| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dalyell: I can sympathise with my hon. Friend. None of us is an expert in this area--it would take a professor of plant breeding studies to master it.
The briefing notes to clause 9 state that the 1991 convention
Mr. Rooker:
I shall deal with my hon. Friend's point on clause stand part.
Mr. William Cash (Stone):
Does the hon. Gentleman know that some people believe strongly that the Bill should be amended to make clause 9(6) apply only to varieties produced since 1 January 1992? Has the Minister received any representations about that; and what does he propose to do about it?
Mr. Rooker:
The answer is yes. I shall come to the point later on, and we can discuss it in greater detail in the clause stand part debate.
A similar provision permitting farmers to use farm-saved seed without the breeder's prior permission is in the Community regime, and UK plant breeders have been collecting payment for the use of farm-saved seed of Community-protected varieties since last autumn.
Farmers will therefore be able to farm saved seed of varieties of these species for use on their own holdings without the breeder's authority. Unless they come into one of the exempt categories, though, they will be required to pay the breeder equitable remuneration which is sensibly lower than the royalty charged on certified seed of the same variety in the same area. Those points are clarified further in the legislation.
It is for breeders and farmers to negotiate what to charge for the use of farm-saved seed, taking account of the requirement that the charge must be sensibly lower than the royalty on certified seed. The Bill gives guidance on what is meant by sensibly lower by reference to the Community regime. But it does not put any figure on it, and the Government do not intend to intervene in what we believe are essentially commercial matters between breeders and farmers.
The requirement to pay for the use of farm-saved seed will apply to varieties protected under the 1964 Act, as well as new varieties that come into protection after the Bill comes into force.
Some farmers are exempt from the requirement to pay. There is a permanent exemption for small farmers as defined in the Community regime; it is referred to in the arable areas payments scheme. Furthermore, farmers who have saved seed of a particular variety before the Act comes into force may also continue to do so, free of charge, until Ministers discontinue this prior-use exemption by order. A similar prior-use exemption is in the Community regime. This expires on 30 June 2001, though the Council regulation makes it clear that that date is subject to review in the light of a report that the Commission is required to make before then, and may be extended on a variety, group or species basis, depending on the findings in the report.
We intend to discontinue the prior-use exemption at the same time as the corresponding provision in the Community regime is discontinued. I assure the House that that will not be before 30 June 2001, which means that the majority of farmers who have saved seed of older UK-protected varieties before this Bill comes into force may continue to do so free of charge until 30 June 2001 at least.
I have been impressed over the past couple of weeks to read about the approach that the breeders, farmers and seed processors adopted to the farm-saved seed issue when it was first broached for Community-protected varieties. I also commend the former Government: the legislation was their draft Bill. For years we pushed for it, when in opposition. We all gladly embrace the idea of draft Bills--as far as humanly possible, legislation should be presented, following White and Green Papers, in draft form to those outside. The approach to the Bill has been constructive throughout.
Clause 10 makes it clear that the breeder's right is exhausted once propagating material is disposed of by him or with his authority.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon):
The Minister rightly said that he is the Bill's godfather; it was a foundling in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he arrived there. I do not know whether he discovered it with great enthusiasm, but it is an important addition to British legislation which aligns us with international law and we do not intend to oppose it.
I suppose that I should declare an interest as a keen vegetable gardener. Whether saving a few examples of broad bean seed from one year to the next constitutes a punishable or taxable offence, I am not clear.
I realise that this subject may not be wholly redolent of the romance and mystery that affect some parts of MAFF. Some of the Minister's sentences resembled the chunks of prose that are dropped on the desks of unsuspecting third formers at Ripon grammar school with the instruction, "Punctuate." The Secretary of State for Education and Employment will no doubt incorporate such chunks into the national curriculum to teach children to read and write in the future.
Mr. Curry:
If the Minister simplified his speech, one can only imagine what it was like before. I shall not take him up on his admission, but this could be described as a hybrid Bill. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) might become too agitated in his seat if he feels that we are breaching constitutional practice as well.
Mr. Dalyell:
Such a thought had not occurred to me.
Mr. Curry:
We support the principles of the Bill, which implements in UK law the international agreement on plant breeders' intellectual property. I shall therefore limit my remarks to exploring a particular area. The Minister covered it to a degree and will no doubt complete his clarification in the course of today's proceedings. It concerns farm-saved seed. In March last year, the National Farmers Union reached agreement with plant breeders on payment and terms and conditions, the key element of which was that, where a variety was used before the agreement, farmers were free to continue using it without payment. Our main concern is that the Bill should respect the agreement and not impede it or cast doubt on it.
Why does clause 9 empower Ministers to change the agreement by order? Under European Union legislation, no changes were envisaged in the royalty system until 2001, by which time the Commission may have formed a view. The UK legislation makes no reference to that date, although just before the Minister sat down he said with some precision that he would not act to bring that
agreement to an end until at least 2001. He has therefore given us the assurance that we sought, although I am not clear why the phraseology appeared in the Bill. Perhaps a civil servant was looking for an emergency fire escape in the event of a conflagration.
Mr. Rooker:
No date appears in the Bill so that the date can be extended, not shortened. That is why I said at least 2001.
Mr. Curry:
I am grateful to the Minister for that important clarification, which will be generally welcomed.
The second issue relates to clause 6, which empowers Ministers to prescribe by regulation additional factors to be taken into account. Will the Minister outline what he envisages in that respect when we discuss those clauses? We have tabled amendments that are designed to encourage him to explore that matter.
We need clarification of clause 6(2). I am familiar with the legislative use of the concept of "reasonableness". Indeed, braver men have spent much time in Committee trying to define its meaning. It would be useful to have clarification of the Government's intention in that regard.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
May I place on record our slight concern that this important Bill is being rushed through, with all its stages being taken in one day? Our concern is shared by the National Farmers Union, which has made representations to me on that point. I know that the Government have a heavy legislative programme and want to get a lot done this Session, but the Bill should not be dealt with by a Committee of the House in one day. Neither is it as uncontroversial as the Minister implies. I accept that much of it re-enacts the 1964 Act, but things have moved on since then, with the advent of biotechnology. The Bill should reflect that change.
Perhaps when the new Government took office their civil servants whipped out this Bill saying, "Here is one that we prepared earlier," and assured Ministers that it was both uncontroversial and urgent. They probably said that it fulfilled our European obligations, would be no problem whatever, had been subject to consultation and needed an early slot in the parliamentary timetable. I understand that the Minister and his Department have been busy finding their feet. They have had to deal with the mess of BSE and proposals for the food standards agency, and have been busy with other matters, so I understand if the points that I shall make have not been considered by them.
I accept that, in many ways, the Bill is modest. Our concern does not necessarily lie with the Bill; the fact that it is the continuation of a process worries Liberal Democrats. I hope that Ministers will not feel obliged to defend every full stop and comma of the Bill but will be open to argument. I was pleased that the Minister responded to the point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) a moment ago, as it was one which I intended to make.
The Bill has profound implications for the future of food production and the relationship between farmers and plant breeders. The Minister made much of the rights of breeders, but I heard little about the rights of farmers, which are of concern to Liberal Democrats. We have tabled a number of amendments following consultation with the National Farmers Union, the Soil Association, Greenpeace and others, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively. I hope that he might even be prepared to accept some of our amendments in a spirit of co-operation, or at least give an undertaking that the points that we raise today will be considered seriously once the Bill reaches the House of Lords.
As the Minister said, the Bill amends the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 and incorporates points from the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants--UPOV 1991. The House in entitled to ask the wider question, whether the convention is in the public interest and the interests of farmers and consumers, as well as the narrower question of how its articles will be applied in the Bill. We have concerns about both. On the wider issue, few matters are more basic to society than the provision of a ready supply of wholesome food. Poor food supplies led to the creation of the common agricultural policy, and we are willing to spend millions of pounds each year in our determination never to run short of food again.
There has been much talk in the House and elsewhere about the need for Britain to retain its sovereignty. I take the word sovereignty to mean our ability to determine our own destiny and to have in place arrangements that prevent our being beholden, against our wishes, to external powers in whatever form. None the less, we are now faced with the problem that, within 10 years, five American biotechnology companies may control some 80 per cent. of our staples. Monsanto, the American giant, has predicted that, within a decade, genetically modified crops will be the norm in 80 per cent. of temperate regions. I prefer to say modified to engineered because engineering is a precise art and that is not what those companies indulge in.
The change represents a massive transfer of power away from British farmers and consumers to unaccountable transnational companies. Monsanto, the chemical company, has been active in getting a big stake in the seed business. Its boss, Robert Shapiro, is quoted in The Economist of 26 April 1997 as saying that he wants Monsanto to be the main provider of "agricultural biotechnology". By August 1995, his company was the world leader--I do not use the term in a flattering way--in securing biotech plant patents. On one estimate, again quoted in The Economist of 26 April 1997, the world market for genetically altered seeds will reach $7 billion by 2005, compared with only $450 million in 1995. It is interesting to note that Monsanto's share price rose from $14 at the beginning of 1995 to $39 by April 1997.
The seed business is big business, particularly for chemical companies which are increasingly buying up seed companies. This year alone, Monsanto has bought three seed breeding and marketing companies for more than £1 billion, and Rhone-Poulenc has merged with Merck MSDA to become the world's largest poultry, genetics and animal health business.
The Bill acts in some ways as a catalyst and facilitator for transnational companies such as Monsanto to exert unprecedented control over our agriculture. I do not believe that hon. Members on either side of the House want that.
I refer hon. Members to an excellent publication called "Future of our seeds" by Vandana Shiva, which lists on page 4 the way in which seed companies and chemical companies have converged. It also lists on page 17 the top 14 owners of biotechnology plant patents: 12 out of 14 are American, with only ICI Zeneca from this country getting a look-in. Monsanto comes top with 18 separate patents, as of August 1995. The author concludes:
One of the main reasons for such investment is to produce genetically modified seed that is tied into the use of pesticides, so that farmers are obliged to buy those companies' products. Some pesticide patents--I am thinking of Roundup--are due to end shortly. How convenient it is for those companies to be able to patent seeds that are dependent on those pesticides, and so to give them a new lease of life.
Apart from concern about the transfer of power to unaccountable transnational companies, there are grave concerns about the environmental consequences of the fast move towards genetically modified crops. I note that in the preamble to the Bill, on page v, under the heading "Environmental impact", the words "There is none" appear. Had I been sitting on a chair at the time, I would have fallen off when I read that. That statement is incredible.
The Bill will lead inevitably to the production by transnational companies of seed varieties that may superficially bring benefits, but which could produce substantial long-term environmental problems. A comparison with nuclear power comes to mind. That was going to be clean and too cheap to meter--the best thing since sliced bread. It has turned out to be expensive and a proven danger to people and the environment on the occasions when the roulette wheel stops in the wrong place. I believe that that is a fair comparison to make with genetically modified crops.
I shall try to give the House some feel for the environmental dangers. First, there is the creation of a permanent reliance on pesticides, which at present are optional. Early this week, I asked the Minister of State what plans he had to encourage organic farming, and I was given a positive response by the Government that they are committed to that sector, as I am sure they are. However, the Bill helps to pull the rug from underneath the sector, not only by building in a reliance on pesticides, but by raising doubts that any farmer in the future will be able to guarantee that his crops are organic, when there is the possibility of migration in the air of material from a genetically modified crop in a neighbouring field, which might latch on to a similar crop nearby.
"does not allow contracting parties to restrict the breeder's right in respect of varieties whose production requires the repeated use of protected variety".
I understand that there is some difficulty at law in defining the repeated use of protected variety. I do not expect the Minister to answer off the top of his head, but if he has access to legal advice, perhaps he can return to the subject later.
"Transnational companies will decide what is grown by farmers, what they use as inputs, and when they sell their produce, to whom and at what price."
If that is even partly true, it should be a matter of concern to hon. Members. If they doubt the truth of that, let us ask why transnational companies are spending billions of pounds investing in seed companies and why the stock market is responding by increasing their share value dramatically.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |