---

Creative Industries

I am not saying that some artists, creators or whoever should not be similarly rewarded. There is a very good point to be made on that, but I am talking about the music industry. I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example and refer to a single from that period again—the early 1950s. The writers, producer and the guy who designed the sleeve of that single will all get lifetime plus 70 years; the only people who will have the copyright cut off in their old age are the people who made the recording themselves—the musicians. That is clearly absurd and unfair, and I have never heard a reason why it could possibly be right. We heard from Andrew Gowers that it was all about the impact on the economy, and we have heard that that has been disputed. Charlie McCreevy, when he examined the issue in the European Union, disputed the idea that it would have an impact on the economy; in fact, he suggested that it would have a positive impact, because through the record companies, it would reward investment and artists. It would reward the companies for sticking with artists and ensuring that their work continued to be available. I see no reason why musicians should not be properly rewarded for what they do, so I was immensely encouraged by Commissioner McCreevy's announcement a few short weeks ago. It took us all by surprise, but he has clearly considered the issue and the best interests of the artists and the industry, and concluded that the best thing to do would be to increase copyright term for musicians and performers from 50 to 95 years. I do not want the Minister just to welcome and accept that conclusion; I want her to accept it enthusiastically, if that is not asking too much. I want her to get up and say, ““This is the right thing by our industry and our artists, and we will do this.”” There is no good reason why the Government cannot pursue it, and with all due respect to her, she will probably have to do so anyway. It is not a red-line issue for the UK, so the Government will have to get behind it, and it would be best to get behind it now and say something positive to the music industry. We are looking for any acceptance of that conclusion by the Government, and she would earn great credit if she did so. She will not be able to do so this afternoon, but she should do so soon, because she will find herself being hailed as a great friend of the UK music industry. We are, however, a million miles from the dark days of the Gowers review, and I do not want to spend too much time looking at what he said. I accept that there were a few good suggestions, but I have mentioned that it was Treasury-driven, and unfortunately he surrounded himself with economists and barely spoke to the artists and creators. Some of the consultations and submissions to his report were fine, excellent and first class, and his failure to acknowledge them in his recommendations was disappointing. He saw copyright as belonging not to the artists and the creator, but, almost perversely, to society and the consumer, and that it should be returned to the creator and artists only as a grudging concession and a pat on the back. It was an absurd way to start, but the review was full of it, and the section on term extension very much suggested and put across that viewpoint. Gowers got it totally wrong. The music industry thinks he got it totally wrong, most hon. Members think he got it entirely wrong, and 36,000 musicians, from the high and mighty to the most humble who signed the petition, thought he got it wrong. It is time that we put it right, and we have the opportunity to do so with Commissioner McCreevy's appointment. I hope that we can do the right thing, put that historic wrong perpetuated against musicians right, and end the term discrimination against performers and artists. I like these debates because they always tend to be consensual and we do not fall out with each other. We are all veterans of these discussions.