Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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,

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 Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

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

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

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 Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

It is in schedule 4.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

With all due respect, schedule 4 is quite large. Could we be told which line, please?

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

Sorry, it is schedule 4, paragraph 12.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

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?

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

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 Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Again, that was a helpful contribution by the Minister. On balance, I take on board what he

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.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his patience. The relevant offences are listed in schedule 4, paragraph 12, and the requirement to disclose convictions is in clause 121.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 286, in

clause 51, page 31, line 12, after 'interval', insert

'but in any event not less than three years'.

This is a probing amendment. Clause 51(5)(b) talks about ''a reasonable interval'' elapsing since an earlier application for review. We want to flesh out the Government's thinking about what is a reasonable time. The amendment adds;

''in any event not less than three years''.

We are putting a time scale on this.

It is reasonable that the review should not come back within that sort of period: otherwise, there will be a steady flow of potential complaints, particularly in certain instances. We can all think of pubs in residential areas that cause concern, and where that concern exists largely in the minds of local residents rather than because anything illegal is going on which might mean that there is any real basis for a withdrawal or revocation of that licence.

This is a probing amendment to find out what the Government think is a reasonable time: we think that three years is a reasonable period.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who sits on the Front Bench. It is essential that a level of certainty is brought about in relation to the review of premises licences for one main reason, which applies not only to the owners of premises or the licensees but to local residents' groups and other interested parties. There needs to be that sense of certainty and the word ''reasonable'' is open to a wide range of interpretations. I am unsure whether the Department issued any clear guidelines as to what it considers to be a reasonable interval.

Businesses are greatly concerned that there might be a level of uncertainty that means that they have no idea about how quickly they can reapply for an amendment to a licence—and that applies also to local residents and others who might have an interest. An inordinate amount of legal costs can be incurred and perhaps this is a charter for the licensing lawyers. The great concern is that residents, residents associations and local authorities will find themselves fighting a rearguard action. Given that we are going through the rigmarole of introducing new legislation, we should achieve certainty.

On an application for review, nothing is more depressing for Members of Parliament, or indeed for

local councillors, than feeling that a particular issue—be it a pub licence, a bar licence or any other licence covered by the Bill—is a running sore that is always in their postbag. As soon as a matter has been up for review, it will be argued that a reasonable interval has occurred, not least because the whole process may have been subject to appeal either in the courts or through various other sub-committees of the local authority under the current regime. It is essential that we get some guidance at this juncture. Given the importance of this Committee in guiding the courts, the Minister should give us an idea of what a reasonable interval would be.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

In addition to the costs imposed on businesses, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned, we also need to consider the costs that could be imposed on local authorities as a consequence of the range of interested parties who could call for a review. Clause 14 defines ''interested party'' as

''a person living in the vicinity of the premises, a body representing persons who live in that vicinity''

or

''a person involved in a business in that vicinity''.

All of those interested parties could apply at different stages for a review on a range of different grounds. If they call for a review, local authorities, which may feel obliged to instruct solicitors, will incur costs.

Clause 51(3)(b) requires

''the authority to advertise the application''

and to consult with the premises licence holder and any corporate bodies owning the premises that are subject to the review. A host of costs could be incurred by a local authority as a consequence of applications for reviews. It is important to protect the interests of council tax payers, as well as those of the businesses concerned, by ensuring that there is certainty and that a sequence of reviews, which will incur costs, will not be initiated by interested parties. That links back to the issue of frivolous and vexatious applications. I do not know what provision there is for those who make that type of application to have to foot the cost of the reviews and any costs incurred by either the licensee or the local authority. It is important from all perspectives that the ''reasonable interval'' referred to in clause 51(5) should be more specific.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, amendment No. 286 returns to the theme of balance that has characterised the debate on this Bill at all stages and in both Houses. The Bill seeks to balance a number of different, often competing, interests, including those of the industry, local residents and the consumer at large. I believe that the Bill gets the balance right, subject to some of the important changes that we have made following the debate and consultation with key partners.

The system set out in the Bill for the review of existing premises licences is a critical element in that balance. It means that local residents will have a stronger voice than ever before in the licensing system.

They will be able to call for a review of any existing licence on a ground relevant to any of the licensing objectives. Clause 51 sets out the arrangements for applying for a review of a premises licence.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned that we have all experienced, as he put it, the ''running sore'' of a poorly managed house that generates constant complaints from local residents and local businesses, which is especially true in Soho. Since he said that, I have been trying to think of ones in my constituency, and I have suddenly realised that I do not have any such running sore—touch wood—so far. But the hon. Gentleman paints a very vivid picture. That can and does happen.

The review system is something of a balancing act. As I have said, we have given a stronger voice to local residents. By way of comment, that stronger position also extends to responsible authorities, which will also be able to seek a review of a licence. However, to protect legitimate, responsible and well-run businesses from individuals who may seek to use the powerful tools at their disposal in bad faith—this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban)—the Bill introduces a number of important safeguards.

First and foremost, the grounds for an application for a review must be relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives. Among other things, that will make it more difficult for unscrupulous operators to make life hard for potential and actual competitors in the neighbourhood. We have not spoken much about that during our debates, but it can have a big effect. I have heard that where some of the more revolutionary of our pub chains have introduced very different kinds of premises into an area—often with good quality food, clear signage of the price of drinks and so on—objections have come not from local residents but from other pubs. They suddenly realise that they have a powerful competitor that is trying to improve the quality of their area, which means that they will have to invest in their own business. That is two edged. It pays tribute to the tremendous work of some responsible pub operators and chains and also says something about the less competitive performers in the field. We must ensure that such individuals do not prevent good investment in certain areas.

Where a representation is not made by a responsible authority, any ground for an application for a review may be rejected by the licensing authority if it is satisfied that it is frivolous or vexatious or if the ground is a repetition. I think that that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Fareham. A review does not have to be granted just because an application takes place. A review will not have to take place because someone happens to make a vexatious complaint. That is not the case.

Subsection (5) states that a ground for a review is a repetition if it is a ground already considered as part of an application for a premises licence, if it was a ground for a previous review of a premises licence or if it is an excluded representation under clause 32; and, in all cases,

''a reasonable interval has not elapsed since that earlier application for review or the grant of the licence''.

The nub of the question, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire reminded us, is what constitutes a reasonable interval. The Bill's approach leaves that in the first instance to the discretion of the licensing authority. Amendment No. 286 would impose a minimum length of 3 years for that period. There are two related reasons why I cannot accept the amendment. First, different interest groups will have different interpretations of what might or might not constitute a reasonable interval. If we take that to extremes, some parts of the industry may want a long period to elapse before a ground may not be ruled out as a repetition. Indeed, they may want to exclude any representations made by local residents. That is understandable, given the usual commercial pressures, but it is unfair and not in the overall public interest of the new regime. On the other hand, some residents or their representatives or associations may regard it as unjust that any grounds should be ruled out because they are frivolous, vexatious or repetitious. That viewpoint was put plainly in another place.

Secondly, and more importantly, what constitutes a reasonable period will vary from one circumstance to another. If we set a minimum period in the Bill, I fear that we will expose ourselves to the risk of excluding perfectly legitimate grounds for review made by local residents under certain circumstances.

I shall consider some of the examples that were given by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. He clearly explained how circumstances can change within a commercial part of a town or city where business is dynamic and its nature changes quickly. In three years, many changes can occur and if malign influences are at work, a lot of money can be made at the expense of the people who live there and businesses, including other licensed premises that might be operating in the area. Perhaps we will discuss that further later. I shall not go into special promotions for alcohol sales, but the situation can become difficult.

It is much better to retain flexibility in the Bill, and rely on licensing authorities to exercise discretion. Licensing authorities that reject grounds for a review must give the applicant reasons for that decision. An aggrieved applicant will have the right to challenge any such decision by way of a judicial review, as the matter, if disputed, will ultimately be for the courts. On that basis, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation. Again, he is pleading for flexibility. However, if we accept that a time scale of any description will probably be inflexible, what is the point of including subsection 5(b) at all? Why have ''a reasonable interval'' if it means nothing? If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, premises can change quickly—circumstances can change at a given environment with a different licence holder within a short period of weeks or months—the idea of a reasonable interval goes out of the window. The fact that it was only a few months earlier that objections were raised and

applications for review were made is irrelevant to the changed circumstances, so I cannot see the point of the reasonable interval.

I do not dispute the fact that the scene can change rapidly, and we need to be flexible to deal with that. With my probing amendment, I simply wanted to get a sense of the Government's thinking on the subject, but the Minister has ended up arguing for removing subsection (5)(b) entirely. I cannot press that idea to a vote, because that is not my amendment, but his comments leave in question whether we need the definition of paragraph (b) at all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.