HL Deb 02 November 1988 vol 501 cc300-2

[Amendment No. 123A not moved.]

The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 123B: Line 6, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 123B, to which the Minister has just spoken, is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. As is clear, this amendment removes from Clause 120 the unrestricted right of a licensee to refer the terms of his licence to the Copyright Tribunal and puts in its place a right for a licensee, whose licence is due to expire—whether by the passing of time or as a result of notice given by the licensing body—to apply to the tribunal to have his licence extended on the terms found by the tribunal to be reasonable.

The amendment would preclude the licensee from applying to the tribunal until his licence had only three months left to run. This seems to us to be an unnecessarily short time limit. The proposed amendment lengthens the period from three months to six months which would give a more realistic time for the application to be initiated while allowing proper time for possible negotiations to continue.

We feel that it is forcing people into applications when more time could possibly have meant an agreement. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for moving this amendment since it gives me an opportunity to speak to the grouping to which the Secretary of State spoke when he introduced Amendment No. 123.

The amendment has introduced me to a relatively new phrase. The "effluxion of time" sent me to the Oxford Dictionary. I recognise it as a 17th century expression which has been revived by the parliamentary draftsman. It is full of interest.

Am I right in thinking that the Commons amendment restricts the terms on which we in this House originally passed Clause 120? In other words, am I right in thinking that it refers to more than an expiring licence? Am I right in thinking that the tribunal was entitled to look at the terms of the licence? I believe that that is what the Secretary of State said. We are now talking about the expiry of the licence. Is it not rather odd that if Clause 120 is to be restricted in its ambit, nevertheless on application to extend the licence the tribunal still has powers to vary the terms of the licence?

We are either talking about a tribunal varying the terms of the licence throughout its lifetime, or we are simply talking about the term of the licence. Is it not very odd to mix the two up?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, no. It does not seem to be odd at all in the context of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raises.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Lord on his reply. We have before us a Commons amendment which restricts the power of the Copyright Tribunal to the extension of a licence or otherwise. The original clause allowed the tribunal to vary the terms of the licence. On the other hand, the extension of the licence is subject to a possible variation in the terms of the licence from the tribunal. Therefore, the tribunal is entitled to vary the terms in extension, but not during the original period. This seems to be wholly illogical. I cannot understand why the Government have adopted this sideways position on the issue.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I shall be able to enlighten—

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, perhaps I may put one or two supplementary points. The question of varying the terms of a licence while it is in operation is something that we now understand will not be permitted to the tribunal. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to tell me in what circumstances the tribunal will be able to vary a licence and what is the point of the whole procedure.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for asking me those questions. The amendments made by the Commons limit Clause 120 to extension of an expiring licence. Nevertheless, it makes sense for the tribunal to vary the provisions of the licence as extended. Once the term has been extended the contractual period will necessarily have come to an end and the original contractual provisions may in that case no longer be appropriate.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, that could easily be the case during the period of the licence. The economic circumstances may have changed. The contractual circumstances may not have changed, but by extending the period of the licence simply by that one clause in the contract which says that the licence shall run from December to December to say that a licence shall run from December to January or February changes only that one clause in the contract. The other circumstances may not change.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I really do not think that there is much more I can add to what has already been said. If what I have said does not satisfy the noble Lord, I suggest that perhaps he has not fully understood what I said earlier. He should check the record tomorrow.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I have listened with great interest, as I expect other noble Lords have, to the exchange between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I understand exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is making. I understand the embarrassing position in which the Minister finds himself. All the arguments are now down and will be read with interest in Hansard, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 123B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 123, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion (Commons Amendment No. 123) agreed to.