Good afternoon and welcome to the Women and Equalities Committee. Today we are holding a follow-up oral evidence session on misogyny in music because, although we have seen progress through our previous reports and through actions from the Government, we know that the problem still exists and has not gone away. We will hear from Jen Smith, chief executive at the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority—sometimes it will be referred to as CIISA just because that is shorter—and Zelda Perkins, chief executive and founder at Can’t Buy My Silence. Welcome to you both and thank you for coming. I am going to hand straight over to Nia.

It is an important question. Having worked at CIISA for three years, we have seen some improvements but the problem still persists. Fear of victimisation remains high, and patterns of harmful behaviour are often hidden, particularly given the prevalence of freelance workers across the creative industries. CIISA will bring joined-up oversight to identify those patterns and nip them in the bud. As I have said, there has been good work on individual policies and procedures, but there are significant gaps in the infrastructure and people still fall through those gaps. It is not just individuals who are coming to us; it is also SMEs and smaller businesses seeking advice. About 70% of the creative industries have 10 employees or less and do not have access to big HR departments. CIISA is needed. This is what I hear all the time when I am out and about, “We need you. We absolutely want a safe place to bring our concerns. We absolutely want a place that can give us expert advice, given the nuance of the creative industries, and we have needed you for a very long time.”

That is a particularly interesting question. One problem we face is there is not considered to be a dataset looking at these issues, and CIISA wishes to solve that problem for the creative industries. I would like to come back to this Committee in two years’ time and tell you with confidence—with data and testimony—whether the scale of victimisation, bullying, harassment and discrimination is getting better or worse. It is true that there is greater awareness of the issues, but it remains a very uneven landscape in terms of consistency of experience and expectation. That is where our CIISA standards are being embedded to help to be that leveller to deal with some power imbalances that you see that are prevalent in the creative industries. Equally, if I may, I would like to talk about not only the human cost but the economic burden for the creative industries. We did some deep-dive research last year with a labour market economist. We calculated that the economic burden of bullying, harassment and discrimination in the creative industries is a staggering £1.8 billion a year. This is impacting 700,000 of our colleagues at any one time—a third of the creative industries workforce—and that represents a growth gap of 1.4%. That is significant; it is still a current problem.

As I said, it is an uneven landscape. We are currently working across film, TV, music and theatre. We have talked about the prevalence of freelance workers. Some 80% of the live music sector, for example, is based on freelance working. The sectors that we would like to come towards us particularly are the live music sector and commercial theatre; we welcome them to our table. We have strong support from many organisations across the creative industries, but we would like to broaden that base.

In answer to both your questions, I just want to add that Jen is right: there is no joined-up data. There is a lot of data out there and even though it is not joined up, I am going to give you a couple of the figures just to give you an idea. The Musicians’ Union, the Independent Society of Musicians, and BECTU have done big surveys. They are all coming back with figures that around 85% of members will not report on harassment and sexual misconduct for fear of reprisal and not being able to work again. Some 94% of respondents want better standards. When you are looking at the data that is out there, even though it is coming from different places and it is not joined up, it is very clear and it all backs each other up; we are not getting disparate figures. In terms of whether CIISA is needed and what it does, it really is not a question of if CIISA is needed; it is why more has not been done to facilitate CIISA right now. Facts and figures are not my forte, but from what I looked at today, the GVA to the British economy is £124 billion for the creative industries. We are looking at a completely unrepresented workforce who are incredibly vulnerable because of the way the creative industry works. This is not about us putting strictures on the creative industries, it is actually about trying to make it more creative, more inclusive, and a better and safer place to work where we do not lose talent. There is a huge amount of talent lost because the workforce is abused and discriminated against. They have nowhere to go. They have no protection. They are not protected under any of the workers’ rights that are out there. Hopefully, that will change with the new Employment Rights Act 2025, but that is on a knife-edge in terms of whether it is going to change and broaden the definition of a worker to include freelance, which is absolutely imperative because if that does not happen, this workforce is completely discriminated against. Again, from an outside perspective, I have people coming to me all the time because I am visible as somebody from the creative industries. They talk not just about NDAs but about what has happened to them, asking where to go, what to do, and what their rights are. It is very difficult because there is not a lot that I can tell them, apart from to go to the press which is not the right way to go for the majority of people.

We are an industry-backed standards authority; that has not changed. That is the path that has been chosen by the creative industries leadership who came with the proposition which we have now built on. What would be most helpful is to have a reserve power on income, so that we have stability on income and could work more quickly. That is modelled on the very successful registration model that the fundraising regulator has in place. From April this year, we are shifting CIISA to a registration model to give absolute clarity around who is supporting CIISA and who is committed to the CIISA standards. In terms of our accountability, we have put in place what we call a standards notice, which is modelled on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s section 23 notice—which this Committee will be familiar with—in terms of how it identified systemic failings around prevention of sexual harassment, and sexual harassment at McDonald’s. Our standards notices are very similar. They are non-binding because we are an industry-backed standards authority, not a statutory regulator. We can identify patterns of harm, flag them, and set expectations around our standards, and we will expect organisations and individuals to respond to breaches of those standards. We feel that we have the relevant level of accountability at CIISA and we are working commensurate with what the industry wants from us in terms of educative, preventative and accountability within what we are providing.

You absolutely, definitely need to be made a prescribed body. I know you are moving towards that, but when you look at the legislation in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 and the Employment Rights Bill—in terms of who can disclose misconduct that might have been hidden in an NDA—who the prescribed people are is very important because if CIISA is not prescribed as a body that people can disclose to, then you are again discriminating against a huge section of the workforce.

There is still an alarming scale and volume of harm coming to CIISA which is very much informing our services and our operating model. People are coming to us because we are independent and confidential; they want to tell us their experiences. It is lonely and frightening. They need us; we are very much needed. We have made great progress in other areas of our development, which I am happy to update the Committee on.

I do not know. From the surveys that have taken place between 2019 and 2022, the numbers are actually going up. I think that is because people feel more inclined to take part in these surveys, but the surveys are definitely going up in terms of negative numbers around misconduct and being bullied or harassed in the music industry, particularly because that is where there has been the most surveying.

It is very interesting in music because there are some unique facets to it that set it apart from screen and theatre. You do not have a commissioning structure like you do in the screen industries, or the four walls of a theatre. It is a much more diffuse ecology, and there are unique structural vulnerabilities within that. You have a lot more sole traders and freelancers. If you are going into somebody’s home to record your track in a recording studio, where do you go if you have a problem? The accountability gaps in music are actually more pronounced than in other aspects of the creative sectors that we work in. I cannot overstate the importance of the work of this inquiry into misogyny in music. I am very grateful to this Committee for keeping a laser-like focus on this agenda because it is a very important springboard for conversations that we are having with the music industry. We are well supported and have good champions within the music sector, but as I have explained, some of the complexity and nuance of the sector explains why we are seeing those statistics. That is why CIISA is absolutely vital because we provide that joined-up oversight, accountability, and that missing piece of the infrastructure which is particularly pronounced in music.

I have two follow-ups before I hand over to Christine. Jen, do you want to add anything around the need for CIISA to be a prescribed person? What difference would that make for you, your organisation, and the people who come to you for support?

In terms of us giving evidence together, there is a very important symbiotic relationship between Zelda’s work, the work of Can’t Buy My Silence, and CIISA. We have to establish an official whistleblowing body in the creative industries to receive protected disclosures and, indeed, unprotected disclosures. That is why our status, which we understand is progressing and has progressed since I last updated the Committee through the Department for Business and Trade, is vital. There has to be this additional safety valve for people who wish to come forward to us. Just on Saturday, I was with professionals from the costume and wardrobe department, and they were telling me that it is quite common for them to be expected to sign a pre-emptive NDA before they enter the threshold of somebody’s house if they are doing a fitting. That is commonplace. Before they have even crossed the threshold, they are silenced in terms of what may happen during the course of that fitting. I was really shocked to hear that, but they were particularly interested in our progress and our status in becoming a prescribed person. I just thought the Committee might welcome some real-world examples that we hear all the time.

What justification would there be for that?

Celebrity privacy.

Celebrity privacy? Oh, my days. Okay, thank you. That helps.

That is a very clear example, and it happens a lot. The creative sector is the biggest sector for pre-emptive NDAs. Young actors who are sent to self-tape for an audition are made to sign NDAs before they do that without any protection from their manager or their agent. They may be asked to do inappropriate things on tape, yet they have no idea of knowing if that was right or not, and they cannot speak about it or ask anybody about it afterwards.

My second follow-up question is on the Employment Rights Bill. We really pushed for NDAs to be applicable to self-employed people. This was not just for our inquiry on misogyny in music, but we had heard it in different industries and among female entrepreneurs. When you say the difference, Zelda, if it were to include freelance workers, how many would there be, and what would the proportion be? In our previous inquiry we heard the percentages of people who are actually freelance within the music industry, but what are we talking about in terms of numbers of workers that could potentially be covered if freelancers were included in the definition of workers in the Employment Rights Bill?

I could not give you that figure, but one thing that is really key that this Committee understands and goes away with today is how important it is to push on this broadening of the worker definition. I cannot say how important it is because you are completely discriminating against an entire workforce. From the percentage figures in the music industry, I know that 90% of the music industry is freelance. That is a huge figure. For them to be discounted from worker status and protections, particularly around sexual misconduct and discrimination, is really shocking. I think the figure of 94% is true of those who have been discriminated against either for ethnicity or disability, again in the music industry. When you look at the figures, they speak for themselves.

Thank you. I just want to put that at the top.

I should mention up front that my family are involved in the creative industries in various different ways. They are good people, though. Jen, it has been a year since you were last before the Committee. Earlier, you touched on development and how various services are coming along. Could you give us an update on the progress since the launch and the development of services?

Indeed, thank you. Our most notable stride forward has been publishing the CIISA standards, which we co-created with the industry and launched in February, which set consistent expectations of behaviour across the piece. Notably, the BBC and ITV now require all commissioned productions to align with the CIISA standards, and we are speaking to others about how they can be embedded within awards criteria and procurement contracts. I was also very pleased to hear that the Music Managers Forum has embedded our CIISA standards in its certification programme. I was speaking recently to the chief executive of the Hallé Orchestra who said how powerful the standards have been in terms of helping it to look at its own policies and procedures, so doing exactly what we want it to do, driving up the capability of organisations across the piece. We are working with 12 trailblazing organisations—such as the Royal Albert Hall, the BBC, Sadler’s Wells, and Two Cities that makes the very popular TV show “Blue Lights”—to test our standards in practice so they can be confidently used on the ground. We have taken independent King’s counsel advice on our proposed services. What came back from the King’s counsel advice was that our proposed services are exemplary and could not be bettered. I hope that will give confidence to this Committee but also to everybody in the creative industries, from the largest corporation to those individual freelancers, with the rigour, care and expertise that is going into building this organisation. In autumn, there will be a landmark moment for us because, for the first time in the creative industries, our workforce will be able to safely and confidentially report patterns of harmful behaviour that previously may have gone unchecked or undetected through our reporting portal. We believe this will be a very powerful circuit breaker alongside the collective good work being done to protect our workforce. From April, as I previously referenced, we will be moving to a registration model and publishing our three-year 2026-29 strategy. I previously mentioned the economic research that we have done, which had never been done before, and we intend to continue revisiting that to see if we can narrow that growth gap of 1.4% and reduce that burden of £1.8 billion a year, which is such a problem for our colleagues across the creative industries who face pressurised budgets and competing demands all the time. Finally, we continue to be very well governed by a wise and experienced board chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy.

To drill down into that a bit more, would you say that that service is now fully operational, or are there aspects of the service which are still aspirational? When do you think you will be in a position to be able to say that all your services are fully operational?

In terms of our timeframes, I have indicated that our reporting portal remains the major facet of CIISA’s progress. That is based on the feedback that we have had from our colleagues across the creative industries. That is what they want us to do first. That will be embedded by autumn, and we will have a limited advice service with that. From 2027 to 2028, we will be delivering more services such as arbitration, mediation, and issuing the standards notices that I spoke about. In 2028 and 2029, we will be looking at some limited scope investigations. We are taking a very measured approach to how our services are delivered. We are managing pace and expectation carefully, and listening to the needs of the creative sector in terms of how we are sequencing these services. Obviously, one issue that I have spoken to this Committee about before is the stability of income because we are based on a voluntary opt-in model. I have done some rudimentary analysis of about 36 standards authorities across the UK that are backed by industry. To my knowledge, all of them have some form of protection on income, such as a levy or a reserve power. CIISA does not.

You talked about the work that you have already done with the BBC, ITV and various independent production companies. Are you having more success in getting people to come forward to you now than perhaps previously?

The origins of CIISA are that, in September 2022, we were given a combined contribution of £65,000 by the UK broadcasters. That was our set up capital. We have gone on to raise just under £2 million. There is no official fundraiser for CIISA—which is my responsibility—to raise the money but one ongoing conversation with Government is that a reserve power would be most welcome. That would bring us in line with our peers in other sectors that are industry-backed standards authorities doing this type of work. We are taking a very sensible and measured approach to switching on our services because we do not know the scale of issues that are out there, but that is also tempered by the fact that we do not have protections on income, and that sets us apart. We have to work hard to ensure that we bring the revenue towards us.

Zelda, do you want to add anything in particular about what someone who has been pressured to sign an NDA might be looking for from CIISA?

One of the biggest problems when you have signed an NDA is that you are completely legally and emotionally isolated. For most people, an NDA will make out that you cannot speak to anybody. Going forward, it is going to be very clear that an NDA cannot stop you from speaking to a prescribed person. For those people who feel they cannot speak to anybody to get advice, there has to be somewhere for them to go. If you are working at home alone or a sole trader, you are even more isolated in terms of information. The new legislation which has come forward with the Victims and Prisoners Bill, means that no NDA can stop you from speaking to certain people if you have witnessed or been subject to criminal behaviour. A lot of people are not sure what criminal behaviour is and are not going to be able to afford to check that with a lawyer, or will be too afraid to speak to the police, but being able to go to a body such as CIISA makes it accessible to everybody in that industry. It is hugely important. I have to say that it is an extraordinary feat that Jen and CIISA have managed to raise the funds that they have managed to raise. I can tell you, having also spent a lot of time working with the creative industries just in terms of trying to get them to take responsibility for not using NDAs abusively, they are not easy to get on board. They are used to working in a certain way. Their work is deeply embedded, and they do not like the status quo being changed. The fact that CIISA has managed to raise the money it has without any Government help is extraordinary. It is incredibly important that there is some Government push to compel the industry to take part in CIISA. It just seems extraordinary that this area is completely unregulated.

I want to push a bit further on the point that Zelda just made about this incredible work and, quite frankly, this balance that you have managed to create, and the difference it would make if you were not sometimes reliant on the perpetrators of poor behaviour actually coughing up and putting money forward to CIISA or implementing CIISA standards. What difference would it make to your work if the Government gave you more support, whether it is resources in terms of standing or position?

If I may be frank with the Committee, this job does not always make you popular with your colleagues in the creative industries, and not everybody races towards you. It is great that we have champions and that we have been able to raise that money because it is testament to the goodwill behind the proposition. This is absolutely necessary and must happen. In terms of our specific ask of Government, as I said, I believe it is right that industry funds this body. I do not think we should be asking for public purse contributions. The reserve power to ensure that industry pays and that it is fair and equitable across the landscape is our ask. I appreciate that that is difficult, but that would be a changemaker in terms of the pace of delivery and the vision for the organisation that we can bring in terms of celebrating what is great about the creative industries taking our blueprint. We have 27 countries watching our work very carefully and wanting to replicate CIISA in their countries. There are other things that Government have done and can do to support us in terms of the prescribed person status—which we have spoken about and is progressing through the Department for Business and Trade—and championing registration. The Secretary of State herself has been very vocal in her support for CIISA, for which we are very grateful, and we have regular contact with officials. Those things would be most powerful in terms of supporting us. I have previously spoken to this Committee about some limited exemptions around data protection with reference to schedule 2, paragraph 11 of the Data Protection Act 2018, which many standards authorities are afforded. That is also on our list to discuss with Government.

On the point around data protection, what commitments have the Government made to CIISA in addressing those?

We have taken robust legal advice. Privacy and security are at the heart of CIISA; we are entirely compliant with GDPR legislation in this country. We have a very experienced data protection officer. On day one, the first thing I did was to register CIISA with the ICO. There are no identifiable impediments, if you like, no showstoppers but it would ease our operational effectiveness if those conversations remain ongoing and we are granted those limited exemptions.

Jen, questions for this section are predominantly for you, but Zelda, I am interested in your views if you want to jump in. It is looking at the engagement that you have had from across the creative industries with CIISA so far, particularly regarding training and standards. Do you have a particular level of engagement from particular areas of the industry that you represent, for example, films, music, theatre and TV? Does the engagement differ across different areas of the industry?

Again, it is a very interesting question because we have some organisations that work across film, TV, music and screen, for example, so it is quite difficult to aggregate and split, hence the reason why we are proposing one body that has oversight across the ecosystem, if you like the complex ecology of the creative industries, and we think that is right. I think, David, this question will soon be a thing of the past because we will have our registration model. The organisations that support CIISA and are committed to the CIISA standards will be absolutely clear and in plain sight to you. Your constituents, your fellow parliamentarians, the Secretary of State, the public, but crucially our workforce—those individual freelancers who are making decisions about whether they want to go to a particular recording studio or theatre—will see the CIISA registration mark and have confidence that they know that this organisation is committed to safeguarding them and the ecosystem. It is a really interesting conversation. We will write and update the Committee in full as we progress to our registration model, so you will get to see the landscape of who is supporting us. Of course, we have great champions, but it is quite difficult for me to give you that split at this moment, and we are in some really pivotal conversations of bringing other organisations towards us as well.

That is interesting, and it will be good to get that information further down the line. Is there a pattern to the type of people who support you, or is it very much down to the personality of the leader or the leadership team?

It has been based on brilliant leaders coming towards us who really recognise the scale of the challenge. It is also about bandwidth. It is a big sector and we are a small team, so there are lots of conversations that remain to be had. As I say, there are some who do not race towards you. You are talking about decades of power imbalances and accountability gaps. They are difficult conversations. Your phone does not always ring as much as you would like it to in those scenarios, but I feel really confident that this is too important and there are too many good leaders and brilliant stakeholders who have got us to this point and will see us to full maturity. Obviously, it would be so much quicker and so much better if we had stability of income with a reserve power so that we could do more, more quickly.

Just on that, two follow-up questions, if I may? Obviously, the people who come to you and want to be recognised or be part of the scheme that you offer are probably the good people, the good leaders, the transparent leaders. Is there a concern that maybe those who should be monitored by you guys are not being monitored?

Our purview of the whole of the creative industries, whether you register with CIISA or not, will make that really clear as we move to this new model in April. You could receive a standards notice from CIISA if it identifies a pattern of harmful behaviour, if you are not registered with CISSA. We have built the funding model so that the big look after the small because we are a creative ecology and lots of people have responded to that, for which we are very grateful. At the heart of CIISA is our independence. We are an entirely independent entity; we will operate without fear or favour. Yes, we have stakeholder engagement and we are building trust with the stakeholders who fund us, but we recognise the absolute importance of being independent for that individual freelancer and for all organisations right across the scale. That is central to our integrity as an organisation. We will emphasise that within the registration model. To answer your question again, whether you register with CIISA or not, we are looking at the scope of film, TV, music and theatre in terms of the people who can come to us.

Obviously, those are four areas of the creative industry that you cover. There are others, such as gaming, art and so on. Is there a problem within those areas of the industry as well? Obviously, you cannot pick up everything.

The £1.8 billion economic burden I referenced is across the whole of the creative sector. Our vision for this organisation is that we support the whole of the creative sector, but measuring pace and expectation, being good pragmatists, and bringing in sectors sequentially as we move forward. Certainly, we have had initial conversations with the games industry, socialising the concept of CIISA. Over time, our ambition is to broaden the base so you are protected by CIISA wherever you work in the creative ecology.

To what extent is one benefit of CIISA that it can spot patterns of behaviour that individual companies may be unaware of due to people moving around the industry?

This really is the unique facet of CIISA that, essentially, we become that data controller, that you can report to us; companies can report to us. If you take an example of someone on a production who exhibits harmful behaviours: the HR department in that production company deals with it, then that person goes to work on another production and repeats that pattern of behaviour, and so on and so on. You get the point: CIISA has that oversight, that backstop provision. Obviously, we would want to flag behaviours back to the companies where people are working and say, “You might want to take a look at this.” We know that is powerful and important. We know Patrick Holland, the chair of Banijay, has spoken in Screentrade recently to say how important that will be for the screen sector moving forward, to have that unique ability to spot patterns wherever you are working across the creative industries, rather than the policies and procedures that are individual within organisations which are really important, and in some cases excellent, but it does not work when you have a freelance work community because people fall through the gaps. It is not the joined-up oversight that CIISA will bring.

Zelda, do you have anything to add?

I agree with what Jen is saying. I would probably be a little harsher in terms of where I think there have been improvements or not. The music industry is falling way behind the screen industry, and that may be because of a lot of this coming to light from the screen industry and having its big Me Too, Weinstein, whatever, moment. Although there have been lots of individuals highlighted in the music industry with their awful behaviour, it is much harder to adhere to standards because of the way the music industry operates. That is why it is really important that there is this one body. One thing I see all the time is repeat offenders, particularly on productions. As you say, people move around quickly, and there may be policy in place but on a production that is only a couple of months, there is no time for policy and process to take place and people have moved. It is a very small workforce, and certainly the more vulnerable workers do not want their reputations tarnished. I just want to add that I got the figure that you were looking for in terms of the number of the workforce from my very good helper in the background. We are looking at 1 million self-employed in the creative industries; in the music industry that is over 200,000 people.

Obviously, this inquiry is very much around misogyny in music, but it is interesting that both of you have referred to other areas where people may be targeted with NDAs and the like where there may be a level of abuse. I think of young actors—the profession I originally trained in—and I know there were interesting behaviours at certain auditions then. Are there areas we should be looking at beyond the music industry? You mentioned costume designers which came as quite a surprise to me. Are there any other areas where we should be having concerns and maybe looking deeper?

That is a great opportunity for us to give some considered thought and respond to the Committee in writing. Obviously, we have a lot of testimony in terms of specific areas that I have shone a light on today, such as the costume and wardrobe professionals that I spoke to this weekend. May we give that some thought and come back to you with some suggestions of other areas that we think you might be very interested to consider as a Committee?

That highlights your first point around this huge industry that is completely unrepresented. We do not hear from many of the workers within it, and that is why it is so important that we hear this. I look forward to that considered response because it may well inform future work as well, so thank you.

David, I did not realise you were an actor, darling. You have hidden talents. Thank you both for coming in. I am quite a new member of the Committee. This is a new area for me and it is fascinating. Thank you for all the work that you are doing because there clearly are some very serious problems here that need addressing. I am going to come back to funding. Jen, you said that initially CIISA started with £65,000. I am not quite sure where that came from; maybe you could tell us. You have then had to raise £2 million yourself, which you have clearly done a brilliant job of. You also said that you are a very small team. How many people are employed by CIISA? From that money that you have had, how much more do you need so that you are on a sustainable footing and can provide the services that you need to?

The £65,000 was a combined contribution from the UK broadcasters. It was our start-up capital to go and build the vision for CIISA and take it from a concept on the page to the entity that it is now. The combined contribution—just shy of £2 million—has come from across film, TV, music and theatre since September 2022 to where we are now. Just in terms of our projected growth and strategic business plan, this will all be in the public domain from April 2026 alongside our registration model. We are currently a team of six. We intend to manage our growth and obviously we are going to be scaling up according to the volume of what comes to us. It is quite difficult to know whether year two may be busier than year one in terms of people coming forward once they have seen CIISA operate for a while. We have predictions around moving from six staff in 2026-27 up to perhaps 12 in 2027-28 and between 21 and 24 in 2028-29 and will be focusing on that responsive service of dealing with people’s concerns and building up that capability in-house. That is where the resource will be centred.

You seem to be quite clear that you think that CIISA should be funded by the sector or the industry rather than the Government.

This is where we are now. Obviously we have had conversations with DCMS for some time about the value and importance of CIISA. We are in the sector plan, are part of the industrial strategy and in the BBC Green Paper on charter renewal. We are progressing as a prescribed person so we have had that support from Government in terms of being embedded in that way. At the top end of the creative industries, we are a wealthy industry and there is the capability of our industry to support this entity. Indeed, we feel that we can drive real value to the sector in terms of expert advice, retaining talent and reducing that economic burden that I have spoken to. It is right that industry pays but we have put in a fair structure so that the big look after the small. That is what we are anticipating: very fair bandings so that the larger corporations are looking after those coming up through the ranks of the industry.

In terms of that, which key organisations have supported CIISA with funding? At the risk of making you a little less popular than you already said you might be, which areas of the industry do you think have been more reluctant to do so?

We are in a really good series of conversations at the moment with some key organisations that will come towards us. As I say, this question will be a thing of the past very soon because the registration model makes those organisations that are supporting CIISA absolutely plain in the public domain. It is right to say we have been very much championed from the early stages by the BBC and I express my thanks to the outgoing director-general, Tim Davie, for his support for CIISA from our early origins, which was a very important moment of leadership in terms of bringing others with us. We have a great range of support across the UK with the Royal Exchange up in Manchester, the Edinburgh Fringe and the Wales Millennium Centre. It is a really good mix of great organisations across the UK that have come behind CIISA for which we are very grateful. As I mentioned, the areas where we would like to have more engagement would be the live music sector and commercial theatre.

Thinking specifically about the music sector, what concrete commitments do you have from the music sector itself? Is that more than people just saying, “Yes, we’re keen to support you?” Has it actually translated into money and something in real terms?

Yes. We have been financially well-supported by the music sector. For example, all the bodies that are part of the UK Music board have committed to CIISA. That is a big board with a lot of organisations. We are also supported by the BPI. As I say, it is really live now. There are those larger entities that we would like to have the conversation with and socialise the concept of CIISA, particularly given the statistic I gave to the Committee that 80% of workers in that particular sub-sector of music are freelance.

Zelda, you might be able to answer this. The industry called for the creation of CIISA and as you said, there is clearly a huge amount of support for it. Why do you think some bodies might have been reluctant to come forward with funding? Is there any distinction between the UK and overseas companies in terms of that willingness to provide funding?

I cannot answer in terms of the overseas and UK, but in terms of why some bodies are reluctant to come forward, we are looking at an industry that has always worked off the books, and we are upsetting the status quo. Whenever you upset the status quo, there is always resistance. That does not mean that everybody is devious and terrible but it makes them very uncomfortable because they are going to have to change their working practices and take responsibility and accountability. As we know in every sector, that is not an easy thing to do. The creative industries have always prided themselves on being a bit more bohemian and maverick, but unfortunately that translates and we can see that when we look at the workforce within the creative industry. It is a much more vulnerable workforce and is a workforce where a lot of those lines are more blurred. That is why it is even more important that there is somewhere safe to come to, that the freelance gap is addressed and those people are treated with the same protections as all the other workers. It is time that the big and small cats in the creative industries took some responsibility. They have lived unregulated so far so they are not going to be running towards it. Some are taking responsibility and some are just dragging their feet. As Jen says with the idea of socialised, more people will step in, and of course in another 10 years, nobody will believe that CIISA did not exist and there was not some form of safety net.

So it is that cultural change. Jen, just to finish, anything from you on that distinction between UK and overseas companies in terms of their willingness to provide funding?

When you are speaking to larger entities that are based abroad or in the States, they are slightly one step removed so it is a slightly different dialogue and a slightly longer conversation. That said, we have a major list of international companies that are supporting CIISA so it is not a universal case that it is always harder. We want to celebrate the uniqueness of making creative content in the UK. We want CIISA to continue to be a really important element of why the creative industries in the UK are so valued or prized globally. We think we are a real asset internationally in terms of some conversations that I mentioned with the other territories that are taking an interest in the work that we are doing.

I just want to come back to this point around the international element because the music industry is global, beautifully so, and that is a wonderful part of it. The same goes for the creative industry as a whole. But we do not live in a bubble and we have seen tech companies change their policies as a result of Donald Trump and his anti-EDI/DEI woke agenda that he so hates and despises. Why anybody would despise equality is beyond me but that is for another session. Have you seen a change or shift, particularly in big companies based in the US and their attitude to CIISA?

Inclusion is absolutely proudly at the heart of CIISA. An inclusive workspace is one of our CIISA standards. These conversations are longer and more difficult. As I say, we are one step removed but we are very proud of the inclusivity that is embedded within CIISA and that is not going to change. Reputationally, as you have great leaders coming towards CIISA—I have already mentioned the BBC—others will want to follow. In some cases it may be a longer dialogue but we have international support for CIISA.

How much do you think that support from big organisations such as the BBC relies very much on political leadership? Zelda, I would love to be able to have the confidence that you have that people will look back in 10 years’ time and think, “How could CIISA not have existed?” Given the landscape politically, we are seeing ever more divisive, hateful rhetoric dominating our political landscape. For me, progress is not inevitable. How do we future-proof CIISA with regard to making sure that it can exist regardless of political will?

That is a big question. I have to have that confidence because that is the only way that I have managed to effect any change, by just believing that in the end, right will come out. In answer to your initial question about whether we are seeing a difference because of what is happening around DEI in the States, I have seen that difference and it has been terrifying. Actually it is what really put the fire under me to become super-rabidly aggressive on the Employment Rights Bill. A lot of you will not be aware, but with Can’t Buy My Silence we started a pledge—initially for higher education and then big businesses—to sign up to a voluntary, unenforceable pledge to say they would not use NDAs unethically and abusively. Obviously my connections are myriad in the creative sector so I went to a lot of big CEOs in the creative sector first and it was fascinating because they all agreed with the concept but none of them were able to sign our voluntary, unenforceable pledge. In other areas of the business sector, I had a couple of big businesses that signed up. This is something I have not spoken about publicly yet but they wanted to wait and make this announcement once there were a few other big corporations signed up. However that then stalled when Trump came back in because they were being audited internationally by their US counterparts and risk assessed around their DEI or EDI policies. Although they did not step back from signing the pledge, they did not want to speak about it publicly because they did not want to put themselves at risk with their US counterparts. Their exact words to me were, “Just get the legislation changed,” which you nearly have but that does not mean that Britain should not be leading in creating the gold standard. CIISA will be creating a gold standard and the UK is looked at as it is highly revered for its creativity, so that should actually give us the confidence to create the gold standard. The only way to push back against what is happening in America is to show the right way forward.

I would like to explore a bit more about funding itself and actually the future of funding in particular. Jen, it has been really interesting to hear you talking about the registration model and the practical benefits it will bring to the work of CIISA. In truth, how sustainable do you think this registration model will be in terms of the actual money that comes in and what evidence is underpinning that assessment?

We are really based on the successful model that the fundraising regulator has. It has a registration model and has been very generous with its expertise on how it has brought that in. Charities have this kite mark that you see, which is very visible. It is very rare that you would see a charity that is not registered with the fundraising regulator; it is a very visible commitment. We think it will be sought after and it is proving very popular with our existing stakeholders. We have no reason to believe that our existing stakeholders who have funded CIISA to this point will not carry on with us because of the value that we have already been able to give them in terms of insight, professionalising and supporting their practises, which we have been told has been very valuable to them. Shifting to a registration model and tying people in for a three-year period—which is what we anticipate people will do—will help to normalise and stabilise the income model. We proceed with confidence but it is also about the accountability and clarity of making that visible and that will be beneficial for everybody. We have made this deliberate shift. As I say, we think it will be beneficial for everybody and it has been well-received in the engagement that we have had thus far. Therefore I feel that the relevant funding that is required for a phased approach to delivery will be forthcoming. Can I give you a cast-iron guarantee? No, I cannot. Do I believe that it will happen? Yes, I do.

With this shift to it being much more transparent, obvious and public who is actually providing money to CIISA, how are you going to ensure that that either does not or is not seen to compromise your independence?

Again, it is a very important point. Independence is central to the trust and confidence that people have in CIISA. Again, we emulate models of standards and authorities that work in other sectors and navigate this trusted candour and engagement that they have with stakeholders. They are trusted as an independent entity from those individual freelancers. It is absolutely possible to sit in that space and drive that balance. It is not a rubber stamp or an accreditation of anybody’s practices; it is a kite mark to show that you are committed to the standards.

Zelda, what is your perspective on that from slightly to one side?

In terms of independence?

Yes.

The structure that CIISA is putting in protects that. That is not something that concerns me, and it is really important that the industry is at the root of the funding; it has to be fully engaged.

It is not backed by any statutory backstop. Do you think we need to progress to that, having your position in terms of funding backed—I cannot even say the word now, which is unfortunate for a parliamentarian—by a statutory backstop? Do you think we need that level of legal support?

Just to reinforce what would be really welcome from Government, obviously our prescribed person status is progressing to ensure that CIISA becomes an official whistleblower for the creative industries. That reserve power to protect our income—which would be in the form of a statutory instrument—again would be most welcome and a long-term aspiration for us. Indeed, again, just the limited exemptions around data protection that I have referenced that we have previously discussed with Government are the provisions that would be welcome and we think would really enable us to move quicker. As Zelda and I have said, we believe this is right in terms of being an industry-funded, industry-backed standards authority.

Do you think that would help with government commitments to ensuring that you had sustainable funding? Is that something that you would like to see?

Yes. The reserve power would certainly be the basis for that. Our registration model would stay; it would just provide the necessary backstop—as you referenced—in terms of ensuring that industry pays in a fair and equitable way.

The counter to this is what happens if your funding comes under threat or is not successful in terms of securing sustainable funding for the future. What would the implications be for people in the industry if you did not have a sustainable funding model, this did not work and then somehow the money dried up for CIISA?

As I have previously said in my evidence to this Committee, that would be a great shame because the need is so clear. The concerns that come to me are so serious. It would be an own goal. I do not think the industry would allow that to happen because the point is proven. We are an essential part of the ecosystem and are absolutely necessary. We are making provisions to normalise and stabilise our income and if we were afforded additional help with that from Government, that would be great. But as I say, we proceed with confidence because this is too important. This is absolutely fundamental to the creative industries and the success of the creative industries in the UK, of which we are proud to be a part.

It would just show a complete abandonment of the freelance industry. The damage that would be caused by not having CIISA there and funded is quite clear. Again, it would back up the narrative about it being futile to speak up about abuse. It is across the board. It is not just a sector thing, really, in terms of doing the right thing.

Have you looked at the even wider impacts in terms of things like the Government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls and public health impacts of some of the work that you are doing? Have you looked at and modelled what CIISA’s role is in that?

Very interestingly, I was asked to speak at a public health conference just yesterday in terms of CIISA’s work and so on, so that shows the wider benefits and interest in the work that we are doing. The work that we are doing could be a really essential component of the Government’s commitment to the prevention of violence against women and girls. I really do believe that. I recently spoke informally with Jess Phillips about our progress and the work that we are doing. We could provide an essential circuit breaker for women and girls in our industry who have experienced harm for too long.

The question I was about to ask as a follow-up from that is has anyone from the Government or civil service approached you about that? What was the response?

I have spoken informally because Jess Phillips has been a long-time supporter of CIISA and our work and recognises the value of it. There are further discussions to be had on this basis, but we see we have a role to play.

Statistically women are actually more vulnerable in the creative industries just because of the nature of the business. You have been to drama school where you spend a couple of years learning to remove all your boundaries. Then you have to go out there and work out which boundaries you have to uphold and people are always pushing against those boundaries. Women are much more vulnerable in the creative industries than in any other industry, and certainly statistically—for me—it is pretty much 95% female complainants who come to me from the creative industries.

That is really interesting. I take David’s point that many men have experienced the creepy guy as well.

They do, but it is just the way that the industry works. We understand the terms casting couch and so on, and they are there for a reason. It is a much more highly sexualised sector and we just have to face that. Women are expected to behave in certain ways, as are men but women are more vulnerable.

I have spoken about NDAs on numerous occasions and questioned witnesses at the last inquiry session. We have already touched on how prevalent they are in the industry and how the Government’s ban on NDAs potentially does not go far enough. Zelda, what do you particularly want to see in the Government’s secondary legislation around NDAs?

Thank you for asking because we are at a very key moment and one that I am very nervous about, I have to say. The Government have made a great commitment to the ambition of how it will look. But the reality of that is going to be different once businesses and stakeholders start lobbying, I believe. We are asking that NDAs or confidentiality can only be victim-led. If a victim would like confidentiality around their settlement, they can ask for it but an employer should not be able to request or suggest it. That is really key. The other biggest point is that it covers the freelance workers and that is what is most relevant to this. The Government will be launching a consultation into the victim-led form of confidentiality fairly soon and it will be interesting to see what the response is to that. The thing to understand around non-disclosure agreements is that we are not saying that people cannot use confidentiality; it just has to be used ethically. You have to have proper independent legal advice and understand the consequences of being silenced. Preferably, you have to have a time limit on that; it cannot be in perpetuity because particularly people who have suffered some form of violent or traumatic misconduct are often not ready or able to speak about things in one, two or three years. The other very important thing is that they always have access to speak to prescribed people even if they have signed confidentiality. You have to be able to speak to the police, a lawyer, a regulator, a therapist, the HMRC, a close member of your family and so on. You would think that all these things were obvious. In reality, no agreement can stop you from speaking to the police or the HMRC but it can infer that you cannot and that is where the power is. It has to be very clear to people that they will always be able to speak to the people they need to speak to and that it is victim-led.

That was one of the concerns when you spoke about how prevalent the pre-emptive NDAs were. As a lawyer who has advised people on the use of mainly settlement agreements in employment matters, the advice means something if a situation has happened but that advice becomes a little more nefarious if no situation has happened. How would that work with these pre-emptive NDAs or would you like to see a complete ban on those?

If what goes forward happens, there can be no contractual clause that stops you from being able to speak about harassment or discrimination. Even if you have signed a pre-emptive NDA, you understand that it holds no water. That is something where CIISA will be very important because it will be able to disseminate that information. Sole traders and freelance people do not get that information, and being able to go to CIISA and CIISA being able to explain their protections to them is vital.

Do you think there will be some people who still do not understand that and there will still be this use of agreements that would not hold water?

There is a risk of that given the diffuse ecology of the creative industries, but it is our job to be really visible and present when we become a prescribed person so that people have more knowledge about their rights and are aware of the changes in legislation that Zelda is leading on. We really have a role to play in championing the facts and people’s rights and see that as part of our work going forward in due course once we are afforded prescribed person status.

It is hugely important that people understand that settlements are absolutely necessary. Again, there has been a confusion in a link between NDA and settlement because I am afraid lawyers and employers have linked settlement to silence and confidentiality. A settlement is not for that; a settlement is to agree to take the claim no further. If you take away that connection between silence, settlement and money, that actually makes the settlement process much faster, and the more places where people can get that information very clearly, the better.

Do you think there will be ways of circumventing what is in the law?

At the moment there are lots of different ways of getting around it. One way is that people do not label confidentiality as an NDA. There is a lot of public awareness around NDAs now, but any confidentiality clause is basically an NDA. The great thing is in this new piece of legislation where it says, “No clause,” that will cover things like non-disparagement, which is really important because again, that is a technicality that a normal person would not know. They see non-disparagement in an agreement and would not know that that was essentially an NDA. There are some other dangerous ways that it could be circumnavigated around something like Acas being exempted, but in terms of freelance it is really an information issue.

Jen, at the moment, if someone were to come to CIISA having signed an NDA, how are you able to support them?

We are not operational at this stage, hence our desire to ensure that we move quickly to a registration model and have the funding in place. Obviously, as I have mentioned, prescribed person status is progressing and our reporting service and advice will be available later this year. It is something that we are alive to in terms of the scale of people who may request advice once we are afforded the status of official whistleblower entity.

To what extent do you think this ban will lead to a cultural shift in the creative industries in terms of both employers’ behaviour but also the culture of women feeling safe enough to report abuse?

Listen, I have to be realistic. Cultural shifts take an incredibly long time. Am I not learning that, thinking when I spoke up in 2017 that this would all be done and dusted in a couple of years and we are now nine years down the line? I genuinely believe that this is something that will really make a huge cultural shift. You can tell people that they are not allowed to behave in certain ways until you are blue in the face and they will not take any notice of you. If you take away the mechanisms that hide bad behaviour, people will have to take responsibility and self-regulate. Whether you are looking at the creative industries or big business, that actually makes life a lot easier for the employers because people will have to think. They will have to go, “Oh, am I going to make this inappropriate comment?” or, “Am I going to display this inappropriate behaviour?” Currently they know that there is a legitimate, legalised way of hiding that. If you take that away, that behaviour will be exposed much faster and people taking personal responsibility is actually a great step forward; it will make a huge difference. It will take time, and again it will be harder in the creative industries because there is so much less structure, but that does not mean that it should not happen.

I would also just say the presence of an independent body once we are fully operational and the fact that we have that joined-up oversight across different sectors will also be a deterrent value and people will think twice. People get to hide in some cul-de-sacs or vagaries of the creative industries, and we will also have a really important role to play by virtue of our existence alone.

I would like to think that we will end up in a situation where men in power do not abuse that power at the expense of women.

We cannot stop that from happening, but we can make sure the system does not enable or hide it. That is all we can do and that is why it is so important that the Government are making the decisions and changes they are.

Just in terms of registration, this really important prescribed person status—like a lot of this—hinges on that. You have been asking for it for two years. Do you know what the hold-up is? Which Department is it that you are liaising with?

We are liaising with the Department for Business and Trade and are supported by colleagues at DCMS. We understand there have now been advancements in the progress of our application so we will keep the Committee updated and thank you for your commitment and interest in our progress.

That is great. It just helps us within our Committee and our recommendations to hopefully push for what you and people within the industry need. Thank you very much to you both for coming today and for all the work that you are doing. That brings this session to a close.