Welcome to this morning’s meeting of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Today, we are holding one of our state of play sessions on performing arts touring in the EU. We are going to examine the barriers for performance artists and musicians and what they are facing when they are working or touring the world post Brexit, particularly the EU. Our first panel is looking at the performing arts and acting sector. We are joined by Matt Hood, who is the managing director of Spotlight; Euan Livingstone, who is an agent for Global Artists; and Tom Peters, who is head of policy and public affairs at Equity. Thank you so much for joining us today; it is great to see you. Before we begin, I just need to remind members to declare any interest at the point that they ask their questions. Matt, I am going to kick off these questions and I want to start with you. Why are we here today? Why is touring the EU important?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members of the Committee, for taking up Spotlight’s request to hear this conversation on Brexit and its impact on our performer members. Both actors and musicians have a long history of travelling widely for work. Well before the time of Shakespeare, the first professional actors—the strolling players—would take their work on the road, usually around the UK or the British Islands as they were, but occasionally, where global politics allowed, into Europe. Ever since, the peripatetic nature of both workers and work in the performing arts, in our entertainment and culture industries, has been a fundamental part of the lifeblood of our sector. It is not just about the freedom of movement of creative labour, the opportunities that it brings, and how that sustains rewarding and professional careers. It is also about how that movement sustains an enduring cultural exchange as well: how we share perspectives and information; how we open eyes and hearts to appreciate both similarity and difference. So it is the narrowing of the opportunity and cultural exchange that has put Brexit at the top of the list of concerns that performers who subscribe to Spotlight have, as well as of other users, agents and casting professionals. In producing the report for the Committee that I hope you have read, we called for evidence from actors who subscribe to our service and to members of casting guilds, associations and societies, agents’ associations, and bodies representing UK drama schools. Those who responded did so anonymously, which provided a safe space to share their feelings without fear of reprisal. The report makes depressing reading. Brexit has placed British performers in a cultural cul-de-sac. In place of the rich opportunities that we saw before, from cruise ships to summer seasons, from touring theatre to commercials, British performers are faced with costly, time-consuming, and often impenetrable paperwork. An actor’s suitability for a job is no longer a question of their talent or their availability but about which passport they hold and whether the productions have the time, the budget, or the inclination to tackle those various visa processes. These burdens are shared along the line with talent agents, casting professionals and others. That is why we asked you to look at this issue today. The impacts of Brexit on our industry, performers, actors and those who augment those as well is quite profound. Hopefully, this session today will enlighten you as to those concerns we have brought to you.

What I want is a quick-fire answer from you all, if possible, about the changes that you have seen in the volume of work that is available to UK performers since Brexit.

About half our members say that they have lost work as a result of the changes regarding Brexit. We are an organisation of 50,000 members, so about 25,000 people.

At the point of submission, which is part of my job—we are the ones who put actors in for certain jobs—we are often met with a barrier straightaway with them saying, “Please don’t even bother submitting people unless they hold a European passport,” due to the nature of how quick the turnover is for getting these projects cast. On top of that, some actors have had to leave jobs because visa requirements are not affordable and they do not have the time to meet them. Many actors are having to say no from the first step.

I do not think the volume of work in Europe has changed dramatically since Brexit. It is access to that work by UK performers that is dropping.

That is the question: what changes have you seen in the volume of work available to UK performers since Brexit?

The big factor is that a lot of those jobs are looking for people who already have European passports. They are filtering out British performers or making sure that they are only calling for performers who hold a European passport already. It is that lack of opportunity, where you are being weeded out before being able to see the job, that is most profound.

That makes sense. From you all, does this actually have any bearing on an artist or a performer’s success at home as well? In real terms, what impact would it have? If you cannot work in the EU as much as you used to be able to, what long-term impact does that have on your success here?

It might impact commercial tours, if they are no longer doing as many European dates. If they choose to avoid UK performers for any reason, that might mean that some performers have less access to those productions when they are based in the UK. It might be “Les Mis”, “Cats” or all those sorts of things. Concerns around what it would mean to take that production on tour might affect who they hire as the principal in the UK.

In my experience, it has a particular impact on younger performers, particularly graduates. Often, work in Europe can be a kick-starter or a stepping stone into achieving work in the UK. We obviously know that the acting industry is very competitive so getting into a west end show immediately is not always attainable. I have had a lot of actors who have gone on to do a tour in Germany, or gone to Vienna and Austria to do a job. That is their first credit on the CV and then, when they are being submitted back in the UK, they go, “Oh, great.” A credit in Germany is just as valuable as a credit in the UK but sometimes it is just more attainable, for young actors who maybe do not have the CV to back up a submission for a west end show, to go and work overseas and then come back.

To add to what Euan said, it is about things like a seasonal job for performers to hone their craft and gain an income that sustains them long term in the industry. It is access to those sorts of jobs that are disappearing as well.

It would be super helpful if we could quantify this. You have all said that there is less work and it may be because people are being blocked in the first place. It might be because of complexity of paperwork. Is there any way of quantifying the days, hours, cash takings, numbers of tours, or performances of British artists and performers in continental Europe before and after leaving the European Union?

It is very difficult because it is a bit of an unknown unknown and is about producer behaviour. I had a bit of a look at the ONS stats, which showed a 19% fall in the export of performing arts to Europe between 2016 and 2023. The EU is the only place where we have not recovered from the pandemic in terms of the amount of performing arts that we export. That gives a concrete cash figure but, in terms of the work lost, it is very difficult because individual producers are now taking different decisions all the time.

I am sure we have the ONS data, but it would be helpful to perhaps follow up on that. You mentioned that Equity had done a survey and half of its members said they had lost work. How did you conduct that survey?

By emailing our membership.

Was it a voluntary response?

Yes.

So it was not a sample. You would have to agree that that probably exaggerates the effect because, when you ask a question and it is a voluntary response, you will always hear from the people who feel most strongly about an issue rather than a representative sample. It would be helpful to get those actual numbers. Do any of you have experience of your members trying to get an Irish passport, for example?

Yes. There is definitely a feeling among our membership that if they can access an EU passport, it is a very positive thing to do for their career.

To set the scene, Euan, could you just say what all the different visa and social security requirements are and the different levels of paperwork?

We do not, as agents, do the visa application for our clients. Often, it is a deal point in negotiation. We would say that it is the producer’s responsibility to pay and apply for a visa, so often it falls on the producer to be able to provide that. However, I have an example where a visa had been sorted for an actor that ended before the exit date from the overseas territory. I had a client call and say, “I don’t know what to do. What happens if I turn up at the airport tomorrow? My visa has expired. Will I get in trouble for that?” In terms of my experience of applying for visas, it is not part of my job or what I do for clients. It is my job to make sure the producer is doing their job in terms of providing that for them. Sometimes a visa is not applicable. For example, a creative, a director, or a choreographer might go out for four weeks to put up a show and use their 90-day Schengen visa. However, the 90-day cap means that they have to turn down other opportunities because they have used up those 90 days for personal and work allowances. That is an example of loss of opportunity, loss of income and loss of a job because people have said, “We want you to come and work for us,” but they said, “I can’t.”

Can any of you summarise what the difference is pre and post leaving the European Union in terms of the volume of paperwork? Bear in mind, of course, that we were never a member of Schengen. Some of these things may not be entirely obvious, but is anyone in a position to say?

Every member state has its own particular system now. Some might have visa waivers but they may be based on particular definitions of what a performer is or on particular eligibility, or for different durations of time. Each member state has its own taxation arrangements. There is a question around the A1 forms that we are going to get into. It just increases the administration for every single site that a tour might want to go to, whereas before a UK touring commercial production could deal with the EU as one section of its tour.

How does it work in reverse? What is the difference in the regime for European-domiciled performers coming to the UK?

I have an actress who is Dutch. I believe she might be on a global talent visa.

Working here?

Working in the UK, yes. I actually took her on after she had already been working in the UK for a couple of years. When you are applying for permanent leave to remain, you have to be in the UK or work in the UK for a certain number of days. I do not know the specifics of how many days that is to qualify but it does mean that sometimes, when they are offered a touring job, they cannot say yes because they have to remain in the UK. Again, I am never involved in the application process. Often, if an actor from Europe writes to me, I say, “You need to have the appropriate right to work documents in place for me to be able to represent you.”

Moving back to outbound—this may be quite difficult to quantify and I am sure it will vary for different sectors and, of course, every act is different—but we talk about the EU sometimes as if everybody is going to be visiting 27 different countries on their tour whereas some just go to Germany. The question is: how different is it if you are just going to one country compared with the pre-2016 or pre-2020 regime?

What we are seeing now is a lot of UK-based commercial productions choosing one European location, so having a world tour and doing Dublin as part of that world tour, whereas before you would have expected them to do multiple dates across multiple different member states. That is quite a difference. The administration for one member state is—

That was my question.

Obviously, it is not as much of a burden, because they are just dealing with one system and the particulars of the visa regime of that member state.

You mentioned Dublin. How does the common travel area play into all this?

Sorry, what is the common travel area?

The common travel area is with the island of Ireland. For many different purposes such as trade, the movement of people, and various health and social aspects—lots of different ways—there are exceptions to many rules for the Republic of Ireland. I just wondered, for your band that is choosing Dublin, if it is easier to choose Dublin than Frankfurt?

In my experience, yes. UK tours will often have Dublin as one of their stops. The Bord Gáis Energy theatre is a big theatre in Dublin and, as far as I am aware, it has no requirement for visas and so on. That is in theatre. In television and film, I have had clients who have gone to film in Dublin. Dublin is a very popular place to film; a lot of work is filmed there and an A1 form is required for that. Film and television work also have a quicker turnaround than theatre work—you are often self-taping and have booked the job within a week of doing that first self-tape. Suddenly, you are then filming in two weeks’ time. The prospect of getting an A1 form in three weeks is just not going to happen.

Final question from me: where do artists look for guidance on this system? I am sure they look to your organisation among others, but is it also a question of Governments and wider arts organisations? How, if at all, is it different for artists in Britain and in other countries?

The Department for Business and Trade has a number of country-by-country guides on its website that apply to each territory. Many of them, but not all, state the specific visa requirements or the waiver possibilities for those territories. Information on the Schengen visa is quite scant from the UK side and, on the EU side, some websites do not work. So it is difficult to find the information required, and certainly difficult to find it in one place as it applies to a performer. That is difficult for performers and agents to navigate. Often, as Euan has said, that is done via the producer. There is a reliance on the hirer to solve the visa problem and, as a result, it is easier for them not to have a visa problem to solve in order to facilitate the speed of the production. On the inbound side, at the back end of our report, in the glossary, we have gone through the myriad different challenges faced by performers coming into the UK: the different creative visas, the fact you can work on a permitted paid engagement as a visitor as well as the global talent visa that was mentioned. It is a labyrinthine process to determine which of those is the correct way to come here to work.

Can I just go back to the Dublin point? It is worth noting, on the job for which an A1 form was required, that the person was being hired by an Irish company. For jobs where people have toured to Dublin and not required it, it has been a British or UK company. I just thought that was important to know.

It is hellishly complicated, isn’t it?

We know the number of working class people in the creative industries has dramatically decreased and what you said about the impact, in terms of young people being able to tour and the number of credits, was quite interesting. I am just wondering—you might not have absolute evidence—if you have anything anecdotal about whether the challenges in touring and so on have had an impact on bringing through talent from working class communities.

We have seen the decimation of access of working class communities into our industry as a whole. There has been a 70% decline in working class performers in our industry and it is hard to pinpoint exactly what the different drivers of that are—they are multiple. The income impact of not being able to get that work from Europe is going to have a massive effect on the income of performers and is therefore going to drive people out of the industry, especially those who do not have pre-existing wealth that they can rely on to smooth out those bumps.

I would say that, when you are going to work in Europe, there are already costs you are having to put forward. A lot of my actors have to employ accountants. People forget that, when actors are working on a job, performing or rehearsing, they are being paid but are self-employed. A lot of their work is unpaid when they have to keep up a practice—singing lessons and things like that. The point is that a lot of their time is taken up in having to complete this paperwork, speak to accountants, or be on calls to certain people to figure out what they can do. That is a cost burden to them. The other thing is that a lot of actors do not get paid enough to live on from working as an actor. The statistic is something like 2% of actors actually earn enough to live on just from doing acting. The other 98% have to have a second job. Some are waiting tables or working in hospitality. Some find online or work-from-home jobs. Sometimes the prospect of working abroad means they cannot find or easily be able to keep that second job, and sometimes they have to weigh up whether it is affordable for them to do that.

Part of the change, not just in wages and access to opportunities, is the access to social capital that is required and how that is concentrated in the middle class performance bracket. That is what is required to access—the fact that you need an accountant, as well as where you can go for help with the visa or how you communicate with your agent. Improving access to social capital for working class performers is key to this, as well as improving their participation in the arts in general.

What you are saying is that, before we actually get on to this, things need to change to make sure people do get that access.

Some 45% of our members on the west end—the most prestigious part of the live performance sector—have a second job.

They have to make a series of very complicated judgments now about whether they want to take jobs that are offered to them, especially jobs with EU-based companies. The taxation system is very complicated; it is not always obvious. The source country applies tax to the wages that you get while you are on tour, and then you can claim that back through your self-assessment. It is not always clear what the source country is going to apply tax to and what payment you are going to get at the end of the day, what you are going to have to wait to get back from your self-assessment, whether you are going to get everything back through the self-assessment, and so on. That is quite a big deal for people. There is then the issue around the A1 forms. We have had opera singers where their payment has been withheld until they submit the A1 form, and the current waiting period to get it out of HMRC is seven months. There is then the question of, “Should I take this job? I might get something in the UK that will be better paid or less complicated.” There is a judgment about whether you want to take an EU job and block out that time in your diary or wait for something that might be easier. So it is very complicated. The final thing is about the calculation of the 90 days. Where do you want to use your 90 days? Do you want to use it for work? Do you have a family member, for example, who is living in Europe you might need to care for? Does your partner have family in Europe who you might need to visit? UK performers have to make these very difficult judgments, agreeing to work when not knowing what they are going to get at the end of the day and what implication it is going to have on their ability to work in Europe or in the UK in the future.

The UK producer will often meet the cost of accommodation for commercial tours, for example, so there are varying degrees of how much money a UK performer will have to put up at any one time. The real question is, “What are the earnings that I am going to get back?” We had an actor whose accommodation in a member state was taxed at source by that member state, even though it had been paid for by the producer. They thought that they were going to pay tax on their earnings and their per diems, the daily living allowance that they get, but found that the accommodation had actually been treated as a benefit in kind by the source country. So instead of getting £600 a week, they suddenly found they got £300 a week. That arrangement is different in every single EU member state that they might be working in.

I have an example payslip in front of me. This artist’s total gross income for one month was about €4,170. They have been taxed social security, the Austrian withholding tax—this is for Austria—and something called an artist pension tax, which is basically a benefit for artists to use when they are out of work. As a UK actor, you do not really see that benefit because you come back to the UK. You are not reaping the benefit of what that pension is. It is also a compulsory thing you have to pay. If you want to get that money back, you have to pay into it for a year before you can get it back. So if you are doing a six month job, you have to carry on paying contributions for six months even after you have finished the job to be able to get that money refunded to you.

Yes.

All I would add is that one A1 certificate is required per country. It is not as simple as one A1 that covers all Europe. You need to get one for each territory and, if the territories you are going to work in alter during the tour, you are not going to get that in time, even if you had time to get it in the first place, so it just adds to the complication.

We have had that a lot from members and it is a real issue that has come through our singers committee, especially around opera. We have had a series of complaints where members have had their total pay withheld until they could provide the form. They often go and do the work, and then they wait for several months for the money to actually come through.

They do not accept digital copies of the A1 forms. It needs to be a physical copy, so there is an added delay when you need to get the physical copy to these companies. I also want to add on the cost implications. Almost all actors have agents as representation and they have to pay a commission to these agents for doing the work. On top of all these taxes and withholding taxes that they are having to pay, they also pay a 12.5% commission to agents to help them manage these jobs and go through these payslips for them, which is also a commission on their gross payment not their net payment. That is an additional thing that is being taken off their wages.

It is difficult because there is an element, not of desperation, but actors wanting to work. They really want to work. Sometimes they have to balance whether they want to do it over the affordability of being able to do it. Yes, I have had actors turn down jobs because it was just not feasible or affordable for them. Sometimes I have had actors, who have been working in Europe, come back and say, “I never want to do that again because it is just not enjoyable for me. There’s too much paperwork. There are too many hurdles and loops and things to go through.” Actors have walked midway through a contract; they have just gone, “I actually can’t afford this any more.” That has a trickle-on effect to the producers and the rest of the cast. If cast members are walking midway through a contract, they cannot put on the show. I cannot quantify how many times that happens but, in my experience, it does happen.

I try to help as much as possible but my experience only goes so far in terms of what I can tell them. I am not a tax specialist. I always advise getting an accountant; that is an added expense for them to do. I try where possible but I work for a company and I have a boss telling me that we cannot be liable for telling them something that might end up not being correct. We always say, “We advise you to speak to a tax specialist about this.”

More than four fifths of those who responded to our call for evidence reported that they were aware that it was more expensive post Brexit—the whole process of going through the visa applications and paperwork to work in Europe. That is from those who are aware of it, and there are many more who are protected by their agents and others from the realisation of the costs of it. The real challenge is the people who do not have the opportunity to turn down work. They will go for work even when it is cost-prohibitive. We will often see the charities in our sector, the benevolent funds and others, step in to support performers when they are suffering hardship. Our organisation is not able to provide that financial support directly.

A major source of income for our opera singers used to be short-term cover. If a principal was ill in a house in Italy, one of our opera singers would get a very quick, last-minute call saying, “We have a sick principal. Can you immediately come over and cover the role for a week?” or whatever it was. What we are increasingly seeing is that the administrative complexities make that very difficult. It is less about affordability and more about people saying, “Oh hold on a minute, can we actually do everything that needs to be done to facilitate that performer to come over for a short period of time?” We had an instance where someone had ended up in correspondence with the Italian embassy about doing one night in Italy. She had a letter from the Italian embassy, which she took over and showed at the border, and eventually managed to get the job for one night. That is the level people are going to in trying to understand whether they are legally allowed to do the job or not.

Can I just add one more thing? I can only speak on behalf of my company, Global Artists, but an unwritten rule is that we always take the Equity minimum rates in the UK as the base rate of pay when taking a full 12.5% commission. I have had clients who are paid less than that in Europe. It is €350 per week for rehearsals and €450 per week for performances. In that instance, we calculate the difference between the Equity minimum, which is €560-something, and we reduce our commission rate to reflect that. That is just an example of what companies sometimes do to help with the cost implications, but that then has a trickle-on effect on agents’ income and how much our agency as a business is taking. I do not know what other agencies do in those situations but that is just an example of how we try to help financially.

I just wondered what effect the barriers to working in the EU are having on the performing arts sector as a whole: is it shrinking, contracting or expanding?

I do not know. I am just going off what you said before. I do not know if opportunities are reducing; it is actors not being able to have the same opportunity as before. It is not that there is less and less work; it is that actors are not able to do the work because it is not affordable, they do not have a European passport, and so on. So it is less about the quantity of work that is being produced and more about how accessible and easy it is for actors to do that work.

We used to have a great competitive advantage in that we were the only native English nation with frictionless opportunities on the continent. Since the administration for our performers and talent has increased, it broadens the labour market to open up to Australian, American or Canadian performers, all of whom are treated as third countries. So we have, in a way, destroyed our own competitive advantage by reducing the frictionless ease by which UK talent could be contracted from Europe.

It is an act of self-harm; we have shot ourselves in the foot.

Our members would see it that way, yes.

Euan, you are an agent, and this is one for you as well, Matt. What does this restricted access to the EU market mean for the career path of agents, casting directors and other industry professionals?

Speaking from personal experience, again I cannot speak on behalf of other agents, a lot of my income comes from actors working overseas. I would never force an actor to do a job they do not want to do. I actively encourage actors to do work they want to do, that serves them creatively and that is affordable to them. I recognise that they have a life and bills to pay. In terms of the effect, I do not know what the effect is on casting directors specifically but, in terms of agents, if actors cannot afford to work in the EU, that is a huge market in the entertainment industry that we cannot access and, therefore, we are losing income in that respect. It also makes it more competitive in the UK. Actors cannot work in Europe; they need to find work in the UK. Suddenly the pool of actors looking for work in the UK grows. We spoke before about people coming into the UK to work. I know we are going more to the west side now, but there is a huge influx of American actors coming to the UK at the moment because of what is going on politically there and the Broadway economy. Only two Broadway musicals have recouped their finances in the last year. The Broadway economy is failing. Actors are moving to the UK because more work is starting in the UK, which is great because it is cheaper to do, but that means more actors from America and Europe are coming into the UK for those opportunities. That means that some UK actors go, “Well, great, I will go to Europe,” but it is becoming more difficult to do that.

Do you have fewer EU clients on your books because it is too complicated for them to have you as their agent now?

I have had meetings with European clients and the first thing I always have to ask is, “Can you work in the UK? Do you have the right to work?” They go, “No, I am trying to figure it out.” I go, “I can’t do anything for you unless you can.” We are finding that some producers are now doing right to work checks before people are even allowed to audition—before they have even been offered a job. That is not something we can even consider. So, yes, I have had to say no to representing actors because they have not had the right documents to work in the UK.

What we have seen, in conversations that we have had, is that the casting director is the expert in the talent pool in Britain and Ireland. Usually, European productions would come to that casting director and ask them to find the best talent from these islands to go and work on European projects. Since Brexit, those casting directors are not being approached. Casting directors in Europe are being approached to find talent based in Europe, who are able to perform in native English, and those opportunities are being solely put out on the continent. So we have seen casting directors, who use the Spotlight service, report that their income is halving, that they have lost multiple jobs due to Brexit and that those jobs are going overseas. Occasionally, those casting directors will still look at the British talent pool but, as a preference, they are casting from the continent for people who are already cleared to work in Europe. The casting director is caught in that as well.

What about the talent pipeline? I used to be in academia before this and we have had reports from drama schools that they are not getting EU entrants any more, especially the smaller drama schools—I have one in my seat. Because it is a third country, the fees have ballooned, because they are now classed as international students. What effect has Brexit had on the talent pipeline coming through the system?

It is certainly something that drama schools have reported. They are finding it much harder to attract students from the EU. There is a loss of income for them. There is also a loss of the diversity of the pool of students who are coming in, and there is a loss of that learning going back into those EU nations. The great world-class British drama system and training that we have is not, therefore, being dispersed back into the EU talent pool. There is a financial loss of opportunity. Those drama students who came from Europe before were assisted to do so. Now they are coming in, as you said, as third-party students and the fees are no longer attractive to bring them in.

We have been running a campaign around Bristol Old Vic theatre school which, due to the changes, is having a really hard time making the numbers add up. It is one of the most prestigious drama schools we have had. It has lots of very well-known alumni, such as Sir Daniel Day-Lewis and Olivia Colman, and is really thinking about whether it can continue the public model.

I am having a flashback to 1 April 2022. In this very Committee, we had heard from the Really Useful Group, and some of their evidence caused headlines. The Daily Express had, “Brexit fury as EU Phantom of the Opera tour coming from China”. The evidence we were given was that it was actually cheaper to take a “Phantom of the Opera” production from China into the EU, despite the distance, because it was only one point of entry and a lot less red tape. We are having a reset now. Do you foresee that being fixed? If things carry on as they are, are there serious long-term implications for the industry? Would that crazy situation, which made all the headlines back in the day, still arise today? If so, how can we fix it?

I do not know about the China example specifically. What we are seeing is UK producers reducing the number of dates they are doing in Europe, which means less work for our members and EU-based producers overlooking UK talent.

Is there another anomalous example you could cite today of this madness of distance and red tape clashing?

Not an obvious example. I would say that I have noticed an increase in the amount of work that is now going further overseas, outside Europe. Producers are finding it easier now to take productions to Dubai. There is a huge growth in Dubai in terms of work there. I have productions going to Delhi and Mumbai in India, China, Japan, and other places. There is a huge “Les Mis” world tour happening at the moment and almost all the dates are in Singapore, Manila and so on. They have done very few European dates. They have a few in London and then they are going off to New York. That is it. I have noticed that producers are producing work a lot less in European overseas territories, particularly British producers. Often the work that is happening in Europe, for example, is German promoters or German producers for Germany.

In the film and television area, we are seeing more productions that could have been based in the UK basing themselves in Ireland because, if they are based there, they have access to both the UK and the EU market. That is particularly attractive. The second season of “Wednesday” went to Ireland from Romania—it did not come to the UK—and part of the attraction was the ability to work across both markets.

Is “Wednesday” the Netflix thing?

The second season moved from eastern Europe to Ireland.

We went to the animation studio where a little sequence of it was filmed exactly a week ago.

Apart from rejoining the EU, what solutions would you recommend to the challenges we have discussed today? Can I ask that first to Tom?

The buzzword for me is standardisation. That might be the UK Government doing a deal with the EU Commission that is EU-wide, or it might be them continuing to do a multilateral standardisation of the terms by which UK talent can work across the member states. Different sectors have more output in different parts of Europe, so it could even be that the UK Government says, “As most of the work for dancers is in Belgium and Germany, why don’t we try to figure out how we can have some standardisation in that area?” We are very pro the visa waiver policy that has been put forward by multiple campaigns but it is not the be-all and end-all. There are lots of steps that the UK Government could be taking in a multilateral way in advance of a big deal.

I would agree. Standardisation in terms of tax treaties and so on. I know that the UK has tax treaties with European countries but standardisation across the whole of Europe would help in terms of the paperwork that comes with that. The other thing is freedom of movement. The 90-day cap is such a restriction. Visa requirements are restricting young actors from taking opportunities and growing careers, so that is another key point as well.

How quickly could opportunities for UK actors resume if the Government and EU Commission agreed a visa waiver for performance?

Opportunities would grow instantly because it would eliminate the need for an EU or European passport. Suddenly, anyone with a British passport could go and do these jobs. It is more about opening up these opportunities that have had to close because of the restriction of movement to British passport-holding actors.

Matt, can I ask what engagement you have had with the Government about improving the ability of UK actors to work in the EU?

We have had very little engagement with the Government around the question. We wanted to bring our thoughts to this Committee first, so that has been our approach on the matter.

Have you tried and they have not wanted to?

We have had a number of meetings with the British Government in different Departments on various subjects but not around Brexit.

We have also found it very difficult to get the level of engagement we had hoped for in advance of the EU summit. We have written on A1 forms and found it very difficult to get a reply, to be honest. We had hoped for much more.

The Government have stated that they have no intention of rejoining Creative Europe. Why should Ministers change their minds?

Creative Europe has been a great success across Europe for those EU countries that are part of it in terms of both the cultural exchange and the financial benefits to the industry as well. One of the things that Spotlight supports is EFP in Berlinale, which is happening in two weeks’ time. It was a programme where British performers, such as Daniel Craig, were first brought out into the international spotlight. As a result of leaving Creative Europe, the UK is no longer part of EFP and our up-and-coming performers are no longer able to be promoted on the international stage in Berlinale. At a very individual level, that opportunity of international exposure has been removed. Also, as I said earlier, the cultural exchange between nations which is so vibrant within the performing arts is denied when we are not part of a body across Europe that promotes that dialogue.

What solutions would you like to see to the challenges we have discussed today?

A more generous and more consistent Schengen visa waiver for the performing arts is important. In the meantime, having a consistent source of advice for the performing arts around the visa situation that is easily accessible is vital because that again is excluding people from the social capital of knowing what is going on. When it comes to students, and there are obviously very welcome movements in terms of the Erasmus scheme and how we are going to improve the mobility of students, further advances can be made by making sure that there are opportunities for EU students to study in the UK and to continue that cultural exchange as well.

My understanding is that we have relatively generous terms at the moment and that, broadly, most EU artists can come over for up to three months depending on the particulars. In terms of reciprocal arrangements, we are already offering fairly good terms. It is really just about ensuring that each of those member states is treating our talent in the same way and offering that level of openness and flexibility.

I cannot comment too much on the politics of it because I do not know fully what that is. What I will say is that I went to drama school myself—that is how I got into this industry—and I trained with a lot of European and American actors. Speaking with them, they viewed the UK as a cultural icon in terms of theatre. We have Shakespeare and the Globe. We have some of the best colleges and training institutions in the world. We have working on the west end, and the glitz and the glamour of that. Work in London and in the UK can lift your profile to a global scale much more than working in Europe. What performing work in Europe brings is a career stepping stone and a platform to start building credits. Ultimately, people see Hollywood and London as the two peaks of a career. In terms of what we can offer, it is working in the UK and building that career. A lot of work is being filmed in Pinewood. We have big institutions that offer brilliant work.

If it is the case that the UK’s visa waiver for creative workers is generous, that is not the feeling of performers in Europe who find it difficult to get work in the UK. Certainly, when we were in Spain and Germany recently talking to performers, they felt that the avenues to come here were closed off to them. Even if it is a matter of communicating better what those opportunities are, the EU countries and certainly performers in the EU countries that we have spoken to would welcome the reciprocal nature being extended to them.

European audiences want our talent. We have been a world leader for a long time and UK talent is really without par in the world—incredible skills and training, incredible experiences. There is a strong incentive on the other side for them to be open to us, just purely on the basis that it is what people want. They want the amazing British or UK director. They want the amazing UK principal. We have a strong basis just on what the workforce can offer really. That is actually why, as I gather was the case in the past, it seems like the EU were fairly willing to be reasonable about this when it was discussed the first time around.

That is the point, is it not? It feels to me that, if the Government were to start engaging in a series of bilateral conversations about cultural agreements with other EU nations, they would be pushing at an open door. We have quite a lot to offer in exchange for that. Do you get the sense, and it sounds like you have not had the opportunity to have many in-depth conversations with the Government on this, that the Government should be doing more to kick off those bilateral conversations and start talking about whether we can do bilateral cultural agreements over how this could work better and more smoothly?

It seems like that would be a politically feasible route and it does not mean you are going to be accused of trying to re-open negotiations that have happened in the past. It seems to me that there is a lot of scope for that to be taking place. I am not involved so I do not know whether they feel that that is happening already or not but there is a lot of scope.

Do you agree?

Absolutely. I do not know too much about the politics of it all, just in terms of what my profession is. I know that there are visa treaties or visa agreements with countries. I know there is one with South Korea. It feels like there are options open to us and maybe more could be done to open those conversations and explore what those options are.

The challenge that our sector faces is that we often fall between different Ministries. Whereas DCMS may understand that cultural and economic impact, maybe the Department for Business and Trade does not. It is not as simple as talking to one part of Government. The economic value of our sector is huge but it is also underappreciated at times. As a sector, we have to make sure that that economic and cultural value is well articulated.

There is also the additional issue that, while DCMS may be your anchor Government Department in the sense that it is supposed to champion you, international cultural agreements need to be negotiated by the Department for Business and Trade or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It is about that silo working which we all know Government are famous for.

Euan, you described a career stepping stone into credits in terms of working in Europe. I asked a question earlier about access for working class people into this career. If they are unable to have that career stepping stone, what more can and should we be doing? It is a question for you all in terms of making sure that doors are open for working class people in these industries.

It makes it much harder for them. I work with casting directors all the time. I speak to them and go, “What is it you look for when you’re looking at someone’s Spotlight or you’re trying to call someone in for a job?” I talked about currency—they need to be looking as if they are working. If you have a gap in your CV from 2022 to 2026, they go, “Why haven’t you worked? What was the gap there? Why aren’t you booking jobs?” Sometimes that European work is that gap. It is that stepping stone. It is building those credits. Cruises on a Royal Caribbean and so on are the same thing but there are cost implications with those. So it is having an effect on working class actors who cannot afford to do those jobs. What can we be doing to help? Putting it simply, we can be making it easier for them. You spoke about a support line, with help to understand taxation and how it works overseas. You also mentioned earlier that most of these European jobs offer per diems, accommodation, and so on, which makes you go, “Oh, great, maybe that is affordable because I am not having to pay rent.” However, sometimes there is taxation on that because countries treat it as a benefit. That is making it harder for working class actors to break into the industry, particularly from graduating. If you have done two or three years out of drama school, it makes you just go, “Do you know what, I’m going to sack it off. I’m going to go do something else.”

Our opera singers are some of our most working class members. You can either sing or you can’t. It does not matter who your dad is. They are actually most reliant on touring between different European houses, and being hired by European-based companies in different houses across Europe to come and sing for them. There is a real dynamic there; some of our most working class members are the most proportionately affected by what has happened.

The general situation as to how we get more working class people into the performing arts is around the outputs from working in this sector. The cost of entry into the sector compared with other professions or the trades is comparably low. There is definitely an issue around access to social capital and how people find their pathways in our sector, but it would be disingenuous to bring more people from working class backgrounds into the arts when there are no sustainable careers for them, where there are not enough opportunities and where wages are not high enough. We are serious about making sure there are long-term sustainable careers for people from working class backgrounds in the arts. It is around making sure that careers pay properly and sustainably, which ensures long-term participation.

Where is live performance in the industrial strategy, for example? How does Arts Council England reform speak to this? What is happening with the decline of regional theatres? We are seeing regional theatres in steep decline. There are 43 on the Theatres Trust theatres at risk register. What we are discussing here is actually part of this wider ecosystem and especially in live performance, which is an ecosystem that is increasingly in decline.

Thank you very much. Can I thank you all for your time and for appearing in front of us today? Are there any final messages that are burning within you that you need to leave with the Committee before we allow you to escape?

I just want to talk about theatre and education, which we have not mentioned today. UK performers were tasked with going and delivering English language theatre education in European schools and other education institutions. It was a huge part of our members’ income and it has been absolutely decimated as a result of the changes. One company, White Horse Theatre, are saying that they have half the work now and, as a result, have reduced their company by half.

I do not think I have anything further to say.

You have landed all your messages—well done.

I just want to thank you, Chair, and the Committee for taking up this important topic of Brexit in your state of play programme.

Thank you very much. Thank you all for your time today. We are now going to take a very short break while we bring in our next panel. Witnesses: Hanna Madalska-Gayer, Naomi Pohl and Kate Nash.

Welcome to our second panel this morning, in which we are going to be looking at the impact of Brexit on musicians and orchestras touring the EU. We are joined by Hanna Madalska-Gayer, who is head of policy and communications at the Association of British Orchestras; Kate Nash, a Brit Award-winning recording artist, musician and actor; and Naomi Pohl, who is the general secretary of the Musicians’ Union. You are all very welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Before we start, Naomi, there is some really complicated terminology associated with the transport and mobility of goods and other things, which people watching at home might be unfamiliar with. Can you give us a one-minute explainer of terms like cabotage, carnet, and CITES, so that we are familiar with all that malarkey before we kick off, please?

Absolutely. In the music industry, we had to get our heads around these words quite quickly; we had never used them prior to Brexit because the rules did not apply to our members. Cabotage rules are about transporting freight around from territory to territory, and they mean that you can make only three stops in the EU before you have to return to the UK. This affects orchestral tours, for example, when they are transporting instruments and equipment. ATA carnets were the stuff of legend when I first started working at the Musicians’ Union because they were something that musicians had to deal with long ago, and now they are back in effect in Europe. Basically, if you are going on tour, you have to list all your equipment in a carnet in order to take it with you. You have to pay for it, and you have to put down a security deposit, which is usually 30% or 40% of the value of the equipment. You do not have to do this if you have a portable instrument; you can take a guitar and an amp on foot or in a van, but large amounts of equipment, such as vans and all the other kit, have to be listed. The convention on international trade in endangered species—CITES—relates particularly to musical instruments that contain elements from protected species such as ivory and rosewood; to transport those, you need a musical instrument certificate. Currently those certificates cost nothing but the Government have been considering introducing a charge, which we are very much against. Economic operators registration and identification, or EORI, numbers are related to merchandise; if you want to sell T-shirts or CDs on tour then you need an EORI number. There are also rules of origin, which are about where the merchandise was made. If you have a T-shirt that was made in China but it was printed up in the UK, the rules of origin say that you must treat it as Chinese merchandise. If you have a T-shirt that is manufactured in the EU, it can freely move around the EU without all the burden of red tape. Other terminology and acronyms might come up but those are the main ones.

Brilliant; thank you for giving us an idiot’s guide to the terminology that we are going to be cantering through in the next 60 minutes. Kate, can I kick off with you? Why are we here? Why are we discussing this? What are the benefits to musicians in being able to tour the EU? Why do you want to do it?

I have a lot to say about this, both on a personal and a professional front. Personally, being able to tour in other countries has helped me develop my skills; professionally, performing in other countries makes you a more dynamic performer. There is a cultural exchange that is really important; it gives me a context for the wider world, and I am able to learn from others in their place of work. British culture has always been at the cutting edge of music. That is never more present than at festivals like Glastonbury; historically, we have been celebrated around the world for our contribution to music. If we have fewer opportunities to tour and profit from touring other countries around the world, including Europe, we are at risk of losing that reputation, that status and that sense of pride in our culture, which will have a knock-on effect on the UK economy. There is a direct link: the more we limit artists in this sense, the more we limit UK culture on a global scale. I see music as a source of joy and I like to spread joy around the world. There is validity to that. I have seen people grow in confidence at shows. I have seen people find community in cities where they may not have their own community. I believe that diversity is a positive thing; becoming more worldly has informed me and made me a smarter, more sensitive, more empathetic person and a better employer. I also see music as work; it is my job. I am a working musician, and touring Europe and growing my fan base there has, in the past, been profitable for me. Now it is much more difficult to make a profit in Europe and in the UK as a touring artist. Touring builds a fan base. When people come to my show and see me as a live artist, whether they were already interested in my music or they have come with a friend, or maybe they have seen me at a festival, that grows me as a live artist but also as a recorded artist: my recorded work is more listened to around the world. So there is a direct link between recorded work and live work, and it is an ecosystem. When we go out and tour we are promoting our recorded music—we are promoting UK culture. I think we could all agree that I have contributed significantly to UK culture. I have won a Brit Award, I have made the Universal company a lot of money and I still make it a lot of money to this day, even though I am not signed to it any more. If I had not toured my first record, “Made of Bricks”, there is no way that impact would have been as significant. I make the streaming companies money, even though my share of the profits, in my opinion, are too low and unethical. These companies are major contributors to the UK economy. The music industry brings in roughly £8 billion a year to the UK economy; if people around the world, including in Europe, cannot see us live and we lose the ability to promote ourselves, those streaming numbers will go down and that will have a negative impact on the UK economy. The ethics of recorded music are relevant because we are paid so unfairly for our recorded music. For a long time, we were told that that was okay because we could make money from touring, but it is now really difficult for us to make money from touring. On my last European tour, I lost around £26,000 and on my last UK tour I lost about £13,000. Six days before the tour in Europe, I had to let go of a crew member. It was around Christmas and I felt terrible about it, but I was doing everything I could to cut costs. As an employer I really dislike doing that because I do not want to do anything to sacrifice the integrity of my show. Having been an artist for 20 years, having the success that I do, having the fan base that I have, selling thousands of tickets and having millions of streams, I am within my rights to protect that integrity. Just to make it really simple: I wish I could fly across the stage like Beyoncé or something but I cannot. If I had the budget, I would. But to me, the integrity of my show comes down to having three band members, a drummer, bassist, guitarist; a sound engineer; a lighting engineer; a tour manager; a guitar tech, who is on stage in case anything goes wrong during the show—that is pretty integral—and a photographer, sometimes. That is it. That caused extreme losses on the road in 2025, which is when I last toured. Music should not be exclusive; it is for all. This becomes an issue of class, race, gender, sexuality and identity because the doors are fast closing on those who can choose to take such a financial risk. That is really real. If a younger, newer artist does not already have disposable income, I do not understand how they would be able to do shows in the UK, let alone shows in Europe. There is a pipeline that we are not really thinking through about the future of UK music and about how we are seen culturally around the world. Going to tour in Europe and having that cultural exchange, developing our talents and skills, is vital; I would not be the artist I am today had I not done 20 years of touring. The only reason it is possible for me to keep doing that, even though I have “Made of Bricks” in my catalogue, is that I sell pictures of my bum on the internet. I started an OnlyFans account during my last touring cycle to get some attention on the issue, which it did—I was in every newspaper in the country—because I and a lot of artists are quite sick of screaming into the void about how difficult it is. I am grateful to be here and to be included in this conversation because I am really, really passionate about what I do. I think music is really important, and I am sure you do as well—most people do. Anything we can do to make it easier to put on shows in Europe will make a significant difference, and I hope that I can help explain what is behind this entire broken ecosystem and why Brexit has also made some things more difficult. If we could find some solutions, that would really be helpful because it is extremely difficult right now for artists.

Thank you for setting it out so beautifully for us. Naomi, can I turn to you? Kate has given us a great description of how opportunities have changed for her personally. Can you quantify how opportunities to tour and earn a living have changed since Brexit for musicians across the board?

I have some stats from a survey of our members in 2024: 75% of respondents who had previously worked in the EU prior to Brexit had seen a decline in their income, with 59% saying that EU touring was no longer viable for them and 54% saying merchandise sales had been affected. Another UK music survey showed that 82% of the musicians who responded had seen their income decrease, so Brexit has had a massive impact on our members. It is not just about touring, although that is a massive part of this. Prior to Brexit, a freelance orchestral musician was sending us postcards from each territory where she worked. There are people who go and pick up one-off gigs or just work for a couple of weeks for an orchestra or an opera company in Europe. They used to be able to do that, and it is very difficult for them now because they might be working across multiple territories doing different gigs for different engagers. So there has been a huge and depressing reduction in that work. In fact, one musician told me last week that an orchestra he used to work for in Europe now says it will not take on people with a UK passport, so it has had a direct impact on him. As Kate mentioned, it is about the talent pipeline as well. If you are a working class band, prior to Brexit you could just sling your gear in the back of a van and take some T-shirts to sell. You did not have to deal with the red tape, you did not have to deal with the extra costs, and you could just go and tour in Europe and build up your audience. Also, if your music is niche but streaming platforms show that it has a really strong following in Germany, for example, you could find your fans and go on tour to see them in person. It is much harder for artists to do that now. As Kate said, it is really hard to tour domestically too, so unfortunately there are lots of downward pressures on our members’ careers.

As I said, I sell pictures of myself on OnlyFans. I chose to do that because it also got a lot of media attention.

I genuinely needed the finances. I was on tour, I was promoting a record and my album had come out that year; I had a north American tour, a European tour, and a UK tour. I would describe touring as being like building, where you are like, “This is how much it is going to cost,” and obviously live events and other things can change the budget as you go. I did not really believe how dire the situation was, but after being on the road for a while and doing the numbers—I had five days off between two tours—I was really stressing about how I was going to pay all my invoices before Christmas. There are all these additional factors and things that come into play because of how much the landscape has changed. I could not get an acting job in five days and shoot something. I was doing my actual job, which is where I am supposed to be earning money and being able to pay for this. I have millions of streams, but it does not add up. This was something I could do quite quickly, make an impact and talk about the problem—and financially it really did help me. I know people who are selling all their instruments, selling things in their homes, selling furniture, picking up second and third jobs—if they can; they might not be able to if they are on tour. I do not know how you could work another job on tour unless it was something like OnlyFans. If you already have a disposable income because of privilege, you are more likely to be able to take the financial hit, but if you do not you cannot go on tour. Sometimes I will be offered a gig in Europe, a festival for example, and I cannot say yes because I will just lose money doing it. I cannot do that all the time.

Yes. I would just add that I do not mind doing red tape and forms. I have to do a lot of red tape in my job and I employ people who are really good at it. Red tape can make a difference if it holds you up on tour; literally, if there is a delay with a carnet, you could miss a show and then miss a complete fee and then the entire tour is in jeopardy. It is not that we do not want to do forms; we are capable of doing them and if not, we employ people who can do them for us. But red tape can affect the entire budget and make a tour even more difficult or impossible, or you are cutting crew members. That is another thing to think about. There are a lot of jobs in this industry besides artists. I employ musicians, sound engineers, lighting engineers; I have a manager, agent, lawyer and accountant. But we are having to cut corners wherever we can: we are letting go of people and thinking about who we can share the profits with. So it is already impacting a lot of jobs and will continue to get worse if we do not find any helpful solutions to make things easier.

It is a huge problem. We had a meeting with a theatre producer who showed us a spreadsheet where they were counting the 90 days in 180 for all the crew as well as the performers. We have heard how Robbie Williams, after 90 days of touring in Europe, had to send his whole crew back to the UK and pick up a second crew to do the rest of the tour, which is just crazy. If you have a gig working on a Robbie Williams tour, you want to be able to do the full tour. You do not want to be in a position where you have to come back and try to find another job halfway through. That is completely crazy. The theatre producer we spoke to said they had told crew members not to take a holiday in Europe because it would potentially impact the 90 days. They are literally counting the days and sending people back when the 90 days are up, so it has definitely reduced opportunities for crew. In the past, US productions would sometimes come to the UK because they could get access not just to the UK but to Europe; they could use UK talent and bring in crew from Europe if they wanted. Obviously, that is not possible now so it makes the UK less attractive as a production destination.

I would echo what Naomi and Kate have expressed. I am speaking on behalf of the Association of British Orchestras; we are talking about large-scale touring with large groups of people, so the costs are multiplied. We have statistics from 2019—pre Brexit—which show that 77% of tours by UK orchestras went to the EU. It is our closest and largest market for orchestras as well as for gigging musicians, but it is being made much more difficult and expensive for us to access. Since January 2021 when Brexit came into force, we have seen an 8% decline in earned income for UK orchestras from touring and we have seen a 9% decline in overseas performances, so it is having a real impact. In terms of the challenges that orchestras are facing, the impact is largely financial and administrative. The good news is that orchestras are doing all they can to tour and keep on the road, and they have done so ever since the early days of Brexit, but continuing to do that is becoming financially unsustainable. Orchestras are managing by looking at fundraising where they can or diverting their sources of income away from other types of activities—community programmes in the UK, for example—so it is having an impact across the board. Touring is not important just for touring’s sake. It is important for UK orchestras for the income and opportunities it unlocks. UK orchestras that tour can also build fundraising bases overseas. They can build their international profile, which is absolutely essential to their national and international standing. I would also mention that, obviously, there is a return for the UK; our orchestras are world leading. We perform a very important soft power and international cultural diplomacy role for the UK and it is important to maintain and invest in that. Finally, touring does not look the same for all UK orchestras; we come in different sizes and scales. We are discussing Brexit but that cannot be looked at in isolation from other macroeconomic, geopolitical and inflationary factors that are impacting touring as well. Yes, there are Brexit-specific solutions, but it is generally much more difficult and expensive to tour. Brexit is just another in a long line of challenges for a sector that is already under very heavy financial pressure.

Before I ask my questions, I need to register my interest as a member of the Musicians’ Union. I want to talk about workers’ mobility within the EU. Naomi, you were just talking about the 90-in-180-days rule, so I will start there. I have a constituent who lost his role working with Anastacia when this came in. He had worked with her for 12 years, and it was devastating for him on every level. He wrote an open letter and went public about this rule, pointing out that European tours are often in Britain as well, so as a member of a band he had lost jobs not just in Europe, but in Britain. That will obviously go for crew as well. Could you go into the 90-in-180-days rule a little more? What does it mean for musicians and crew? What is the difference with the pre-Brexit arrangements, and what impact do you think it will have? If the 90-in-180-days rule was sorted out, would that fix a lot of the problems we face?

The 90-in-180-days rule is to do with Schengen visas. It causes a lot of problems because pre Brexit, musicians could tour freely and go and pick up as many gigs as they wanted in Europe, but it is not the only issue. Visa and work permit rules vary from territory to territory. After Brexit, the industry spent a lot of time researching the rules in different territories, but even now we find musicians come up against having the wrong paperwork for a certain territory and we were not aware that it was a requirement. Once we look into it, sometimes we find that it is just a mistake by a customs official, but it is very complex. If there was one standard rule across all EU territories that would resolve a lot of admin problems. If we could get away from the 90-in-180-days rule, that would be fantastic because we want touring to be subject to as few restrictions as possible. But there are other issues such as carnets, which are really costly, that could be addressed by the UK Government without necessarily needing to renegotiate with Europe. So it is complex, but I would say visa and work permits are definitely at the top of the list of big problems.

Kate, have you had any direct experience of the 90-in-180 days rule, or of crew members or musicians who have been affected by it?

Crew are usually working with multiple artists. I might be promoting my album, but my touring cycle is only so long; it does not necessarily take up the whole year so it is not a full year’s income for a crew member. They will be working with other artists as well and going on multiple tours throughout the year. That can affect who I am able to employ, not because they are not available but because of how many dates in Europe they have already done with other artists. To add to what you were saying about the Robbie Williams tour, it is not just difficult for the crew; it is difficult for the entire show because changing out crew is such a disruption. People have to learn how the tour is working, and they might not be familiar with the equipment or how the band play, how the artist works or what is required on stage. All these delays can add stress and make people more tired and less confident in their work. They are over-stretching themselves and doing jobs that are not necessarily theirs. My guitarist is having to teach new crew members and that is not their job. All that additional time can add up to financial costs that might not be in the budget. It is costly if you need an extra day of rehearsal to get crew used to working with a new band, or if you have to spend time working out problems. Rehearsal rooms have doubled in price. When I played Glastonbury I did a rehearsal and I had already spent my fee before I got to the site.

Thank you for your opening; it was absolutely brilliant and inspirational. As a British artist you are proudly going out and promoting our culture. But if you were in a situation where you had a huge European tour that was looking to last six months, would you employ musicians and crew that had EU passports to get over this hurdle? What would you do? What predicament would you find yourself in?

I have played with my musicians for 12 years; that is quite rare as a solo artist. You see it less and less now because people are saying it is just not affordable. There have been times when I could have cut my band—I could just go with backing tracks—but I have built something I really believe in. We put on an amazing show. I look up to artists like Elton John; when I have seen him live, the relationship he has with his musicians on stage is so amazing and beautiful. That is what I believe in. There is something really special about playing music with people for a long period of time; it is hard to go into it without talking about magic and telepathy, but years and years of playing together and working together—I am sure you have your own experiences of this in a completely different way—mean that you function really well. I am always trying to put that first; it is a personal choice not to sacrifice that integrity. But I do understand that sometimes I could profit more and maybe not go into debt. Right now, I am working on a record exploring my Irish heritage and I am trying to figure out what to do. To really play the record I would have to double the musicians I have on stage, but there is no way I can afford to do that. At the moment, there is no way I can afford to play this record as it is meant to be played. I might not necessarily be looking for band and crew in Europe; I know some artists would, and that is okay because it might be the only way to make it work. With merch, for example, it is cheaper for me to use merchandise companies in Europe because I need merch to make the shows profitable. Sometimes the only profit you are making is from the merch, so being charged on that and being limited on how much merch you can bring in means it is taking business away from the UK. Artists are definitely going to be looking at companies in Europe because otherwise they are just not going to be able to make the tour happen. I am making a financial sacrifice, but it would be cheaper for me to hire my crew and band in Europe. If I did not care about the relationships that I have and the shows that I have built, I would just let go of them and move my business to Europe to make it easier.

Naomi, you were talking about the problems experienced through EU visa rules. Could you say a bit more about what that means in practice?

The problem is that there is no single source of information for explaining what visas and work permits you need for each territory. The UK Government say it is not their role to provide a source of information about different visa and work permit rules for different territories, so the industry has tried to put that together itself. As well as navigating what you need for each territory, there are the associated costs if you have to pay for a visa or a work permit. That has definitely been one of the major hurdles, I would say.

It sounds as if it would be a particular issue for the smaller and medium-sized bands who do not necessarily have the infrastructure around them to sort all that out. With the former panel, we were talking about those stepping stones and building your fan base.

We have always said that the really big artists and tours probably have teams and can find ways to absorb costs. It is difficult for them, but it is even more difficult at a grassroots level if you are trying to deal with it by yourself without any support.

Hanna, you were talking about how orchestras have this problem on a bigger scale. Could you say a bit more about what steps they need to take to comply with EU visa requirements?

When it comes to the 90-in-180-days rule, and visas and work permits, yes, that is an issue and one that we share across the sector. In the early days of Brexit, I had countless calls and emails from touring orchestras that were trying to navigate the 27 different visa systems across the EU member states and within member states; countries such as Germany even have different work permit arrangements depending on the region. So it is incredibly complex, and the onus was very much on the industry to figure it out—for us to get our head around it and produce reliable guidance for our touring orchestras and for our musicians. That was a huge pressure. I would say that now, a few years on, we are just getting on with it. That is not to say it is not something to be resolved, but it is a bigger burden on individual musicians than orchestras themselves. Orchestras will be sorting out a huge amount of admin and paperwork around carnets and trucks and planning the tours and so on to make them as lean as possible, but the actual visas and work permits and whether someone is within their 90-in-180-days limit is something that the musicians and players themselves will be managing. I would say the impact is probably more on soloists or opera singers, which I think the earlier panel also talked about. Where orchestras can feel the impact on tour is that the UK is now treated as a third country, so when we land in European airports we are stuck in endless queues to get through passport control. Even a delay of one hour spent in a passport queue can make a huge impact on rehearsal times, arriving at the venue and getting set up, and the level of stress musicians might be feeling and how tired they are after travel. Post-Brexit touring schedules are much leaner and we have to be much more economical with time, so there is a knock-on effect in different ways. In terms of actual cost, however, orchestras do not carry that cost themselves. Your question is about the mobility of people, but for the record, I would say that the major issue for orchestras is with trucks.

Naomi, can I take you back to what you said about the lack of a single source of information? If that was to be provided, what would it look like? Who would do it? Does the music industry not offer that financial and practical and advisory support to artists and individuals who want to tour in the UK? To what extent should the Government be offering that information? What would that look like?

Initially, we wanted the Government to have an information hub; we have also been calling for a centralised export office. Export offices have sprung up around the UK but they play different roles. Some are more about funding showcases for artists rather than doing the practical stuff. The industry has tried to pull the information together but there is a risk that if we supply information to somebody and we get it wrong, that will have a massive impact on their touring, so it is a difficult thing to do. We are not experts on the visa regimes in every territory in Europe, although we have had to become experts, in a way; my colleague behind me, Dave, has had a very focused role since Brexit dealing with all the queries we get from musicians. We have produced a flowchart so we can say to musicians, “If you are touring, do you have this piece of paperwork? Do you have an instrument that contains material from a protected species? Then you need this additional piece of paper.” We do provide a lot of guidance, but it would be helpful if there was one hub or an export office with people who could pick up the phone and help.

Am I right in thinking that there are countries or territories that have that facility, like an export hub or an advisory office?

That is right; I think Canada and Australia do and, as a result, their music industries have been boosted because they are doing a really good job of exporting talent and supporting talent to go out and tour.

I seem to recall that as well.

Can I add that the music industry—through its actions and refusal to act—has shown that it is not going to help? There is a lot that people have been asking the industry to do to help musicians, but the major companies profiting the most from our work do not come to the table. So to answer your question about whether the industry will help, in my opinion the answer is no. It refuses to help on many issues that we have already been asking it for help with.

Do you think it should?

It should help in lots of ways. Live Nation, Spotify and the major labels are responsible for a lot, if not all, of the problems going on in the industry. They have been very destructive to artists and artists’ lives and the future of potential young, new artists even being able to have the dream of having a career in the music industry. They will not do it voluntarily but we are being asked to take all the risk and then they are sharing in the majority of the profit in quite extreme and unethical ways. When I talk to people in other industries about how the music industry works, they are often quite shocked. We need to point the floodlights at these major companies that profit from us and refuse to help.

Do you think there is more the Government could do to bring that to a head and bring about a different set of solutions?

Yes, I do.

What would that look like?

If we are talking specifically about Brexit, there are simple things that we have probably already covered such as merch costs and carnets and processing times. But in terms of the wider systemic problem, I would love to get back to you with serious details of what could help because I feel this is an entirely broken ecosystem. I do not know any artist who has not experienced financial exploitation and unethical behaviour. We do not have watchdogs. We do not have HR departments. The people who are there to help us are usually the ones who are hurting us, to be honest, apart from external bodies such as the Music Venue Trust and the FAC, which are actually trying to make a difference. None of it is coming from the major companies that are making all the money.

I have some questions I want to move on to, but that is really interesting. You mentioned Live Nation and Spotify, which are very different parts of the industry. Who could co-ordinate that? Could you get the three big record companies to try to pull everybody together to give advice and support to artists?

It would have to be forced because they do not do that. I do not know why they are not helping artists earn money and have careers and tour, or why artists eat all the risk, but I would love to see them become responsible and actually create an environment for artists to flourish—creating opportunities and nurturing the industry, not destroying it. Could there be specific grants that they contribute to? They should be forced to share a split of their profits with grassroots venues for independent artists, or even just to pay people fairly to begin with. They are separate companies and they do separate things, but they are very much linked—all of them.

Do you mind if I briefly comment on that? Record labels used to provide more in terms of tour support for artists, which is a really invaluable investment. It used to be the case that you would go on tour to promote the recording because the recording would make money. Now artists are not making money from their recorded music so live music has to play a bigger part in sustaining their careers. It is becoming more difficult to do that with the cost of touring, so it is getting harder and harder for artists to make a living.

I was actually going to ask about the dreaded carnets, which is my topic. I will start with you, Hanna, because you talked about how carnets and CITES are maybe the biggest problems for orchestras. We are just trying to get a picture of how these problems affect tour budgets and scheduling. How does it work for a big orchestra?

Obviously, carnets—which are essentially passports for instruments—were not needed pre Brexit. Now that we are treated as a third country, we have to have them, and orchestras are having to employ extra administrative staff to process carnets in preparing and planning for a tour. Carnets can be up to £10,000 of additional cost per tour. The processing of that admin for our closest market, our next-door neighbours, has been compared with the preparation for a tour to Asia or to the US. We should not have to carry that financial burden. As I say, tours can really vary in shape and size, but the figures we have had from a range of our member orchestras are showing additional costs of around £5,000 to £25,000 per tour on a range of these different elements, including carnets. Cabotage adds a whole separate part, which I am very keen to talk about at some point. We will circle back. But in terms of the carnets, we are feeling a real-term impact.

In terms of the scheduling, some big orchestras have their own trucks to carry their musicians’ equipment. How does that work? Is there a lengthy process for inspecting those trucks that you then have to build into the schedule?

Many orchestras will have specialised trucks operated on what is called own-account; under the TCA, these are not exempt from the cabotage rules. These trucks are often taxpayer-funded, or publicly subsidised. They are specially built to be able to transport high-value instruments worth between £4 million and £10 million and will include temperature controls, humidity controls, special brackets and cushioning. Often they are driven by stage managers who are also specialists in knowing how to handle very expensive, very delicate instruments and how to set them up on stage. Because of the cabotage rules, these trucks, which are UK registered, are sitting in the UK and not being used. Instead, orchestras are having to hire EU hauliers with EU plates, and that adds a significant cost, maybe up to £16,000 a day on tour. It is not just about the cost of the truck. There are knock-on effects: orchestras are waiting for trucks and not using their own; they are subjected to different checks and stops; they are having to factor in costs for musicians and players who need extra nights for waiting time or whatever it may be. It all adds up. It is not economical, it does not make sense in terms of the investment that has been made, and it has an environmental impact. In terms of tour planning, orchestras are now operating much leaner budgets, including using one truck instead of two, which affects the routing. A challenge that we found in the early days of Brexit was that there are problems with the availability of these specialised trucks in Europe. This was a real concern across the industry, not just for orchestras but for the rock and pop world as well, with which we collaborate really closely. The UK actually has a much richer supply of these specialists, so the impact is quite wide.

Kate and Naomi, you both mentioned the issue of border checks and delays. Could you give us an indication of how big that problem is?

I guess I can speak to how hard it is to build in an extra day for additional travel if you are held up. To put two travel days into a tour if you do not need them adds thousands. If there are, say, 10 members of crew, I am paying their wages for the day plus the cost of an additional driver and the bus rental. If you are in a van, there are hotel costs. The costs for these things have really gone up as well. If you are in a van, you might be asked to get up at 4 am and get out of the vehicle because things have to be searched; that can affect people’s wellbeing and their ability to do their job. It causes quite a bit of disruption. The worst case scenario is that you are held up so much that you miss the show. I have seen that happen to bands before.

How often do those delays and issues happen?

We have a lot of examples. One of our members recently contacted us to say that he was taking some merchandise with him on tour. He had the EORI number I mentioned earlier and he had completed an online customs declaration. That was all we thought he needed but he was stopped, held for two hours in customs and fined €600 because apparently he did not have a piece of paperwork that was specifically required for France. We looked into it afterwards and we think it was an error so we are going to try to get the money back for him, but obviously it was distressing, and it delayed him getting to the venue and being able to perform, not to mention having to suddenly stump up €600. We had another travelling member who was asked for proof of ownership of their instrument—proof of purchase—which they did not have with them. Again, you should not need to have that. It is one thing thinking that you understand what the rules are, but it is another thing on the ground if a customs official wants to ask a difficult question and you do not have a piece of paperwork because you did not think you needed it.

Kate, you mentioned that you now source merchandise in Europe for your tours, is that right? Is that something that a lot of musicians are doing? We just want to get an indication of the problems that the merch rules cause for musicians.

If you are bringing your own merch from the UK, there is a limit on how much you can bring in. As I said, merch can literally make or break a tour; it can stop it going into the red and enable you to profit. Obviously you cannot quantify or know exactly how much merch you are going to sell but you can have an idea, especially if you have done a lot of touring. The limitations on how much you can bring in from the UK mean that, yes, you are taking another financial risk. If you can find a company in Europe that is not a UK company, and you can get it delivered, that will mean you can go on the tour. Otherwise, you might not.

That plays into the idea that some artists are now just not touring the EU because of these problems.

I have heard people say, “What’s the point?” It is supposed to be our job. We love it and it is a passion and it is really fun and whatever, but it is also work and it is our job and we are supposed to earn from it, somewhere.

Naomi, you said earlier that the issue of carnets could be resolved by the Government without a whole new negotiation. Why have we not done that? Why are we not doing that?

I have a great list of things that we could do unilaterally. There are two elements to this: we have had a lot of engagement with the Government about this issue and we are having regular meetings with DCMS officials; we have met with Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds to talk about it. We know that there is a will on both sides to try to resolve the issues, but it is a negotiation. There is probably going to have to be a package that is of mutual benefit, but we could potentially make some improvements ourselves. For example, carnet costs are obviously a big challenge but the UK Government could speak to the London Chamber of Commerce and try to negotiate the carnet fees down. This is something we did not have to do before and it is actually very expensive, so it is a money-making exercise to a certain extent. That is something we could tackle. We could also look at making St Pancras a port for CITES because if you are carrying an instrument that contains an endangered species like ivory you have to go to a CITES port and have your musical instrument certificate stamped. I understand one of the problems with St Pancras is that it does not have enough storage space, so another option would be to look at Ashford in Kent, for example. It is just about exploring potential options that might make things easier without necessarily having to renegotiate. Another proposal is to rejoin the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, which is to do with the rules of origin. As I mentioned before, a T-shirt manufactured in the EU can be moved around the EU without the admin burden, so it simplifies trade. That is potentially a group we could join that would make things easier. We can send a detailed briefing on this. One other problem is with A1 forms: there is a huge backlog with HMRC, and putting more resource into getting those processed quickly would make a huge difference to our members.

Are you confident the Government are engaging properly on this and trying to make the changes that you are proposing?

I believe the will is there; we are doing a lot of work at the moment on cultural exchange, working with organisations in the UK representing different art forms, and organisations in Europe as well. A common understanding was reached that talked about trying to resolve these problems, but we have had no concrete changes yet. That is what we are looking for, but they are engaging with us. There is a view that this is a one-sided problem because it affects us more than it affects EU territories. However, we talked to the independent festival sector and it said it is booking fewer EU artists, so we have evidence that it is not just a one-sided problem. Obviously we want to facilitate cultural exchanges, which should benefit both sides.

I am really pleased Naomi name-checked so many of those issues that we agree need to be resolved and that can be resolved in the UK. Whether that is processing A1s or looking at carnets, they are not dependent on EU TCA renegotiation. An orchestra-specific issue, which could be addressed unilaterally by the UK, is looking at the reversal of the policy change on orchestra tax relief. Orchestras can no longer claim for a number of their EU touring costs and that is having an impact of up to £400,000 for some UK orchestras, so it is really significant. The money that is made from touring is directly reinvested back in the UK and supports UK activity, so it is critical that orchestras are able to access as much of that support as possible. Another issue I want to mention is that of withholding tax; the earlier panel may have touched on it. It is having a cash-flow impact—one of our member orchestras has been waiting two years for £250,000 from a particular tour—and it is something that could be looked at bilaterally with EU member states. Again, it is not necessarily reliant on EU renegotiation. So these are things that could be looked at. Because we are running out of time and as we are talking about solutions, I just want to emphasise that resolving the cabotage issue for orchestras in the lead-up to the 2026 TCA review or the next UK-EU summit would be transformative, even if it is a temporary solution and not a permanent one.

I was just going to come on to cabotage. I do not know if there is anything more you want to say about the problems it causes; you have already touched on that, but you talked about temporary solutions. Are there workarounds that can be put in place to make that happen?

The workarounds are already in place. Using EU hauliers is incredibly expensive, not sustainable and does not make sense when UK orchestras own their own trucks. There are already precedents in international trade legal frameworks and within the EU that exempt own-account and cabotage transport by cultural organisations from these limitations; it is unclear why they were not included within the TCA. The common thinking is that it was just an oversight and there is no reason for it to be this way, but we appreciate that it is difficult. The feedback we are given by officials is that it is about making the case around the mutual benefit to the EU, so we could use support in terms of making that case, including data about how this is mutually beneficial. This is why we have collaborated very closely across the music sector and the wider creative industries in forming the Cultural Exchange Coalition and looking to encourage EU voices to the table to help recognise those benefits; ultimately cabotage will have to be looked at in that context.

Presumably, Naomi, you deal with the European equivalent to the Musicians’ Union; can you get it to come to the table and talk about the mutual benefits of sorting this problem out?

We have been engaging with it. Part of the intention of the Cultural Exchange Coalition is to work with people on both sides, to illustrate that there are problems and that there is very much a will to address this and find solutions.

How much cost does it add on to a tour? I suppose it is different for an orchestra and for a band, but at what point does it become unviable just because of cabotage?

I mentioned the cost of £16,000 per day, which is obviously not sustainable. An EU haulier can cost around £30,000 per tour, and a tour would normally, pre Brexit, make a surplus of up to £100,000. So obviously these figures eat significantly into that surplus. But as I have said, UK orchestras are on the road and we are making sure that we are staying on the road because that is important to us financially and artistically; in terms of our international profile, we have to continue to make it happen. I cannot give you a figure as to the cliff edge—the point where we stop touring—because that is obviously not where we want to get to. At the moment, we are using all our possible resources to avoid that, and absorbing the costs where we can. But as I say, that involves diverting investment from other activities that might be taking place in the UK. The point to make is that costs are rising—whether because of Brexit, the continuing impact of covid, or other macroeconomic and geopolitical factors—but promoters’ fees are not rising. Ultimately, these costs are being absorbed by the orchestras, and it is particularly challenging for touring orchestras that do not receive any public subsidy.

Naomi, you said that the carnets are paid to the London Chamber of Commerce.

Yes.

That is so odd, is it not? Why? And why does it charge so much?

There are a couple of different carnet providers. Early on, we negotiated a small discount on carnets for our members. Basically, you have to pay a security deposit which, as I said earlier, I think is 30% to 40% of the value of your instruments and equipment, and there is a cost to get the carnet itself. Digital carnets are being introduced, which sounds positive, but I understand that with a digital carnet, if you break a piece of equipment on tour and you have to replace it, you have to apply for the carnet again from scratch and pay again. It is a massive burden, and I believe that the providers could potentially bring the cost down.

Do you know if those conversations have taken place?

Not between anyone from the Government and the providers, I do not think. We have had multiple meetings with the providers.

Who are the providers? Insurance companies, presumably?

There is the London Chamber of Commerce, and there is a carnet provider—Dave will know; I can give you the details. [Interruption.] Boomerang.

Rock-it is another one.

Interesting. Thank you very much. We need to follow that up.

Thank you to the three of you. I have had “Foundations” in my head the whole day, but it is a good earworm to have. I have two constituents from both your sectors who email me a lot on this: Tasmin Little, a classical musician; and James McVey from The Vamps. In covid, I remember we had a Zoom and everyone was saying all these doom and gloom things were going to happen post Brexit. Covid was a big blow as it was, and from what you are saying it sounds like this nightmarish bureaucratic landscape has all come to pass. I want to ask about collaboration. In her email to me, Tasmin Little says, “Musicians need to be able to travel last minute for cancellations without worrying about carnets and visas, and we need to make it easier for international musicians to come here too.” I am of an age where I remember things such as Blur and Françoise Hardy doing a duet, and Saint Etienne and Étienne Daho. Naomi, you mentioned cultural exchange. Are all three of you finding that these cross-country collaborations are dying because of all this?

I would say they are very possible if you are on a major label, but outside that, if you are an independent artist, it is a lot more difficult.

With all these things, it is the little guys who are being hit hardest.

Potentially, you could be the future big guys.

Yes, that is true. You are choking off the talent stream that would have grown.

Part of our work with the Cultural Exchange Coalition is to try to highlight examples of brilliant projects that are happening in spite of all the problems. For example, lots of artists, orchestras, soloists and conductors come over for the Proms. It could be a lot easier if we were still part of the EU, so it has got a bit harder. The Proms is quite a major operation. Cultural exchange happens on a major scale like that between organisations, but it is the really small-scale stuff that I mentioned earlier—for example, a freelance orchestral musician being able to go and play with an orchestra in Europe, get that experience, sit next to somebody different, learn in that environment and play for a different conductor. All that helps to build careers, especially if you are an emerging talent. It is that kind of thing that we are really missing out on.

From orchestras’ perspective, I would not say cultural partnerships are dropping off. There is a huge demand for UK orchestras and collaborations in Europe because we are world leading. We are seen as innovative in terms of not only what we present artistically, but how we operate as organisations in terms of our policies around developing talent, community engagement, education and the environment. UK orchestras are actually leading the way in a lot of those areas and, as a result, European partners want to work with us. What is dropping off, and what is much more difficult, is the shorter-term opportunities, although tours are obviously planned in the long term. We do not operate like gigging musicians; we will not just jump in a truck and head over to France, but pre Brexit we would have completed much shorter tours, for example, of just two or three dates or two or three venues and come back to the UK. Now we have to pack in many more dates for a longer tour, which adds a lot of pressure across the board on the orchestra, players and crew. That is what we have seen drop off, not necessarily the demand or the actual appetite for the cultural exchange.

I would add that it probably also really impacts support slots for artists who are offered a support tour, or being able to bring someone on the road. If you are not the headlining act, you are not paid anywhere near as much, but it can be a great opportunity to tap into somebody else’s audience. I would imagine it is probably impossible to go to Europe from the UK on a support slot because you do not know how much money you would need to make that work. I have offered support slots to people where we have had them travel with us and that is how it can be possible, but then they are just doing it completely on their own, and it would be impossible otherwise for them to do it.

Historically, there are lots of examples of people who came as the support and, by the end of the tour became bigger than the main act—for example, the Pixies and people such as them.

It has definitely impacted bands being able to go on the road together because I just do not know how it would be possible for the support act to eat, pay for somewhere to sleep, and do what you need to do to make the show happen.

I was just reminded of the example of Trigger Cut, a German punk band who were all over the news a couple of years ago. They were stopped at the border and sent packing even though they had sold out a tour because they did not realise they needed a bit of paper that every venue had to send. Is that kind of thing lessening now there is more awareness of this nightmarish jungle of paperwork, or is that still happening?

The reason that it is seen as a one-sided issue is because if you are coming from the EU, you are obviously just dealing with one set of rules. The permitted paid engagement route for gigs is quite simple, but they probably had to have some evidence of the engagement, basically from each venue. Obviously, our members would have to do that as well if they were applying for visas in different territories. The problem is there is probably still a lack of awareness among grassroots musicians about exactly what they need in some circumstances.

On this idea of it being a one-sided issue when it is actually mutually annoying for everyone, what are the incentives for EU member states to get behind an EU-UK agreement for touring artists? We are always told they want to punish us. Is that true?

That is not the impression we have. We actually met a joint parliamentary group of MEPs and MPs where the issue was well understood. They were really receptive to talking to us, and they were very keen to see the issues addressed. As I said before, it is part of a negotiation so it is going to have to be part of a package. Presumably there is going to have to be something in it for the EU side as well, but cultural exchange has value to both sides. If you think about all the impacts of taking a band on tour and—as Kate said, artists are massive employers of crew and musicians—reaching an audience there, including paying for hotel accommodation and buying food, all the surrounding businesses benefit from that. Restaurants close to the venue will benefit from that. Potentially, you have UK audience members travelling to watch the gig and they are going to be tourists. Just making it work for both sides is mutually beneficial, and that is an argument we are really keen to get across.

Is it true the majority of trucking companies that service these are British? I heard that somewhere.

UK trucking companies are specialists, and there are more of these specialist trucks here than in Europe. Some have registered themselves, and they are operating both in the EU and the UK. That is not something that UK orchestras can take advantage of. That has been a workaround that has been found by the road haulage industry but, largely where orchestras are concerned, we need to be able to use our own trucks.

When the Beatles played Hamburg, was that pre EU?

1961.

Yes; because some of the most vehement people, such as Roger Daltrey, are the biggest Brexiteers and they are saying, “It’s fine. It was fine before,” but that was a totally different legislative landscape, right?

Let us say that for most musicians, this is definitely a big issue for them. Elton John has spoken out about this. Even though his tour can probably manage the additional costs and admin, it is still just seen as a massive retrograde step for the industry. I said carnets used to be the stuff of legend, but now we are in a situation where they are back, we are having to deal with them and we are having to pay for them again.

Hanna, how proactively are music sector organisations such as yourselves petitioning our Government and the EU Governments?

Very—since the Brexit referendum, the creative industries as a whole and the music industry in particular have been incredibly active and engaged. What has been working is that we work very closely together; we are coming together by art form and music genre. The Cultural Exchange Coalition is not just a music industry initiative; it represents dancers, theatre and visual arts. It is a cross-creative industries initiative. We are very practical; we are proposing a lot of solutions. I have colleagues in the sector who have employed barristers to propose visa waiver solutions to the Government. I feel we are already doing all we humanly possibly can. The sector is already under a lot of pressure in terms of the resources that we have available to pour into this, but we are absolutely committed to working together with the UK Government, the EU and member state policymakers to find solutions to this. It bears recognition that we are obviously apolitical, but since the change in Government, we have seen a change in engagement on this with the sector. It is worth recognising that the arts Ministers have been more personally engaged, and officials are working really hard with us on this. There is still a clear disconnect, though, in terms of what is happening between the Government’s commitment to resolving this, which has been communicated in their manifesto, in the creative industries sector plan and at the last UK-EU summit. There is a clear statement of commitment, but there is a disconnect across Government Departments; this was touched on in the earlier panel. On the one hand, we are trying to resolve touring barriers but on the other we are, for example, looking at consultations where new fees might be applied to musical instrument certificates; A1 forms are not being properly processed; and there are changes to cultural tax reliefs that make it more expensive for us to tour. There are things that probably need to better connect in terms of the commitment and what is actually happening in reality.

Just from the artist’s perspective I would like to add that we are completely desperate at this point. I think most artists feel similarly: there is a broken core of the music industry. Anything that can be done to make it easier and more financially viable helps. Improving processing times on A1 forms, reducing carnet costs, being able to relax the rules or increase limits regarding movement of merchandise are all really helpful because we need all the help that we can get in a basically unregulated industry that is, in my opinion, exploitative. Music is work. We really need to start to see it as work. Why do we not have a fair wages Act? Why are we not auditing and investigating these companies that practise things that I think are unethical in comparison with other industry standards? As artists, we are desperate, and any help that the Government are willing to give us would be great.

Someone is taking heed because we are doing a UK-EU reset.

The Government need to put their money where their mouth is. Excellent.

I think I have the final bit on the solutions focus. I know you have already touched on a lot of different solutions at different times, so do not feel the need to repeat any of that. You were talking about the issue of class and saying that the changes have had a big impact in terms of working class people coming through. When I asked a similar question of the previous panel about the reduction in the number of working class people working in the creative industries, and whether the impact of Brexit on touring and so on had had an impact on working class numbers, they said, “Not really.” Kate, I think you were saying something else and it would be interesting to hear from everybody on this. What can we do to get more working class people into the industry?

The problems domestically are impacting the problems in the rest of the world. I hope I have expressed how these are really interconnected and have a knock-on effect on each other. As I was saying, someone from a working class background with no disposable income would not be able support themselves financially to make a show in London happen, let alone a tour domestically or shows in Europe, because they might not have £600. They might not have money saved to be able to pay for a carnet. Working class people with no disposable income, no support financially from an OnlyFans or whatever it is, are not going to be able to play shows in Europe. They are not necessarily going to be able to play shows here. I hope that answers the first part of the question. I do not know why you would want to have a career in the music industry, apart from that you love music. I think it is the best job in the world and I love what I do, but it is impossible. I do not know how Kate Nash would start a career now if I worked in Nando’s, my mum was a nurse, and I had no connections and no financial support from parents. I really do not know how I would be able to do it. I do not think I would have been able to have the career that I have if I was starting now. Like I said, anything that we can do to make getting to Europe easier would be great, but we also need to look at domestically. These companies that I keep banging on about make millions out of artists and make it impossible for them to have future careers. It is going to happen that these artists are not going to exist. I do not know what Glastonbury will look like in 20 years if we carry on like this. I do not know if it is going to be that interesting. Maybe there will be more interesting worldwide and European acts, but I do not know what will happen to UK culture if we close the doors on making it accessible. It is so wrong. I feel really emotional about it because it is so wrong; it is such a letdown. They are exploiting people off of the work musicians and artists are doing. They never get involved in the conversation, never care, are never willing to move at all on anything, not even being transparent about the deals they have made—the majors and the streamers—they point the finger at and blame each other all the time. They are both responsible; they are both massively responsible. Live Nation makes enough money to be able to financially contribute and it should be forced to financially contribute. I do not actually want it running it because I do not trust it, but it should financially contribute to making an environment that working class kids could go, “Oh, I can see a future here,” because I can tell you they cannot see a future right now. It is just not possible. That is why I am saying we are desperate because I have seen those doors closing. Sorry for the desperation; I just genuinely feel it.

It is really good. You are saying that this was not the case years ago, but things are just so much worse now.

Yes. I hate it when I am asked in interviews, “What’s your advice to young people?” I am like, “It’s way worse now.” Why is it worse now? It should be better. There could be so many opportunities. It really should be better. I should not be feeling this because if things were different, it would be amazing right now to be a young up-and-coming artist with how much could potentially be at your fingertips. The exposure, the connection with fans, the way that you are able to build things could be so much better. It is not that, “Oh, it’s over and boohoo, there’s nothing we can do.” No, there are things that we can do and people need to start taking responsibility. The people who are profiting need to start taking responsibility and anything that you guys can do to make it easier financially across Europe and domestically would help, but it is not a simple solution. It is a massive letdown to the entire country. We hold ourselves as this barometer of cool and culture. It is going to be gone. It is going to go away if we do not do something.

More widely on that, are there any other solutions that people want to feed in to make sure that we are not missing anything? Your expertise and passion are really powerful.

The Committee did a great study into music streaming and made great recommendations. It would be lovely to follow up on that another time because I could talk about that in a lot of detail, and I would love to. There are a couple of solutions potentially for the EU touring issue. We think a document came out of the European Commission in the last week saying that it is actually considering a visa waiver and looking at how it could make touring easier. That is a fantastic development and we hope it will pursue that with perhaps a bit of additional pressure from the UK. Another solution could be a touring visa which could be applied for—possibly paid for but hopefully with a very reasonable fee—and evidenced by a contract if you were attached to a specific tour. If you are playing with Kate on a tour, you could evidence that you are contracted by Kate for a certain period of time and then you could hopefully get past the 90-day limit because you are attached to a particular tour and it can be evidenced. That would be fantastic because that would open up a lot more opportunities and resolve the issue of crew having to come back after 90 days.

I think most of the solutions have been mentioned so I will not take up time mentioning them again, but I have to emphasise again that resolving cabotage would be absolutely transformative for UK orchestras in reducing the costs and administrative burden that we are carrying. You also asked a question about access and how we build that. This is bigger than just touring, and looking at how we are investing in the performing arts and in UK culture is all part of that picture. How are we investing in music education? How are we investing in the regional infrastructure for touring organisations, venues and orchestras across the country? What I would encourage is to look at the knock-on effects this is having across the cultural industry and the creative industries in a big picture way. As I mentioned before, there is a return on investment in this. We are part of the creative industries; it is identified as one of the Government’s eight growth sectors. Music and the performing arts are identified as a frontier sector with exceptional growth potential. The case has been made. It is just about addressing those policy areas that can help support performing arts organisations in the music industry in the range of activities that we are involved in, including touring.

Hanna, we heard yesterday that UK Ministers met with the EU trade commissioner to discuss the UK-EU reset, as they are calling it. This makes this session rather timely. We have a tendency to have a bit of a Mystic Meg moment. Do you think improving cultural exchange is high enough on the Government’s agenda when they have these kinds of talks?

It is hard to say. Clearly, a commitment was made to improve touring arrangements at the last UK-EU summit in London. That a commitment was made as part of those talks is very welcome and really encouraging. Clearly there is a Government commitment. What would be helpful to understand is where the blockage is. Why are we not making more progress? We have been making the same arguments for the last—I do not know how many—six years, perhaps. Yet we are still talking about the same challenges that we had during the referendum. It is about finding the solution to that. What is the blockage? Despite all our engagement with Government and the very candid conversations we have with officials and Ministers, it is still not very clear to me. The commitment is there, but clearly there is something that we are unable to overcome.

Naomi, if there fails to be an agreement between the UK and the EU, is there anything that the UK Government could unilaterally do to make this situation better?

Definitely. The impression we get from the European side is that it does not want to reopen the TCA because it still sees it as being a relatively new trade agreement. However, there is definitely an opportunity for a side agreement around some issues that have been created by us being outside the EU. We have mentioned some issues around A1 forms, such as HMRC having more resources and prioritising them, as well as making sure we get the processing times down. It is also about making sure we do not introduce fees for musical instrument certificates, which would create new barriers rather than removing barriers; trying to get the carnet fees down; and looking at the CITES ports and whether we could have St Pancras or Ashford as a designated port, which would make it much easier for our members.

Can I add to that list? It is also about looking at how cultural tax reliefs can incentivise international touring.

Yes. I have made a note of orchestra tax relief. Thank you for your time today, and particularly for your engagement and the passion with which you present it. If you have one final message for us to pass on to the Government on your behalf, what would it be?

One final message: this is a problem that is worth solving. There is a return on this investment and there are practical solutions.

The music industry is actually bigger than the fishing industry in terms of economic value to the UK, but you would not know that when you hear the content of the negotiations. This issue is a manifesto commitment; it has to be prioritised in the negotiations. For example, we have talked about youth mobility; we know the EU wants that. When we are agreeing things with the EU, we have to make sure we get this issue resolved as part of the package.

Just to agree with you guys. It is to take seriously the people who are making all the money—the artists and the musicians. We do not earn all the money, but we make it possible for people to earn that money. If we can profit from our work, we can contribute more and the ecosystem could flourish.

Thank you all for your time today. Great to see you.