| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Plant Varieties Bill
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 6(4) provides for the breeder's right to extend to directly made products, in certain circumstances. Basically, if a plant breeder's right has been infringed in respect of harvested material from which the product is made, and he has not been able to act against that infringement, he should be able to act against the product.
As originally drafted, clause 6(4) came into play only if the product was obtained from harvested material by committing an act requiring the breeder's authority--for example, selling, marketing and importing. It is, however, quite possible for a product to be made from harvested material to which the breeder's right extends, without committing any of the acts that require his authority. The amendment ensures that the breeder can act against infringement of his rights in these circumstances. It also brings the Bill into line with the UPOV convention and the Community regime.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire):
I shall not detain the House long on this or any other amendment, but I shall raise one or two issues of concern. I realise that the Minister has already participated in a full-length Standing Committee debate this morning and is to reply to the Adjournment debate later. He is clearly earning his salary today, so I do not want to test him more than necessary.
I am puzzled by the need for the amendment. The Minister will recall that when we considered the Bill in the summer, in the Committee stage which was taken on the Floor of the House, I pressed him particularly on clause 6(1)(h)--the catch-all phrase, as I called it--which refers to
I believe that I am entitled to quote from the notes. They refer to an example of a protected variety grown to produce oil, which is used in the manufacture of perfume, although I do not think that the ultimate use of the oil is relevant. It is implied that, effectively, the oil is the end product, and it is the oil to which the breeder's rights would apply. If I have understood that correctly, it casts a very different light on some aspects of the Bill.
Mr. Rooker:
I am not sure whether I can clarify those points now. If I cannot do so satisfactorily, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members will recall that the Committee stage took place on the Floor of the House in one day. Consequently, there was no Report stage and the other place has dealt with some issues. It has provided some clarification on parts of the Bill, which is implicit in other Lords amendments.
As to the oil issue, I can do no more than refer to the notes on clauses. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to mention those notes, and I think that it is right and proper that Opposition Members should have the same information that I received about the effects of the proposed changes. I do not seek to put those notes on the record because that would take too long and they are not strictly relevant.
The amendment comes into play only if Ministers decide to prescribe products. The oil is the end product, but only if Ministers decide that there are grounds for prescribing the oil. Even then, they can act against the oil only if they have not had the opportunity to act at an earlier stage against the propagation of the material or the harvested material. It is a fall-back position in some ways because the material progresses through different stages before it reaches the point where difficulties may arise. If I have not made the situation as clear as I might, I shall be happy to elucidate in writing to the hon. Gentleman.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Mr. Rooker:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The 1991 UPOV convention, which we shall be able to ratify when the Bill is enacted, exempts acts done for private and non-commercial purposes from the breeders' rights. This ensures that amateur gardeners, for example, can continue to take cuttings of protected varieties for their own private use. The Bill as originally drafted referred to "private, or other non-commercial" use. That could be interpreted as permitting the multiplication of large quantities of protected varieties for public rather than private use provided that it is done for non-commercial purposes.
That is not what the convention intended. Lords amendment No. 2 brings clause 8 into line with the convention, and the corresponding provision in the Community plant variety rights regime, by making it clear that an act must be both private and non-commercial in order to fall within the exemption.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Mr. Rooker:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Farmers who have saved seed of a protected variety before the Bill comes into force may continue to do so without payment until such time as Ministers discontinue the "prior use" exemption by order.
We have emphasised in the House and in the other place that we will not discontinue the prior use exemption until after 30 June 2001. The amendment writes that into the Bill. I was almost prepared to accept a manuscript amendment in Committee during the summer, but that is no longer necessary.
Mr. Paice:
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I greatly welcome the agreement that he and his colleagues have reached on this subject. As he said, we discussed the matter in Committee. Notwithstanding the fact that yesterday the Home Secretary accepted a major amendment within minutes of proposing legislation on the European elections, I believe that this is the first amendment proposed by the Opposition in this Parliament to which the Government have acceded. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment--I hope that it is not the last time that that occurs.
It is interesting to observe that the notes on the clause refer to the fact that on Second Reading in another place Lord Carter undertook to address our concerns. They do not mention the similar undertaking that the Minister gave me in Committee--I trust that that does not mean that he ignored that promise. I am grateful to him for agreeing to the amendment, which has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union and by the industry because it ensures that the exemption will continue at least until the date specified in the amendment, as agreed originally.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford):
The Minister may recall that I pressed him on Second Reading to amend the Bill, and he said that the matter would be attended to in another place. I was concerned that existing farm saved seed would not become liable to the requirement to pay
"any other act prescribed for the purposes of this provision."
The Minister said that that was necessary to ensure that everything else could be covered, and he gave one or two examples, yet when Lord Carter spoke to the amendment in the other place, he said:
"It is, however, quite possible for a product to be made from harvested material to which the breeder's rights extend, without committing any of the acts in Clause 6(1)."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 1997; Vol. 582, c. 827.]
26 Nov 1997 : Column 1043
That is what the Minister has just said, but if that is the case, I do not understand why there is the need for the catch-all paragraph (h).
I have a further query about the use of material derived, to which the Minister referred. I am grateful to him for arranging for me to receive the notes on the amendments, but unusually, they threw up a question that is more puzzling than the amendment itself.
Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 38, leave out (", or other") and insert ("and")
Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 5, line 20, after ("date") insert ("after 30th June 2001")
"Thank him for his graciousness
In truth I expected no less.
Here is the message his change will send:
He's an honourable farmers' friend."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |