Clause 51 - Application for a review of premises licence
Licensing Bill [Lords]
9:45 am
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.