POWER TO MAKE COPIES OF RECORDINGS

HC Deb 08 May 1990 vol 172 cc54-6

`.—(l) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath laid by a constable that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that a relevant offence has been committed by any person in respect of a programme included in a programme service, he may make an order authorising any constable to require that person—

1. (a) to produce to the constable a visual or sound recording of any matter included in that programme, if and so far as that person is able to do so; and
2. (b) on the production of such a recording, to afford the constable an opportunity of causing a copy of it to be made.

(2) An order made under this section shall describe the programme to which it relates in a manner sufficient to enable that programme to be identified.

(3) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement of a constable made by virtue of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.

(4) No order shall be made under this section in respect of any recording in respect of which a warrant could be granted under any of the following provisions, namely—

1. (a) section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959;
2. (b) section 24 of the Public Order Act 1986; and
3. (c) Article 14 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

(5) In the application of subsection (1) to England and Wales "relevant offence" means an offence under—

1. (a) section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; or
2. (b) section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986.

(6) In the application of subsection (1) to Scotland—

(a) "relevant offence" means an offence under—

1. (i) section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, or
2. (ii) section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986;

(b) the reference to a justice of the peace shall include a reference to the sheriff; and

(c) for the reference to information on oath there shall be substituted a reference to evidence on oath.

(7) In the application of subsection (1) to Northern Ireland—

1. (a) "relevant offence" means an offence under Article 12 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987;
2. (b) for the reference to a justice of the peace there shall be substituted a reference to a resident magistrate; and
3. (c) for the reference to information on oath laid by a constable there shall be substituted a reference to a complaint on oath made by a constable.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mellor

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 615 to 618, 231, 619, 421, 620 to 622, 234, 623 to 626, 639 to 640, 297 to 299 and 652.

Mr. Mellor

The new clause is important because it fulfils my commitment in Committee on 6 March to recast the provisions in the Bill on police powers to obtain copies of recordings. As the House will see, it involves the deletion in their entirety of clauses 153, 154 and 155 and the substitution of new clause 24. The effect is that, although the police will still have the powers they need to enforce the provisions in this part, the powers will be subject to substantial safeguards. We took heed of the complaints about fishing expeditions, and those dangers have now been fully removed from the arrangements. I shall not go further into the matter, as we had a thorough debate in Committee. I have honoured almost to the letter my commitments in Committee.

Many Government amendments are associated with the new clause. Government amendments Nos. 615 to 618 are intended to clarify the powers of the Independent Television Commission relating to the production of recordings and transcripts by licensees. Government amendment No. 231 relates to a matter which arose in Committee and which should be beyond doubt. It makes it clear that, in exercising its duties under the Act, the ITC will not be required to preview programmes.

Government amendments Nos. 619 to 622 make arrangements for radio licensees to keep recordings of their broadcasts and to produce them to the Radio Authority on request. They mirror the clarificatory amendments to the television provisions.

Government amendment No. 421 reflects my undertak-ing in Committee. It is a substantive amendment, as there will no longer be a need to retain copies of programmes for 90 days, and they will need to be kept only for 42 days. That will considerably assist the broadcasting organisations. Government amendment No. 234 follows a similar amendment to the television provisions in the Bill. It makes it clear that the Radio Authority will be under no obligation to preview programmes.

Government amendments Nos. 623 to 626 deal with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. They again deal with the point about 42 rather than 90 days. Government amendments Nos. 635 and 636 reduce the time limit for the submission of complaints about programmes to three weeks to dovetail with the 42-day requirement, the idea being that complaints would be received within 21 days which would allow the Broadcasting Standards Council to act on those complaints within the 42 days for the retention of programmes.

Government amendments Nos. 637 and 638 remove from the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards Council complaints that are the subject of legal proceedings or in which the complainant has a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law. Government amendment No. 639 follows a further committee undertaking which focuses more sharply the powers of the BSC relating to information it is able to obtain from broadcasters. It is a narrowing of what might have been seen as a too wide provision. Government amendment No. 640 is a drafting amendment.

I hope that the new clause and the amendments will be seen as a sensible acceptance of various points arising from our Committee deliberations.

Mr. Darling

I am grateful to the Minister for having tabled the amendments and the new clause as a result of our debates in Committee. I am especially pleased that, as he said in Committee, he has dropped from the Bill the objectionable provisions which would have allowed fishing expeditions by police looking for material that might have been thought to have contravened any of the relevant Acts. Because of a lack of fleetness of foot in Committee, the provisions were not deleted at that time, so we have had to do so on Report. None the less, the proposal is entirely welcome. The members of the Committee were at one in believing that certain safeguards were needed but felt that it was simply not necessary to give the police powers as wide as those originally proposed.

The other amendments in the group are entirely in accord with the conclusion that we reached in Committee, and we shall therefore not seek to oppose them or to prolong the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.