Clause 51 - Application for a review of premises licence
Licensing Bill [Lords]
Public Bill Committees, 29 April 2003, 9:45 am

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.
