|
Clause 51
Application for a review of premises licence
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 225, in
clause 51, page 30, line 21, at end insert—
'(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the chief officer of police for the police area in which any premises are situated must apply for a review of the premises licence for those premises if he is aware that there is being, or had been, carried on at those premises the sale, letting for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings,
Column Number: 301
films, broadcasts or cable programmes in circumstances which amount to an infringement of copyright for the purposes of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48).
(1B) In subsection (1A) ''sound recordings'', ''films'', ''broadcasts'' and ''cable programmes'' have the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48) (copyright).'.
The amendment is intended to protect the copyright laws and all those who have an interest in maintaining the proper and lawful methods of acquiring copyright material. Those who pirate music or films, or unlawfully access signals, harm the industries and the businesses that have lawfully gained the permission of the rights holders. The amendment would give the police extra powers to enforce the review of a licence if they knew that a breach of copyright had taken place. It would also further protect the personal licence holder and the designated premises supervisor by guiding them to obtain the necessary and proper permission for the use of copyright material, thereby avoiding potential prosecution.
The funds gained from producing and distributing pirated material often finance the further production of illegal material, and may fund other criminal activity. Those who allow pirated material to be used on their premises fail to understand the consequences and the seriousness of thieving intellectual property rights and the harm that that causes for their business, the right owners and the state, through lost tax revenues. Copyright theft is already a massive problem and we should be seeking to prevent it through legislation, such as the Bill, which gives us the opportunity to address the relevant issues. The amendment would remove the temptation to use pirated materials, and would make clear the consequences of such actions. Although the Opposition seek in principle to support a deregulatory Bill, the amendment is needed to close any gaps and to protect businesses in an industry that is suffering from a growing problem.
The amendment further seeks to raise the awareness of the public and licence holders of the seriousness of intellectual property theft, its effects on the economy and the consequences of such actions. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 may no longer be sufficient to tackle a problem that is increasing throughout the world.
Many interested parties have a vested interest in protecting their rights under copyright laws, and in a Bill that could have a massive impact on the problems they are already facing, the Government must recognise those.
Dr. Howells: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter; he knows that I feel strongly about the threat to our economy from IPR theft. This is an important issue. Our economy depends a great deal on creative industries, and the stealing of rights throughout the world is a serious matter. For all that, I cannot accept the amendment.
The amendment would make it compulsory for the chief officer of police to apply for the review of a premises licence in any instance where the sale, letting
Column Number: 302
for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes infringed copyright under the 1988 Act. The Bill contains no provision to compel interested parties or responsible authorities, such as the police, to apply for a review if an offence is committed on premises. The Bill rightly provides discretion for those authorities to decide for themselves when and in what circumstances to apply for a review.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's description of the situation, and he has done us a service in bringing it to the attention of hon. Members. This is a serious crime. However, it would make no sense to remove the discretion to take the action that I have just mentioned. It would make even less sense if the police were compelled to apply for a review following an infringement of the 1988 Act when they are not compelled to do so for other more serious offences, such as those involving violence. The purpose of the review provisions in the Bill is to confer a right to request a review on interested parties and responsible authorities; it does not impose a statutory duty to do so.
If the amendment were accepted, although licensed premises at which fights regularly broke out might or might not be subject to review, the premises licence of a licensee who played one musical track to his customers for which he did not have the necessary permission would automatically be reviewed if the fact were made known to the police. I dare say that no one is more concerned about the theft of intellectual property that I am, but we have to put the matter in context. The Government take copyright infringement very seriously, and we have every sympathy with those affected by it.
Provided that the grounds for a review are relevant to the licensing objectives, are not frivolous, vexatious or repetitious, and are made by an interested party, the Bill does not restrict the range of concerns that may give rise to interested parties and responsible authorities applying for a review. A local cinema, for example, might make an application for licensed premises in the area, and might show films without having the necessary permission.
We have also reacted to industry concerns by amending the Bill to make certain offences under the 1988 Act relevant offences for the purposes of the Bill. Applicants for personal licences will be subject to review if they have committed any of those offences. That is an important modification. If an applicant has committed one of the offences, the licensing authority will be required to notify the chief officer of police. If he is satisfied that the granting of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective, he must issue an objection notice. That would lead to a hearing at which the licensing authority would decide whether to grant an application or to reject it, if it believed that that was necessary to promote the crime prevention objective.
A personal licence holder who committed a relevant offence could have their licence suspended or forfeited. The amendment that the Government made underlines how seriously we take the issue, and will ensure that those who wish to be personal licence holders under
Column Number: 303
the new regime will be subject to appropriate scrutiny. Also, my officials are in discussion with the trade associations in the creative industry sector that are particularly concerned about the issue, such as the Cinema Exhibitors Association.
I do not think that amendment No. 225 is necessary, given the amendment made by the Government, which made a number of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 offences relevant offences under the Bill. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing it.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. Perhaps he could enlighten the Committee by pointing out, without going through every detail, where in the Bill it says that on application for a personal licence, offences under the 1988 Act would have to be disclosed? That would be of help. If he cannot do that right away—
Dr. Howells: It is in schedule 4.
Mr. Moss: With all due respect, schedule 4 is quite large. Could we be told which line, please?
Dr. Howells: Sorry, it is schedule 4, paragraph 12.
Mr. Moss: That is still not terribly specific, but we will take the Minister's word that the provision is there. I am sure that it is. However, it would have been useful to have had the line reference as well.
I take to heart the Minister's comment that if an applicant had a history of breaking the law in respect of copyright, that would be disclosed on a personal licence application. The police could then take action. I accept the Minister's argument that the wording of the amendment compels the police to ask for a review on the slightest hint that the law may have been broken. Obviously, that was not our intention—but I do not accept his analogy about regular fights in or outside a pub, and the police taking no action to initiate a review. That does not meet in any way the licensing objectives as set out in an earlier clause.
Nick Harvey (North Devon): The Minister said that the infringement of copyright was a basis on which relevant parties could raise objections. Does he believe that those whose copyright has been infringed can make those objections, or will they have to persuade the police to do so because they come into the category of interested parties—and is that another way in which we ought to approach this subject?
10 am
Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he asks whether these people would be included under the umbrella of interested parties, but that is a question for the Minister rather than for me.
Dr. Howells: I am sure that all of us have had some experience of dealing with these matters—we have seen it time and again in our Department—for example, where an approach is made to the police to investigate an occurrence in which intellectual property is being abused or stolen in one way or another. The police are a responsible body, and they can make representations to the licensing authority.
Mr. Moss: Again, that was a helpful contribution by the Minister. On balance, I take on board what he
Column Number: 304
has said on this amendment—that what it addresses is covered in other aspects of the legislation. We are still awaiting the precise page and line numbers of the relevant schedule, but we are patient: he can introduce it at a later stage of the proceedings.
|
