Smaller Musical Genres: Scotland

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend is quite right to mention Celtic Connections, because they do not come any better than that. I remember when it all kicked off, back in 1993. It was a few concerts in the concert hall in Glasgow. It is now at practically every venue in central Glasgow, and I think it goes on for 10 days. Of course, like my hon. Friend, I will have the great pleasure of attending a performance on Friday evening. We are all looking forward to that, although I think he will probably have better luck than me at cadging tickets for the club activities in the evening, but we will see how that all ends up. I am looking forward to it. It is a great example of how smaller, niche music is supported, although the festival not small anymore because of the support it has been given over the years.

I want to come to jazz in particular, because it is important. The cutting of “Jazz Nights” comes at a time when Scottish jazz is really doing well. Jazz has flourished in Scotland in recent years, and our emerging artists have started to gain national and international recognition. One of those, of course, is the wonderful Fergus McCreadie, who won the Scottish album of the year and was nominated for last year’s Mercury prize. I do not know if the Minister has had an opportunity to listen to his album, “Forest Floor”; I know that she will rush to stream it this evening, because it is a wonderful example of virtuosity, and it combines a number of genres and disciplines. It is a wonderful piece of work, and he is only in his 20s. I mention him because he is a great example of what “Jazz Nights” did: he got his first break from it. It supported and sustained him; it played his music, and now he is on the point of embarking on an international career. That is the type of thing it should be doing.

We should recognise that Edinburgh is the home of international festivals, particularly the jazz festival. Edinburgh is becoming increasingly renowned as a European, if not world, centre for classical music. No wonder, with facilities such as the redeveloped Usher Hall. It is a great place to watch classical music. Again, if the Minister is looking for recommendations, she should go there some day to see some of the wonderful concerts that it puts on.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has strayed too far into Glasgow for my liking. Would he agree that the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, based in my Glasgow Central constituency, is a huge part of that flourishing scene, in which there is classical, jazz and pipe music, and that there is now collaboration between those three? It is key that young people hear that music on the radio, and that it reaches a wider audience, because it will not be picked up by the commercial stations. The BBC has a key role in identifying and promoting young talent, which can then go on to great success.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in her assessment and description of the wonderful work that goes on in the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. It has fantastic staff. I have not had an opportunity to visit for a while, so I will put that on my list now; I will definitely go and see it. John Wallace, a distinguished former leader of the conservatoire, asked what the point of cutting all these programmes is. He is right to ask. We must ensure that young artists get to hear themselves on the radio.

When we want to hear these genres of music, we naturally turn to the BBC. The BBC remains the dominant force in UK broadcasting because of its distinctive funding arrangement, and because the licence fee allows it to do things that no other operator can. We turn to it when trying to find the things that we want. Even with all the increased competition over the years, the BBC still accounts for 47% of radio consumption. That privileged position makes it especially important that BBC radio provides programmes that are distinctive and of public value. The BBC has statutory responsibilities and obligations to do so, and Ofcom is there to ensure that the BBC fulfils them. The BBC has a clear commitment to ensure that all genres of music are played, and to serve an audience beyond the mainstream. That is what the BBC is supposed to do. Instead, there has been a reduction in important public value obligations, and a loss of distinctiveness.

Ofcom is consulting, and is expected to produce its final proposals in a few months’ time, and a new operating licence comes into effect from April. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is also having its mid-term review of the BBC, and of course we are all expecting the White Paper with great anticipation. The Minister and I discussed that at length when she appeared before the Scottish Affairs Committee. There are lots of things going on. With all this activity and all these reviews, I plead with her not to lose sight of the prime objective of serving all audiences and ensuring that everyone has something that they can listen to. It is so tempting to play to the mainstream only—to appeal to the mass audience. We should ensure that everyone is served.

Let us look at the BBC’s obligations and responsibilities as outlined by Ofcom. It says that the BBC should ensure a

“range of programming is provided”

across all its services. Specifically on radio services, Ofcom says:

“the BBC should ensure its portfolio of stations offer the broadest variety of output and that the range of musical output on its popular radio services is broader than that of comparable providers”.

The BBC’s decision to cut jazz, classical and piping programming will vastly reduce its fulfilment of that commitment, and the way that it represents and platforms some of Scotland’s most dynamic and emerging music scenes. It is clearly a breach of what is set out in the charter and in regulation. I hope that the Minister will remind BBC Scotland of its obligations and responsibilities.

In response to the chorus of disapproval, the BBC has got in touch with all of us about the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) met the BBC last Friday, I believe, and heard some of its alternative proposals. None of what has been suggested comes close to beating it on satisfaction grounds or to making up for the loss of these programmes. The BBC seems to be proposing a series of amalgamations where it takes these programmes off-spectrum, puts them online and diverts people to other services. That is simply not good enough. It does not even start to address what is being lost.

My appeal to the BBC is to listen to people on the frontline, such as those at the meeting with my hon. Friend. They are the ones who know the genres, how they work and operate and what they require in order to survive, sustain and develop. Is there anything the Minister could do to encourage the BBC to engage positively with them? The BBC has engaged positively in the past, and I know that the people at BBC Scotland are good guys. I believe they have the best interests of our nation at heart. They want to serve these audiences, but they just need encouragement to do the right thing and make sure the services are safe.

This is a hard time to be a musician. I would have hated to be a musician during this period. I was one in the ’80s and ’90s, which were days of bounty. It is an entirely different regime now. Streaming accounts mean that musicians earn very little from their recorded work. Then there are the effects of the pandemic and a cost of living crisis. I think I saw a survey showing that over 90% of musicians are now concerned about the impact of the cost of living crisis on their ability to perform. There was a report yesterday about the loss of venues and clubs, which is restricting live performance.

We have had the impact of Brexit. Europe is practically closed to new artists with all the different paperwork that is required. This is not a good time. We do not need these difficulties to be compounded with the loss of an opportunity to be played on the radio. We may not get all the right notes in the right order, as specified by our good friend the great late Eric Morecambe, but I hope we can bring some support to the sector and encourage people to think again and look at the damage this might bring to the sector. I hope the Minister will do all she can to ensure that people are aware of the responsibilities and obligations and think again about the damage.

Ticket Touting: Musical Events

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

I have got an even better and more elegant solution than my hon. Friend’s, and I beg her to be patient; I will get to it. The issue has to be tackled properly. There is no point mucking around, doing things tentatively. We have to grab the bull by the horns. If she gives me a few minutes, I will get to that point.

I want to explain my renewed interest in the matter, Sir Christopher, because I know you will be absolutely fascinated. My former band, Runrig, put tickets on sale for their last ever concert, which will be at Stirling castle later this year. As the last ever concert, it was obviously going to be popular. There was no way that supply would ever satisfy demand, so it was going to be a target for the touts. Within minutes of tickets going on sale, I was inundated with Runrig fans angry, frustrated and disappointed with the experience of trying to secure a ticket. I was provided with screengrabs of tickets available on the secondary site, Get Me In!, at four times the face value of the tickets that the secondary site owner, the official agent Ticketmaster, had just put on sale 12 minutes earlier.

Runrig did everything possible to spare their fans from the touts, but it is almost impossible to evade their parasitic reach. Since then, I have watched through disbelieving eyes the misery extended to other live music events scheduled to take place this summer. Probably the biggest ticket of the year will be the Rolling Stones. They are playing at Murrayfield in Edinburgh. It will be a really popular show, and it is another huge opportunity for the touts. I saw tickets on sale for 480% above face value, even though face-value tickets were still available. People were directed through Google to the sites and encouraged to buy from them.

I pay credit to the Rolling Stones and the Daily Record, which has been absolutely fantastic—particularly the journalist Mark McGivern, who has pursued this matter resolutely. The Daily Record reported that the Stones were offered a cash incentive to put their tickets on sale to an agency that has pretty invidious relationships with secondary sites. It is to their immense credit that Sir Mick Jagger and Keith Richards turned that down, but does that not demonstrate how far up the chain the issue reaches that such matters are discussed in band meetings? It shows the callous disregard for music fans from those at the very top of the music business. Given Government inaction, it has been left to the artists and musicians to try to develop solutions to protect their fans. It should not be the job of singers, musicians and guitarists to protect ordinary people from consumer affairs issues. That is the Government’s job. Ministers should be doing that.

Bands have attempted to put all sorts of tough terms and conditions on their tickets to try to keep them out of the secondary market, and artists are looking at ever more innovative solutions to protect their fans. I pay tribute to artists including Adele, Ed Sheeran, Noel Gallagher, Bastille and in particular the Arctic Monkeys, who have deployed a number of anti-touting strategies, but we need Government to take the lead.

I do not know which hon. Member or hon. Friend suggested banning bots, but the Government are starting to do something. They are in the process of banning those anonymous bots that hoover up tickets, and they are now starting to ensure that recalcitrant secondary companies comply with existing law. At last the CMA has given notice to Seatwave, Get Me In! and StubHub, but they have been given nine months to comply. The biggest culprit of them all, Viagogo, has not even responded to the Government, but they still allow it to do business. We have had the Waterson report and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but that is regularly broken and ignored. It has failed to protect people and it is tentatively enforced. Much stronger action is required.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), I question the need for a secondary market at all. Why is there one? If someone cannot go to a concert they have a ticket for, they should give it back to the venue, which can then resell it to someone who can go. What is wrong with a simple arrangement such as that?

We usually hear from people—we have seen it in a couple of articles—that this is all about tickets finding their natural value, as if there is a sort of stock market where tickets find their real value at the hands of the touts reselling them. What utter tosh and rubbish! Since I secured this debate, I have even had touts getting in touch with me who say that they are some sort of misunderstood public servants. They have even set up their own self-help group called the Fair Ticketing Alliance. Someone will have to patiently explain to me how snapping up hundreds of tickets, then selling them back at twice, three or four times the price is really in the consumer interest. That is the thing about the touts: they will never stop, and they will always remain one step ahead of any measures to deal with them.

Touting is a hugely profitable business that will not be given up lightly, but it is what it is doing to live music that concerns me most. It is now threatening the whole music industry. The anti-tout campaign group FanFair Alliance—I pay tribute to the excellent work it is doing through Mark and Adam—conducted an opinion poll. Two thirds of respondents who paid more than face value for a ticket on a resale site said they would attend fewer concerts in future, while half would spend less on recorded music. The FanFair Alliance is spot on in concluding that touting is doing considerable damage to one of our great export industries, in which we lead the world and which supports 150,000 jobs.

The Government have been reluctant and slow to legislate on behalf of music fans and artists, but they cannot continue to ignore the damage being done by a dysfunctional infrastructure that is broken beyond repair.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am lucky to have venues in my constituency from the Barrowland right across to the Hydro, but does my hon. Friend agree that if people are paying more money for their tickets, there will be less money to spend in the neighbouring venues? Cities will lose out as a result.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a dynamic hit on all associated industries and businesses. If money is put into the hands of the touts and agencies, it is taken out of the hands of the music industry and those in it. Come on, Minister! Let us reclaim the music. Let us make going to a live show a safe environment. Let us make buying a ticket a reasonable experience, where we will not be exposed to profiteers, touts and spivs.

This is an exploitative marketplace. It is one of the biggest crises we have in consumer affairs, and it is destroying our music industry. It is no good pussyfooting around any longer; it is time to act. Join the rest of us, Minister. Let us reclaim the music and make it safe for fans to buy tickets online.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). I always seem to follow him during debates such as this, and that is probably as it should be, given his thoughtful contributions. I shall pick up a couple of the issues that he highlighted in what was, again, a very thoughtful speech.

I thank the Leader of the House for her opening contribution, and congratulate her on the stout leadership that she offered throughout the deliberations of the working group. She mentioned 100 hours; looking at my colleagues behind me, I have to say that they may not have been the most peaceful 100 hours—there was a little bit of fractious debate on some of the issues—but this is nevertheless a solid, cross-party piece of work. I do not think that, during my 17 years in the House, I have been involved in a piece of work that has been so considered, so reviewed and so comprehensively examined. That is a tribute to the diligence of all the members of the working group, many of whom are in the Chamber today. It was a privilege to be part of that group, and I hope that I played some small part in designing its hugely important report.

I join the Leader of the House in thanking the many witnesses who appeared before the group, and the staff who played such a vital role in helping to provide the testimony and evidence. I particularly thank the members of the secretariat, some of whom are in the Box this afternoon, for making sense of all the fractious debate and the various goings-on and producing what I think is a very readable report which addresses all the issues that were raised.

This was also a new way of working. I think that the most innovative and useful feature was the presence of staff members in the working group. Indeed, it was probably a first. Staff had equality of membership with MPs, which, in my view, gives the report added legitimacy, and will go a long way towards ensuring that the staff can have confidence in it. I hope that we can do more of that type of work in the future, involving the staff of the House. When it comes to such critical work, particularly work on House issues, we need to hear their voices. As we discovered when preparing the report, they have solid contributions to make to discussions about the way in which the House functions.

This report is a significant and ambitious piece of work which will, hopefully, help to redefine the culture in our Westminster workplace. I think that the most important part is the first sentence of the first paragraph, which states:

“All those who work for or with Parliament have a right to dignity at work”.

Some may feel that that does not need to be said, but it underpins everything else in the report, and I believe that it cannot be reiterated often enough.

Some 15,000 people work in and around the parliamentary estate, including us weird and demanding Members of Parliament, the even stranger Members of the House of Lords, and the staff who support us so that we can make our grandstanding speeches and try to impress our constituents. The estate is full of very diverse and, I think we must concede, some weird and strange people. One thing, however, should unite everyone on the estate, and that is the conviction that all who work here have a right to expect to work in an environment that is free from bullying and harassment, especially sexual harassment. There should be zero tolerance of any inappropriate behaviour.

The report was not created in a vacuum; it was a response to some very serious allegations that emerged at the end of last year. The leaders of all our parties got together and decided that those allegations had to be addressed, and that something had to be done in Parliament about such a crucial issue. That was what sanctioned the work that we did. However, it was also a response to the wider societal debate about the many revelations that have followed the Weinstein revelations in Hollywood.

We are, I believe, at a critical juncture in the debate about harassment in the workplace. We have an historic opportunity to redefine what is and what is not acceptable, and to make an important contribution and commitment to dignity at work. It is essential for Parliament to lead the way, because Parliament is the forum of our national debate and the centre of our democracy. We would be shirking our responsibility if we did not issue the strongest possible statement that such behaviour is unacceptable in this place, as it should be unacceptable in any workplace in the United Kingdom. If we did not lead the way and establish procedures and processes to deal with our own issues, we would be letting down the people whom we serve throughout the country. We should set the example, and I believe that this document does that. It sets out, very clearly, our commitment to putting our own house in order.

The working group gained a sense of the scale of the problem in our own workplace after commissioning a short survey, asking people working in Parliament about their experiences of bullying and harassment. There was a solid response from staff throughout the estate, some 1,377 of whom replied. The results of that survey, together with the results of surveys conducted by Unite and the Members and Peers Staff Association, gave us a pretty strong impression of some of the unsavoury activities that had been taking place. Indeed, some of the findings were quite shocking. What those surveys revealed was that bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, had been a feature of the lives of many people who work in Parliament. Of the respondents, 39% reported experiences of non-sexual harassment or bullying in the last year, and 19% reported experiences of sexual harassment or witnessing sexually inappropriate behaviour.

I have only just received—along with, I am sure, every other Member—an email from the Young Women’s Trust. It is an important e-mail, but, unfortunately, I saw it too late to be able to include it in the formal part of my speech. Figures that it included made it clear that the issues in young women’s workplaces throughout the country are not very different from the issues that we identified in the House of Commons.

The proposal is for a new shared code of behaviour that will underpin the new complaints and grievance policy. We will have a new, transparent, robust and credible complaints and grievance system that protects the confidentiality of proceedings and applies natural justice at its core, and it will be independent of the political parties, which is a key feature. Concerns have been raised about the political parties’ abilities to deal with these issues. I do not point the finger at any particular party; all our parties are bad at doing this stuff. We have several unresolved cases of people who have been charged with all sorts of activities but where that has still not been heard properly. There is a lack of confidence about political parties’ abilities to take these issues up, because of fear that the parties will try to defend and protect their own political interests. An independent route is therefore essential. A party route will still be available for people who feel that is more appropriate for them, but I hope that, in time, the independent route will be routinely used.

Another attractive and helpful feature is the proposal that all our staff secure HR support. I have been in this place quite a long time and I was shocked that that facility was not available for members of staff. Given that we are going to go forward with new codes of behaviour and new procedures for resolving grievance, it is essential that that support is given to staff. That is an important innovation that I am certain will be warmly received by members of staff throughout the House.

Concerns about sexual harassment are what led to this group being set up, and, importantly, in our report we recognise that sexual harassment is qualitatively different from other forms of inappropriate behaviour and therefore requires different definitions, procedures and approaches. This new confidential scheme will provide practical and emotional support to any complainant, and respect absolutely that complainants have confidentiality and have no obligation to report criminal offences to the police, although they will be supported if they feel that is appropriate and it is their choice to do so. All reports will be handled by a specialist, trained independent sexual violence adviser, who will be a single point of contact throughout the proceedings. The way this has been designed will give confidence to anybody who wants to come forward that they will have respect and confidentiality, and that there will be a proper road map for how the complaint will be conducted and progressed.

Sanctions are important, too—we have already heard a few issues about that. I was disappointed when a draft report was leaked to the press over Christmas and the press sought to portray it as if Members would only have to make an apology or would just get a slap on the wrist if they were found to be transgressors or guilty in any respect, but it was never anything of the sort. We have put forward a whole range of sanctions that will be in place, from just an apology where that might be all that is necessary to resolve a dispute, all the way up to the possibility of recall of an MP and the expulsion of a Member of the House of Lords. The full list of sanctions is included in the report.

Lastly, I want to talk about the culture of the House, as this issue came up time and again in our deliberations. I hate the culture of this House. I have never been fond of being in the House of Commons; some of my friends think it is a fantastic place to work and do their business, but I always find it a little bit uncomfortable. Perhaps it is the Scottish nationalist in me that grates a little bit, but this House has a peculiar historical culture that practically oozes patriarchy and abuse of power. I had a female friend in the House a few months ago who is very conscious of these issues and she told me that the portraits in this place seem to harass us because of the way the images are set up. The historical patriarchy we have in this place is embedded in the defining features of this House. Our workplace is a weird bastion of privilege. We call friends like mine who visited the House “Strangers” and legislation is designed on a sea of booze in the many bars we have around the perimeter of this Chamber.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the sea of alcohol in this place. I was at an event that started at 1 o’clock this afternoon and wine was being served. Does he consider that appropriate within this building?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that, because I want to come on to some compelling evidence that we secured during our inquiry. It came from Sarah Childs, who authored the “Good Parliament” report, which I know my hon. Friend will be familiar with. It is a fantastic report that got to the heart of how this place does business and the culture and environment we work in, and makes some practical suggestions for addressing it. We work here till after midnight some nights, and I do not mind doing that. It is what we do as parliamentarians, but no one should suggest that it is good practice or that it allows us to get home to our families or to have a proper work-life balance. That would be nonsense. We do the work because we are committed to doing it, but no one can convince me that this is good practice. That brings me back to the question of setting an example. We should be leading the way in good, normal working practice. We do it in Scotland, where we have designed our Parliament around a normal working day, and if it can be done there, we can do it here too. I hope that we will continue to engage with the work that Sarah Childs has undertaken. I cannot commend her report highly enough when it comes to having a look at the culture and environment of this place.

Plumbers’ Pensions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of plumbers’ pensions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, for what will be a short but hopefully considered debate about the future of plumbers’ pensions. I want to bring the issue to the attention of the House to ensure that we acknowledge the complicated concerns that plumbers have right across the country. I plead with the Government and everybody involved that we all work together to try to resolve the difficult and technical issues that are having a quite grievous impact on plumbers not just in my constituency but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

I first became aware of the difficulties with plumbers’ pensions when I was invited to attend a meeting of Perthshire plumbers by a Conservative councillor colleague who was associated with the trade, so that I could listen to some of the concerns that were starting to emerge from plumbers right across Scotland. I was totally shocked when I heard the scale of the difficulties, the sheer numbers involved and the concerns and anxieties presented to me by plumbers that evening. Theirs are businesses that have been serving communities such as mine, the Minister’s and yours, Mr Bailey, for decades. They are family businesses, run by people we all know and are familiar with, that do a fantastic service on behalf of the people they look after.

Plumbers have been blissfully unaware of the ticking time bomb that has been waiting for them at the end of their careers and working lives, because they have been busy getting on with their work, developing their businesses and ensuring that our pipes are fixed and our washing machines are repaired. Now they find, at the end of their careers, that life savings and family homes are at risk. These people have done absolutely nothing wrong. They have conscientiously contributed to their pension pot and ensured they have done the right thing for all the people they have employed throughout the years.

This is a technical issue, so if Members will bear with me, I will try to explain and define it as simply as I can. It seems that many plumbers are caught up in a living nightmare of huge liabilities and potential debts upon retirement because of unintended consequences associated with section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. I have had a good look at the Pensions Act and the provisions associated with section 75. It seems to me, on paper, a perfectly legitimate and reasonable inclusion in the Act, to ensure that pension scheme integrity is retained and pension benefits are protected. It is, though, that measure that has had unintended consequences for plumbers’ pension schemes.

The simple fact is that pension schemes for small, non-associated multi-employer businesses such as those designed by plumbers are a potential disaster, with huge consequences for plumbers simply wanting to retire or wind up their businesses. That is because under section 75, employers can become liable for what is known as a section 75 employer debt, which is triggered when plumbers seek to retire or wind up their business or if their business becomes insolvent. Section 75 employer debt is calculated on the departing employer’s share of the shortfall in the scheme on a buy-out basis, based on the hypothetical situation that the whole scheme is wound up and annuities are to be paid to all existing members.

That debt is also calculated on securing the scheme’s benefits with an insurance company, which will inevitably lead to a greater figure than if the scheme deficit was determined on the ongoing basis that would normally apply in such situations. The calculation produces a significantly higher scheme deficit than if it was calculated on an ongoing or technical provisions basis. It also ignores the fact that a scheme had no deficit on a technical provisions basis at its last actuarial valuation. That has led to some plumbers facing potential liabilities of millions of pounds.

The scheme that most Scottish plumbers buy into is run and administered by the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation—SNIPEF. It is a fantastic scheme that plumbers have enjoyed, and it is actually more than fully funded. The last actuarial valuation was carried out in 2014, and the actuary found that the assets were enough to cover 101% of the scheme’s liability. That calculation was assumed on the ongoing basis, which assumes that the scheme would continue to pay out to members.

Probably the most invidious part of the calculation is the inclusion of what is called orphan liabilities—liabilities that cannot be identified from people who have already left the scheme. Those account for something like 60% of the liabilities included in the whole scheme, and a shortfall of £453 million. It is totally unfair and almost absurd that plumbers who have conscientiously paid into the scheme are exposed to such huge liabilities.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Eric Cuthill, who runs Hugh Stirling Ltd in my constituency, has raised concerns about this issue. He has been paying in for his employees for 34 years, meaning that his employer debt liability could run into the tens of thousands. Does my hon. Friend agree that that kind of liability is quite unfair when small businesses such as my constituent’s have done so much to support their employees through occupational schemes?

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. These people are not city spivs. They have not malevolently tried to get out of paying their contributions. They are people like my hon. Friend’s constituent, who have conscientiously paid into schemes and never knew they would face a potential issue at the end of their working careers. It is so unfair that they are being exposed to issues such as this. These are the people who fix our central heating, get the washing machine working again, fix our broken pipes and repair the boiler.

Creative Industries

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to be summing up for the Scottish National party in what has been a very fine debate. It feels like we have been on some sort of geographic cultural tour de force, as we have learned about the delights of the many bidding cities for European city of culture, as well as the other cultural delights of many other cities. We are all enriched by learning about some of the great cultural facets of all these different and differing parts of the UK. I, of course, declare my interest as a former recording artist and refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I have spoken in practically every single debate on the creative industries in my 15 years in this House. It is always fantastic to come to these debates and just learn and see how many more Members are taking an interest in their creative industries and the things that underpin them, such as intellectual property and some of the fiscal levers we have at our disposal.

I congratulate those who opened the debate; I forgot to mention the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). It is worth reminding ourselves how fantastically we do in this country. The UK is the largest cultural economy in the world relative to GDP. We are the largest producer of TV and radio content in Europe. We are the largest producer of recorded music in Europe and the second largest in the world. We have the third largest filmed entertainment market globally. As chair of the all-party group on writers, it was also fantastic for me to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) about her wonderful authors and writers, and it is great to know that we are the largest publishing market in Europe.

The creative industries are growing almost twice as fast as the wider economy. I think it was the Minister who first mentioned, in a tweet, that we are now worth £10 million an hour to the UK economy. Many have subsequently picked up that figure. The creative industries are also a huge employer, and the number of jobs in them increased by 5.5% between 2013 and 2014.

There is incredible growth in our creative sector and its industries, therefore. When so many of our sectors are flatlining, we are practically reindustrialising this nation on the imagination, creativity and talent of the people of this country. What a wonderful way to grow our economy, based on those virtues.

[Alison Thewliss]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that the artists studios in Glasgow are so successful that they are having to expand and expand. I visited the Briggait in my constituency. They are planning their expansion because they have filled the space they have, as have Wasp Studios. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need further support from Government for the artists studios in the city?

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. We are all seeing and experiencing—as we have heard in most of the contributions and interventions today—that every constituency and community now has some form of creative hub, providing highly skilled jobs, giving opportunities to young people, employing people and encouraging them, and culturally enriching their communities. I pay tribute to the wonderful work done in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in those of so many other Members.

This is about much more than the hard economics, important though they are in assessing the contribution the creative industries make. The creative industries provide a conduit which allows for the cultural enrichment of our nation and communities. We are successful in this country primarily because we are fantastically good at producing this stuff. We are also successful because we have managed to provide the conditions that allow talent to develop and grow. I have always said that one of our major responsibilities as legislators and Members of this House is to try to create the conditions that allow the optimum environment for our artists and those who invest in our talent and build our creative industries, so that they can continue to develop, thrive and grow. We have been successful in that, because up to this point we have managed to provide the frameworks that allow our creative industries to grow.

There are certain things that need to be in place in order to have a successful creative industries sector. Some of them are fiscal, and some are at the disposal of this Government. We have already heard about the difference some of the tax reliefs have made to various sectors, particularly computer games, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) made such a good point and recognised. When we deploy these things, we get a massive return and a massive hit. Some of the support is resourcing, therefore, such as ensuring that funds are available for what are mainly small and medium-sized enterprises to develop and grow. There is so much more we can do to incentivise our SMEs, to ensure we continue to create that optimal environment for development in these sectors.

Other things are probably a bit more difficult to achieve, and they are what I want to address. I want us to ensure that the artists who are prepared to use their talent are properly rewarded for the work they produce and those who invest in it are properly rewarded for the investment they make. We must strive to make that always the case and to ensure that those who produce this wonderful work, which we see and experience and love so much, are rewarded properly. This is why we need to ensure that the intellectual property rights of those involved in our creative sector are always respected and progressed.

Our creative industries inhabit a part of the economy that is fast changing, developing all the time and always open to technological innovation, and more than anything we are seeing the migration to digitisation in the online environment. That presents probably a bigger challenge to our creative industries than to any other sector of the economy, which is why we must be ever vigilant around the demands and needs of the creative economy and sector. Even though the creative industries are a huge success story—we can see the contribution they make to our economy—many people in music, film and television production, publishing and design still struggle to be rewarded properly for their efforts. We have to design a properly functioning digital market that enables creators and rights holders to secure the full value of their work online.

It has to be said again that the market is being distorted by the tech giants. The likes of Google and YouTube—the gateways to online content—distort the market and make it difficult for artists and those who invest in their talent to be rewarded for their work. Google is a fantastic facility—I am sure we all use it—but it makes such a big impression on the market and makes life so difficult for those in the creative sector. We have to get on top of that. So often, searches on Google and through other big tech companies still direct people towards sites that are either illegal or do not properly reward artists and musicians. That must now stop.

That facilitates the worries about the growing “value gap” between rising creative consumption and decreasing revenues, which undermine the incomes of people in the sector. I think mainly of the streaming sites, on which we had a helpful debate yesterday—several people in this debate spoke then about the remuneration of artists online. We have to look at these issues, and I am sure the Minister took away some valuable points that helped to shape that debate. Someone is growing rich from the creative endeavours of our wonderful artists, but it is not the artists. Parasite companies—little more than hosts with algorithms that store content—are growing rich on the back of the creativity of the people of this country. Somehow we have to re-tilt the balance much more in favour of the artists, creators and inventors—the talent—and those prepared to invest in them.

I have to turn finally to the EU debate. We really enjoyed the remarks from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). She was spot on. This is a potential catastrophe for our creative industries. We cannot mince our words: being taken out of the EU would be really serious for our creative sector. We have heard the issues about the single market, about how these wonderful products will be placed properly without further tariffs within the EU, and about the impact on our creative sector and its product placement, but there is also the movement of people. One reason our creative industries are so successful and why London is probably the creative hub not just of Europe but of the whole globe is the fact that it has been able to draw talent from the EU uninhibited by any concerns about visa arrangements. There is a real concern, therefore, about what will happen to the people employed in our creative sector, particularly in cities such as London, and also Edinburgh, which is dependent on talent from overseas.

The biggest innovation at the moment—the one that will make the biggest difference to how we use and access online content—is perhaps the digital single market, but we will not be part of it. The Minister said yesterday that we could somehow—I do not know how—have proxy conversations with France and Germany about it. If we leave the European Union we will be excluded from that and have no say in it whatsoever.

Thankfully, most copyright laws that were designed in Europe have been incorporated into UK law, so we need not concern ourselves too much with the protection of artists, writers and creators as those laws have now been subsumed. However, a massive debate is going on in Europe about innovation and new copyright laws, and we will be excluded from that, which will be of massive detriment to our creative industries.

The hon. Member for Bristol East touched on the issue of what leaving the European Union will do to us psychologically, and where it leaves us culturally. If anything, music, cultural works, and things that we enjoy are about sharing and working communally. We have lost something quite profound in how we talk about ourselves as a nation and how we share all the wonderful culture that we produce. It is as if we have stepped aside and walked away from our partners, and that will have a profound impact and psychological effect on artists up and down the country. I do not know how we recover from that or start to address it, but we can almost sense the depression in our artistic and creative community.

On Tuesday night I hosted a meeting of the all-party group on intellectual property, and all that people were talking about was leaving the EU and the impact and depression that that has introduced into the sector. We must work hard to address that and think about how we can excite the sector. That is down to the Minister, because it will be his job and responsibility. Unlike the Secretary of State, who went against almost 99% of the people he is notionally supposed to represent in the creative industries and who desperately wanted to remain in the European Union, the Minister was on the remain side and he must try to design a way forward for the country. There are a couple of opportunities and ways in which he may be able to do that. For example, with the Digital Economy Bill he must reassure everybody in the sector that he will try to offset some of the difficulties and harm that will be done when we leave the European Union. He cannot do much about immigration, but he can speak to his colleagues about what we can do to secure and retain talent.

The Digital Economy Bill is great, and it honours the commitment made by the Conservatives to ensure universal access to broadband. I am grateful for that, as I am for the inclusion of intellectual property rights that state that online crime will be of the same nature and stature as offline crime. However, we need a big job to ensure that we start to rebuild some of the confidence that has taken such a heavy knock over the past few weeks.

I am sure the Minister saw the fine report on the creative industries in Scotland—my colleagues have referred to it a few times. I am delighted that so much time was spent on the city of Dundee, and to learn what happened there and what underpinned the success of the creative economy. However, I was disappointed by the response—I thought that we might have secured membership of the UK-wide Creative Industries Council, but that has been turned down. I was also disappointed that there was no recognition of how tax reliefs in the creative sector apply across the United Kingdom, and I urge the Minister to consider those issues again.

This has been a fantastic debate, and it is great to see so much interest. I wish everybody well in any competitions that their various cities many be in—such as that for city of culture. It has been fantastic to learn about the wonderful cultural activities taking place. We should keep an interest in this sector as it is important for our economy. We have troubles now, but it is up to us to try to design a way forward. Let us hear what we can do; I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Maybe. It is with great fascination that we hear from the one and only Scottish Labour Member of Parliament. Perhaps the reason the hon. Gentleman is in such a diminished position is the Labour party’s silence on these issues. The fact that Labour Members have ignored them all the way through speaks volumes about the attitude of the Labour party. I do not know whether it is due to the particular chaos it is going through, but we need to hear from Labour Members to find out their view about what has happened.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Speaking as someone who was here in the wee small hours, I can say that Labour Members were notable for their absence, being far too busy clawing their own eyes out at the time. It is a bit of a cheek for them to seek to lecture us here.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us that that was the night of the long reshuffle, so I suppose we should be grateful that any Labour Members were there. I do not wish to take up any more time.