Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 96:


On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 34 [Determination of application under section 33]:

[Amendments Nos. 97 to 101 not moved.]

Clause 35 [Supplementary provision about determinations under section 34]:

[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]

Clause 36 [Application to vary licence to specify individual as premises supervisor]:

[Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 not moved.]

Clause 37 [Circumstances in which section 36 application given interim effect]:

[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]

Clause 38 [Determination of section 36 application]:

[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]

Clause 39 [Duty of applicant following determination under section 38]:

[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]

Clause 40 [Request to be removed as designated premises supervisor]:

[Amendments Nos. 110 to 113 not moved.]

Clause 46 [Interim authority notice following death etc. of licence holder]:

Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 114:


    Page 27, line 2, at end insert—


"( ) that person has registered an interest in the premises under section 32(6) of this Act."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 50 [Application for review of premises licence]:

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 115:


    Page 29, line 27, 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, films, broadcasts or cable programmes in circumstances which amount to an infringement of copyright for the purpose 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 noble Baroness said: We are now coming to the amendments on infringement of copyright. Again, we tested the point in Committee and had some considerable debates. We were disappointed by the Government's response.

27 Feb 2003 : Column 453

Many people who buy, or permit their premises to be used for the sale and use of, pirated material do not consider that the theft of intellectual property seriously harms those businesses which are legitimately using it and whose fees paid, either directly or through collecting societies, remunerate the distributor, producer and artistes. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said on 16th January 2003 that he believed that the current law was sufficient. That can be found in col. 335 of Hansard.

It is accepted that piracy is a major funding source for crime and is one of a number of methods of money-laundering. Page 64 of the draft guidance, under paragraph 8.52, states in relation to Clause 177 that the licence does not need to spell out the legal requirement, but advises that failure to observe the law in practice could lead to a review of the premises licence.

It is well known that the cost of piracy is great. The police are reluctant to act so, unless there is pressure on them to undertake actions by anti-piracy clauses in the Bill, there is a distinct danger that one of the licensing objectives—the prevention of crime—will not be pursued with vigour.

We are grateful to the Government for tabling Amendment No. 194, which is welcome so far as it goes. However, it is effective only in respect of the sale or use of pirated material where alcohol is used at licensed premises. It would not apply to entertainment facilities as set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 such as a church or village hall or community centre. Such places are regularly used as venues for car boot sales, where many pirated products are sold to the public.

Will the Minister reconsider our amendment, which is rather more far-reaching and would cover the area that we believe is not covered sufficiently by the government amendment? I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her reference to Amendment No. 194. Both amendments address the problems of the use of copyright material without appropriate permissions, which includes films, sound recordings and cable television. We are well aware of the problems caused for many industries by infringement of copyright, and we are committed to constructive solutions to the problem. To that extent, we are at one on the matter.

We have had representations from the British Video Association, the Cinema Exhibitors Association and Phonographic Performance Ltd. They have suggested ways in which the issues might be addressed through the Bill, and I am pleased that we can help them through Amendment No. 194.

I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that although I clearly share her concerns on the matter I cannot accept Amendment No. 115, which 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 for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings, films, broadcasts or

27 Feb 2003 : Column 454

cable programmes had taken place in infringement of copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. No provision in the Bill compels either interested parties or responsible authorities, such as the police, to apply for a review because of a particular offence committed at the premises, even though conviction would not be a requirement if the amendment were accepted.

The Bill provides discretion for those authorities to decide for themselves when to apply for review, and that discretion should be preserved. I see no reason to compel the police to apply for a review following an infringement when they are not compelled to do so for other—dare I say it—more serious offences. If the amendment were accepted. the police would be required to request a review of a premises licence if a licensee played music to his customers for which he did not have the appropriate permissions. However, if the premises is the scene of repeated outbreaks of violence, it may or may not be subject to review.

The situations envisaged by the amendment can be dealt with by the Bill as currently drafted, as interested parties and responsible authorities may apply for the review of a licence if an offence is committed under the 1988 Act or any ground relating to the licensing objectives, which includes the prevention of crime and disorder. Of course, a breach of the 1988 Act is a crime. In that way, a cinema might make an application if a licensed premises was showing films for which it did not have the necessary permissions. However, to require the police to request a review would be disproportionate.

Amendment No. 194 will provide a very valuable tool to help the licensing authority and the police address that issue. It would add certain offences committed under the 1988 Act to the list of relevant offences for the purposes of the Bill. That would mean, for instance, that a relevant offence would be committed by someone convicted of playing recorded music or exhibiting a film without appropriate permission. A person convicted of having in their possession for commercial purposes any unauthorised decoder would be guilty of a relevant offence.

Under the Bill, applicants for personal licences will need to reveal whether they have committed any relevant offences. If they have, the licensing authority will be required to notify the chief officer of police and, if he is satisfied that granting a licence would undermine the crime prevention objective, he must issue an objection notice. That would lead to a hearing, and the authority could reject it if it believed that that was necessary to promote the crime prevention objective.

When any personal licence holder is convicted of a relevant offence, it will be open to the court to order the forfeiture of the licence or its suspension for up to six months. In deciding whether to order forfeiture or suspension, the court will be able to take into account any previous conviction of the licence holder for a relevant offence.

We have listened to the industry. Amendment No. 194, which I stress is supported by the industry, underlines how seriously we take the issue of copyright

27 Feb 2003 : Column 455

infringement. It will ensure that those who wish to be personal licence holders under the new regime will be subject to scrutiny as a result of committing those offences and should therefore ensure that they are deterred from doing so.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will support Amendment No. 194 and acknowledge that it will address the concerns of industry about the use of intellectual property without appropriate permission.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, will he respond to my concerns about Amendment No. 194, which we welcome? My concern was that the amendment would not apply to an entertainment facility such as a church hall, village hall or community centre, or to places that are regularly used for car boot sales. This is an important aspect of the matter.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. Amendment No. 194 is in Schedule 4, which is entitled: "Personal licence: relevant offences". Schedule 4 is triggered by Clause 111, which seeks to provide the authority for "relevant offence" and "foreign offence". I do not see in Schedule 4 or Clause 111 a restriction to premises where alcohol is being sold.

However, my understanding is that I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the assurance that she seeks. The industry is principally concerned with breaches of copyright in pubs. It asked for the amendment to reflect that and we understand that it is content with our response.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page