---

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for the way in which he has spoken to the amendments. He has asked legitimate questions.

Regarding amendment No. 9, it is envisaged that paragraph 6(1)(h) may be used, for example, to extend the breeder's rights in respect of ornamentals to include their use for production of cut flowers. The 1991 convention permits contracting states to extend the breeder's rights to acts other than those specifically mentioned in it. I do not believe that anyone would argue about that.

However, we envisage that, in some circumstances, Ministers might use those powers to extend the breeder's right to the production and propagation of a variety for the purpose of producing cut flowers, foliage or fruit. Similar provisions exist in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 and rights have been extended in a number of species. If, and only if, we are convinced that breeders of ornamentals and fruit varieties need a similar provision to enable them to protect their rights and obtain a reasonable return on them, we would consider using those powers for that purpose. That is why those powers are in the Bill. That is an example of the way in which we envisage using them, and the area in which we envisage doing so.

Some aspects of the Bill relate to the public interest, but we are legislating for relationships between two contracting parties, neither of whom are the Government: the grower and the seed specialist--the breeder. We can set ground rules on some issues, but the way in which they develop their arrangements is for them, not for the House.

I cannot accept amendment No. 10 because it goes further than any provisions in the EC sector or in other countries which protect their plant breeders' rights. If holders of rights impose conditions that are against the public interest, an application can be made to the controller of plant variety rights for a compulsory licence. No licences have been issued, but that is the level of the sanction against those who impose the wrong conditions. That sanction is necessary. If the holder of rights imposes conditions that are unacceptable to a person seeking a licence, but are not against the public interest, that is a matter for the parties concerned. It is not a matter for us to write into the Bill or for the Government to take a view about.

24 Jun 1997 : Column 732

I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the Bill should not be amended in the way that he wishes.

Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister. On amendment No. 9, I appreciate his explanation of the need to allow for the addition of cut flowers and other items. I thought of another example earlier--gifts--but the Minister did not mention them. What would happen if some bright salesman decided to give away a tonne of seed with a tractor that he was selling? Perhaps the power would be invoked on such an occasion.

I was less enthused by the Minister's reply to amendment No. 10, but I understand what he says about it going much further than the European regulations. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Farm saved seed

7.30 pm

Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 20, at beginning insert--

'After 30th June 2001, where required to do so by a regulation made by the Council of the European Communities,'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (11).

Mr. Paice: The subject matter of the amendment was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on Second Reading. The Minister responded by assuring the Committee that the purpose of giving him or his successors the right to remove the exemption at a date other than 30 June 2001 is purely to allow the date to be extended. That is precisely the intention behind the amendment, too.

If the Minister were in my position today, I am sure that he would point out that the Bill as published does not provide for such an extension. He would therefore be serving the interests of the House and the industry, and strengthening his own words, if he accepted the amendment, which merely includes in the Bill the undertaking that he gave earlier.

Mr. Cash: The Bill is much more complex and important than its innocuous title suggests, and it poses problems for constituents of mine and for the National Association of Agricultural Contractors. I am glad to note that my successor as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)--I now represent Stone--has already alluded to some of the questions that I want to raise. He appears to have some of the briefing papers that I have.

I abstained on Second Reading because of those difficulties. Indeed, I cannot accept the direction in which some of the provisions are headed. The issue that concerns my constituents and their association most has to do with subsection (6):

"The Ministers may by order provide that, on such date as may be specified in the order, subsection (5) above shall cease to have effect in relation to a variety so specified, or varieties of a species or group so specified."

24 Jun 1997 : Column 733

The reference here to subsection (5) lies at the heart of the difficulty.

European Union plant breeders' rights gave holders rights over farm-saved seed which enabled them to charge a royalty on it. The United Kingdom breeders applied for the EU rights for varieties no older than the end of 1991, as first registered. Some difficult and protracted negotiations led eventually to agreements between the farmers, breeders and contractors on rates of royalty and collection methods. Those agreements were reached on the basis that varieties older than those applied for in the EU would not be royalty bearing. This, for the farmers and contractors, was an extremely important principle and was expected to last for the lifespan of the older varieties.

The arrangement partially maintains an ancient agricultural right. It also helps to maintain a fair market balance in terms of royalty rates; and it is the cornerstone of farmers' and contractors' acceptance of a radical devaluation of their rights.

Subsection (6) will destroy all this unless amended so as to apply only to varieties older than 1 January 1992. That is roughly in line with the practice under European Union rights. Contractors and farmers can live with some aspects of the Bill, but that provision worries them a great deal.

The Bill uses the term "sensibly lower" in relation to royalty rates--a curious bit of Euro-speak arrived at during the discussions on the trade agreements. The extension of rights to all the older varieties would make a mockery of those agreements, as the older varieties may not be "sensibly lower".

I am told that the problem could put the industry back a long way--unless the wording is amended. It is of far greater consequence than has yet been acknowledged. If the Government insist on the Bill in this form, it will cause considerable difficulties for the people who have written to me. I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Mr. Lansley: I want to take up again the point I made on Second Reading. The Minister has explained that the intention is to allow Ministers to extend the date from which the provisions can be applied, but that date should not be extended so far as to reduce the returns to plant breeders.

The timing of the introduction of the measure is all-important. Will the Minister refer again to the Government's intention, other things being equal, to introduce the provisions in the autumn of 2001?

Mr. Rooker: I hesitated before getting to my feet because I was wondering whether the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) was going to speak to amendment No. 3.

I understand the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Amendment No. 11 would add a date to the face of the Bill,

"where required to do so by a regulation made by the Council of the European Communities".

I have already offered the assurance that the exemption will not be withdrawn before 30 June 2001; but the Council regulation is quite separate from national law governing plant breeders rights, so it imposes no

24 Jun 1997 : Column 734

obligation on the UK. A decoupling may be required in the drafting of the amendment and this is neither the time nor the place to do it. Writing a date in the Bill would present problems because it would tie Ministers' hands if we had to change the date.

Getting space for primary legislation is not easy; the Bill has been in the queue for several years. That is the reality of parliamentary life. It is therefore essential that we can amend our national legislation through secondary legislation just as we can amend legislation that comes through the EC. The amendment couples the date and the regulations, whereas the two matters should be separate.

Mr. Cash: As the Minister says, the provision under subsection (6) can be made by order. Clause 45 provides for regulations and orders. The Bill empowers Ministers to make different provisions for different circumstances, and to make other adjustments to the arrangements in question. In the light of what I said about the difficulties that have been caused by the conjunction of subsections (5) and (6), would the Minister be prepared to consider at the very least making an order rectifying the question which the shadow Minister and I have raised?

---