§ 2 Clause 6, page 4, line 34, leave out ("an agreement does not") and insert ("there is a failure to").
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 2 corrects the drafting of Clause 6(6)(b), which provides for the cancellation of a block exemption where an obligation under the block exemption order is not complied with. Currently the clause refers to the agreement, rather than the parties to that agreement, not complying with the order. The amendment remedies that.
Amendment No. 3 fulfils a commitment made to your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Haskel in response to an amendment tabled on Third Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to consider whether there should be a limitation on the director's power to cancel a block exemption in respect of a particular agreement, along the lines of the limitation on the Commission's corresponding power in European law. Clause 6(6)(c) currently confers a general power for a block exemption order to specify circumstances in which the director may cancel the exemption given by a block exemption order in respect of a particular agreement. The amendment makes it clear on the face of the Bill that this power is to he limited to the ground that the agreement does not fulfil the criteria specified in Clause 9 of the Bill. The Bill will thus generally follow the position under European Community law contained in Article 7 of 1344 EC Regulation 19/65. It will be for the director to judge whether a particular agreement falls within the terms of Clause 9.
The power for the block exemption order to enable the director to cancel the benefit of a block exemption when there has been a breach of an obligation remains.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
§ Lord KingslandMy Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for his amendment.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.