Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wednesday Volume 507 10 March 2010 No. 54 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 10 March 2010 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 279 10 MARCH 2010 280 measured response to the outcome of the negotiations, House of Commons and in particular that the amount of bureaucracy that charities will have to face as a result of this change is Wednesday 10 March 2010 kept to an absolute minimum? Angela E. Smith: Yes, of course. In fact, I met PPL The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock and PRS this week after a meeting that I had the previous week with the Association of Charities Shops and the charities concerned, including the National PRAYERS Council for Voluntary Organisations and umbrella groups. We are very clear that we cannot have a system that imposes unreasonable burdens on charities, including [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] administrative burdens. I pressed a joint system on PPL and PRS, and they are looking at it and are keen to facilitate it. Under that system, charities would get Oral Answers to Questions demands or letters only from those organisations, and not from others. The aim is to keep costs to a minimum, given the effect that the change could have on charities. CABINET OFFICE Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham) (Con): Does not the small print of the Government’s impact assessment show that no fewer than 250,000 voluntary organisations The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked— would suffer from this new music tax? The consultation stated: Music Licensing Levies “There will be social costs for users who cease playing music because they cannot afford a PPL licence.” 1. John Howell (Henley) (Con): What representations We know that Lord Mandelson is all powerful and the Office of the Third Sector has received on the sweeps all before him, but could not Cabinet Office effects on charities and the voluntary sector of new Ministers have shown a little backbone in resisting this music licensing levies. [321234] new music tax? The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Angela E. Angela E. Smith: That question illustrates the right Smith): I have had a number of meetings with third hon. Gentleman’s fundamental misunderstanding. First, sector representatives to hear their concerns. I have also the levy is not a tax in any way, because no money at all met representatives from Phonographic Performance accrues to the Government, whereas tax is money that Ltd and the Performing Rights Society for Music. These goes to the Government. I therefore suggest that he gets meetings are helping to facilitate negotiations, and his facts clear, as that might help him to understand the subsequent agreement between the two sides, about issues. Secondly, the Government have to make this detailed arrangements for music licensing, prior to change, as it is a legal imperative. We are working with implementation. all the organisations and charities involved and are having discussions in an attempt to reach agreement John Howell: I thank the Minister for her response before any decision is taken forward. but, on the basis of her own figures, the changes to the exemption in music licences for charities and voluntary Mr. Maude: Does the Minister accept that it is by no groups will cost them £20 million a year. Does she not means agreed universally that there is a legal obligation think it hypocritical that Ministers can write in letters to to make this change? We know that it will cost £20 million my constituents that they have developed an environment overall to the sector, and it will also impact on church that encourages charities to thrive when they are saddling halls, which are already suffering under the red tape them with a cost of £20 million a year? imposed by the Licensing Act 2003. Among all his many other grand appointments, Lord Mandelson is Angela E. Smith: No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman now a Church Commissioner. Does she not find it has to understand that removing the exemption was not curious that the person who is meant to be the Minister a whim of Government but a legal imperative. I think defending the Church of England is, at the same time, that we are the last country in Europe to remove it, but giving it a kick in the collection tins? the important thing is that we proceed with agreement. Clearly, the Government do not want to put any additional Angela E. Smith: Witty but inaccurate. The right hon. burdens, including costs, on charities. It is very important Gentleman has to understand that the Government are that charities and the organisations that could be affected seeking to minimise costs for all organisations, and that discuss the matter, and that is why I am very pleased to is why we are facilitating meetings leading to agreement. be able to facilitate those discussions between the two We intend to proceed with agreement between the charities sides. and voluntary organisations and PPL. He suggested that the costs would be around £20 million, but I think Tom Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): Everyone recognises that that is an overstatement. The organisations the right of PPL to get the income from its work that concerned—[Interruption.] That number was contained the courts say it deserves, but I am sure that it would not in the original consultation, but I think that we have wish to be seen to be imposing in any way an undue moved on significantly from then, as a result of the weight of levy, on the smallest charities in particular. negotiations. I shall keep him up to date, as he seems to Will the Minister try to make sure that there is a sadly out of date at present. 281 Oral Answers10 MARCH 2010 Oral Answers 282 Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): in politics and will continue to review how best that is My hon. Friend will be aware that many hon. Members done, and that will include consideration of lowering across all the Benches have campaigned for many years the voting age to 16. We are also very innovative: today, to ensure that the people who produce the music—the we have the march on Government, and I will be on musicians—have the right to be rewarded for their Habbo, where we have already had 40,000 visits and efforts. That is what this is about. This is not a tax, but almost 1,000 members, to engage with young people. people deserve to get rewarded for the music that they record. The money happens to come through the PPL, Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an but it is the artist who receives it. Does she agree that it extremely comprehensive reply. In view of the fact that is a matter of balance? It must be possible for the the debate on voting at 16 is clearly ongoing, will she Government to work this out with the charities and inform me and, of course, the House about what action the musicians: the charities must not be affected, but the the Government are taking to ensure that citizenship people who make the music in the first place should not education is consistent with our objectives of improving be robbed. the democratic system? Angela E. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point Ms Butler: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point about balance. We should have a balance and an agreement about citizenship education. The Government believe between the two sides that are affected. that it is crucial to provide the best citizenship education for young people. The Department for Children, Schools Cabinet Meeting (Durham) and Families is funding 11 higher education institutions to provide free continuing professional development 2. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): What the courses for teachers, and certificates and masters-level cost was of holding the Cabinet meeting in Durham on credits will be awarded when they are completed. On 18 February 2010. [321236] 18 March, we will have a debate right here in the House in Committee Room 14 to discuss citizenship education. The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Tessa Jowell): The cost of the Cabinet meeting and the public engagement Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): event was £67,473, excluding VAT. The Cabinet’s visit Would it not be more appropriate to try to ensure an to Durham on 18 February created an opportunity for increase in the participation of the 18-to-25 age group, a whole range of ministerial visits right across the before considering lowering the voting age to 16? region. Ms Butler: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, Mr. Robathan: There is a suspicion abroad that the but one age group should not be considered to the whole range of ministerial visits may have had more to exclusion of any other. In fact, it is habit forming when do with electioneering for the coming general election, people, especially young people, get involved and engage having used public money to get up there. Will the in politics; they are then more likely to carry that Minister please tell the House—if she cannot do so through later on in their lives. now, will she put a full list in the public domain—what party political engagements each Cabinet Minister had Mr.