably aware, there is no legislation that deals specifically with such devices and practices. Trading standards authorities and the police intellectual property crime unit have set out instances where they have been unable to prosecute due to a lack of specific legislation. There has been one criminal conviction for supply of IPTV boxes—that was late last year—but that relied on complex conspiracy-to-defraud legislation. We need to simplify the legislation and make it possible for PIPCU to tackle this problem more efficiently and directly.

As I understand it, when boxes are imported pre-loaded with piracy software, it is sometimes possible for customs agents to stop them because they have a criminal purpose. However, if boxes are imported without such software and then loaded by pirates in the UK and sold on to consumers, who often think they are buying a legitimate device, nothing can be done at the time of import. Although some products, such as the Amazon Fire stick, are created to comply with relevant consumer regulations, others are created with criminal intent and meant for piracy.

Several hon. Members met industry representatives, Sky in particular, yesterday to discuss this very problem. Those representatives brought an imported box and demonstrated the issue. They told us that they had brought a similar device to the House last week to test it in advance of their presentation. That device promptly began to emit a foul smell and smoke, and then sparked and exploded. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that that was quite a dodgy bit of equipment, and that tells us entirely how shabby the entire piracy industry is. It is dominated by criminals who do unsavoury things with their proceeds and do not have a care in the world for consumers—much less for creators.

This issue has a huge impact on content creation. Some 19% of people have such boxes, and ownership is growing fast. Not receiving their just returns for their content has a huge impact on the creative industries’ ability to reinvest. Will the Minister therefore agree urgently to engage with PIPCU and British film and television content creators on legislative action to combat this problem? I understand that in the other place recently, the noble Baroness Buscombe, on behalf of the Government, said that she would consider tabling an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill on Third Reading that would grant the Government powers to introduce new regulations on this issue, if needed. I do not know what more evidence I can give than exploding piracy boxes, but such regulations clearly are needed. Whether or not those are introduced through the Digital Economy Bill, we should get around the table as soon as possible to discuss this urgent matter.

I understand from my discussions that creators are broadly satisfied with the state of copyright law, so I have been talking broadly about enforcement issues and those to do with new technology. I am sure that other Members will expand on other areas. The Design and Artists Copyright Society believes that the artist’s resale right is fit for purpose, and it is interested in seeing that keep functioning well for the visual arts sector. I understand there is concern from authors to see the UK maintain and implement EU proposals giving them more access to information about the sale of their work and protecting them against unfair “take it or leave it” contracts, which see authors lose out when a book suddenly becomes a bestseller.

I understand that music producers would also welcome the introduction of a right to information regarding remuneration from copyright so that they can properly audit their royalties. That is really important. However, I want to emphasise that although there may be some improvements to be made in this area, I am not entirely sure that we need a complete overhaul—we may hear more on that from other hon. Members. Trade bodies such as the Publishers Association and UK Music have said that they would be grateful for a Government commitment to the current copyright regime following our exit from the EU. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to give everyone such an assurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. She is right to praise the workforce at the Intellectual Property Office and she is also right to point out that continuing investment in their work is extremely important. I have been concerned for many years about a culture in Government; I do not point the finger simply at the current Government, because it has existed for quite a long period of time, particularly in the old Department of Trade and Industry but also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, in which I was a Minister for a short period. It is a culture that is rightly suspicious of regulation of business but too cautious about taking steps to regulate when to do so would be good for business. This is one instance in which it is quite clear that good regulation is good for business and good for a business and industry that is hugely important to this country.

It is welcome that the Government have gone from a position of denying that we need an industrial strategy, which was the ludicrous position before the current Prime Minister took over, to including the words “industrial strategy” in the title of the Department that the Minister represents, and even including the creative industries as part of our industrial strategy. There is recognition of the importance but not of the urgency of the action required.

[Nigel Adams]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the speed of uptake of IPTV devices is quite breathtaking? As he will know, a user can watch effectively any channel from more or less anywhere, including the public service broadcasters. What sort of a threat does he think that is to the PSBs?

[Kevin Brennan]

This is not just a problem with a few young guys who want to watch premier league football. Viewing content that has been illegally acquired is being normalised in households up and down the country, across the generations. The studies into that, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech, show that it is becoming an issue across the generations. People who would not have dreamed of going up to their bedroom with their laptop and illegally streaming something are, in the comfort of their living room, with other members of their family, across the generations, watching illegal content because the way in which it is presented makes it look like they are watching Sky or Virgin Media and because they can buy the devices through reputable online retailers. People think, “Well, if I can buy it there, how on earth can I be doing anything wrong?” Quite frankly, who could blame them for thinking that? That is the scale of the challenge that the Government need to get to grips with.

I read with great interest what the Government said in response to Lords amendments to the Digital Economy Bill that were similar to those I tabled and the House of Commons Committee discussed, which I withdrew at the behest of the Government so that they could go away and do some more work. Quite frankly, we have not moved very far. Yes, we have had the call for views—I have a copy of it here—but according to Baroness Buscombe, whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his remarks:

“The call for views runs for six weeks, until 5 April 2017, at which time the Government will assess the responses and determine the best course of action. … The Government fully understand the harm done by illegal set-top boxes and IPTV, which is why it is crucial that we have a robust evidence base for effectively tackling this problem.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 February 2017; Vol. 779, c. 373.]

As the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty pointed out, we already have a robust evidence base, and the Government acknowledged the problem some considerable time ago. It will be too late to do anything about it if the Government wait until the Bill passes through the House of Lords and returns to the House of Commons, with any amendments.

[Nigel Adams]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in other contexts the Government are rightly concerned about children getting access to pornography. Having seen yesterday’s demonstration and a previous one given by Sky, does he share my concern that on some of the platforms in question it is possible to access pornography alongside children’s television programmes? It seems to me that the Government should look at that area closely when they consider other measures on pornography in the Bill.

[Kevin Brennan]

There is no doubt that there are safeguarding issues, because material suitable for young children is presented on illegal set-top box platforms together with material that is suitable only for viewing by adults. Elsewhere in the Digital Economy Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are, with our support, creating powers to block sites that do not age-verify the sort of content that is restricted to adults. However, the platforms that we are considering are a lawless area—the wild west. The wild west is being imported into homes throughout the country. The problem is that it will become normalised to the extent that the Government will be too scared to do anything. They will be upsetting too many people, unless they act quickly; and that will damage our creative industries significantly. They are a serious, significant export earner. In this deeply regrettable era of Brexit, when we are trying to do individual trade deals around the world, it would be short-sighted for us to damage one of our most significant export earners.

Towards the end of the Lords debate on the Digital Economy Bill, the Minister indicated that the Government might be able to consider further changes to the Bill, at some point—the stages of a Bill in the House of Lords are different from ours. I understand that there is still an opportunity, under Lords procedure, for further changes to the Bill. My noble Friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara pointed out at column 371 the danger that the Bill will run out of time in the Lords before the Government have an opportunity to consider what to do about the issue. Another legislative vehicle may not come along for some time. Bills of this kind are not like buses; they do not come along that often. My plea to the Minister is that he should talk to his DCMS colleagues about something that it is unusual for Opposition Members to suggest to the Government—whether it is time to take Henry VIII powers. Will he talk to Ministers about taking the present opportunity to pass the necessary measures to stop something that will seriously damage the creative sector?

Digital Economy Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Nigel Adams

Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I hope that the Minister enjoys his concert next week; I am sure he will be feelin’ groovy. I rise to speak to new clause 15, which is a probing new clause to clarify when a digital service is deemed to be an active provider of copyright-protected content. Taking on board what you have said, Mr Stringer, I will truncate my remarks.

The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, which put into law the EU’s e-commerce directive 2000, include certain exemptions from liability for online services, including copyright-protected works. The fundamental concern from the music industry is that the hosting defence provided by regulation 19 of the 2002 regulations acts as a safe harbour and allows some services, including user-uploaded services such as YouTube, to circumvent the normal rules of licensing.

Those services can use copyright-protected content—a song by Paul Simon or Green Day, for example—to build businesses without fairly remunerating rights holders. In recent years, the music industry has argued that the online content market has developed in such a way that there is now a value gap between rights holders, such as artists, record companies and publishers and so on, and the digital services themselves, such as YouTube.

As evidence of that, the recent report by UK Music, “Measuring Music 2016”, highlighted that user-uploaded service YouTube, the most widely used global streaming platform, increased its payments to music rights holders by 11% in 2015, despite consumption on the service growing by 132%. That is the value gap in a nutshell. Further industry analysis indicates that video streams increased by 88% year on year, but generated only a 0.4% increase in revenues. Nine of the top 10 most watched videos on YouTube are official music videos by artists such as Adele, Psy, Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber.

The inequality ensuing from that safe harbour is not only between those who produce music and those who promote it online; the provisions in new clause 15 have benefits for other sectors that seek to achieve a level playing field in online markets, too. The current legal ambiguity and imbalance has created a distortion in the digital market itself, with services such as YouTube benefiting from those exemptions while other services, such as Apple Music and Spotify, do not. The reality is that many people principally use YouTube to play music. It is nonsense to suppose it is not an active provider of copyright-protected content as those other services are.

There was, and continues to be, a justification for exemptions in some areas for passive hosts, but those must reflect the balance between the rights of rights holders and users. The industry is concerned that existing provisions are not sufficiently defined and as a result are open to deliberate manipulation. New clause 15, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, aims to clarify the legislative framework, so that creators and rights holders can secure a fair and proper value for the use of their work by online services in a fair and properly functioning market.

Will the Minister clarify some issues? Many of the matters raised by new clause 15 are being considered by European institutions at this very moment. On 14 September, the day after Second Reading, the European Commission published a draft directive on copyright that seeks to address many of these points. That is a welcome development, and the Minister will probably to refer to it in his response. After the recent referendum put us on the path towards Brexit, many issues have been raised in relation to these proposals. It is highly conceivable that we will be Brexiting at the same time as Europe begins to adopt copyright rules for a digital age.

I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. First, will he assure us that the UK Government remain committed to engaging constructively with the European Union on matters relating to the draft copyright directive, and that they will put the interests of the creative industries at the heart of their representations? Secondly, will he support the positive measures in the draft directive that address the value gap between rights holders—particularly the music industry—and digital services?

Thirdly, and more generally, once article 50 is triggered, how do the UK Government intend to implement legislation agreed in Europe before we Brexit? Finally, what commitments is the Minister prepared to make today to reassure UK creators and rights holders that they will not miss out on any positive measures contained in the draft directive as a result of leaving the European Union?

[Nigel Adams]

I rise briefly to speak to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. I understand that it seeks to clarify a rule that already exists. As has been mentioned previously, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on music. Earlier in the year, we held a dinner with representatives from the industry and services such as Spotify and Apple Music. The intention of the dinner was better to understand the growing music-streaming market and what measures are needed to help it flourish further for the benefit of creators, fans and those services. I was taken by the agreement across the room about the existence of a value gap between rights holders and some digital services, and the need to ensure fairness in the way music rights are valued and negotiated.

The Government’s response to the EU’s digital platforms consultation, published at the beginning of the year, stated:

“Clarification of terms used in the Directive would, we believe, help to address these concerns.”

I hope the Minister and the Government remain committed to that view and the intention behind the new clause to clarify existing law.

[Matt Hancock]

As we have debated, the Bill sends a clear message about copyright infringement, not least because we are increasing the penalty for online copyright infringement from two to 10 years. Of course, I know about the concern in the music industry and elsewhere that online intermediaries need to do more to share revenues fairly with creators. That is what this new clause seeks to tackle, and I agree with that concern.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned the interaction of the Bill with EU law. The change proposed by the new clause is already the position in European Court of Justice case law, and we support that position in the UK. That provides some clarification to the existing position.

Let me answer the specific questions. First, we are heavily engaged in the digital single market negotiations and the discussions ongoing in Europe. While we are a member of the EU, we will continue to do that. The issue of the value gap, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is important, and the development of ECJ case law in that direction has been helpful.

That brings me to Brexit because, as the e-commerce directive is EU single-market legislation, we will have to consider what the best future system will be as we exit the European Union. We will have to consider how the e-commerce regulations as a whole should work in the future. That will be part of the debate about leaving the European Union. For the time being, ECJ case law supports the intentions in the new clause, and I would be wary about making piecemeal changes to the regime. I acknowledge the need, through the Brexit negotiations and the process of setting domestic law where there is currently European law, to take into account the important considerations that have been raised.

Digital Economy Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Nigel Adams

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his warm acclamation of support for my continuing. As he will be aware, any huffing and puffing may influence how long I speak, but perhaps not in the way he hopes. It is a great pleasure to see you back chairing our proceedings this afternoon, Mr Streeter, having done so ably this morning without needing to heed any of the unsolicited advice from the Minister on how to chair a Committee. You did an absolutely superb job, and everyone on the Committee thanks you for that.

When stumps were pulled this morning, we were discussing amendment 189. To remind the Committee, that amendment calls on the Secretary of State to

“produce a report on the implication of the repeal of section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, and…undertake a comprehensive consultation on the future of television content distribution and public service broadcasters.”

We feel that the repeal of section 73 has big potential implications, and we need to know what the Government’s strategic thinking amounts to on those issues. I was talking about how things were 30 years ago with public service broadcasters. They were reserved access to valuable spectrum and given prominence on that spectrum. That created a valuable and well-funded monopoly, whether that was advertising revenue for ITV or money from the licence fee for the BBC. We were going to discuss how every aspect of that original deal is undergoing rapid change, and that is why our amendment is important.

Spectrum is more valuable than ever. In 2015, Ofcom acknowledged that if the spectrum that public service broadcasters use was priced commercially, it would be out of reach for PSBs. Then again, other distribution methods are evolving rapidly. It is perfectly possible to imagine a day when spectrum is not used for direct TV broadcast at all, and that day might not be as far in the future as we might think.

We know that the prominence of public service broadcasters is coming under enormous pressure. Recent moves by Sky have made it very hard to find live TV or public service broadcast content at all, and that is potentially a serious assault on the public service broadcasting compact. Prominence enables scale, and scale has been the commercial and policy basis of our public service broadcasters from the start. It makes them economic and makes the notion of public service broadcasters tangible, so that they are not just widely available, but widely watched. We will return to that topic in our consideration of the next group of amendments, but it is relevant to any report that might be produced through the amendment.

Public service broadcasters are no longer the cash cow monopolies that they arguably once were. We have been in a multi-channel world for a long time, but on-demand viewing is accelerating that change even further. Public service broadcasters are not just competing for viewers with commercial channels, but with different offers from such organisations as Netflix, Amazon and YouTube and from other options, such as gaming. Netflix now outspends the BBC on original content development. It is a significant player in the original content market.

To be clear, I am not necessarily echoing what the Prime Minister said in her speech to the Conservative party conference. She seemed to be trying to channel Sam Cooke by saying, “Change is coming”, many times during her speech, but plenty already has changed, and the pace of that change is accelerating. The Government need to face up to this, and that is why we are suggesting that they should hold a proper review of the interconnected issues of distribution, carriage, content creation, prominence and funding before developing and pursuing a clear and fair strategy for television distribution in general, and public service broadcasting distribution specifically. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve. Without that proper vision for how our public sector service broadcasters will operate in a fast-changing, multi-distribution, multi-channel, globalising world, we worry that not only will they not thrive as public service broadcasters, but that ultimately they may not survive. As I said earlier, we should not allow that to happen, and we certainly should not allow it to happen by accident.

The Minister must make it clear that he wants public service broadcasters to survive. I believe that he does, but he also has to make the Government’s strategy clear in the light of this rapidly changing, complex world. It is to be hoped that he can partly do that in response to the amendments, as well as laying out his views on our suggestion of producing a comprehensive report on the subject.

We are also discussing amendment 94, which is a probing amendment that is intended to tease out a timeline for the repeal of section 73. It relates a little to the amendment that the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty moved earlier in that it has a similar purpose. We just want to find out what the Government’s thinking is. Our amendment differs from his in that it states that the repeal should come into effect two months after Royal Assent, whereas his amendment states that it should come in immediately after Royal Assent. We will not press amendment 94 to a vote, but we want to hear the Minister’s thoughts and plans in relation to it.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman may well cover this in his further remarks, but I would be delighted to hear his view on why there should be a two-month delay after Royal Assent.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman is right to probe me on that. The truth of the matter is that there is a convenient clause to which we could add our amendments, which starts things two months after Royal Assent. As I said, amendment 94 is a probing amendment and I am sure the Minister will tell us all the reasons why it is technically defective. I will not push it to a vote so I am prepared to hear that, but we want to use it as a method of finding out the Government’s position.

Section 73 was originally introduced to encourage the roll-out of cable and to help a fledgling platform compete against terrestrial television by ensuring that cable platforms had access to public service broadcasting content. The Government have agreed that this policy objective was met some time ago, and in July reported that they were

“satisfied that the objective of ensuring that PSB services (as well as other TV services) are available throughout the UK has been met, and therefore section 73 is no longer required to achieve that objective.”

Subsection (3) states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section.”

Inasmuch as this generally means that the state will repeal section 73 when it sees fit, there are concerns among some public service broadcasters about understanding more clearly the Government’s intentions in relation to the timetable for that repeal. It would not be such a pressing issue were section 73 merely a harmless hangover and simply moribund. However, as we have heard, it is more than a legal anachronism. It is a loophole through which taxpayers’ money is effectively funnelled into private businesses.

As we have heard, section 73 allows companies, such as TVCatchup and FilmOn, to live stream the content of public service broadcasters and other channels online without permission. In other words, the money the public pay through their licence fee pays for content that is then, in effect, given away for free to companies other than public service broadcasters. Those companies then monetise that public service broadcasting content by placing their own advertising around it.

Public service broadcasters are granted public funding and the other advantages we have talked about on the understanding that, in exchange, they are obliged to air content that works for the public’s benefit, rather than solely for the benefit of commercial interests. Section 73, in effect, allows TVCatchup and FilmOn to benefit from that same public funding, but those companies are clearly not held to the same standards. That amounts not only to the taxpayer unwittingly subsidising those businesses, it effectively directs funds away from PSBs and impacts on their ability to generate legitimate commercial revenues and to reinvest in the wider creative economy. Those live-streaming sites increase public service broadcaster reliance on public money and can fuel a vicious cycle of under-funding.

There is cross-party agreement that that is wrong and has to be put right, which is what the Government are seeking to do, but why do we have to rely on the Secretary of State to

“make transitional, transitory or saving provisions”

for repealing section 73? Is it not the case that broadcasters and the public deserve a more explicit timeframe, for the reasons I have laid out, so that this does not persist for any more time than is absolutely necessary? Not only is that fair, but it would provide more certainty for public service broadcasters and ensure that their investment in UK content is protected. Amendments 63 and 64, which the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty tabled, would mean the repeal of section 73 immediately after Royal Assent, which offers one way forward. Our probing amendments offer another alternative if the Government need more time.

Public service broadcasters first wrote to the Intellectual Property Office to ask for the repeal of section 73 in 2008. In the meantime, TVCatchup has obviously made millions on the back of PSB content and the European Commission has launched infraction proceedings against the UK Government, on the basis that section 73 denies public service broadcasters their intellectual property rights for their content, which is guaranteed under the 2001 copyright directive. It would also be helpful to know from the Minister how he believes that infraction proceeding plays into our discussion on the amendment, the repeal of section 73, and what role it has to play if the Bill indeed repeals section 73. In short, will the Minister explain why he is not offering a clear timetable for repeal in the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

As I made clear, it is not our intention to put our amendments to a vote at this stage. The debate was extremely interesting, important and useful, despite the Minister’s seeming resentment of having debates that go into the detail of the Bill and despite his remarks about rising early. He should be careful about making such remarks, given that he was late for the first sitting of the Committee.

There is an important issue at stake here: in our proceedings, the Government get their way because they have a majority, but the Opposition have their say. That is the constitutional principle on which we are all here and it is the role that we play. The Minister’s continual grumpiness about that is not helping his cause. I thought it was a useful debate that has revealed and drawn out more clearly some of the Government’s thinking on the timetabling of the repeal of section 73. We are not going to put our amendments to a vote at this stage, but these are matters we might revisit later.

[Nigel Adams]

I very much enjoyed all the contributions, which were incredibly complete, informed and eloquent.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Digital Economy Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Nigel Adams

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is yet again spot on. It clearly is of its time. The idea was to try to help a nascent cable industry, and the legislation has done that; we have a healthy TV industry across all broadcast platforms, including cable and satellite. That legislation has done its job.

On pay TV platforms, such as Virgin and Sky, up to 50% of some of our most valuable content, such as drama, is viewed via subscription personal video recorder, from which the pay TV platforms derive substantial benefit. That undermines the commercial PSBs’ ability to secure a return from advertising, because much of their advertising is skipped, and materially reduces as critical opportunities to generate secondary revenue—for instance, from on-demand services or box sets—because libraries of valuable drama content can be built up for free on the PVR. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that repeal of section 73 is delivered at the earliest opportunity. That would mean that those who wish to re-transmit or otherwise use PSB services in the future will have to negotiate to do so, which seems only fair. They should be able to negotiate within the must-offer regime in the Communications Act 2003. That would enable those who create the content to make a return on their investment and continue to make the programmes that viewers love, which are the envy of the world.

There has been extensive consultation on the issue so there is no need for further delay. I will therefore be very grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister can provide more detail on the timeframe for the repeal of section 73 of the 1988 Act, as included in clause 28.

[Kevin Brennan]

I rise to speak to our amendments 189 and 94. I note the well-informed and cogent points made by the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty, and I understand why the Government want to repeal section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as he laid out. Clearly apps such as TVCatchup cannot be allowed to profit from public service broadcasting content without making any sort of contribution to its creation, either by paying for it or in some other way; without agreeing some kind of licence for its use; and without abiding by public service broadcasting standards for its distribution. It is entirely logical to repeal the section and we support the intention to prevent TVCatchup from doing what it does, but the Government need to explain the knock-on effects on the market.

Artistic Remuneration for Online Content

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Nigel Adams

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Adams]

Quite right.

Just a few weeks ago, the trade body, UK Music, published a report on the value of music tourism to the UK, which showed that direct and indirect spending in 2014 from music tourism was £3.7 billion. Some 38% of live music audiences are music tourists: music lovers from outside the UK. They come because they love our world-class artists and our fantastic venues and festivals. It might be easy to take our creative industries for granted and to assume that the country that gave the world Shakespeare, the Beatles, Harry Potter and Banksy will also be at the forefront of the global culture landscape, but that would be a massive mistake. Indeed, we in this House have a duty to ensure that our cultural sector has the tools to grow, including a copyright regime that is fit for purpose in a digital online market.

Members may have read about the recent public disagreement between songwriters and artists and YouTube over royalties paid by the service. In the last few weeks, 186 major artists in the US and over 1,000 in the UK and Europe have signed public statements of dissatisfaction addressed to the US Congress and to Jean-Claude Juncker. Signatories range from Sir Paul McCartney and ABBA to Ne-Yo, Idina Menzel and deadmau5, and even includes the former French first lady, Carla Bruni, who is also a recording artist—although I do not have too many of her tracks on my iPhone.

Last month, I met members of PRS for Music and songwriters and composers whose music and songs are enjoyed around the world. I heard from them the dissatisfaction that millions of streams can result in just a few hundred pounds in royalties or, in some cases, no royalties at all. Most dramatically, I spoke to one songwriter who was entitled to 25% of the revenue from a song he wrote, but who had seen a mere £5.39 from almost 3.2 million plays of that song on YouTube by listeners who actively sought out that track. Meanwhile, the same songwriter saw several times that amount—a princely £87.79—from the 180 occasions on which the song was played in stadiums in the UK, despite those listeners being passive and hearing what others chose to play for them. That seems to be a pretty upside-down arrangement.

To show how far behind the law the balance is, Geoff Taylor of the British Phonographic Industry recently said that British artists saw more revenue in 2015 from the 2.1 million vinyl LP sales than from the 27 billion music video streams on YouTube and similar platforms. It is not difficult to understand the despair of a writer or artist who sees their life’s work online with little hope of any financial reward now or in the future. This is particularly a problem for less high-profile producers, writers and creative people, who are less likely to have additional income streams from endorsements or touring.

High-profile artists are often very concerned about this problem and its impact on other members of the creative community and their teams. A big artist will often get little sympathy and, as we have seen recently, there may even be a backlash from the media and consumers for speaking out about the problem if they are perceived to be well off. Fair or unfair, this reaction just makes it harder to expose the problem and to support fair remuneration for those in the industry who are less famous.

The basis of the music industry’s concerns is the so called “safe harbour” laws, which in the US, EU and UK give user upload streaming services the same protection from copyright as host providers, such as personal cloud locker services. This is despite the fact that they operate entirely differently and, more importantly, impact the market in different ways. Take, for example, a comparison between Spotify and the user upload site Dailymotion. Both sites allow users to search for and listen to Adele’s track “Hello”, one of the fastest-selling tracks of all time. Spotify is licensed to stream that track and thus pays the artist, songwriter, producers, musicians, publishers and labels that are so crucial to creation of the content, but Dailymotion does not. Due to ambiguity in the safe harbour framework, user upload services can claim to be mere hosts of their user’s content and, as such, are not required to share with the creators the wealth they generate for themselves. That does not seem fair.

When a business model is based on making available to consumers creative content created by others, surely we as lawmakers must ask whether this is right. In fact, the very premise of copyright is to ensure that creators are paid when their work is exploited by others.

It may be easy to argue that the current framework is good for consumers. How can it not be, when music can be enjoyed more easily than ever before? However, I would add a note of caution to such assumptions and suggest that the user experience may not be as positive as it might first seem. When faced with piracy, it was universally agreed that creative content has an intrinsic value that must be protected if the future generation of creators are to be nourished for society’s economic and cultural benefit. These principles remain true today and we must not replace one market failure with another.

Equally, there are impacts on the licensed streaming services to which many users pay a monthly subscription. These services are forced to compete on an unequal playing field with user-upload services that pay little or nothing to creators. They are forced to offer their own ad-funded services, which are often run at a loss or subsidised by income from the subscription service. The net result is less competition in the market for subscription pricing and ultimately consumers could lose out.

In March, the all-party parliamentary group on music, which I chair, hosted a dinner to discuss the growing music streaming market. The dinner was well attended by services such as Apple Music and Spotify, as well as representatives of the music industry. It was clear from the dinner that streaming presents many opportunities for the industry and that it is embracing them. However, there are challenges in ensuring the music industry captures this value, such as whether advertising revenue and ad-funded models are sustainable and the growth of ad-blocking and stream-ripping technologies that can have an impact on the amount of remuneration the industry receives in return. The legal position of safe harbours and how they interact with the market perhaps presents an even more fundamental problem, and this will continue unless action is taken.

The Creative Industries Council launched its strategy this week, with many recommendations to the Government and industry alike. The council is seeking legal clarity concerning the liability of platforms that actively host and market content. Specifically, it argues that to maintain an intellectual property framework fit for the digital age, such platforms should not benefit from safe harbours. The Government have indicated that they would support a clarification too. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister said what plans the Government have to respond formally to that recommendation and what further steps they are taking to achieve that.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I declare an interest, in that I earned £10.60 in royalties from PRS last year for my songwriting—and paid 40% tax on it. Will the hon. Gentleman address the role of search engines in all of this? I recall that a few years ago we did a search during a debate and found that most of the results that came up were from illegal sites. Is that an issue that he thinks the Government should also be doing more to address?

[Nigel Adams]

It is absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed. I have myself searched online and found that the results I get are from piracy sites. Something has to be done. There is a responsibility in this respect not just for Government, but for the search engines themselves. Perhaps afterwards I can help the hon. Gentleman spend his £5.60 as we discuss what should come out of this debate.

We are in a unique place to address these issues and ensure that we are world leaders in striking the right balance between the promotion of technology and creative innovation. With the recent vote to leave the EU, the UK Government will have full control over policies related to digital streaming and artist remuneration. Will the Minister undertake to investigate whether provisions can be put in place so that once we eventually leave the EU, our UK industries can fully achieve the value in their rights?

UK Musicians Performing Overseas

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Nigel Adams

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), chair of the all-party group on music, on securing the debate and on his opening remarks. He covered much of the ground in his speech very well and I associate myself with his remarks about the Bataclan attack in Paris. People getting together to enjoy one another’s company, whether at a football match or music gig, represents the best of humanity, and people killing others while they enjoy themselves for the sake of a twisted ideology represents the worst of humanity. We are here to celebrate the best of humanity in our wonderful musicians and to try to help them a little, with the assistance of the Minister, to pursue their profession, career, trade and art with a bit more freedom and more opportunities to travel and play abroad.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and I thank the other hon. Members who have contributed, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) whose Wikipedia entry describes her occupation as writer, columnist, politician, senior lecturer and music DJ. She did not mention that in her contribution, but I am sure we all look forward to witnessing that talent during this Parliament. She pondered on what would be the contribution to Chinese history of the famous tour by Wham! of the People’s Republic of China. The answer may be the same as that given by Zhou Enlai when asked about the French revolution’s influence on history: it is too early to tell. No doubt we will eventually find out what contribution Wham! made to Chinese history.

[Nigel Adams]

That tour may have been preceded by Elton John—I am not sure of my chronology—but its contribution may have been a surge in bleached mullets across China. They became very popular if I remember the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

[Kevin Brennan]

Is it any wonder that from time to time we are condemned for western imperialism by those in the far east?

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on her contribution. She said she was tone deaf, but I thought she hit exactly the right note with her contribution. She has colleagues who are very musically talented, including the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who plays in the legendary parliamentary rock band, MP4, with me and colleagues from other parts of the House.

Moving on to our discussion today, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty and other hon. Members outlined the contribution that the music industry makes to our economy, particularly to our export revenue. When our balance of payments is in significant deficit the industry makes a positive contribution. There is always a danger of double-counting, but the figure for UK music of around £2 billion is credible, and nearly £1 billion of that comes from the work of musicians, composers, songwriters and lyricists in foreign currency revenue from overseas. A significant amount, estimated at £42 million, comes from foreign currency through live performances of UK music. Music is a significant part of our economic strength and our cultural strength, and the soft power of the industry’s contribution to promoting democracy, freedom and our cultural values across the world is highly significant and should not be underestimated.

There have been some welcome developments in recent years, including the music export growth scheme, which the Government introduced in the last Parliament to support musicians through grants enabling them to develop, to tour and to play overseas. That scheme is very welcome, but what is not welcome is the fact that musicians who are supported by it, or by Arts Council and other schemes, are sometimes denied the opportunity to tour overseas and subject to excessive costs if they do. Recently, there has been a particular focus on musicians touring in the USA, because of a number of cases that have been highlighted.

Let me say that I am extremely pro-USA and a big fan of American music. I have an American wife. I first went to America with my guitar—I was not stopped at customs—when I was 19 years old.

Music and the Economy

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Nigel Adams

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Live music is incredibly important to pubs as venues, not just for the pub’s business, but for the artist. It is incredibly important that young artists—people starting out—get an opportunity to play in pubs as venues. I shall talk about that later.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

rose—