I thank noble Lords for returning to this important discussion of the various ways in which they are looking to improve our CPTPP Bill. I hope I can give them some good answers, illustrating my belief that we have a very good deal, the integrity of which we should try to retain as much as possible.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who is an expert on many things, said that he had yet to come across an expert who could clearly explain artists’ and performers’ broadcast rights. I am well aware of this,
as are noble Lords. I will try to do so today but, given that no one has so far managed to do so convincingly, I hope noble Lords will allow me to write giving further clarification and useful examples and anecdotes. It is certainly a complex point.
The CPTPP brings to bear on the United Kingdom an additional series of obligations regarding performers’ rights. Currently, if you are a performer of, let us say, British nationality, and/or your performance is in the United Kingdom, you are entitled to the performance rights. The CPTPP looks at performances and rights in a slightly different fashion. In the instance of a performance taking place in a non-CPTPP country—which is where the controversy of this issue has arisen—it could qualify for artists’ performance rights payments if it was released or produced in a CPTPP country or if there was another necessary association with a CPTPP country.
1.30 pm
That is quite relevant. In all honesty, nowadays, music and performances are probably released globally at any one time, as a result of which it is highly likely that many performances not previously covered by the performance rights legislation will now be, simply because of the fact of the activity. I should clarify that the proposal is not to give global rights to all performances under all situations to anyone in the world, which is sometimes how this is misread. Signing up to the CPTPP is sensible for us because it protects our artists around the world and in CPTPP countries, which is very important. This is an additional way of allowing for the qualification of artists, but it is not as specific as people suggest. I hope that I was accurate in describing how the new process works and that noble Lords understood it, but, as I said, we are happy to clarify it further.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, was right to say that we have not yet done a consultation. We will undertake a consultation, and it will begin very shortly, possibly in the new year, and we look forward to it. We are taking this very seriously. It is not as straightforward a situation as people suggest. It is very important that the IPO have the time and the bandwidth to do that consultation. It will report back relatively soon, I hope.
I am told that there are mechanisms for abrogating the potential unintended consequences of this legislation, particularly given the UK’s position in terms of performance and the relationship with the United States’ music. I am very sensitive to the points made by many noble Lords and people in the industry about reciprocity and the importance of trying to make sure that, where possible, we leverage off the reciprocity opportunities to get the best possible deals for our artists around the world.
I hope that I have clarified the point, although this will result in further complication, since it does not necessarily make it easy to identify what the specific situations will be. I want to reassure noble Lords discussing this important issue today that there is a consultation plan proposal, which we are confident will yield some useful and interesting pointers, as well as amelioration opportunities if it is decided that this is the right thing to do. This is an open discussion, which I am very comfortable to have.
I turn to the subsidiary point about consultations. I firmly believe that a lot of the impact assessment amendments tabled on these trade Bills are intended to enable a debate about a concomitant point, rather than an impact assessment necessarily. To have an impact assessment after one year on any activity as complex as a free trade agreement seems completely unhelpful, so I thoroughly recommend that, if noble Lords are going to table amendments under the cover of an impact assessment to allow broader debate, we say two or five years, which the Government believe is the right amount of time. We will do an assessment and review of the treaty after two years, and we have committed to doing one after five years. I personally think—I am not going against government policy by saying this—that even two years is a very short period in which to see the impact of many of these actions, but I accept the fact that in some instances, we are looking at the processes that led to the action itself.