| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I found it slightly confusing, but perhaps that is my fault. He seemed to say that a comprehensive collection exists, while resisting replacing "may" with "shall" on the basis that an extensive reference collection would cost too much money. However, I note that the Minister is committed to maintaining a comprehensive reference collection and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 33 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.New clause 2
'If it shall appear to the Ministers that any company making application for the grant of plant breeders' rights would, were the application to succeed, hold more than five per cent. of the market for the crop of which the variety which is the subject of the application is a variety, then that application shall stand referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.'.--[Mr. Baker.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall not rehearse the arguments that I advanced in my speech on Second Reading. The new clause is an attempt to highlight the importance that we attach to the direction in which the ownership or patenting of seeds is moving in this country and across the world. I cited figures earlier regarding the market penetration of Monsanto and other companies. Chemical companies are buying seed companies in large numbers. In the past, there was a natural division between seed and chemical companies that provided some protection because it diluted ownership within the agricultural sector. However, that is no longer the case and we are witnessing a concentration of ownership.
In those circumstances, individual companies are able to control significant sections of the market and adversely affect it to benefit themselves and to disadvantage farmers. The Minister has not had a chance to respond in detail to the serious issues about genetically modified material that are not in the Bill but are certainly germane to it. What happens will be significant in terms of plant breeders' and farmers' rights in future.
The Minister may say that the clause is unworkable, but I hope that he will not dismiss the real concerns of hon. Members and others about market penetration by genetic engineering chemical companies that are buying up seed companies. I hope that he will not be dismissive either about my argument that we need to have some control to ensure that transnational companies that are not answerable to the Government or anyone else in this country do not distort the market to their benefit and to others' disbenefit.
If the Minister wants to find a better way of achieving my objective, I shall be happy to hear of it. I have explained what I am trying to achieve by moving the clause, and I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit that lies behind it. I hope also that he accepts that it relates to an important point. For me, it is perhaps the most important point: the interface between the chemical companies and the seed companies. The issue cannot be ignored and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.
Mr. Rooker:
I shall not dismiss what the hon. Gentleman has said--far from it, because he has raised an important matter. He has attached the new clause to the Bill, but it has much more significant implications for the Department of Trade and Industry because the hon. Gentleman is seeking to deal with monopolies and market power.
The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but the plant breeder is entitled to take commercial advantage of the varieties that he has bred, discovered or developed. The breeder or breeders may, and generally have, invested considerable sums, time, resources and technical expertise. If there is a problem and for some reason a breeder is holding back or acting, as it is thought, against the public interest, clause 15 contains powers for the controller to issue a compulsory licence. If anyone thinks that there is a real problem, such a licence can be issued if it is thought that it is in the public interest to do so. If a breeder abuses the dominant position of the marketplace, appropriate powers are available to the controller.
The hon. Gentleman is on a much wider issue, in many ways, than those with which we are dealing. I do not knock that because he is right to raise it on this occasion. The new clause, however, is not suitable for inclusion in the Bill for both the narrow and the wider reasons that I have advanced.
Mr. Baker:
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that I have raised an important matter. I fully accept that it fits into a much wider arena than the Bill covers, the Bill being quite narrowly drawn on a narrow subject. The Minister has accepted, I think, that the matter I have raised relates to the Bill in a way, and that is important.
As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, no compulsory licence has ever been issued. That worries me somewhat. My other concern is that big business is involved. There is an attempt by certain companies to corner the market in a monopolistic way. Furthermore, as I understand it, there is pressure from the American authorities to ensure that licences and advances are introduced and take place as soon as possible without the precautionary principle being applied. It is surely important for the Government to protect the interests of all involved in this country so that they might stand up to the pressures that will follow. I accept, however, the Minister's argument. The new clause represents an attempt to raise a matter of principle. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Mr. Baker:
I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 20, line 31, after 'application', insert--
Mr. Rooker:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman again because he has raised an important issue. At the same time, I am not entirely clear what he seeks by way of the amendment. I shall not nit-pick about technical defectiveness, but I am unclear about the use of
The language set out in the amendment about deeming would be entirely impracticable when considering inclusion in the Bill. That illustrates why we need precision and clarity in the Bill. It is necessary to ensure that everyone knows where he or she stands--breeders, farmers and producers--so that there is no argument in law about deeming something to be substantially equivalent or distinct, bearing in mind the fact that there is a set of international protocols for testing the distinctiveness of plant varieties. The amendment would muddy the waters, if I may put it that way.
Mr. Baker:
Perhaps I might apologise for my earlier defective amendments, if there were any. I feel rather more vindicated on this amendment because the words
'1A. The variety shall not be deemed to be distinct if, for the purposes of assessment of genetically modified organisms under United Kingdom or European Union law it has been deemed substantially equivalent to an existing variety.'.
"The variety shall not be deemed to be distinct".
Varieties are not deemed to be substantially equivalent in UK law or EU law: they are deemed to be either distinct or not. A technical protocol has been developed by UPOV, which is recognised internationally, for checking whether there is distinctiveness. It is true that a difference in one characteristic is sufficient to make a variety distinct, but the second variety may be dependent on the variety from which it is derived. In those circumstances, as I said on Second Reading, the holder of rights in the first variety will be able to claim an interest in the exploitation of the dependent variety.
"The variety shall not be deemed to be distinct"
are a replication, with the addition of the negative, of the first line of schedule 2. That being so, I assume that it is a reasonable form of words. I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for helping me with the rest of the amendment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |