Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have
had with Phonographic Performance Limited regarding that body’s
increasing of the tariff for their Specially Featured
Entertainment licence from July 2019.
(Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper. In so doing, I make reference to my interests
set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have had no discussions with
Phonographic Performance Limited about this tariff. Collecting
societies are private commercial organisations, and the
Government play no role in setting their licence tariffs.
However, dissatisfied businesses may have recourse to the
Copyright Tribunal, a specialised court that adjudicates on the
price and terms of copyright licences. I understand that the
British Beer and Pub Association and UKHospitality intend to make
reference to the Copyright Tribunal on this issue.
I thank the Minister for his reply, and I am pleased that this
matter has been referred to the Copyright Tribunal since my
Question was tabled. It is estimated that the proposed new tariff
will cost the hospitality industry an additional £49 million each
year—an increase that is simply unaffordable for many operators.
PPL collected £250 million last year and raked off £35 million in
admin fees, paying its CEO over £750,000. Does the Minister agree
that a better way to provide increased payments to copyright
holders is for PPL to cut its own expenditure?
My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the pay of the CEO of
PPL; this must be a matter for the members of that organisation.
However, I think all agree it is important that PPL, and PRS for
that matter, get the best deal for all its members—performers,
composers and others who own a copyright—and make sure they get
the appropriate amount of money they are owed for us hearing
their music.
(LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a major danger of
misunderstanding what is proposed and what is involved here? The
new tariff does not apply to grass-roots live music venues. It is
designed to be fairer to small venues using recorded music. It
will be phased in for other places and the beneficiaries will be
many currently underpaid performers and artists.
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very useful contribution. I
stress that this is about ensuring that those artists, performers
and others receive the appropriate reward for their work.
(Lab)
My Lords, I am sure this House will agree that artists,
especially the less well-known ones, should be paid fairly if
their music is played in public. What, if any, are the expected
consequences following the delay in implementing the new
specially featured entertainment tariff—SFE—which was meant to be
implemented on 1 July? Does he know when the subsequent
independent review by the Copyright Tribunal will be completed?
My Lords, I am not going to comment on a case that is about to be
before the Copyright Tribunal; that would not be right or proper.
Nor can I help the noble Lord on the first part of his question.
As I made clear earlier, it is important that these collective
management organisations—CMOs—provide the best possible service
for their members and negotiate in a proper and fair way with the
hospitality organisations that want to use their music.
