Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Oral evidence: Fan-led review of live and electronic music, HC 527
Wednesday 2 September 2026
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 2 September 2026.
Members present: Dame Caroline Dinenage (Chair); Mr Bayo Alaba; Dr Rupa Huq; Liz Jarvis; Jeff Smith.
Questions 1-58
Witnesses
I: Lord Brennan, Independent Chair of the Fan-led Review of live and electronic music.
II: Rt Hon Ian Murray MP, Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; and Alastair Jones, Deputy Director, Creative Industries, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Witness: Lord Brennan of Canton.
Q1 Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, which will look at the fan-led review of live and electronic music. I am thrilled that we are joined by our former Committee member and now very important Member of the House of Lords, Lord Brennan of Canton, whom the Committee commissioned to conduct the fan-led review.
Kevin, can I put on the record our enormous thanks to you for that piece of work? You have done it incredibly thoroughly with a huge amount of effort, and it was quite a challenge. We must also, through you, thank the thousands of fans and venues that got involved. It is a remarkable piece of work. There were lots of surveys and a lot of people attended events. From us to you, thank you so much for basically throwing everything at it and for producing such an incredibly thorough and well-thought-out report. We are really grateful.
Lord Brennan: Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Before I begin, I remind Members to declare any interests.
Kevin, I would like to start the questions. Why do you think this was important? Why did you agree to do it? Why do you think it is important that fans, whether in arenas, grassroots venues or nightclubs, have the opportunity to have their say and have an input into how things unfold in the music sector?
Lord Brennan: Thank you, Chair, for that very kind introduction. It was a privilege to be asked to do the review, so I had to accept when you approached me about it.
It was really important because it struck me, in 23 years as an MP and now having gone into the House of Lords, having taken quite a deep interest in the music industry and all the issues around it, that everybody in the music industry starts off as a music fan. I wonder whether they maintain that eye and ear in relation to the music industry.
In music in general, although we are talking about live music here, fans’ thoughts, considerations and passions are often the last thing that is thought about. The voice of the fan is not very well articulated in the music industry, in my opinion, so it was a great opportunity to go out and try to do a piece of work from the fans’ perspective. The Committee should be commended for commissioning it, because I do not think anybody had thought of doing that before.
A fans’ voice survey conducted was just before this review, and I wondered whether the review would be needed, with that having been done, but everybody I spoke to said that it was absolutely needed. The fans’ voice should be the first to be listened to, but it is often the last. That is the simple answer.
Q2 Chair: Now that the Government have responded to the report, what is your view on what they have said? Are you happy with the response? Do you think the Government are making fans’ voices one of the first things they listen to, or do you think they are still too industry-focused?
Lord Brennan: As you know, Chair, having known me for some time, I am never happy with any Government’s response in total, whatever the colour of the Government. I think the Government have responded positively and seriously to the report, and in quite a lot of detail, but there are a number of ways in which the Committee could press Ministers to go further and faster on a lot of the things we have been talking about in the fan-led review.
Many years ago, I used to be a teacher. I would give the response seven or eight out of 10. It is a good response. They have taken the review seriously and engaged very positively with it, but there are aspects of what I recommended and what the Committee has endorsed that the Government could go further and faster on.
Q3 Chair: If we stick with the teaching analogy—bearing in mind that we will go into more detail about a few of the issues—if you were to get your teacher’s pens out, which part of the Government response would you put a tick next to, and which would have a question mark and a “please see me”?
Lord Brennan: I suppose there are two quite obvious things to pick out. As you know, in doing the review I tried to boil it down into what the essentials of live music are from the fans’ perspective. I talk about seven essentials in the report: celebration, ticketing, grassroots, transport, accessibility, safety and the voice of fans.
To go back to ticketing, while I am pleased that the Government have committed to legislate on secondary ticketing, lots of people—particularly fans—are disappointed that it is a draft Bill rather than a piece of legislation. If I were on the Committee still, I would want to push the Minister to ask why it is a draft Bill. Is it because some of the secondary ticketing companies have had too much influence on the debate? Is there a real reason for it? I would ask them to go back and have a look at it, and introduce a Bill to complete all its stages in this Session so that fans can be confident that it will not get lost towards the end of the parliamentary cycle and drop off the end of the legislative agenda.
Q4 Chair: That is a fair challenge. One of your recommendations was for the Government and industry to back a music fans association. How do you respond to the argument that that body should be driven by industry and not the Government?
Lord Brennan: Well, it should be driven by fans; that is the first point I would make. The second point I would make is that this is a fan-led review, so that is what they are asking for. Some people say that if you are going to have a music fans association, it should be not a top-down thing but something that bubbles up from the grassroots. What music fans are actually saying is, “We don’t feel empowered. We don’t feel listened to,” and they have said, “We would like somebody to help us to get a music fans association off the ground.”
As you know, Chair, I called in the report for the Government to see that and use its convening power, which it often uses very effectively in relation to the music industry, to give fans a voice. Everybody else in the music industry has a voice and has the ears of Ministers. There are powerful and effective lobbying groups like UK Music, and the individual components of the music industry, who are often entertained and listened to by Ministers, but fans are fairly voiceless in that process. I think the Government can use their convening power to get this thing off the ground and then get industry in and say, “You really should be supporting this,” but also allow it to be independent and a genuine voice for fans.
Q5 Chair: Was there anything that came out of the fan-led review that surprised you? Were there any themes or asks that you were not expecting?
Lord Brennan: What surprised me most was the real hunger from fans to have their voice heard. We did lots of roundtables around the country as part of the review, and I met people. I went to Scotland and Wales—which was obviously easy for me—to the north and south of England and to Northern Ireland. I went all around the UK to try to hear what fans had to say and there was a real hunger to participate. I was pleasantly surprised by that, because I wondered whether people would be cynical or think it was just another exercise in some kind of tokenism towards fans, but they were really passionate about wanting to get their voices heard.
It was also surprising that so many of their asks were very practical, achievable things. They were not pie in the sky, but pretty basic stuff like, “How do I get home at the end of a gig?” These are things that the Government—and obviously the industry—can do something about.
Q6 Chair: Some people were puzzled by the inclusion of electronic music in the fan-led review. I was really keen that it was in there, and you were too; can you explain why?
Lord Brennan: Obviously that is what the Committee asked me to do and why it is called the fan-led review of live and electronic music. I think anybody who has an experience of attending live music events these days realises that it is not exactly the same as it was, certainly in my youth. I am probably considerably older than everybody on the Committee—apart from Jeff—and it is a very different live music environment from what it used to be.
If you go, as I did recently, to the wonderful Green Man festival in mid-Wales—a brilliant and still independent music festival—then yes, you are going to have great bands and great solo artists, but there are also going to be great DJs and people performing and presenting sets that are a mixture of recorded and live performance. That is the nature of the live experience, and those fans are just as passionate about their genre of music as somebody who wants to go and see an indie band or a folk singer.
Q7 Mr Alaba: I would like to declare an interest: I come from the industry and I used to own grassroots music venues and programme independent festivals. Lord Brennan, what are the key elements of a successful local or regional strategy to support live music?
Lord Brennan: It is really key to have partnership between the local scene and local authorities, who can play an enormous role in making sure that there is a very vibrant music scene. I launched the report in Newport in south Wales at Le Pub, a wonderful small grassroots music venue that is making a huge contribution to the city’s culture and music. It is supported tremendously by the local authority, and one thing that struck me in doing this was that where you have that kind of local authority engagement, and engagement with other local institutions such as the police, local transport companies and so on, that is when it really works—when you bring everything together in that way.
There is an interesting debate going on at the moment about the whole issue of devolution. We have had devolved government in Wales for quite a considerable time, and there are devolved metro mayors and so on across parts of England, but in the places where those institutions are absent, it is more difficult to pull together a vibrant local music scene. The real key to it is to have, obviously, passionate people who want to put on gigs—you need promoters, venues, local musicians and so on—but you also need support from local authorities.
Q8 Mr Alaba: That takes us to our next point. You mentioned local authorities, and we know how challenging it is for them to deliver statutory services. Is it wishful thinking that they should prioritise or give significant importance to supporting live music in their areas?
Lord Brennan: I don’t think it is. In fact, I think it is a vital part of a local authority’s role in place making, if you like, and in supporting local communities to make sure that there is a vibrant cultural scene in the local area.
I remember this debate well. I was a local councillor for 10 years before I became an MP, and there was often that debate: “Why should we get involved in culture? These are things that aren’t anything to do with providing housing or social services.” But actually, if you look at and listen to what fans have to say about music, it is an important part, yes, culturally and economically in local areas, but it is also tremendously important for people’s wellbeing, for their mental health and for their sense of positivity about their lives.
People who go to live music events describe it in a way that is not the same as going to the cinema, which is a wonderful and important thing to do, or just going shopping or something; they describe it almost as an experience that is spiritual and emotionally important to them. Any local authority should think a great deal about how a little bit of intervention, a little bit of support and a little bit of giving priority to the local music scene can bring tremendous benefit to its citizens.
Q9 Mr Alaba: Do you feel that regional authorities have the powers to support and deliver the ambitions of the fan-led review?
Lord Brennan: There are examples of where they are doing that already; that is the point I would make. One of the very practical issues that came up in the fan-led review was about transport. The question some people posed to me was, “How could somewhere call itself a music city if you can’t get a bus home at the end of the night when you attend a live event?” The night bus initiative that has been undertaken in Liverpool just recently has shown that, just through a little bit of thought and intervention, you can make a tremendous difference.
I am very much in favour of re-empowering local authorities and giving them more opportunities to do things in their local area, but those that are actually using their current powers imaginatively are really making a big difference. That is a very practical example of the sorts of things that local authorities can do.
Q10 Mr Alaba: I am really pleased that you mentioned transport. I represent Southend, a coastal community, and transport comes up time and again whenever I talk to venues about what they need to support and sustain their service. You have mentioned transport; should any other Departments be involved in the equation to support the scene? The DFT is one.
Lord Brennan: Yes, absolutely. It goes across a lot of the different services that local authorities provide. It includes planning, for example. I talked in the report about how fans are extremely keen to ensure the agent of change principle in planning: namely, the idea that if you already have an established music venue, someone should not be able to build a block of flats next to it and then complain that they are next to a music venue because there is a noise nuisance; the person who is initiating the change—the developers, in this instance—should be responsible for mitigating any of the impact of that sort of thing.
Planning and transport come into it, as do welfare, education and social services across the piece. All these aspects of local authority provision are really important to making sure you have a vibrant music scene. I would like to see all local authorities engaging with their local music venues and musicians, but also making sure that they regularly engage with the fans who go along and make that local music scene a vibrant and important part of the locality.
Q11 Mr Alaba: We have talked about other Departments; is there an argument for an independent data office to try to take the pressure away from the industry? I am thinking about annual surveys and continual benchmarks.
Lord Brennan: Absolutely. One of the recommendations in the report is that there should be annual surveys and that the Government should use their convening power to make sure that that sort of data is available. The idea of an independent data office is very good, because when you dig down into the data about the live music scene you find that people are really surprised by its impact, but there is also sometimes a warning system in there in respect of what is going to happen to local music venues unless there is some sort of intervention, or unless fans are empowered to take ownership of and take part in local music venues. Independent data is crucial.
Mr Alaba: Thank you.
Q12 Jeff Smith: Good morning. I want to focus on a couple of your recommendations for supporting grassroots venues: the grassroots levy and the agent of change principle, which you mentioned briefly. How would you assess the Government’s response to those two recommendations?
Lord Brennan: The Government have said some very positive things about the grassroots levy but, as you have probably sensed, I do have some concerns. They have said on a couple of occasions that they are absolutely prepared to legislate in order to make the grassroots levy a statutory obligation if it does not work as a voluntary system. This Committee is to be commended for kicking off this whole thing. It is an incredible achievement that we have the LIVE Trust, that the grassroots levy is up and running and that it is putting real money out there to support local music scenes, grassroots venues, artists and so on, who would not otherwise have that support. I do not want to say anything to undermine that. What is happening already is great and brilliant work.
But the Government have said that if, on a voluntary basis, 50% of the eligible gigs in stadiums and large arenas are not contributing to the levy, they would be prepared to intervene. They first said that would be by December of last year, and then they said by the end of June. That raises quite a lot of interesting questions for the Committee, doesn’t it? First, why, in their response to my report, do the Government not refer to that deadline of 30 June for the 50% take-up of the levy? Secondly, does that mean they have not yet been able to make that assessment? If they are going to make that assessment, what criteria will they use to make it? Where will they get their figures from for that? Or does this mean they are pulling back from that commitment?
I am sure the Committee is aware that a lot of the evidence on the ground is that the levy may have got up to about a third at one point, but it may now be falling back from that position. As you know, I recommended in the report that the Government, in the forthcoming ticketing legislation, which I hope will be an actual Bill in this Session, should make it in scope to at least be able to take the powers and have it in their back pocket to put the levy on a statutory footing. I am sure you will want to ask the Minister about that when he is in front of you, but that is my view on it.
Q13 Jeff Smith: I take it from what you have said that you do not think there has been enough industry engagement yet, so this needs a legislative response. Do you think that is because there is a bit of confusion about where the responsibility lies? I think the original intention was that the big venues would support the small venues. The big venues are hired out to promoters, who in theory could put the money on ticket prices but, according to our evidence and information, they are pushing the responsibility, or certainly the choice, on to artists. Some of the big promoters are saying, “Well, we give this choice to our artists, and some of them take it and some don’t.” Do we need to be more specific about where the responsibility lies and whether it is built into the original hire agreement between the promoters and the venues?
Lord Brennan: That is a valid point. I think clarity on that would be massively useful, but you are absolutely right. Not only is that the process—just as you have outlined it—but we have a market that has a very big, dominant player in it in terms of competition. It probably dominates two thirds or more of the market. If the target for the levy is not being met, we know who is promoting at least two thirds of those events, so clarity on exactly how and where the responsibility should lie is needed.
I think the voluntary approach is great and I do not want to undermine it, because what has been achieved has been fantastic, and real money is going out there to support grassroots music. Let us celebrate that amazing achievement—as I said, it is really this Committee’s achievement that this is happening—but there is always a great danger with these things that they wither on the vine unless the focus is kept on them. That is why having a real and genuine commitment from the Government that they are going to legislate, or have the power to legislate, would be important.
Q14 Jeff Smith: On the agent of change issue, the Government argue that it is enshrined in planning policy. Why do you think putting it on a statutory basis would make a difference for venues?
Lord Brennan: To go back to the focus of the report, it is what the fans think—it is also what I think.
In Scotland, they have done it. As part of the review, I visited Sub Club in Glasgow, which is an amazing venue. I don’t know whether you have ever been there, but they have a vibrating dance floor. If you ever go, I recommend it—it is quite an experience. With Sub Club, you think, going down into one of these clubs, that it is going to be an old, sticky-floored sort of thing, but it is an absolutely beautiful venue, with dance music being its principal function. They were able to use the fact that the agent of change was on a statutory footing in Scotland to make sure that when development was taking place next to that long-established venue, it was clear from the first moment of the process that the developers would have to be responsible for the necessary mitigating measures if they were going to put flats next to that venue.
The key reason why it should be on a statutory footing is so that everybody is clear from the get-go that the agent of change principle applies. What tends to happen when it is in guidance is that there is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about it, and a lack of clarity about whether or not agent of change is applicable. That introduces costs and, ultimately, for venues, and particularly small venues, that can often be the difference between them falling over or surviving. Clarity, as provided by a statutory approach, is better.
I will give credit to the Government: we had a lot of debates about it in the other place, and the Commons did recently too, on some of the recent legislation, and Ministers have moved in terms of strengthening and giving clarity to the guidance. Ultimately, though, when a legislative vehicle comes along, putting it on a statutory footing would be the better option.
Jeff Smith: Thanks.
Chair: There is also a slight discrepancy in the NPPF: the Government are now saying that if there are fewer than 10 houses in a development, it does not have to go before a committee, so you then cannot bring in the agent of change principle. There may be a slight disconnect between what is being said and what is actually happening.
Q15 Dr Huq: We do miss you, Kevin. We had some fun on that Committee, although we never made it to Japan, which we are hoping to do with this incarnation.
I have a range of venues in my two boroughs, from the Labatt’s Hammersmith Apollo downwards to the Ealing Ex-Servicemen’s Club, where I saw a live singer as recently as Saturday night. So thank you for doing this painstaking work. There has been a professionalisation of gigs; I remember college ones I went to—they just put an X on your hand with a felt-tip pen when you got in. Even the Cambridge Junction used to just stamp your hand with a stamper.
You have made a lot of recommendations about safety and accessibility, which is obviously well and good, but you just mentioned the strangulation of small venues with too much regulation. We obviously need reporting mechanisms to counter harassment. We need to ensure that all staff and volunteers have safeguarding training, and that there is diverse recruitment and all these fan codes of conduct. How feasible is this for very small grassroots venues? They operate on zero margins, and we have all been sent briefings. You said yourself that they are struggling to break even. How feasible is it for them to implement some of the practical recommendations in your report, especially the safety/accessibility bits?
Lord Brennan: I will say a couple things. One is that a lot of them are already really good at it. Lots of small venues are actually some of the safest places you could go to attend a live music event, and they take it very seriously.
Secondly, I acknowledge that, for a lot of small grassroots venues, they are really on the margin economically. We should not be putting lots of unnecessary regulation on them. Where they are community-led, not-for-profit institutions, as they often are these days, they should get some support to bring their premises up to scratch in terms of accessibility and so on, if necessary. I do not think it needs to be a burden on very small venues.
Clearly, what I say in the report are the things that fans have said. Generally, they report a lot of very positive experiences at music gigs—the overwhelming experience is a very positive one—but there are still concerns about safety and accessibility. Fans are very practical about these things. They do not expect gigs necessarily to always run absolutely smoothly. If you talk to a lot of the institutions and bodies that are there to support fans to get to gigs, whether that is because they are disabled or because of fears about safety and harassment, they are actually very practical in their recommendations. A lot of it is just common sense and need not be expensive. For example, just having a jug of water on the bar will not cost you a lot of money.
Dr Huq: Some of these things are completely cost-free.
Lord Brennan: By the way, I feel quite passionate about things like noise safety. I have gone to and played a lot of gigs in my life, and I am blessed by the fact that my hearing is still okay. I can hear your questions. I actually did a hearing test last week and it is all right.
When I think about going to gigs when I was younger and walking into a really loud environment, nobody ever said, “By the way, look after your ears.” There is no reason why all music venues should not be cognisant of how important it is for people’s future health to ensure that they are protecting their ears when they are in a very loud environment. It is very cheap, simple and easy. Every venue should do that to ensure not only that earplugs are available to anybody who comes along to a loud gig if they request them, but that they advertise the fact and make sure that everybody is staying safe.
Q16 Dr Huq: You have not properly introduced yourself as a practising gigging musician, have you? You called yourself a teacher.
Lord Brennan: As you know, I have played in your constituency.
Dr Huq: Yes—at my 50th! You’re meant to say, “You don’t look 50.” I remember you on the stage; we have some brilliant pictures. It was different people on the Committee then, so that is why you guys were not invited.
We obviously need to listen to fans, and some of these things cost nothing, such as “Ask for Angela”, where, if you are in distress, you can go to the bar, and the staff know those code words.
The kind of thing that venues have said to me is that sometimes well-intentioned things come out of a tragedy, but they can be a bit strangulating. Martyn’s law came out of the horrific terrorist attack in Manchester. I have been told by venues, “It is not as easy any more. We need an SIA operative. We cannot just say, ‘Come and play’.” You need to predict how many people will be there, because there are different thresholds if there are 200 or 800 people in the audience, and you may need St John Ambulance and SIA operatives. These laws are well intentioned and have come out of horrific circumstances—Martyn’s law is a counter-terrorism, Home Office law—but sometimes there will not be a terrorist threat to a small thing and it is not worth the bother.
Lord Brennan: That was a terrible tragedy and a terrible incident, and it is good that legislative action was taken in response to that to make sure that the failures that happened on that occasion do not happen again in the future. I do not think there is anything in my report that would be burdensome to small grassroots venues. The last thing that fans want is to put any burdens on small grassroots venues that would make it more likely that they would go bust. Fans are practical; they are sensible about these things. They want to be safe, but they also understand that if they are going to a small venue, it will not have the same level of infrastructure as a large stadium or an arena.
Q17 Dr Huq: You said there should be help for smaller venues. Staff at the Ex-Servicemen’s Club that I was at on Saturday are really worried that it is going to disappear, because although they own the freehold, it is council land, and there is an imperative to “build, build, build”—it could easily be got rid of. Everyone in there is working for free, apart from the singer, who does it karaoke-style—all the old dears loved his numbers. The staff said, “A couple of hundred pounds of our take will go to him. We cannot exploit him, so we pay him properly, but that is our main cost.”
There are also the utilities—they are suffering under the cost of all the bills to keep the club going. It has been there since 1919. You said that there should be help. Who should that be—the local authority or the Government? What can we do to save Ealing Ex-Servicemen’s Club? I told them that I would tell Andy Burnham about them; I am telling the good Lord instead.
Lord Brennan: That sounds like a really important local venue, and if it is a live music venue, one of the purposes of the LIVE Trust, for example, is to provide support to that kind of venue. Yes, the local authority should be involved, but also the industry itself. Through the LIVE Trust, if the venue is eligible, that support is the sort of thing that can be applied for. I visited a venue in Cardiff that had recently renewed all their dressing rooms for artists so that they have better quality facilities and they have improved their accessibility. Some venues are now using that kind of money to provide places where bands can stay the night so that they do not have to stay in an expensive hotel. Yes, local authorities should be involved in making sure that those sorts of venues can continue, but the industry itself should also be involved, through the trust.
Dr Huq: We have probably all come across assets of community value. That could stave it off for a year—you can protect a venue that way.
Lord Brennan: I do not want to stray too far from the report, but there is an argument for assets of cultural value being included in that legislation.
Chair: Let us go back to ticketing and transparency.
Q18 Liz Jarvis: Good morning, Lord Brennan, and yes, I would like to return to ticketing and transparency. According to the CMA, typical mark-ups on secondary ticketing can exceed 50%. We saw that last summer with Oasis tickets; they were advertised at £135 and then reclassified as “in-demand” and given a mark-up to £355. Obviously, that impacts the fans and, as you said, this is a fan-led review, and it is really important to have them at the heart of everything. You mentioned that your review calls for legislation to ban the resale of tickets above face value without delay, whereas the Government have said that they will publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. What impact, if any, do you think that decision will have on efforts to tackle ticket touting?
Lord Brennan: We would not be the first jurisdiction in the world to implement this kind of legislation. There are examples in Australia, Ireland and some states in other jurisdictions. We can argue about this, but I think the argument has been won. Fans feel very passionately that there is something different about going to a music gig compared perhaps with other types of events, such as getting a ticket on a train or going on an aeroplane. It is an event that people go to together to have a communal experience. You have to witness the tickets for an artist you feel passionately about being scooped up by often pretty dodgy operators and then you do not get a fair chance in the queue in the first place to get your ticket at the value that the artist, the promoter and the venue has agreed they want to sell it at. You then have to pay a premium, which is not going into the pocket of the artist that you love; it is going to go into the pockets of the people who happen to have the technology to be able to scoop all those tickets up.
Often, international corporations making big profits out of that sort of thing is anathema to fans. The difference that this secondary ticketing legislation would have is it would make it absolutely clear that it is not a legal practice to sell above face value without any reasonable markup. There is lots of evidence that, on occasion, even in major venues like the O2, 70% of the tickets found on a resale site—Viagogo, for example—are being sold by two or three sellers. That is not an example of someone trying to resell their ticket because they cannot go to the gig; it is an example of industrial-level ticket touting.
The Government have agreed to legislate. I hope the fact that they have said they are just going to publish a draft Bill at first is not because they have been listening too hard to the likes of Viagogo and outlaw companies. I will be quite frank about it: in terms of their behaviours in past years, they have acted in an outlaw fashion and ignored the Competition and Markets Authority’s directives. The Government should not be listening too hard to them; they should be listening to the fans, as in this review.
I say strongly to the Committee that there isn’t any reason why you shouldn’t press the Government on this and say, “Bring this legislation forward.” We have had many years of debate on it, and we know what the details are. There is no need for lots more consultations; let’s get the Bill out there and on its parliamentary journey.
Q19 Chair: There is also a difference between ticket touts buying up the tickets and then selling them on for a premium, and dynamic pricing, which is what we saw with the Oasis gigs. With dynamic pricing, the price people pay is not the same as the face value price, and people who have been waiting in a telephone queue forever are suddenly faced with what could potentially be an impulse buy. Should there be greater emphasis on the Government’s activities on that sort of action as well?
Lord Brennan: It is interesting. As you know, Chair, the Competition and Markets Authority found that dynamic pricing practices did not go on in the case of Oasis, but there was a lack of transparency over their tiered pricing approach. That is a pretty invidious practice as well, by the way, but it is different in the sense that with dynamic or surge pricing, you are basically trying to isolate each consumer and maximise what you can screw out of them for the price of a ticket. In the digital age, that is possible in a way that it was not when we used to queue up for tickets outside a record shop. Dynamic pricing should have no place and the big players, even Ticketmaster, have said that they will not pursue a policy of surge or dynamic pricing.
Tiered pricing, where you essentially release the same ticket in tiers but then sell the next batch at a higher price as demand comes in, is not illegal, although I think there are some ethical questions about it. In the case of Oasis, that was not made clear to the customer. You log on, you try to buy your ticket, you think “Great, I am going to get my ticket for £100,” and then boom—“sorry, all those tickets are gone, but you can have a ticket in exactly the same part of the Principality stadium for £200.” Fans really feel that they are being psychologically manipulated at that point.
The Competition and Markets Authority called that out, and Ticketmaster made it clear that it will be more transparent about those sorts of practices—I would rather they did not happen at all. If truth be told, the price of a ticket in one part of the stadium should be the same for everybody. If you are genuinely buying an experience that includes more, whether it is standing closer to the stage or having some hospitality thrown in, I accept that you might pay a different price. With those sorts of practices, fans really—
Q20 Chair: Should the Government address that when they look at their draft Bill on ticketing?
Lord Brennan: I think so. A lot of it is for the industry to address, and a lot of it is for the Competition and Markets Authority to take a stronger position on. I do not know whether you are going to get on to the additional fees on top of tickets, but the other thing that really irritates fans is that you get the ticket price, or your £100, but all of a sudden another £25 has been added on from somewhere.
We cannot call for ticket agencies to stop the bots and prevent fraud without them charging something for the technological infrastructure, and I completely accept that there may be a legitimate case to add a booking fee. Obviously, we have already said that we like the idea—and fans like the idea—of there being a contribution on top of a ticket towards keeping the grassroots scene going through the LIVE Trust.
However, what you find when you dig into this a bit is that, first, those additional charges are completely opaque and fans have no idea where that money is going, and secondly, it is not all being dedicated to providing the technological infrastructure that you need to do a digital sale. Some of it is being just divvied up between the ticket agency, the promoter and even the artist in some instances, I am afraid to say. What I am calling for is transparency, and the key thing is that fans are told up front, “This is the ticket price that you are paying for your ticket. That’s what should go to the artist, to the promoter and to the venue.” Anything on top of that has to be genuinely accounted for.
Q21 Dr Huq: My ten-minute rule Bill covered both, as it covered dynamic pricing as well—I wish someone would resurrect that. That is a good point. I think Ed Sheeran has his own system for bypassing all the bots, but it is really expensive.
I have one last question. When you were on this Committee, every week seemed to be about Brexit and what its effect would be. Do you have any comment on that? Did it come up in your review?
Lord Brennan: Again, Chair, I do not want to stray beyond the report, but as this Committee will know, there is actually quite a shared cross-party endeavour for us to improve the situation for cultural touring in Europe. I am hopeful that there will be a renewed emphasis on that.
Generally, it has affected the live music industry in a significant way. It is not just artists being able to tour in Europe but the infrastructure behind live music, in which this country was a world leader. Most of the trucks that would transport the bands’ equipment were left-hand drive, but they were located in the UK for a reason. A lot of that has been lost as a result of Brexit. As far as music fans are concerned, the more that can be done to allow their artists to come and tour in this country, as well as our artists to go and tour freely in Europe, the better.
Q22 Chair: Finally, we have the Minister coming in after you, Lord Brennan. If the Government were to fully embrace and implement the recommendations that you have made in your fans’ charter, which one would make the greatest difference to fans’ experience of live music and electronic music?
Lord Brennan: I think there is a soft answer and a hard answer to that. The soft answer—to my surprise, in some ways—is the first of “the seven essentials of live”, celebration, which, as I mentioned, is the one that resonated hugely with music fans. They want to have Government at local and national levels celebrate the value and understand the importance of the live music experience to people’s wellbeing. That goes across Government—it is not just about the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That is the soft answer.
The hard answer would be: let’s get on with the secondary ticketing legislation. It is a commitment that the Government have made, and I do not see any reason why they could not take that up with greater speed than they have taken so far. Obviously, I include in that my recommendation on the levy.
Q23 Chair: Before we let you go, are there any other messages that you would like to leave with the Committee? We are about to meet the Minister.
Lord Brennan: The only message I would give is that I hope the Committee will take some of the other recommendations that do not necessarily directly relate to the Government, and communicate with the relevant bodies. For example, there are some things in there about the Competition and Markets Authority, which obviously stands independent of Government. I see no reason why the Committee should not write to the Competition and Markets Authority and say, “What are you doing about these recommendations?” The Committee could also contact some of the local authorities, metro mayors and so on to ask them that question and just keep on the case. This Committee is very good at doing that—it does not just put reports on the shelf and let them gather dust—so keep on the case and follow up on the recommendations. It is your report now. I gave it to you, and I hope you will make good use of it.
Chair: It’s a beautiful report. Thank you for the amazing hard work and effort that went into doing it. We are really grateful to you for coming to see us today and for sharing your thoughts about it.
Witnesses: Ian Murray and Alastair Jones.
Q24 Chair: Welcome to our second panel this morning. We are now joined by Ian Murray, who is the Minister of State at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and Alastair Jones, who is the deputy director at the Department. Minister, congratulations on your reappointment, and welcome to your first session before the Committee. Alastair, welcome back. You have been before this Committee a number of times, so it is good to see you again.
I will kick off the questions, but before I do, there have been some machinery of government changes as well as the reshuffles and all the excitement over the summer. Minister, can you quickly update us on the extent to which that impacts the Department and, in particular, the music sector and the creative industries more broadly?
Ian Murray: Thank you, Chair. It is great to be here. It will be a year of being in this job on Monday and this is my first visit here, so I do not know if have avoided this or managed to escape.
Chair: You have got off lightly!
Ian Murray: We will find out in the next 45 minutes or so. There is a question of whether you now call the Department DCMS or DDCMS, because the machinery of Government changes have been pretty impactful, with the Department bringing in the digital side of DSIT.
The impact on music in particular, and on the creative industries part of DCMS, does not really change, because it stays where it is, but we brought in AI copyright and GDS—the Government Digital Service—which sit with Minister Peacock[1]. We brought in online safety and telecoms. We are pretty much going back to the way DCMS was before the machinery of Government changes to set up DSIT. My portfolio brings in the telecoms and online safety part, which fits nicely with the media part of the portfolio and the creative industries, so there are synergies in terms of bringing things back together.
The other Ministers in the Department have now taken on quite a lot of DSIT functions. It has of course been split between the Cabinet Office and the new taskforce on AI, which is being chaired by Lord Vallance from the other place, but also at a Cabinet level with Minister Narayan.
Q25 Chair: Fantastic. Over the summer we got a new Prime Minister, who we understand is a music fan, which is obviously good news for us. He is also a supporter of grassroots music, which is of great importance to the work we have been talking about. Do you think the Government’s approach to live music policy has changed since he has taken office?
Ian Murray: I do not know whether the policy itself has changed, because the sector plan that has been put in place for the creative industries, which is part of the eight industrial sectors in the industrial strategy, has not changed. It is my job to deliver that plan, and music is a key part of that. The emphasis might change in terms of greater devolution, with a greater emphasis on place. The music plan, the music growth fund and the strategy for music we have introduced have not changed, but there will be a stronger emphasis on their devolution.
The Secretary of State, Lisa Nandy, has always said that talent is everywhere but opportunity is not. That is a challenge for a lot of sectors, but particularly for the music and creative industries, and we want to try to resolve that issue by spreading the opportunity for talent right across the country.
Q26 Chair: I have always felt that Andy Burnham has a great affection for grassroots music venues. Manchester obviously has a fantastic music scene. When we were first talking as a Committee about whether we should advocate for the introduction of a voluntary levy, he was one of the first people I spoke to about it and was really supportive about it. That shows me that he has an interest in the grassroots sector.
We now know that the Government have appointed Michael Dugher as music champion, and he also has a great background in music. They say that he is going to strengthen connections between Government and the music industry, but whose role do you think it is to strengthen links between Government and music fans? Where do they come into this equation?
Ian Murray: Obviously fans drive the music industry, and everything that we do in terms of our policy is to benefit fans, whether it be secondary ticketing, the voluntary levy or making sure that venues are safe. You can see what Andy Burnham has done in Manchester with his support for grassroots music, whether in terms of transport or, of course, with Co-op Live, which is the largest venue that has opened recently and is obviously in Manchester. There is a big drive towards making sure that the infrastructure is there, that grassroots music venues exist and that there is a talent pipeline coming through. That is all for the benefit of fans. If you distil down all the policies that the Government are doing in terms of music—but also the wider creative industries—it is all guided by fans and guided for fans.
Q27 Dr Huq: We know that you are a music fan too, Ian, so we are well placed to have you, and congratulations on surviving the reshuffle. Lord Brennan mentioned seeing live and electronic music venues as part of the UK’s cultural infrastructure. I think 94% of respondents to the music fans’ voice survey said that venues should have some sort of protected status. We know there is an agent of change principle, but it is not entirely mandatory. Do you agree that there should be some protections for venues in place?
Ian Murray: There should be and there are, and there will be more through the agent of change principle. First, I thank Lord Brennan for his fan-led review, which is really important. What surprised me most about the fan-led review that he led was the fact that it chimes very clearly with what industry and artists have been talking about and what the Government have been trying to achieve working with the industry.
It is a really strong report, and given that it has been led by the fans, it goes very clearly to the heart of Madam Chair’s initial questions about where the fans sit in the ecosystem—they are right at the heart of it. I think it was Bill Shankly who said that football does not exist without the fans. Music does not exist without the fans either. That is why the fan-led review is really important.
All that is driven through the grassroots sector. There is not a famous artist—an internationally renowned artist—who has not picked up a guitar or sung a song in some dusty grassroots venue somewhere at the start of their career. Without that, you would not have the big stars of today in that talent pipeline.
Fundamentally, without the foundations of grassroots venues and grassroots music, we would not have any music industry in the UK, let alone the talents that are coming up from past, present and future. They need that protection. That is why you mentioned agent of change. It is really important for that agent of change principle to be embedded in the national planning policy framework. It is really important not only for it to be embedded, but for it to be actioned. MHCLG has been very clear that that embedding of it in the new guidance that is coming out as part of that will now be directly sent as an emphasis to local authorities that have grassroots music venues as part of their infrastructure to ensure that those agent of change principles are adhered to and adhered to very strongly.
You can look at what the Music Venue Trust do, and I commend them for the work that they do to protect grassroots music venues through this kind of agent of change principle. There is no doubt that local authorities will not get away with not having those provisions for the agent of change principles in their guidance and making sure that the grassroots venues are protected.
Q28 Dr Huq: I raised this with Lord Brennan as well, but there are also small venues like Ealing Ex-Servicemen’s Club, where there was live music on a Saturday night. They are really worried that they are going to disappear. They are operating in the most shoestring way ever. I think they have cut their opening hours to Friday, Saturday and Monday; it is three and a half or four days a week—it used to be every day. The point is that even though the Prime Minister has set some protections for clubs so that they do not pay any business rates, utilities and things like that are killing them. They do not pay any wages; everyone is doing it voluntarily and it is a very cheap bar. People like that fall through the cracks. They are not a designated music venue.
We have all been sent figures about how many of these venues have closed—it is way more than it used to be. If you look at an ’80s or ’90s copy of NME, the touring venues for any live band are just not there any more. The Music Venue Trust said to us that venues feel excluded from all the traditional frameworks. There are protections for other things, such as libraries and museums, which are properly seen as cultural infrastructure. Is there some way to protect music venues, and even places that provide live music that maybe are not classified as music venues?
As I say, the Ex-Servicemen’s Club is the one thing a week that a lot of elderly ladies will come out for. It is a safe space for them. They would not want to go anywhere else, but they are worried that the council will take it over for housing. There is a “build, build, build” principle and the council owns the land and the freehold. The elderly ladies are saying, “Please speak up for us.” I am thinking of such people. No. 1, it is not specifically designated as a music venue and, No. 2, those that are designated as such have given us evidence that other spaces, such as museums and theatres, have protections that they do not.
Ian Murray: You pick up on a huge issue in terms of the classification of music venues. We know that live music happens in a lot of places that are not designated music venues, such as pubs, clubs and social clubs, as you suggest. My own Gilmerton miners club often has live music on a Saturday night as part of its overall entertainment programme. You are right to highlight the fact that there is not one classification of where live music—particularly grassroots live music—occurs. Trying to deal with that is part of the challenge for Government. You are right to suggest that we have given the 20% increase in rate reductions to clubs. Of course, charities do not pay that. I suspect that the organisation you have referred to is a charity and therefore does not pay rates on the building.
There is protection. That is what the whole music growth plan is about. We want music venues, music institutions and artists to be able to apply to that fund for infrastructure, to grow the stuff that they are doing and to support individual artists and individual endeavours. We need to make sure that these kinds of outlets not only survive but thrive. They can’t just be living hand to mouth. It has been a difficult time for the industry—we know that—but the entirety of the DCMS strategy, not just in music but across the whole of our assets in terms of creative industries and culture, is about making sure that we can spread that across the country and that these kinds of organisations can thrive. That is what the music growth plan and the “Turn It Up” plan are about.
The fan-led review by Lord Brennan is a really good contribution to that. What the Music Venue Trust does is invaluable to supporting these organisations, to make sure that they not only survive, but seek out new opportunities to make them thrive in the future.
Q29 Dr Huq: Brilliant. I might write to you about some other things. When the venues came in before the election, the Committee had a sort of speed dating session. Bush Hall took part and it has been saved since then. I think it was really on the brink.
My final question is perhaps a little bit off-beam, but what do you think of the UNESCO intangible assets of cultural heritage? Things such as morris dancing have applied to be protected, and I am being lobbied ferociously by a campaign to put grime on an international statutory footing in order to protect it. Do you have any opinions for the grime aficionados?
Ian Murray: The UNESCO scheme is tremendously important, because it is trying to protect the intangible assets of what we would call culture. One person’s culture might not be another person’s culture, but if you think of it in the context of things like morris dancing, Scottish highland dancing, the hot cross bun and other kinds of issues that are really important to place—not just the nation but an individual place—you realise that being able to protect that heritage is really important.
We have to look at our past stories and heritage and protect them, because those are the kinds of stories that shape our future. What we are trying to do in the music scene is not only make sure that we can celebrate how wonderful the UK is at both music exports and musical talent, but protect what we have today and grow the talent pipeline for tomorrow, so that the generations that come behind us can enjoy the same musical talent that we have enjoyed for the past 60 or 70 years in this country.
Q30 Dr Huq: Can I tell the grime people that the Minister is onside?
Ian Murray: I think that the grime people should apply to the UNESCO scheme and have themselves registered, if that is what they wish to do. They are as important to their community as hot cross buns and morris dancing are to other parts of the nation.
Alastair Jones: Could I just add that a big point of the fan-led review was about the need to improve data and the understanding of the value of music? That is something that we are doing a lot. As we have set out in response to the Committee, we are undertaking detailed study as part of the cultural heritage capital research framework. What is the social value of music in lots of different ways? I think that speaks to the point about having better evidence and better recognition of the full diversity of music in the UK.
Chair: Thank you. Grime is a lot less irritating than morris dancing.
Q31 Mr Alaba: Morning, Minister. We know that culturally significant buildings have a challenge. In my constituency, in Southend, we have the Kursaal; I think it was the first theme park in Europe, and more recently it was an iconic music venue, but it has been closed for a number of years—I am sure colleagues here have similar venues in their constituencies. My question to you is, should a venue’s cultural significance be judged by its past or by its current role in the local music scene?
Ian Murray: I would suggest both; I do not think it is either/or. Back in January, we announced a £1.5 billion fund to save 1,000 venues, and the categorisations are right across museums, libraries, music venues and so on. That was a way of saying that we value that infrastructure, and that that infrastructure has to be up to a standard that allows it to thrive into the future.
In terms of the example you gave, I would encourage anyone who wants to reopen that venue to look at the funds that might be available and at where Government has potential funding avenues available to them, but also to contact associations like the Music Venue Trust, the LIVE Trust and so on to see if there are pots of funding available that would assist them. I would suggest that current venue holders look at what is available and exploit that where they can, and that those who wish to open up old venues or create a new venue look at where the Government support and the support from the sector might be.
Alastair Jones: In the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 there are new powers on community right to buy for music venues, among others. That is something that different communities around the country are looking into and, again, it is hopefully something that can be taken up more by the sector. We know that the Music Venue Trust is very active in that space as well.
Q32 Jeff Smith: Morning. Minister, you mentioned the importance of the agent of change principle and it being in guidance. We heard from Lord Brennan earlier how he thinks it should be put on a statutory basis. Why are the Government so reluctant to do that?
Ian Murray: It is really a question for MHCLG, but in terms of its operation, we want the agent of change principle to be a key part of the guidance that is used when determining planning applications at planning level. The Music Venue Trust, who deal with this on behalf of the sector, have been working closely with ourselves and MHCLG to make sure that that improved guidance is not only available, but sent directly to planning officers and planning authorities with music venues within their geographical area. MVT, MHCLG and ourselves will be monitoring to make sure that it is complied with—the compliance with it is really important. To be fair to planning authorities, they know that the guidance is coming and that MHCLG are very much behind that guidance. The agent of change principle is a key plank of what this Government want to try to achieve.
On a wider planning issue, which is not necessarily in my overall knowledge, putting individual pieces of guidance into legislation makes them slightly less flexible. Therefore, the principle for this Government is to protect music venues through that agent of change principle, and we—including the new Prime Minister—are very much behind it.
Q33 Jeff Smith: Presumably DCMS are talking to MHCLG on these issues. Have the Government assessed how the principle is working in Scotland, where it is in statute, to inform the UK Government position? If so, what conclusions have you drawn from that?
Ian Murray: The principle happened in Scotland in legislation because music venues were being closed. There was a very famous case in Edinburgh, in my own city, where an old bus station in Market Street had been redeveloped into flats, and one of the most well-used and popular nightclubs had to close down as a result of complaints about noise. That is where the changes in the legislation came from.
Ultimately, the operation of it is the key thing. I think the legislation in Scotland works relatively well, and we want to see the agent of change principle in England working as well in the guidance, to make sure that we are protecting music venues and places that make the noise first, before other places come in and are built around them.
Alastair Jones: I would add that the process of developing the music plan with other Departments was really helpful. There was that sense of partnership across Government and with industry—the MVT, obviously, but also the Night Time Industries Association, the ISM and other organisations. The plan itself—as well as talking about strengthening the agent of change principle, updating the guidance and writing to all local authorities, as the Minister said—says, “We are committed to working with the music industry to ensure these improved frameworks deliver real benefits,” and we will monitor progress and ensure that that happens. Exactly as the Minister says, we are in close contact to ensure that that does deliver.
Q34 Jeff Smith: I think the worry is that it is only guidance in the planning framework, so where there is a dispute, it may end up in court—in legal action—which the smaller grassroots venues will often really struggle with. Lord Brennan referred to the recent case of the Sub Club in Glasgow, where they had a really positive experience because it was clear from the start what the rules were and what mitigation would be needed for development near that club. There is a clarity in Scotland that there might not be under the NPPF guidance. If venues experience really difficult legal action and expensive costs to enforce the principle, will the Government accept that statutory provision is needed?
Ian Murray: MHCLG are going to monitor this all the way through, and MVT will make sure that they do. MVT spends most of its budget and time on those planning issues. They are hopeful, because they have been working with us and MHCLG on this new guidance, that it should work and work well.
The communication to local authorities are going to be hugely important, because it shows that the Government are very serious about this. As the Chair said, the Prime Minister is very serious about this as well and has mentioned it a number of times already—in fact, he may have mentioned agent of change in the Chamber yesterday. It is really important that local authorities get the message that this guidance is something the Government are very serious about.
The guidance says exactly the same as what the law says in Scotland, in terms of the principle being that the developer takes the mitigations. There is no difference in the operation of that in terms of the wording. Therefore, we fully expect that to be complied with. The Minister, who is now at Cabinet level, has given that commitment as well.
Alastair Jones: The Night & Day Café in the northern quarter of Manchester is a very high-profile example. They incurred, I think, £200,000 in legal costs, which is terrible. Manchester city council incurred another £60,000. So it is not doing anyone any favours when these things do not work. They do not work for venues, developers or residents who move into a flat and are suddenly surprised. The changes that are being made are with that in mind and to address those issues.
Jeff Smith: We heard very clearly that you are going to continue to monitor the impact on those venues.
Q35 Chair: Yes, and we would like to see some hard data to back up the fact that this is working. You mentioned the Night & Day Café. We actually went to visit them as part of our initial music inquiry, and they were in court on that day. That case nearly finished them off. By the time it actually went to court, the guy that had made the initial complaint had moved out of the apartment anyway. All that cost was incurred over one complaint, when the complainant was no longer there. The whole thing is ridiculous.
My concern is that new NPPF guidance is now coming out that is trying to facilitate planning. Developments of less than 10 dwellings now do not have to go in front of planning committees. There is concern that this is somehow going to undercut this focus on the agent of change principles. Minister, have you had an opportunity to meet your opposite number in MHCLG to ensure that there are no unintended consequences as a result of the aims of easing the planning system?
Ian Murray: In terms of the under 10 not going to planning committees, that should not make any difference, because the planning guidance should be dealt with by planning officers in any case. Reports going to planning committees for over 10 dwellings should be very clear that the agent of change principle is part of the guidance in terms of what needs to be done by the developer. I do not think that that should have any impact whatsoever on this.
I was vice-chair of a planning committee in Edinburgh, and I would have more trust in the officials than I would have had in the committees, in that sense. What we need is for the planning authorities to be clear that agent of change has to be part of the assessment: it has to clearly be part of the responsibilities on the developer, and to clearly protect live music and other venues, and planning committees and planning officers have to adhere to that. That is the very clear signal that has gone out from the music plan, but also from the Minister, MHCLG and the industry itself.
Q36 Chair: How are you going to monitor it, because there are still venues up and down this country that are embroiled in noise disputes with new developments? That has not gone away. How are you going to monitor it and ensure that this does make a difference?
Ian Murray: It has not gone away yet because the NPPF has just been adopted. We hope it will go away; we will certainly be encouraging planning authorities to look at that new, strengthened guidance, the wording in it, and the very clear commitment from Government that we want to see this adhered to 100%.
We are trying to protect live music venues, and the responsibility for mitigations must be principally on the developer and not set aside for the planning authority. All planning authorities, planning committee members and planning officers will have that guidance, and the very strong steer from MHCLG and the Minister, that this must be adhered to.
Alastair Jones: In terms of monitoring it, it is really a partnership. Minister Murray met Minister Pennycook with the MVT earlier in the summer. The MVT and the sector are obviously extremely diligent and very proactive in raising concerns. Both in updating the guidance and monitoring its impact, it will be a case of multiple Government Departments, with the industry, keeping an eye on it.
Q37 Chair: It just feels like if there are no targets, no deadlines and no constant data coming in, there are no consequences.
Ian Murray: As you know, because you have had the MVT at your Committee, it is very active in that space and spends most of its time in it. I would be fully expecting it to tell us very quickly if the guidance is not working.
Chair: I am sure it will.
Q38 Mr Alaba: I want to come back to the last conversation. My background is that I owned and operated venues, so I understand this scenario very much. I have had issues with vexatious complaints, and I have had friends and colleagues who have lost businesses, livelihoods and pensions because of them.
I welcome the essence of agent of change, but my concern is guidance. Guidance is often subjective, certainly when you look at how it can be implemented and understood at the local level. Minister, you mentioned that you would rather it not be statutory, because you wanted a more flexible scenario. Venues need certainty, and that is my concern. Coming back to that last question, have the Government commissioned any research into how many venues have closed or face closure due to noise complaints from residential developments since 2018?
Ian Murray: I do not have those figures, but we could certainly supply the Committee if we have them. Certainly MVT will have them, or at least a broadbrush approach to those kinds of issues. There will be a number attached to that, and I do not think anyone is hiding away from that. That is why the NPPF, MHCLG, the Music Venue Trust and ourselves have worked very closely together on the new guidance, to ensure this issue is a thing of the past. The new guidance will be sent directly to all planning authorities to make sure they are adhering to it, and the MVT will monitor that.
We hope that that will work. We are confident that that will work, because industry has worked with local authorities, MHCLG and ourselves to formulate what the guidance should say to make it work. If it does not, we will have to take steps to strengthen it further.
Alastair Jones: I would add two things, if I may. First, we have heard a lot from the industry about these concerns. In the development of the music plan, I think we had 17 roundtables with different parts of the sector to talk about what it needs, and in many of those, agent of change and planning came up. We had a roundtable at the Ministry of Sound, which has had real challenges in years gone by, as have lots of clubs and parts of the electronic music scene, as well as venues all around the country, so we know it is a real problem.
That is why the changes are being made: yes, they are stronger guidance, which will be sent to local authorities, but they also strengthen the principle of agent of change in the national planning policy framework. It is more clear and more directive that, if you are the agent of change, if you are a developer, you need to identify and engage with issues early. That is a general point, but it applies in this sense. To reiterate: we need to make sure that this works, and we will be working with the industry to do so.
Q39 Mr Alaba: Thank you; I appreciate both your responses. Because there is quite a subjective element to it, one operator in one location in one council may have a completely different experience from another, purely based on the interpretation—that is the key. In the time it takes for learnings to work through, people could have lost their businesses. I have to stress that certainty is what operators—like me, once upon a time—and their friends need.
Alastair Jones: I think we say in the music plan that agent of change has been an important principle. We know that it has not been applied consistently. That is why the planning framework and the guidance will be going out universally to all local authorities to say, “Look: here are the rules, and here is a good way to approach it.” Clearly, the MVT and we will help them with that.
Ian Murray: If I could just read you a bit from it, the wording is clearcut. It says that the guidance is to provide a clear basis for decision making on planning applications and policy, and the policy is explicit that “current and permitted levels of operation of existing activities” will be considered, which includes licences for music venues. It is very explicit as to what the guidance is there to achieve; I hope that that is clear enough for planning authorities to determine that there is no subjective area here. Those operations of existing activities have to be taken into account and considered.
Q40 Mr Alaba: What are the Government doing to help devolved authorities to maximise the economic and cultural benefits of music?
Ian Murray: That is what the music plan is about. The music plan is not a starting point or an end point; I think we use the terminology that it is a checkpoint. A lot of the things that we are doing in the music plan just codify what we have started doing already. It has been led by the Department, bringing together the industry and the sector, to see what needs to be done. I think you can see from the response of the sector—from UK Music all the way through to MVT, the LIVE Trust and others—that they have seen that this is a really good collective way of bringing together what we are trying to do for grassroots music, both for venues and for artists and creators right across the country.
The plan is doing a number of things. It is providing certainty about the backing of businesses, and it has a large section on place, which is about the £150 million funding that is going into strategic authorities. It also has a £45 million music growth fund attached to it. There is the Pride in Place fund, the high street strategy and the visitor economy strategy, all of which are happening in terms of place. The emphasis on place is very much the previous and current Governments’ view on how we spread this across the country.
Of course, local authorities and their cultural posture play a key role in that. That has been hollowed out in the last decade or decade and a half—there is no doubt about that—but I would give you a really good example of where I am confident that this is now filtering through to local communities. We launched the town of culture competition last year, and we had 400 notes of interest and applications from right across the country, of which you were probably one.
Mr Alaba: Yes, I was one of them.
Ian Murray: You are now too late to lobby, because the shortlist has been created, but that gives you a really good example of where local authorities are realising that culture—and music in particular—is a key part of their local communities. In many communities, it is the glue that holds them together. As Lord Brennan said in his evidence to the Committee this morning, it is something that people look forward to doing, and it is something that brings communities together. For individuals, it is perhaps the highlight of what they want to spend their disposable income on.
Really, this is a key part of what we do in our communities, and a key part of how we have a standard of living across the country. Whether we are local government, a grassroots venue or DCMS, we are all singing from the same hymn sheet—if I can use that really dreadful music pun—to try to bring together the assets we have and make sure that we have a thriving sector.
Alastair Jones: The Minister mentioned the £150 million devolved to six mayoral authorities last year. It is really interesting to see what those mayoral authorities are doing with that funding, and we set some of that out in the music plan. In the north-east, for example, there is a small venues fund, and Mick Ross and Generator are doing fantastic work driving that with the local authority. There is the west midlands regional music office, and there is the northern music export office, so there is a lot of initiative. From a central Government point of view, we are keen to support that and to make sure that everyone is learning from each other in what is clearly an extremely exciting agenda. There is lots of enthusiasm, so how can we make sure that mayoral authorities have not just the funding but the tools and resources to make the most of the opportunity?
Q41 Mr Alaba: You have spoken about how, at local level and with the devolved authorities, there is a focus in some areas on cultural significance. With the pressures that local councils are under, how does Government expect the authorities to prioritise cultural policies? How do you see that working?
Ian Murray: Essentially, the local level is still the key driver of culture across the country. They are still the largest spenders and the largest innovators in the cultural sense. I have used the town of culture example, but in the Hodge review of Arts Council England there is clearly a focus on making sure that local authorities and local areas develop a cultural plan for them to take some of that forward. There is a great thirst for this across the country because of the city and town of culture examples, which show that institutions can come together with local authorities and local communities to provide that cultural basis in their local areas.
The Prime Minister talks about growth in every postcode, and the sector plan certainly lays out the fact that we want to grow the industries. In my opening remarks, I was quite clear that the sector and the music industry in particular have had a pretty tough time of it, particularly grassroots music and local music venues. We need to burst out of that now. The Government are trying to set a clear, optimistic future for music venues, grassroots music and the talent pipeline right across the country.
We very much need to see this as having growth potential. The thread through the music plan and the sector plan for the creative industries is about growth. That means jobs, talent pipeline and creator support. The main deliverers of that in the UK are still local authorities, so they need the support to do that.
Mr Alaba: Alastair, is there anything you want to add?
Alastair Jones: As the Minister says, there is cultural value in music, but there is economic value as well. Not just mayoral authorities but local authorities recognise that. The question is how we in central Government can support them. What we have seen—with the funding that has been devolved and the enthusiasm for some of the powers around transport and so on, which was touched on in the fan-led review—is that they see that opportunity. There is a lot of optimism about what can be achieved.
Q42 Chair: The subject of transport came up a lot in the fan-led review. Minister, what discussions have you had with the Department for Transport about incorporating live music and events into transport policy?
Ian Murray: It is really important. I have not had any direct contact with the Secretary of State for Transport or the DFT at this stage. However, the music plan is about trying to deliver on that. The Prime Minister talks about this a lot: how in Greater Manchester you have great live events but not the infrastructure to support them, whether that be fans, staff or teams travelling to and from venues in the night-time economy. It is very much a part of the Government’s agenda to provide that transport infrastructure for fans and the public to access both services and events.
On the issues around bringing buses back into public control, I think Liverpool is doing it today, or certainly this week. We have obviously seen the examples in Manchester. In my own city of Edinburgh, we have a municipal bus company that is the best in the UK. That allows it to service live events for the benefit of the public, such as in Ingliston, which does not have a regular bus service but does have special services when required. What we are trying to do with the music plan is to say to event promoters and creators that they have to have a plan together that encompasses the whole thing—not just the event, but the sustainable travel to it and so on. We encourage local authorities and bus companies to support that. However, the whole Government transport and connectivity strategy is to make sure that we can support the entirety of the economy through connectivity, but also live events and music.
Q43 Chair: How do we know that the Transport Minister is on board, if you have not met with them? Sorry for the pun.
Ian Murray: They certainly are, because of the policies that the DFT and the Secretary of State at the DFT have. Also, the Prime Minister has been very clear. I think he has probably spoken about buses more than Sadiq Khan has. It is a really good example of the public infrastructure that is required to grow the economy and move around.
Q44 Chair: I understand that, but in the interests of time—on live music and events, and on ensuring that the transport system works in parallel with what you and the Prime Minister want to achieve for the night-time industries—do you not think that it would be useful to have a little chat with your counterpart in the Department for Transport?
Ian Murray: I am always happy to have chats with my ministerial colleagues.
Alastair Jones: The Minister has wisely delegated some of those conversations. We obviously talk to the DFT all the time and the fan-led review was very helpful in furthering some of those conversations. As the Minister says, a real emphasis of transport policy is about supporting local authorities. It is very difficult for national Government to say, “Here is precisely how you integrate a bus timetable with taxi ranks,” so powers on buses are being devolved, and local transport guidance was published earlier this year. All local authorities are expected to produce local transport plans, and there are good examples in Manchester, Liverpool and smaller towns and cities of how that can work for venues. The example in the fan-led review is an excellent one: it shows the simple impact on local venues of having a night bus. The DFT supporting local authorities to do that is something we also support.
Q45 Chair: Okay. We would like to see you lean into that a little more, I think.
I have another thing to talk to you about. Industry figures in the east midlands are seeking to establish an east midlands music commission to attract more investment and opportunity to their area. Is that something that the Department would engage with? Would you engage with emerging regional initiatives like that? What kind of support is available to help them?
Ian Murray: That is the way we deliver the strategy, really—it is by devolving the ability to do that down from DCMS. DCMS and MHCLG cannot deliver this music plan; it has to be delivered by the sector, and by strategic authorities and local authorities coming together with the sector to do that. Those are the kinds of initiatives that are being brought through by strategic authorities, and we very much encourage them and will support them in any way we possibly can. The music plan sets that foundational underpinning for us to do so.
Q46 Chair: What is the role of the music champion in ensuring that all regions have a voice in national music policy?
Ian Murray: The music champion’s role is to deliver the music plan, and the only way the music plan can be delivered is by doing that very initiative that you suggest. The music champion will be doing that by taking the plan, the sector growth strategy for the creative industries and the initiatives going on at both strategic authority and local authority level, and bringing them through in terms of what support can be put in place. We very much encourage the east midlands to bring forward such initiatives, because that is the way you grow the industry right across the country.
Alastair Jones: We know the east midlands very well and have spoken to people there about issues. A member of my team is on secondment there. That is an example of how central Government can support these initiatives, which is by sharing best practice. I think the music plan provides a framework—this is what we think in central Government about supporting music policy—so it has provided a really helpful basis for conversations and it has prompted more conversations. The music champion will also go on a number of visits—he does not want to call it a road show, but it is something like a road show—over the autumn, and the east midlands is on that list, so we will certainly be looking to help them.
Q47 Chair: That is helpful. Can we move on to the grassroots levy, which came up a lot in the fan-led review? Minister, you were not in situ when the Government first adopted our recommendation to have a voluntary levy, but when they did, the aspiration of your predecessor was that 50% of ticket sales would contribute £1 from each ticket for the grassroots by December of last year. Subsequently, after some personnel changes, you came into the role and the deadline moved to June, but we are still not there. We are still roughly hovering—our figure is at about 30%, but we would love to hear what your figures are. When will you come to the conclusion that the voluntary approach is not working?
Ian Murray: Right from the start, our posture has been that we want this to be a voluntary levy, because it is really important for fans to be able to see that it is voluntary and to contribute to it. When you see the LIVE Trust and the money that is going into grassroots music at the moment, the kind of contributions that are going in from fans and coming out the other end will be very much appreciated by the industry, artists, creators and the fans themselves. They can see a really distinct outcome.
Since I took on this job, I have very much been saying to the industry that we want to keep this voluntary and encourage as many as possible to sign up. It is quite clear that there has been some success, albeit probably slower than we had anticipated. There have been some major touring opportunities, like the Harry Styles tour, which was one of the big sign-ups. It is for promoters to decide if they will add this to the ticket price. We want to reach 100% take-up because it should be something the industry wants to back.
The LIVE Trust has written to the Committee, and we got a letter from Jon Collins this week, saying that they think it is successful and want to see it feeding through further. They are encouraged by it and they are not, at this stage, championing it becoming a statutory levy. They say the industry should be given time to see it through.
We very much support that and will continue to gently nudge the industry to get to as high an uptake as possible—because actually, if you think about the major promoters in this country, they are only major promoters because of the talent that has come through. If we cut off the talent pipeline, we cut off their ability to have major concerts and events in the future, particularly UK ones. We want this to have huge uptake.
There are lots of pressures out there—for example, some artists and promoters already give charitable contributions—but this is paid for by fans on their ticket price. Again, I want to say very clearly that the Government’s ambition is for as much take-up as possible and for every single ticket to have that voluntary levy attached.
Q48 Chair: It sounds like you are changing the policy on this very slightly, because your predecessor said very clearly that this will be voluntary, and that if there was not sufficient take-up—originally aiming for 1 December and then for June—you would look at doing it on a mandatory basis. It sounds like you are changing your tune on that.
Ian Murray: I am not changing my tune as such; the mandatory option still sits on the table. It very clearly sits on the table, and it is something we will look at if necessary, but industry, including the LIVE Trust, which is distributing the money, is saying to give this a bit more time, because they are seeing very positive signs. At this stage, they do not think that putting this on a statutory footing would be in the best interests of the levy. So yes: we want to see as high a proportion signed up as possible. No: I am not changing the policy from my predecessor. The mandatory option is still on the table, but we want to give it a bit more time, and the LIVE Trust have asked us to give it a bit more time.
Q49 Chair: It is a brilliant innovation and it is making a difference at the grassroots level, but I genuinely cannot see how you are calling this “very positive signs” when twice over the last year you have missed the Government’s target. No one told you that this was the target you wanted to hit. This was a self-mandated target of 50% by the end of last year that was missed. You had the same target for June this year and it was missed. According to some of the figures that we are hearing, it is still floating around 30% and it is potentially falling. Based on your figures, this should be delivering £20 million to the grassroots sector. It is currently delivering around £5 million. Great. Lovely. That is a lot of money, but the figures now look like they might fall next year.
I want to know where your target is now. Are you still aiming for 50%? What is your deadline? Because if you don’t have targets, deadlines or consequences, as Lord Brennan said to us a few minutes ago, this policy could end up withering on the vine and taking with it the fortunes and hopes of some of these fantastic venues up and down the country who depend upon it.
Ian Murray: I can give you a 100% assurance that this policy will not wither on the vine. It is something that collectively, in the Department, as a Government and personally, we are very enthusiastic about because of the kind of money it could generate for the grassroots. It is paid for by fans, of course. The review is fan led and fans are enthusiastic about paying this.
I don’t think I have had one piece of correspondence from any fan across the country saying they were disgusted that they had to pay £1 on their ticket price. That in itself shows how important it is to fans. I do not want to put arbitrary figures on this. The LIVE Trust letter is quite clear that 7.5 million tickets have had the levy attached this year. I would like more data from the trust. We have asked them for more data about what that means in terms of percentages. There are percentages bandied around—30% to 34%. It is difficult to measure.
The 2027 campaigns start launching now in terms of tours and where they are. We can monitor that. But just to be very clear to industry—and I hope they are watching this—this will become mandatory if it is not providing the success that we expect. That is still on the table and it will remain on the table.
In that letter, LIVE Trust says that it is confident that things are improving. It is content with the way in which it has worked so far. It is starting to distribute funds into a whole host of organisations, artists and creators that are providing real benefits. The benefits are there and fans are happy to pay it. I just keep encouraging promoters to make sure that that £1 levy is on their ticket charges.
Q50 Chair: What is your aim for adoption? Are you saying that 50% is still your aim, or are you reducing it? At the end of the day, this is a policy that works only if there are sticks and carrots, and all I can see at the moment is that you are running out of carrots and you are not willing to introduce any sticks into the equation.
Ian Murray: The stick is that this will become mandatory unless it is successful. LIVE Trust are saying, “Please keep the carrot in place at the moment,” because they see it as something that is starting to work. I do not want to put arbitrary figures on it at this stage, but I would like to see every single ticket have this levy on it, and for that to happen, the industry has to make sure that it is voluntarily doing it on every ticket sale; otherwise, the mandatory option is still on the table. We will not hesitate to take that mandatory option if we feel that it is required.
Q51 Chair: What about VAT? At the moment, the levy donations have VAT on them, so of every £1 donated, 20% is unexpected windfall for the Government, so if anybody should be keen on hitting that 50% target, it should be you guys. Surely that is an unintended consequence of this policy. It was designed to go into the grassroots music sector. To what extent are you lobbying for this to be like the tampon tax and have the tax removed from something as important as this?
Ian Murray: Treasury policies on VAT are pretty clear. This is slightly different from the tampon tax in the sense that the VAT on the tampon tax was for the whole product, where, in fact, the VAT on the levy is for just a proportion of the ticket price, so you would be stripping something out. It is slightly different. I am not defending the policy; I am just saying that there is a difference there.
The example of the Live Aid VAT is always used, but I think that VAT was still paid to the Treasury; it was just paid for by Government rather than being there being a derogation made for VAT in itself. It is a complex issue. There are a whole number of VAT issues at the moment that are being lobbied to Treasury from a whole host of organisations. The tourism trade, for example, wants a lower rate of VAT, and the Treasury has been very clear that everything that is VAT-able is at the standard rate of VAT, and that is the thing that is followed through.
We consistently have conversations with Treasury about this, because we want to see as much money as possible going in. I would gently say on the other side, though, that the amount of money that the Department and the Government are putting into the music industry in particular—the £45 million growth fund—is way in excess of any VAT taken on ticket sales for this levy, by many tens of multiples. More money goes back in than comes out.
Alastair Jones: We have spoken a lot to the Treasury about this with industry. It said that VAT could be waived were the levy to be an optional charitable donation. LIVE Trust has said it does not want that, because it thinks it will reduce uptake. We have had those conversations, but, as the Minister says, a lot more goes into the sector through the music growth plan than through VAT on the levy.
Q52 Jeff Smith: You are right that there is some success in this policy, but we want to see it extended. Minister, you said that it is for promoters to decide whether the levy goes on tickets. Live Nation, which is obviously the biggest promoter, said in its evidence to us that ultimately, artists and their teams always have the final say. There seems to be an issue with promoters saying, “It’s not our decision. It’s up to the artist.” Would not having a mandatory levy provide some clarity about where the responsibility lies and increase promoters’ ability to put that levy on?
Ian Murray: You make a good point. Obviously promoters ask the artists or the artists’ management whether they want to go down this route. They normally provide a suite of options—the levy or a host of charitable options, such as local charities and those kinds of things. The promoter essentially communicates the decision, but it is done in conjunction with the artists and the artists’ management. That is a key thing.
When it is explained to artists what this is for and why, most of them tend to support it and want it to happen. The key thing here is to get the promoters, when they are having those conversations about building tours for artists, to promote the levy, emphasising that the Government is very keen for the levy to go on as part of our overall strategy, explaining what the levy is for, and very much encouraging it. The part that might be slightly diluted in this is the conversations between the promoter and the artists’ management about how important we feel this is.
Alastair Jones: Live Nation have shared their views with us, and we have spoken to them many times. They say that 34% of their shows in the first half of this year had the levy, which is encouraging, but you are clear that they should do more, we are clear that they should do more and the fans in the fan-led review are clear that they should do more. Hopefully, they will do so.
Ian Murray: The fans in the fan-led review are saying, “Allow us to pay the £1.” That should say enough to promoters.
Chair: There is a question mark about how much is already whacked on top of their tickets. They do not know where it is going, so it is good to know the direction that the £1 is heading in. We will come to that in a minute.
Q53 Mr Alaba: Alastair, you mentioned that so many people in this equation want more to happen. I want to come back to you, Minister. At what point will you make the call on mandatory implementation? The percentage is falling at the moment, so when will we make the call?
Ian Murray: I would like more evidence about what is happening and what is coming up. In terms of touring, the 2027 shows will probably be announced this quarter, given the way the timescales work. LIVE Trust have been pretty clear about the direction of travel.
I do not want to put an arbitrary date on it at this stage, but it is pretty clear that mandating this—putting it on a statutory footing—is on the table. There may be legislative vehicles available to us coming up relatively shortly, so I say to promoters that if they want this to stay voluntary, rather than become a statutory levy, they are going to have to do something about it pretty quickly, because the touring dates for the 2027 shows are coming up now. We will probably know by Christmas this year the position come 2027, and we fully expect there to be a marked increase by many multiples on what we have had this year.
Mr Alaba: So it is pretty much tied to the data.
Ian Murray: We need a lot of data, and we don’t really have it. Eligible ticket sales are probably somewhere in the region of between 17 million and 20 million in an average year in the UK, so we would expect to see 10 million on a 50% take-up. I would like all tickets to have the voluntary levy. The timescales will be pretty much dictated by the sequencing of when the shows are happening, rather than by an arbitrary timescale from the Government.
Chair: We need to move on, because I need to get you out of here in time for PMQs.
Q54 Dr Huq: On ticket touts, you said in your column in the Daily Record, as Minister responsible, “I have a message for those profiting from fans—your time is up.” What happened? Why is it only a draft Bill?
Ian Murray: The Government are fully committed in the manifesto to do this. Their time is up. The Bill will be brought—
Dr Huq: It has been two years already—come on!
Ian Murray: We have had a very busy legislative programme, as you know, with 39 Bills in the first Session. It is in the draft Bill. We are doing this as quickly as we possibly can, and we are fully committed to it. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I want this to happen as quickly as possible, so it is being worked up. It is really important to get this right, because it is complicated. The principle of what we want to deliver is an easy thing, but there are the practicalities of making sure that resale values are restricted and that face values are maintained, and there are also the service charges and hidden costs. There is a complex matrix of costs, so we need to make sure we get this right. That is why the draft Bill is there. We expect it to appear relatively shortly.
Q55 Dr Huq: We are always told “in due course”. When?
Ian Murray: As you know, Government timescales are anywhere between 1 January and 31 December. It will be shortly.
Q56 Dr Huq: Will it cover dynamic pricing?
Ian Murray: The whole point of having a draft Bill is to examine these issues. The way that dynamic pricing is used is hugely complicated. We have seen some interventions by the CMA already on dynamic pricing, with the Oasis tour. A huge amount of work needs to go into making sure we get this right. The principle is that we need to protect fans, but—I think this figure is correct—£400,000 a day leaves fans’ pockets and goes into touts’ pockets. That is what we have to try to resolve.
Dr Huq: Yes—it is £112 million a year. The touts make £145 million a year.
Ian Murray: Well, £400,000 times 365 is about £112 million.
Dr Huq: So go and do it—come on! My ten-minute rule Bill, approved by all the bodies involved, is ready-made. You can—where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Ian Murray: We fully expect your contribution to the draft Bill.
Q57 Chair: If not having this legislation in place costs fans £112 million, have you calculated the cost of the delay in getting it implemented?
Dr Huq: Yes, where’s the urgency?
Ian Murray: We need to get it implemented as quickly as possible. It is a manifesto commitment. The 39 Bills in the first Session took two years. It is in as a draft Bill now and we are fully committed to getting it through as quickly as possible. It is a key priority for us. What I said in the Daily Record is absolutely true: we want to make sure that ticket touting is ended once and for all and that fans get the value that they deserve out of their tickets.
Q58 Chair: Will we have it by Christmas?
Ian Murray: It might be a good Christmas present—who knows?
Dr Huq: Kevin Brennan said to push you very hard on this.
Ian Murray: And he does too. Look, it is in the music plan as well. There is no doubt that fans want this delivered, promoters want it delivered, venues want it delivered, the Government want it delivered—
Dr Huq: So it’s a win for you. Go on, do it.
Ian Murray: That is why the Bill is in place, why it was announced in the King’s Speech and why we are determined to make sure we get it through.
Chair: Those are all the questions that we have for you, Minister. Thank you very much for your time today. Is there anything that you want to leave us with before we let you go?
Ian Murray: There’s no need to sing or anything like that?
Chair: We have enjoyed it so much that I think we might see you again in a couple of weeks to talk about film and high-end TV.
Ian Murray: I am looking forward to it already.
Chair: But not you, Alastair. In the meantime, thank you very much for your time today.