Speech at the Musicians' Union conference on music streaming bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live Events: Government-backed Insurance
23rd March 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other countries are doing things about this situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speech on Covid-19 and the cultural and entertainment sectors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to constituents: Black Lives Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Kevin Brennan MP
Cardiff West

Blog: UK Government are trying to avoid Select Committee scrutiny

A Treasury Select Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog: Fake news doing the rounds on social media

IPSA are completely independent from MPs or parliament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes



Kevin

Blog: Why charities are important during this crisis and need help

Kevin is pictured with weatherman Derek Brockway at Pedal Power.

When representatives of UK Charities appeared as witnesses before the first ever virtual meeting of the Digital Culture Media and Sport Select Committee this week it wasn't the first time I'd heard the sector's pleas for help in a crisis.

At the time of the great financial crash I was Gordon Brown's Minister for the Third Sector, based back then in the Cabinet Office. It became clear to me at that time that in a severe economic downturn charities face a different dilemma to business. When the economy tanks most businesses are hit by a fall in revenue due to falling consumer demand.

It's true that charities also lose revenue in an economic downturn, as consumers tighten their belts and reduce charitable donations. Charity begins at home when family cash is short, and the Coronavirus crisis is even worse because charity shops cannot trade and fundraising gatherings can't be held. At the select committee Karl Wilding of NCVO told us the sector expected to lose £4bn, or a third of revenue, in the next 3 months.

But unlike many businesses the demand from communities for charities' services actually increases at a time of economic crisis; even more so when it is also a public health crisis hitting the most vulnerable the hardest.

Recognising this back in 2008/9 I worked with charities to devise a £42.5m Third Sector Action Plan called Real Help Now.  The idea was to assist the sector through the crisis not just with a hand out but a hand up, with support for modernisation, resilience, volunteering and social enterprise.  The Government also pledged that the public sector would pay its bills on time to charities which deliver large swathes of public services for national and local government, including the NHS.

But today's task is on a scale much greater than even the great credit crunch, and the Chancellor Rishi Sunak needs to act fast.  Too often charities are an afterthought when they are in fact central to resilience and recovery.

So what is to be done? Here are a few ideas.

Firstly where charities have to furlough staff due to lack of funds an exemption should be made to allow front line workers in the community to continue to volunteer.   This is not an abuse as it might be where a business is trading while the Government is paying much of the wage bill, but rather one way that we can continue to help the most vulnerable while helping charities to survive.

Secondly a significant UK wide ‘Stabilisation Fund’ is needed from the Treasury with charities expecting to lose at least a third of their income in the next 3 months. Perhaps the new National Emergency Trust could be rapidly endowed as a vehicle to distribute relief to charities. At the committee we were told it currently only has £11m in it. This would enable charities to stay afloat and continue operating during the course of the pandemic and beyond.

Thirdly the Chancellor should provide an exemption to the 50% trading activity requirement under the Business Interruption Loan Scheme so that many voluntary organisations can benefit too and have a bridge to the future.

Fourthly  there should be specific additional funding for organisations that are working on the front line and directly contributing to tackle the impact of the coronavirus.

Back in 2009 I said, "The third sector is brilliant at knowing how best to provide real help for people who need it most. We need to make the most of the skills and expertise the sector has to offer - helping people through times of challenge and change, finding new and more equitable ways of doing business through social enterprises, and empowering people to transform their lives and their communities. That's why we are acting to invest in helping the third sector get stronger now and in the future.'

Those words are truer than ever at a time when charities, social enterprises and credit unions are at the front line of the fight of our lives. The government must recognise this and act with urgency.

Blog: A radical choice. I’m backing Mark Drakeford for Welsh Labour leader

Largely unnoticed by the mainstream media, the Labour government has been getting on with governing since 1999. I’m talking, of course, about Wales. And Welsh Labour has now started the race to find a new leader who will replace Carwyn Jones. There is a strong field including Health Secretary Vaughan Gething and former MEP and Lords member Eluned Morgan, but this is why I’m for Mark Drakeford, the Welsh Finance Minister and former Advisor to Rhodri Morgan.

We live in turbulent times. The ripples from the great crash of a decade ago still disturb the stability of our politics. Many people buffeted by the waves say it’s hard to see where we’re going. It’s a time when inspirational leadership is vital and yet so absent, from Donald Trump to Theresa May. In a small country of Wales, huge historic events like Brexit could swamp our politics, which is why we need great leadership now of all times.

What should we be looking for in a Labour leader for Wales at this time? We need someone  whose instincts are in line with the culturally socialist values of the people of Wales. Someone who can generate ideas for policies that will build the sort of society based on those instincts and explain those policies clearly. Someone who has the intellect, energy and skill to put those ideas into practice. We need a pragmatic socialist. We need someone who wants to do something rather than be something.

In many years of working closely with Mark I’ve seen these qualities. Both of us worked for the late great Rhodri Morgan. When I succeeded Rhodri in parliament and he became First Minister, it was Mark who came up with many of the ideas to help Rhodri pursue his ‘socialism of a Welsh stripe’, which saved Welsh devolution after a rocky start. Policies such as free prescriptions and bus passes opened up clear red water between Welsh Labour and New Labour.

When Mark succeeded Rhodri in the Assembly, he was soon brought into the Welsh government. He shone in all his roles as a minister, most recently representing us with great skill at the top table to get the best possible Brexit deal for Wales out of a hopeless Tory government.

Despite his wealth of experience, Mark is actually a radical choice for Welsh Labour leader because his administration will not be content to drift along. It will be brimming with ideas and initiatives. He has the imagination to make the most of what is possible for the Welsh Labour government even with an miserly Tory government holding the purse strings at UK level.

Mark nominated Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leader but it would be wrong to see him as anyone’s representative. Mark is his own person and for him it is politics and policies that matter – not personalities. He and I share a constituency office. I’ve seen at close hand his energy, hard work and commitment. But perspiration without inspiration is just sweat, just as inspiration without perspiration is hot air.

Mark’s combination of hard work and idealism will open up a new aspiration for Wales going forward. Under his leadership, Welsh Labour can show that pragmatic, everyday, democratic socialism is a real alternative to the failed orthodoxy of austerity under the Tories, and make the rest of the UK take note.

I am backing Mark – I hope Welsh Labour members will too.

Blog: Never underestimate the importance of a 'staycation' for the economy

As the sun continues to shine, people across the UK are planning day trips, beach days, weekends away, and longer summer getaways. The hot weather reminds us all over again how many brilliant places there are to visit in our local areas, and further afield. It’s due to these destinations and attractions that the UK’s tourism industry is world-beating. This warm weather may not last forever, but the UK’s warm welcome is here all year round.

In recent moths I have been travelling across the UK holding discussions to help develop Labour’s tourism policy. Tourism is at the heart of many of our communities, and we need to make sure those communities are reaping the rewards. Tourism is the fastest growing sector in terms of employment, reaching almost 9.5% of UK jobs in 2016. Just three museums, the Victoria and Albert, the Science Museum, and the Natural History Museum, attract more visitors per year than the entire city of Venice.

But it becomes a problem if visitors are too concentrated in London. We need to make sure that the economic benefits are better shared across the country.

The UK Government should be doing more. Local Authority budgets have been drastically slashed since 2010, so it comes as no surprise that local tourism budgets have suffered. Likewise, as lottery revenue falls there isn’t as much money available for the restoration and maintenance of some of our heritage landmark buildings. The tourism industry is an important economic driver and employer, but all too often politicians and policy makers don’t give it the credit it deserves.

That’s why I decided to invest some time travelling around the country listening to tourism voices on how to develop and deepen Labour’s tourism policy. It’s right that we’re proud of the National Museums and landmarks that attract tourists from all over to London, but with the help and support of the tourism sector, I’ve been looking at how the industry is working outside of the capital, including the hugely important contribution of domestic tourism. Never underestimate the importance of the staycation.

I’ve held roundtable discussions in Scarborough, Manchester, Belfast and Exeter to learn about the work being done in different kinds of destinations, and to see what the next Labour Government could do to help. It has been a pleasure spending some time visiting the waterfronts, cathedrals, theatres, sea-sides and meeting the people that make the UK such a great place to visit.

As expected, each unique location had their own specific issues to raise. Some were concerned about the length of the tourist season, others wanted more power to take decisions on a more local level. As ever Business Rates revaluation is a concern for many. For most, the potential impact of Brexit on staff and skills is a real and pressing worry, and in Belfast there is the added concern about the future border between the UK and EU in Ireland. Of course Belfast has benefitted from the ‘Setjetting’ phenomenon – visitors attracted by film and TV locations (in this case Game of Thrones).

But it was particularly striking how much these very different destinations had in common. Across the country access to funding and finance is a constant concern, and local economies rely on domestic visitors and on people who come to visit family and friends. More needs to be done to support the domestic market, and to promote careers in the tourism and hospitality industry to young people in schools and adults looking for retraining.

Some interesting questions have emerged for Labour. Should we be doing more to support social tourism? This would provide more opportunities for a break for families most in need. Should local areas be free to introduce a tourism levy where business and Local Government agree? Should there be a resilience fund to help areas where visitor numbers are affected by tragic events like terrorism attacks? How should we regulate the new “disrupters” like accommodation providers Airbnb or Booking.com?

It is sometimes said that Labour does not regard careers in tourism and hospitality as “proper” jobs but that is not the case. We want to make sure that workers get quality training, fair pay and rights at work in an industry where that has sometimes been an issue in the past, and that young people can grasp the opportunities for career development. In an era where the future of work will be affected by developments like AI, tourism and hospitality is a sector that will always need great people to support its visitors and guests.

Over the coming period, we will be continuing our discussions and our thinking about what a Labour Government could do to support our tourism sector. The key links in the DCMS brief between tourism, heritage, culture and the arts, and the new Digital platforms are playing a bigger part than before. Labour understands these links, and we will work to spread the opportunities they represent to all parts of the country.

Blog: Representation in film matters - Labour will boost inclusivity

When Hollywood actor Frances McDormand ended her Oscar acceptance speech with the words “inclusion rider”, many people took to the internet to find out more. Like me, many will have found a Ted Talk by Dr Stacy Smith of the University of Southern California explaining what inclusion riders are, and why the film industry needs them so badly.

Dr Stacy Smith’s research found that across the top 100 films of 2015, almost half did not feature a black or African-American speaking character. 70 did not have any female Asian or Asian-American characters, and 84 films featured no female characters with a disability.

The lack of inclusion and representation in the Hollywood film industry is woeful. Inclusion riders, clauses that actors can choose to add to their contracts stipulating certain representation standards, are being adopted by many celebrities who want to make a difference. But action by a few A-listers is not enough.

In the Labour culture team, we understand that lack of diversity is a problem, and we want to bring about change. Our own data show that of the films that passed the cultural test associated with the UK Film Tax Relief in the last 3 years, only 15.6 per cent had directors and co-directors who were women.

We are determined to help to change this. Dr Smith joined me in parliament recently for a roundtable discussion with members of the British Screen Advisory Council and others from the creative industries about inclusion and diversity in the UK. It’s clear that the UK film industry is making progress, but there is more to be done.

For example, as a result of the BFI Diversity Standards, productions need to comply with a diversity checklist in order to receive funding from the National Lottery, Film 4 or BBC Film. This means that many independent British productions are already making changes. But what about the big Hollywood blockbusters made here in the UK? We want to ensure that they are meeting representation standards too.

I recently visited the Warner Bros. Studio near Watford. When JK Rowling sat in her local cafe writing the first Harry Potter book, she could hardly have anticipated how her story would lead to a huge investment in film production in Britain and a whole new studio complex.

As a result of this, and with the support of the UK Film Tax Credit, many more blockbuster films are being produced in Britain, from Mission Impossible to Ready Player One. As Stacy Smith has pointed out, in most films only a small number of key characters have to be a particular gender or ethnicity for the purposes of the story. A real effort to have a more diverse cast and crew could make a huge difference.

That’s where the Film Tax Relief comes in. Bigger productions may not need lottery funding, but many do benefit from a tax relief from the UK Treasury. In fact, the Film Tax Relief was worth £415m in 2016/17.

A Labour government would add inclusivity standards into the film and high-end TV tax reliefs, in addition to the cultural test already in place. And we will look at other tax credits in the creative industries to ensure that where public money is invested, inclusion is included.

Labour wants our creative industries to draw their workforce from the many, not the privileged few. We will use public policy to open up these opportunities to the most underrepresented groups in society who have been locked out for too long.

Kevin Brennan is MP for Cardiff West and a shadow digital, culture, media and sport minister.

Blog: Air guitar - it's no joke

For professional musicians, touring can be a crucial source of income and a valuable way of building a reputation on the music circuit. However, musicians planning to take flight with their instruments often face more difficulties than they should.

Musicians report that airlines are increasingly requiring that musicians travelling with guitars, or other similarly sized instruments, purchase seats for their instruments or place them in the aircraft hold. Social media is abuzz with horror stories about damaged precious instruments and extra charges. Extra cost is a barrier, temperatures are often very low in the hold, and instruments can be damaged during transit.

This makes life for musicians much more difficult than it needs to be. For professional musicians, musical instruments are both essential for working and often very costly to purchase. I’ve heard first-hand about the anxiety musicians feel, worrying that their instruments might be damaged or facing additional charges for an extra seat on the aircraft. The difficulty and uncertainty of taking an instrument abroad can make touring a real challenge.

The Musicians Union has raised this issue repeatedly with airlines over recent years, but it has still not been fully resolved. That’s why I started EDM 775, which already has cross-Party support, and raised airline charges for musicians in the House of Commons. I am calling on the airlines to agree to a code of practice to give travelling musicians consideration, fair and consistent treatment, as well as peace of mind.

In the Government’s recent reshuffle, Matt Hancock was promoted to Secretary of State for Culture. While there are many areas where Labour and Tory culture policy will clash, I am hopeful that this is an area where we can work together for the benefit of working musicians. Taking a proactive step to resolve this issue would be a positive, productive way for Matt Hancock to begin his tenure as Culture Secretary.

I’ve written to him asking if he will take up this issue with his colleagues in the Department for Transport, and call in the airlines, together with the MU and other interested parties, for a roundtable discussion to try to agree an industry code of practice for musicians travelling with musical instruments. I've raised the issue with the Transport Secretary too.

This USA’s Department of Transport have already issued regulations which could provide a useful springboard for discussions.

Airlines’ treatment of travelling musicians can cause stress, anxiety, and damage to costly instruments. But it could be largely resolved with a common sense, consensual solution that wouldn’t impose serious cost on business. In fact, by working together to establish trust and goodwill between the parties, everyone could benefit.

Air guitar – it’s no joke.

Blog: UK Government's power grab on EU Withdrawal Bill

Over the past few weeks I have had hundreds of emails lobbying me to take various positions on the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Many of the emails I have received have suggested that by voting against the Bill I am either refusing to accept the Referendum result or on the other side of the coin that this bill is not doing enough to stop Brexit. However this Bill is about either of those things. Put bluntly this Bill is about the Government putting huge and unaccountable power into the hands of government ministers, side-lining Parliament and the devolved administrations on key decisions and putting crucial rights and protections at risk. Far from bringing back control to Parliament, it would result in a power-grab for UK Ministers. 

The Bill risks eroding basic human rights and could prevent a transitional deal on the same basic terms we currently enjoy – including within the single market and customs union, as well as undermining powers that already are in place for our National Assembly. I voted in favour of amendments that would protect those rights. 

I voted against a fixed date of exit from the EU as we have absolutely no certainty from the Government as to the nature of any deal on the EU and on any transitional arrangements that may be in place.

As I have stated before I voted and campaigned for a remain vote and I also voted against the triggering of Article 50, and I have not changed my view on the consequences of leaving the EU. The full article from the time explaining my view can be found here.

The Government with its DUP helpers voted against all reasonable amendments. We were able to defeat the Government on one vote which guaranteed that Parliament will get a vote on the terms of how we leave the EU. Due to their unreasonable intransigence I voted against the whole Bill at its Third Reading.

As the Bill enters the Lords where the Government and DUP does not have a majority I hope we will see amendments to the Bill.

The Tories face a creative test in Wednesday’s budget

The creative industries are one of the great British economic success stories. We’re not only a world leader in culture and creative output, our creative businesses are a huge economic driver that contribute £87bn to the economy, incidentally more than either car manufacturing or aerospace, and employ two million people. Our creative businesses are admired and they export all over the world.

But this success doesn’t come about on its own and will not last without support. That’s why it’s vital that this economic powerhouse of a sector is not left out in the cold during tomorrow’s Budget.

With Brexit negotiations stalling, and the spectre of a calamitous no-deal scenario hanging over us, it is more important than ever that the government has a strategy in place to ensure the continued growth and success of our creative industries. But while the papers in the run up to the Budget have been littered with nuggets about investment in R&D for tech, driverless cars and housebuilding, there has been little to nothing about what the budget will offer our creative industries.

When the government made the creative industries the “fifth pillar” of their industrial strategy there was hope that the needs of this sector would be put centre stage. Unfortunately that hope has not yet been realised.

First among the concerns of the sector is the threat posed by a hard Brexit. Some 45 per cent of all our creative industry exports go to EU countries and 6.7 per cent of people working in the creative industry in Britain citizens of other EU nations.

In some of our strongest growth sectors, such as video games and visual effects, up to 30 per cent of those employed in the sector are EU nationals. We heard David Davis reassuring City finance workers they would get a preferential deal that met their immigration needs – but what about such a deal for the creative industries? Any Brexit deal which leaves us with severely diminished access to the single market and customs union and denies British businesses access to EU talent would be disastrous and compromise this strong record of growth.

Another major concern, all the more pressing with the potential loss of EU talent, is our growing skills gap both at secondary and FE and HE level. The effect of the EBacc is well known. There has been a nine per cent drop in take-up of arts subjects in the last year, with arts GCSE entries failing by 100,000 since 2014.

Despite design and designer fashion being the single-fastest growing sector in the creative industries, which saw its exports grow 53 per cent between 2014 and 2015, design and technology GCSE has seen a fall of 11 per cent since 2016. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills estimated in 2015 that the creative sector would need 1.2 million new workers by 2022 to sustain growth. With our talent pipeline being choked off at secondary school level then this potential will be very hard to fulfil.

The other factor critical to growth is access to finance. Despite the success of the creative sector, many businesses still struggle to access the finance they need to get started, and scale up, because a lack of experience and understanding from finance about the opportunities in the sector.

The Budget would be a major opportunity to champion the investment opportunities offered by the creative industries and to show leadership by government putting serious investment into creative clusters across the country, as recommended in the recent Bazalgette review. Rather than a new £500m five year creative clusters programme, as Bazalgette recommended, the government has announced a much smaller £80m fund, half of which will come from industry rather than government. This is less than a tenth of the £1bn cultural capital fund to invest in creative and cultural infrastructure and development that Labour committed to in our manifesto.

Ministers talk the talk on supporting the sector but this Budget is a test of whether they mean it. Creative talent must be nurtured and we cannot afford to leave the creative industries out in the cold.

‘Another burden to bear’

An unreachable maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving does nothing to deter crime – and adds insult to injury for grieving families, argues Kevin Brennan MP

Sophie Taylor was a 22 year old constituent of mine. She was a loving and caring young woman with her whole life ahead of her.

During the early hours of the morning of August 22nd, 2016, Sophie and her friend Joshua Deguara, were chased through the streets of Cardiff by her ex-boyfriend, Michael Wheeler and another driver.

During the chase, Sophie called 999. She was scared and felt unsafe. She was on the phone, talking to an operator for 24 minutes. Then, Wheeler he turned his car to the left, into Sophie’s, causing her car to crash into a block of flats. The collision caused Sophie a catastrophic brain injury which led to her death. Joshua suffered life-changing injuries.

Wheeler pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving though many thought the charge should have been manslaughter. The judge who heard the case at Cardiff Crown Court described what happened that night as ‘nothing more than a pack chasing its prey’.

He added: ‘You were trying to ram her off the road and you did’. Sophie had made several reports to the police and visited the police station in the weeks leading up to her death in relation to problems she was experiencing with Wheeler. We can only imagine Sophie’s family’s loss, and the stress and torment they have endured throughout the legal process.

The maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving at the time of the event was 14 years in custody and the government now say they want to increase it to life. But Michael Wheeler was only sentenced to seven and a half years.

The sentencing following Sophie Taylor’s death poses questions about the frequency and circumstances of the use of a maximum sentence.

The first issue is around how often the maximum sentence is used.

I wrote to the justice secretary to ask how many maximum sentences for causing death by dangerous driving had been handed out in recent years but he did not answer my question. I hope my debate will persuade the government to be more forthcoming.

I am particularly interested in how often this sentence has been given considering that the government’s consultation found that 70 per cent of respondents did not feel that 14 years was long enough.

If the sentence of 14 years is hardly ever used how often would a new increased maximum be used? Would the new maximum have any effect on the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving? In 2015, with a maximum sentence of 14 years, the average custodial sentence length was 57.1 months.

The second issue is around the circumstances in which the maximum penalty is used.

Given the horrible circumstances of Sophie Taylor’s death and the aggressive actions that led up to it, it is very difficult for her family, or any lay person, to understand why Wheeler was sentenced to roughly half the maximum time in custody. What would someone have to do in relation to causing death by dangerous driving for the maximum sentence to be available if it was not available in this case?

Sentencing guidelines in this case led to an outcome that has not only outraged the victims, families but the wider community. The government needs to be clearer on what it is doing to deter this kind of crime.

Knowing that a life sentence is a real possibility would be a start. Also ensuring that the likelihood of getting caught is increased by properly funding the police is vital.

And the prospect of sentences being increased on appeal when judges are too lenient is very important. Out of 713 such requests in recent years, 136 have resulted in longer sentences but not one has been for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

Sophie Taylor’s death was a horrible tragedy, and nothing will relieve her family’s loss. However, the perception that justice was not done because the maximum sentence is unreachable adds another burden to bear.

Blog: Labour will bring back Library Standards

Today is the first day of Libraries Week, and as shadow culture minister I hope as many people as possible will take the time to visit a library, borrow a book, or tweet and tell their friends about the services libraries offer.

Supporting and promoting our local libraries is crucial at a time when the Government is failing to appreciate their value and importance. Public libraries have been badly hit by policies of austerity.  Since 2010, 478 libraries have closed across the UK. Last year, library visits fell by 5.5% and total library expenditure was reduced by £25 million. And yet, in the face of these figures, this Government is still refusing to put an end to the Local Authority cuts that are pressuring Councils into cutting important services.

I believe that at the root of this apparent indifference is a fundamental misunderstanding within DCMS, the Government Department with responsibility for libraries. Ministers seem to see the cultural sector in a binary way, divided into institutions that make money, and those that cost money. According to their logic, libraries fall into the second category. This can lead to the perception of libraries as subsidised niceties that can be trimmed away in times of austerity, rather than institutions which give a return on investment by helping to create better informed citizens.

This view is blinkered and ultimately unhelpful. Arts Council research shows that libraries have a 5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. Through libraries, members of the public can become more informed, literate, and confident, and this can lead to savings in other Government services. That is, to understand the crucial work that libraries do, we need to look at people, not just financial profit. We need to move away from the language of subsidy and towards a language of investment.

For me, public libraries were crucial in shaping the person I am today. I grew up in Cwmbran, a small town in South Wales, in a home which wasn’t full of books, but where education was valued. As a youngster, I spent many hours in the local public library conducting my own research, reading about the topics that interested me the most, doing my homework and revising for exams. If it hadn’t been for my access to that library, I am certain I wouldn’t have done as well in school or gone on to become a Member of Parliament. Public libraries are crucial to achievement and social mobility. Now, I hold my constituency advice surgeries in Cardiff West in the local Hub, which contains the public library. It is the obvious place to meet the public because libraries are places where everyone is welcome and supported to reach their potential.

In the Labour Party, we understand the value of libraries and the challenges they currently face. We would put an end to the local government cuts that have led to such widespread library closures, and will reintroduce library standards, which were done away with by the Tory-led Coalition, so that Government can guide and assess local authorities in providing the best possible service. A Labour Government would modernise libraries to help improve digital access and literacy. This Libraries Week, we’re promoting the importance of our public libraries because we want them to be accessible to as many people as possible, all year round and into the future.

Rhodri Morgan: A tribute from a Friend

Rhodri was the most extraordinary person I’ve ever known and I was extremely fortunate to have been his advisor through the intense political years between 1995-2000.

In that era of political spin some couldn’t comprehend how a politician so free-range and organic as Rhodri Morgan could have the kind of political reach with voters of which well-groomed perfectly packaged politicians could only dream.

And Rhodri really did have reach. He could knock on any door in Wales and be recognised – the only question was if those he met would express delight and amazement at a visit from the First Minister, or simply say

“Hello, Rhodri”

and invite him in for a cup of tea like a longstanding friend or long-lost uncle.

Long before he became First Minister I went with him to a one-day cricket cup-tie at Sophia Gardens. We had a couple of tickets in the cheap seats. At the time, there was a BBC Wales campaign in support of the team with the chant

“We love Glamorgan-Morgan X 2”

which had been adopted by the fans.

As we arrived late to take our seats the crowded stand stood and started chanting:

“We love that Rhodri-Morgan – We love that Rhodri-Morgan”.

Of course many have mentioned his sporting obsession, particularly his interest in Rugby and Welsh Athletics. In fact the last time I saw him, with Julie, the Saturday before he passed away, he leaned over during a scintillating Indian Dance performance at the National Museum to ask me to look up the score in the European Rugby Cup Final on my phone.

Famously at the Hay Festival a few years ago the late, great poet Dannie Abse was remembering the Cardiff City line-up of his youth but could not remember the final name, a voice from the back of the audience helped him out – it was of course, Rhodri.

But our friendship was at root political one, and it was the events before and after the 1997 General Election that forged his place in Welsh History. He was blunt and profane when he rang me up to tell me that Tony Blair had not appointed him to government after the years he had put in on the Welsh Affairs Shadow team preparing for devolution.

But as Julie said last week – Rhodri never dwelt on things for long – he didn’t look back in anger.

It always amused me when he was First Minister, that he liked to take visitors out on the balcony next to his office to show them all the things he had unsuccessfully opposed like the Barrage, or this building which he called ‘The Lean-to’.

He never wasted time brooding on a setback – he embraced it as an opportunity.

So in 1997 he quickly decided that he would stand for the Assembly and the Welsh Labour Leadership. He understood, more than anyone, that devolution would change everything – and that it would fail – and Labour in Wales would fail – if it was believed to be s branch office of Labour HQ in London. In a real sense that was the moment that Welsh Labour was born.

He saw the real potential of devolution before anyone else – and even when intense pressure came on him to stand down to allow the then Secretary of State for Wales Ron Davies a clear run he was determined there should be a contest.

I remember being told that the Secretary of State would not have time to do any debates with Rhodri. I explained that this was not wise. Two or three set-piece debates were all that was needed – but if that was refused Rhodri would get himself invited to every Labour Party Branch in every little village in Wales – he would drive himself there – know half the people in the room – be related to the other half - drink a swift half – eat fish & chips and enjoy himself immensely whilst the busy Secretary of State for Wales would be run ragged trying to keep up with him – and so it proved.

The rules in that contest did not allow for a fully democratic vote, but there was no doubt who the people of Wales really wanted.

The rules of the second contest were a little better but again all the stops were pulled out from the top to stop him But if Rhodri was anything he was determined –  actually he was stubborn – he believed passionately that he was the right person to make a success of devolution precisely because he didn’t fit the model candidate mould.

He knew that for Wales to embrace devolution the leader would not just have to be from Wales but would have to be seen to be have been made in Wales.

I remember once when the umpteenth Cabinet Minister that week was sent down to tell Welsh Labour Members why Rhodri was the wrong choice, he quoted an American General from the Battle of the Bulge

“They’ve got us surrounded, the poor bastards”.

it was another setback but he threw himself loyally into his work as an Assembly minister.

When he got the top job I was his special advisor and our first visit was to Ireland with Paul Murphy. The Irish loved him because he was loquacious, learned, witty, and as my father used to say “could talk the hind legs off a donkey”.

It made me think that perhaps the real reason the London establishment never took to Rhodri, at least at first, was that he was absolutely not, an Anglo-Saxon. They seemed to think he was joking when he was serious – and that he was serious when he was joking – l

ike when the London media reported it straight when he said he enjoyed being driven around in his First Minister’s car with the number plate “Taff 1”.

The Irish got his enjoyment of the  playful art of seemingly pointless but actually deeply illuminating conversation in a way that the efficient functionaries of the modernising project never could.

Many people have spoken about how in later years, Rhodri randomly gifted them produce from his garden. One woman said to me, rather memorably, last week –

“he honoured me with his rhubarb”

And in a way that’s how I feel about the many hours of meandering conversation he and I had in the office or the pub, at the rugby or on long car journeys or down the Riverside Market.

“He honoured ME with his rhubarb”.

 It was a privilege to converse with someone so genuinely interested in everyone and everything – for whom conversation was an art to be explored and enjoyed and for whom the most painful pun like ‘Last Quango in Powys’ – was a treasure to be celebrated like the finest poetry.

Not that there was anything shallow in Rhodri’s cultural life – he enjoyed Art, Music and Poetry as he loved Sport and Politics.

Ironically, words cannot adequately encapsulate this remarkable Welshman – this everyman – this sometimes somewhat dishevelled figure with his unique, unruly hair – who treated everyone equally, who loved people of all races and backgrounds, who loved life, loved his family, particularly his grandchildren, who loved nature and loved to grow things in the soil, and swim with dolphins in Cardigan Bay

– no words can capture him but when I thought of Rhodri and his sudden passing and of the mortality we all share with him.

These words of Walt Whitman came to my mind

“A child said, What is the grass? fetching it to me with full
hands;

How could I answer the child?. . . .I do not know what it
is any more than he.

I guess it must be the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful
green stuff woven.

Or I guess it is the handkerchief of the Lord,

A scented gift and remembrancer designedly dropped,

Bearing the owner's name someway in the corners, that we
may see and remark, and say Whose?

Or I guess the grass is itself a child. . . .the produced babe
of the vegetation.

Or I guess it is a uniform hieroglyphic,

And it means, Sprouting alike in broad zones and narrow
zones,

Growing among black folks as among white,

Kanuck, Tuckahoe, Congressman, Cuff, I give them the
same, I receive them the same.

And now it seems to me the beautiful uncut hair of graves.

Thank you Rhodri, for honouring us all with the gift of your friendship and company and with the legacy of your life and freedom.

Hwyl Fawr

Giving artists their fair share for streaming - we can work it out

When you listen to a song on Spotify, how much money is paid and to whom is it paid? Don’t know? Odds are, the artists and songwriters don’t know either.

Music streaming services have become so ubiquitous that it’s hard to imagine life without them. However, streaming is still a relatively new technology, and the music industry is often slow to adjust to technological change.

When music was mostly bought on vinyl, cassette, and CD and there was an HMV on every high street, music contracts were purpose built. A chunk of money went to the shop for its overheads and profits, then a variable percentage was taken by the record company to cover distribution, packaging, breakage, and marketing costs, profits et cetera. A small percentage of the remainder then went to the artist, to the music publisher, and the composers based on contract. Plenty of music is still purchased in this way, and Record Store Day is a great reminder that the industry is going from strength to strength.

When music is downloaded or streamed the costs mentioned above are much lower - sharing a sound file costs the record company considerably less than shipping CDs. However, some artists claim these fees are still being deducted from artists’ profits, although these services are often obsolete.  How can a record company claim for packaging deductions of a digital download? How is ‘breakage’ on streaming relating to minimum guarantees actually calculated? And when managers try to find out who’s getting the money, how much these deductions cost, and what services they’re being charged for, they often don’t get the answers they need.

Some say that a contract’s a contract – if it becomes outdated, that’s no one’s fault and you’re still legally bound. This is an issue of transparency. Music is one of this country’s greatest exports, and yet we are falling behind many other places in the world. How can artists and managers go on to negotiate contracts that are fit for purpose in a global streaming market without understanding the agreements they already have? They still expect a percentage - but a percentage of what?

And they do need updated contracts. When an industry changes as much and as quickly as the music industry has in recent years, the accounting model needs to change too. As if the transition from physical to digital sales wasn’t complicated enough, streaming confuses matters even further.

Streaming doesn’t fit neatly into the pre-existing boxes. You’re not buying a track to play at your leisure in perpetuity whether in physical or digital format. When you stream it’s a one-off listen like when you hear a song on the radio. But it gives the listener more control than a radio play, because they choose what to listen to and when, although they don’t own it like a CD sale or a download.

With new technologies and no precedent, the music industry urgently needs to come up with a fair model for who gets paid what for streaming. But at the moment, each deal is different, and they are often kept secret by Non-Disclosure Agreements. Without basic transparency it’s difficult to decide what fair payment for music streaming would look like. Artists can ask for an audit, but this is too expensive for all but the most successful.

For emerging artists, this confusion can be a real threat. In their eagerness to make it, new talent can be ushered into contracts that don’t give them a decent deal. This is why, just last month, the Music Managers Forum, the Musicians’ Union, and the Featured Artists Coalition published a sample management agreement for those entering the industry. This gives newer artists and managers a starting point for negotiations on what a fair contract can look like.

Both pre-digital and streaming contracts need review, so the music industry needs to have an inclusive conversation to hear from the labels and the lyricists alike. And this is where politicians come in. It may not look like it from the Punch and Judy scenes of Prime Minister’s Questions, but brokering compromise is one of Parliament’s greatest strengths. In February of this year, Labour successfully pressured the Government into facilitating a code of conduct between search engines and the music and film rights-holders to help stop online piracy. Now we’re calling on the Culture Secretary Karen Bradley, to do the same for transparency within the music industry.

A good code would be in everyone’s interest, helping improve the reputation of the music industry and the finances of composers, artists, musicians.

As The Beatles might have put it, “we can work it out”.

Keep calm and carry on

I didn’t directly witness the horrific attack in Westminster this week, but it is a near miracle that I didn’t.

My office is on the 5th floor of Portcullis House, the modern building that directly overlooks the place where the attacker crashed his car into the railings of the House of Commons, and New Palace Yard where he fatally stabbed a Police Officer and was then shot dead.

Literally seconds before the attack the Division Bell rang to call MPs to vote, and I left my office to take the lift to the ground floor, and walk through the tunnel under the road where unbeknownst to us the attack was unfolding overhead.

I emerged into the New Palace Yard seconds before the shots were fired, but then entered the Commons building to go to vote and did not hear the gunfire. Moments later however as I walked into the voting lobbies we were told that an incident was ongoing and to remain where we were.

Some colleagues arrived and reported that they had seen what had happened, a Police Officer under attack and the assailant shot just a few yards from where I had just been walking.

We remained on lock down in the House of Commons chamber and the surrounding lobbies for the next four hours, as news seeped in about the other aspects of the attack, and the carnage on Westminster Bridge.  The atmosphere was one of resolute calm, and sadness as we learned of the deaths and injuries outside.

PC Keith Palmer was one of the officers I pass and say good morning to everyday as I enter the gates of Parliament and use my pass to access the estate. He was one of the unarmed officers who check passes and give directions to the many tourists who visit Westminster and wander up to have their photos taken with Big Ben in the background.  He gave his life bravely defending democracy.

Since 9/11 there are many more armed officers standing nearby ready to deal with any serious threat. Sadly PC Palmer was fatally stabbed before those officers were able to shoot his attacker. There will be a full enquiry into how the stabbing happened, but it is hard to see how you can stop a person with murderous intent driving a vehicle into innocent pedestrians.

Sadly it is an experience which occurred in 2012 in my constituency of Cardiff West when a mentally ill individual drove a vehicle at pedestrians, killing my constituent Katrina Menzies and seriously injuring several others.

You can put up barriers around obvious targets like Parliament, but unless you have advance intelligence, you cannot prevent a deranged and crazed individual from driving at a crowd of pedestrians.

Of course it wasn’t just MPs caught up in the lockdown. Thousands work on and around the Parliamentary estate, and Wednesday is the busiest day for visitors due to Prime Minister’s Questions. Amongst those on lockdown for hours were several school parties. As a former teacher I could not help but think of the teachers with the French children who came under attack, but also of the teachers on the parliamentary estate with very young children who acted professionally to the youngsters in their care throughout.

The sad truth is this is not the first attack in Westminster, London or the UK as a whole, and it will not be the last.

During the Second World War Hitler’s Luftwaffe destroyed the Commons chamber, but MPs carried on meeting in the Lords. It was rebuilt but Churchill and Attlee agreed to incorporate the broken archway at the entrance of the Commons chamber as a reminder. In the 70s an IRA bomb went off in Westminster Hall, and in 1979 – Airey Neave MP was murdered yards from Wednesday’s attack by an INLA car bomb.

In July 1990 in East Sussex, Ian Gow MP, was killed by an IRA car bomb, and of course last year Jo Cox MP was murdered in her constituency by a right wing extremist. I was in Westminster in July 7th, 2005 when bombs went off across London in the 7/7 attacks. No doubt we will face future attacks too.

But on Thursday at 9.30am the Commons met as usual. We observed a minute’s silence and got on with our normal business.

Democracy is frustrating and imperfect, but it is a stronger idea than terrorist violence, and the democratic thing to do in the face of terrorism is to keep calm and carry on.