§ Lord CarterMy Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to implement the 1991 revisions to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants—or the UPOV Convention as it is commonly known. I understand that in the other place UPOV was described as a French acronym. In fact, boringly, it stands for the Union for the Protection of Varieties. At the same time, it will align the standards of protection offered by the UK national system of plant breeders' rights with those already available under the parallel, but separate, European Community plant breeders' rights regime established in September 1994.
Plant breeders' rights are a form of intellectual property, similar to patents, which enable plant breeders to obtain protection for new varieties and an income, through royalties, on their commercial exploitation. They are underpinned at international level by the UPOV Convention. The UK played a major role in the development of the first UPOV Convention, signed in 1961, and was a founder member of the union which it established.
A vibrant and successful plant breeding industry committed to investment in developing new, improved varieties is vital to the success of the UK agriculture industry and the nursery trade. A robust system of plant variety protection is essential to provide the necessary incentives to investment in plant breeding in this country.
The plant breeders' rights regime established by the 1964 Plant Varieties and Seeds Act implemented the first UPOV convention. But technology has moved on apace since 1964 and this was the driving force behind the revisions in the 1991 convention.
As well as enabling the UK to ratify the 1991 convention, the Bill will bring our national system of protection into line with that provided by the Community regime. Plant breeders have a choice between national systems of protection and the Community system which offers a right valid in all 15 member states. The Bill will put an end to the confusion which can arise when two systems which are different, but each of which have the same users (plant breeders, nurserymen, farmers and seed processors), operate side by side.
Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, when it was debated in another place some concerns were voiced about the safety and environmental impact of plant varieties developed by genetic modification. It is of 1122 course essential that these matters are addressed. This is why stringent statutory controls already exist which govern the release of all genetically modified organisms into the environment. But I should like to emphasise that this Bill is concerned only with plant breeders' rights. It does not have any implications for the regulation of releases of genetically modified plant varieties.
The statutory controls on releases, which include releases of genetically modified plant varieties, are quite separate from the Bill. Their effect is that a consent must be issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment, if the release is in England, or the Secretaries of State for Scotland or Wales, as appropriate, each acting jointly with the Minister of Agriculture in matters of joint interest, before any genetically modified organism can be released into the environment. No consent can be issued without the agreement of the Health and Safety Executive.
The independent expert members of the statutory Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment—or ACRE as it is known—consider applications to release and market genetically modified organisms. ACRE advises Ministers whether a consent should be granted and which conditions should be attached to any consent. The Plant Variety Rights Office cannot undertake the tests necessary to establish whether a variety meets the criteria for plant breeders' rights unless and until the necessary clearance has been obtained. Nothing in the Bill alters or affects this position in any way.
Perhaps I could also emphasise that plant breeding is fundamentally about genetic change, whether that change is brought about through traditional methods of crossing and selection, or through genetic modification. The Bill does not favour or encourage one method of plant breeding over the other.
There are also concerns in some quarters about the development of genetically modified crops by multinational companies. There is an international dimension to plant breeding. This is recognised in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property requires member countries to protect plant breeders' rights by patents, or a separate effective system. The Bill provides an effective system of plant breeders' rights, but it does not favour one type of company over another. Instead, it seeks to provide the basis for plant breeders from large and small companies to obtain a fair return on their investments.
Specific concerns have also been raised about the development of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops and their management on the farm. MAFF published a discussion document on this subject on 10th July. This in my view is the more appropriate vehicle for dealing with this topic, not the Bill we have before us which is concerned only with intellectual property protection.
To turn to what is in the Bill, although it is a long one, many of its provisions do no more than re-enact and, where appropriate, clarify equivalent provisions from the 1964 Act. Given its length, I shall concentrate 1123 on describing the more fundamental changes it makes to the 1964 Act, rather than detaining the House with a clause-by-clause explanation of the detail.
The fundamental changes are in Clauses 6 to 10 which are about the scope of plant breeders' rights. The basic right in the 1964 Act is the exclusive right to sell propagating material of a protected variety, or produce propagating material for sale. The key change in Clause 6 is the much wider scope of things which a breeder can prevent others from doing with propagating material of a protected variety, without his authority. This includes, for example, any production or reproduction of propagating material, conditioning—which means preparing for planting—import, export and so on. Taken together, provisions in Clause 6(1) give the breeder control over all the things necessary to exploit a variety.
UPOV found it impossible to define "propagating material" in the 1991 Convention. The nature of plant material, and the technology, are such that a variety may be propagated from a much wider range of material than seeds or cuttings. Plant material which is commonly disposed of as the final product may be used as propagating material. For example, tissue culture techniques mean that a plant of a vegetatively propagated variety may be obtained from a cut flower. A whole plant or bush which is sold to the public may alternatively be used as propagating material to produce more plants. The Bill, like the 1991 convention, does not include a definition of propagating material - any material which is actually used as propagating material is propagating material for the purposes of Clause 6(1).
The breeder can authorise others to undertake any of the acts in Clause 6(1), and may make his authority subject to conditions. This is the basis for plant breeders' rights licences, which are the means whereby the breeder gives permission to others to exploit the variety, subject to payment of a royalty, while at the same time retaining overall control of it.
The control which the breeder has over his variety is-as with other forms of intellectual property-wide ranging, but it is not unlimited. Acts done for private, non-commercial purposes or to breed another variety, for example, do not come within the breeder's control. Above all, the breeder must act reasonably in taking commercial decisions on whether to issue licences and on what terms. If he does not do so, the controller has powers to issue a compulsory licence and to set the terms, provided that it is in the public interest.
In normal circumstances, as Clause 10 makes clear, the breeder's right is exhausted once propagating material is disposed of with his consent to produce a commercial crop. However, if material sold with the breeder's authority for a purpose which results in exhaustion of rights is used for another purpose, then the breeder's right may not be exhausted. For example, if a finished pot plant is used as source material for vegetative propagation of further plants, then the breeder's right is not exhausted.
The ability of the breeder to take action against infringement of his rights has been strengthened by extending his rights to harvested material which has 1124 been obtained from the unauthorised use of propagating material in those circumstances where the breeder has not had a reasonable opportunity to exercise rights against the propagating material before the point at which it is harvested.
(My Lords, when reading a brief such as this, I have the feeling that the original Sanskrit was probably easier to understand!)
The Bill also includes an optional provision from the 1991 Convention which allows Ministers to extend rights, by regulations, to specific products made directly from harvested material of particular types of varieties which have been obtained through unauthorised use of propagating and harvested material where the breeder has not had reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights at an earlier stage. I should add that Ministers will use the discretion to extend rights to directly made products only where they are satisfied that plant breeders are suffering significantly from pirating of a particular group of varieties with special properties of value, for example, for industrial use.
I should like to emphasise that the extension of rights to enable a breeder to act against harvested material and, where provided for in regulations, directly made products does not give plant breeders a choice between acting against propagating or consumption material. The breeder must always act against infringement of his rights at the earliest possible stage. The most obvious instance where a breeder might not have reasonable opportunity to exercise rights at an earlier stage is unauthorised use of propagating material outside the UK, in a country which does not offer protection to it, followed by an import of the harvested material or, possibly, a product made directly from the harvested material.
Clause 7 extends the breeder's right in a protected variety to encompass a second variety dependent on it. The 1964 Act already recognises that there is a form of dependency in production of hybrids which can only be obtained through repeated use of parent lines. The concept of essential derivation, however, is a new one, introduced to address developments in plant breeding technology.
It can take many years and a heavy financial investment to develop a commercially successful new variety using traditional breeding techniques. Newer techniques in plant breeding, or natural mutations, may result in very small changes to a protected variety in a relatively short time. The change may be only one characteristic of no commercial significance, but it may be freely commercialised in competition with the initial variety, without any acknowledgement of the contribution made by the latter.
Clause 7 provides that where the resultant change is sufficient to make the second variety distinct, but in all other respects the second variety expresses the same characteristics as the initial protected variety, then it may be essentially derived from the initial variety. Clause 7 extends the umbrella of protection in the initial variety to cover the essentially derived variety. In consequence, the breeder of the initial variety has the right to prevent anyone doing any of the acts in Clause 1125 6 in respect of the essentially derived variety. In other words—and your Lordships will be waiting for this!—he can prevent its commercial exploitation.
This enables the breeder of a protected variety to obtain a fair return on his investment. In practical terms, those working on a breeding programme which may result in an essentially derived variety can be expected to reach agreement on its commercialisation with the owner of the initial variety, otherwise there would be little point in their work. I can tell your Lordships that I did not expect a laugh a line while reading this speech!
I have already touched on the exceptions to the breeder's right in Clause 8 which enable the use of protected varieties for private, or other non-commercial purposes, or for experiments, or in a breeding programme. These are compulsory exceptions in the 1991 convention.
The 1991 convention also allows contracting states to restrict the breeder's right in respect of farm-saved seed, subject to safeguarding the legitimate interests of the breeder. I know that several noble Lords are interested in that aspect. Income from royalties is essential to encourage continued investment in UK plant breeding. Use of farm-saved seed without payment denies breeders income from their investment and restricts their ability to invest further in development.
In broad terms, Clause 9 exempts the use of farm-saved seed of species or groups prescribed in regulations from the breeder's right. But farmers who save seed of a protected variety or an essentially derived variety are liable to pay the breeder for that use. 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.
Ministers intend to exempt from the breeder's right all those species and groups which may be farm saved under the Community regime. Farmers will therefore be able to farm save seed of these species for use on their own holdings without the breeder's authority. But unless they come into one of the exempt categories, this will be balanced by a requirement 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.
The requirement to pay will apply to varieties protected under the 1964 Act, as well as new varieties which come into protection after the Bill comes into force. But small farmers as defined in the Community regime are permanently exempt from the requirement to pay. There is a further exemption for farmers who have saved seed of a particular variety before the Bill comes into force, who may continue to save that variety, free of charge, until such time as Ministers discontinue this provision by order.
A similar "prior use" exemption is in the Community regime. This expires on 30th June 2001, though the Council regulation makes it clear that this date is subject to review in the light of a report which the Commission 1126 is required to make before then, and may he extended on a variety, group or species basis, depending on the findings in the report.
It is our intention to discontinue the prior use exemption at the same time as the corresponding provision in the Community regime is discontinued. This will not be before 30th 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 30th June 2001.
When the Bill was debated in another place, there was some concern at the absence of any reference in the Bill to the 30th June 2001 date. The reason for this, as my honourable friend the Minister of State made clear, is to ensure that the prior use exemption will not expire on 30th June 2001 if the corresponding date in the Community regime is extended.
Nevertheless, we recognise the concerns that have been raised on this point. The Government will therefore bring forward an amendment at Committee stage to put the 30th June 2001 date on the face of the Bill. I hope this will reassure farmers who save seed that they may continue to use varieties they currently save, free of charge, until that date. I understand, too, that the British Society of Plant Breeders has publicly stated that it does not propose to collect any payment on older UK protected varieties before 30th June 2001. I welcome this assurance.
I know that some sectors of the industry, particularly those representing the mobile seed cleaners, are concerned at the prospect of Ministers discontinuing the prior use exemption at any time in the future. It remains our intention to discontinue the exemption at the same time as the corresponding provision is removed in the Community regime. I hope the assurances I have given, combined with the amendment we shall bring forward in Committee which ensure the exemption will continue until at least 30th June 2001, will also give them some reassurance.
As regards level of payment, this is for breeders and farmers to negotiate, 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 indeed the Government do not intend to intervene in what we believe are essentially commercial matters between breeders and farmers. I am impressed at the constructive way in which representatives of breeders, farmers and seed processors approached the farm-saved seed issue when it was first broached for Community protected varieties. I hope a similar constructive approach will prevail with this extension of the farm-saved seed provisions to UK protected varieties.
As your Lordships will realise, this is an extremely technical measure but it is of considerable importance to the agriculture and horticulture industries. I am aware that the National Farmers Union, the National Association of Agricultural Contractors and the British Association for the Representation of Breeders and others have views about particular aspects of the Bill. 1127 Because of the very technical nature of the Bill, I am more than happy to meet colleagues from all parts of the House with officials to discuss any relevant matters before we reach Committee stage after the Recess.
That brings me to the end of the most significant elements of this somewhat technically complex Bill. To summarise, it sets the framework for a national system of plant variety protection which should provide the basis for a healthy UK breeding and farming industry in the years to come. I commend it to the House.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Carter.)
§ 11.25 a.m.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, your Lordships may be surprised to know that this is not the Royal Variety Show! I welcome this Bill with one exception. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has spoken of the negotiations which took place some time ago concerning the EU law relating to seeds and in particular to farm-saved seeds. As a MAFF Minister at that time, I was involved in the many discussions regarding that subject.
The principle that holders of plant variety rights are entitled to royalties was agreed as a result of the UPOV Convention of 1991 and by the European Union in the European Directive 8167/94 on 1st September 1994.
The directive also allows exemptions from royalty for small farmers, and limits the rights to newer varieties only. Difficult trade negotiations decided rates of royalty and collection methods. The royalty-free status of older varieties was an important element in those negotiations.
Clause 9(3) of the Bill seeks to extend the royalty scheme to all protected varieties, including the older ones which do not enjoy such protection under the European scheme. I am advised by such organisations as the National Association of Agricultural Contractors that that provision will destroy a cornerstone of the trade agreement. The agreement in relation to rates of royalty and collection methods worked smoothly in 1996–97 and is about to enter its second year. This new provision will upset the balance of market forces which helped to determine overall royalty rates. It will increase farmers' costs and erode hard-won confidence in certain sectors, particularly, I am told, among farmers in the north of England and in Scotland.
I know that I am a dumb bunny, but I must ask whether the government amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred, ensures that the exemption for older varieties remains; in particular, that no variety registered before December 1991 should, for the rest of its protected life—25 years in total—be liable for royalties when used as farm-saved seed.
I mention 25 years because, with older varieties, a minimum of six years and a maximum of 24 years has already expired. Large-scale use is usually limited to about 8 to 10 years. The exemption for older varieties would minimise the effect on breeder income. If the Government's amendment does not fulfil my criterion 1128 I am afraid that, in my view, it will not be adequate. I await with anticipation the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
§ 11.29 a.m.
§ Lord BerkeleyMy Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak on a subject on which I am not normally known to speak. However, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on a right tour de force, frankly. I met my noble friend Lord Donoughue this week and asked him why he would not be dealing with this matter today. He said that he had a much more difficult job; that is, visiting the farmers and fishermen of Cornwall. Having heard my noble friend's tour de force this morning, I am not sure who drew the short straw.
I am no agricultural specialist and I am not an expert on genetically modified organisms. But I have concerns about some parts of this Bill from a competition and environmental point of view. At first sight, the Bill appears to be fairly non-contentious and highly technical. But having had some matters drawn to my attention—I have received a number of papers from different organisations and representations about the potential consequences of the legislation—I feel it is necessary to voice two concerns.
First, the Bill appears likely to encourage a concentration of the seed market into a few multinationals, creating what I see as possible monopoly situations. That would also tie the seed market into the use of specific fertilisers and weedkillers from the same manufacturers.
Secondly, in encouraging farmers to buy seeds which may well require regular chemical treatment—weedkillers or fertilisers—the measure is likely to increase ground and water pollution. To reduce the variety of plants promoted to be grown would seem to contravene commitments made at the Rio Summit a few years ago.
I start off with the question: why is the Bill necessary? Why is it so urgent, and who stands to gain and lose from its coming into force? What are the likely consequences of its coming into force and are those very different from the consequences if it did not? It seems to me that it has been put together in rather a rush, with all the stages in another place taking place on the same day.
My noble friend the Minister said that a successful plant breeding industry committed to improving varieties is vital to the success of UK agriculture, and the industry needs incentives to invest. Very laudable objectives, but what difference will the Bill really make, and do we need it anyway? Are we short of food? I do not believe that we are in the UK, nor indeed in Europe. Since the last war there has been a fourfold increase in food production and efficiency in the agricultural industry. If there are food shortages in other parts of the world—and there certainly seem to be—I believe that they are caused more by war or other problems than by lack of agricultural support.
In Europe we still suffer from serious overproduction of food, at present bolstered by the CAP. In my view, that is a very good reason for the European Commission 1129 to propose a wholesale change to the CAP before further members join from the East. Indeed, I believe that it would probably be better to abolish the CAP completely and put some of the money saved directly into the countryside and the regions.
I was interested to read an article in yesterday's Independent which said:
As for the CAP as a tool of environmental protection, that is risible. It is a scheme for subsidising over-production and. in certain areas, that has meant the ruthless exploitation of land for a single crop".Strong words indeed. So we already subsidise overproduction, and this Bill seems to be designed to encourage new types of seed, which will only exacerbate the situation, as well as reducing the diversity of plant life.Do we need new types of seed, perhaps genetically engineered? How quickly must they be introduced, if at all, and what enforcement of checks is available? Those are some of the key questions. I understand that, whereas a few years ago crop varieties were mainly developed by plant breeding stations with government finance, both across Europe and here, they are now developed by multinationals. It is great to get the private sector involved. However, when the American company, Monsanto, claims that it will be the main provider of agricultural technology in the future, and Rhone Poulenc and Merck MSDA have merged to become the world's largest poultry genetics and health business, one can be quite clear as to who stands to gain from the Bill and the relevant EU legislation. These companies control the research, the development, the marketing, the sales and what one might euphemistically call, "the after-sales service", which seems to comprise the sale of essential chemicals and the collection of royalties for farm-saved seed.
Consequently, the amount of independent research has fallen and is falling; the companies no doubt employ the best scientists, but are they able to discuss and debate their findings, their concerns and their conclusions openly and freely? Or are they gagged by their contracts with their employers? That is question which needs debating. If such companies bring efficiencies to the industry on such an unprecedented scale, one would expect that they might pass on some of them to the farmers, and might not worry too much if farmers continued to use a little farm-saved seed, on which they have already paid royalties. Figures I have received indicate that they sell seed barley at £320, whereas a farmer might sell his crop for £70. That is quite a mark-up for research and treatment. I quite understand why farmers might prefer to use last year's model of seed. They could argue that they have paid for the use of it once. Why should they not carry on as they choose? It might actually suit their land to continue to use that seed. I see a lack of competition appearing here. I suspect that the manufacturers want the law tightened up so that they can control the market even more effectively.
More serious still, in my view, is the fact that these new genetically-engineered seeds—as an engineer, I do not like this use of the word "engineering"; but there we are, that is what the process is apparently called—are only likely to thrive if they are treated with the fertilisers and weedkillers manufactured by the companies that produces the seeds. The farmers may find that, if they choose products from another 1130 company, or none at all, they will have a disaster on their hands. So farmers are tied into one manufacturer's seed at possibly inflated prices, as well as his fertilisers and weedkillers, which have been genetically modified to keep other companies products away. Fertilisers and other chemicals become a requirement as opposed to an option.
Therefore, what are the likely environmental effects? The preamble to the Bill on page V says: "There are none". I am not sure that that is quite the whole story. My noble friend the Minister described it briefly, but I believe that we need to explore it a little further. It seems to me that the Bill is likely to cause an increase in the overall level of chemicals used on the soil. What happens to the soil, the runoff and the watercourses with all this? What are the other environmental effects? It appears that the Bill will also reduce biodiversity by encouraging the development of plants by fewer and fewer companies. Therefore, as I said earlier, it may contravene the Rio Convention—certainly in intent—as well as many other environmental policies to which both sides of the House—both parties and both governments—have been committed for some time. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can let me know in due course what work has been done to study the possible effects of such new, genetically modified organisms on the watercourses and water supplies.
We have seen such a situation before with nitrates pollution. I do not wish to dwell on that issue, but there was a lot of argument that nitrates were essential for food production; indeed, they may well have been, but the problems still remain and no one is paying much towards the clean-up. If we cannot be certain, should we rush ahead at quite such a break-neck speed to give the multinationals the legal comfort necessary to grasp hold of more of the market? Can we really be certain that the plants developed will not have a serious, adverse effect on the environment, because it is all happening so quickly? Further, can we monitor what is going on?
Can we monitor genetically-engineered maize? We have heard the American industry saying that it cannot be bothered to separate genetically from non-genetically engineered maize when it comes in for processing and saying, "If you don't like it, tough". When there was a shortage of food, one could understand some of these developments. However, whether one could accept it is a matter for debate. But do we need this increased food production now? Surely we need more environmentally-friendly farming with a system to enable farmers to make a decent living, without being forced by such measures to increase chemical application and increase pollution for no particular purpose? It certainly seems to me that some farmers do not want it, and there is mounting concern from many environmental groups. I believe that the Government said yesterday in another place that they wished to encourage organic farming, but how will that be achieved if the chemicals effectively become part of the new seed package?
I am not persuaded about the urgency of this measure. It may be fine for the UK to lead the rest of Europe—and I strongly support the Government's more positive working arrangements with European institutions—but, 1131 with that more positive arrangement, there is also the opportunity for constructive criticism which is equally valid.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could tell me how many member states have ratified the 1991 revisions to UPOV. It would be interesting to consider the suggestion that this Government should not ratify until many other member states, perhaps all of them, have ratified it. I understand that several member states, including Italy and Luxembourg, have already banned genetically-engineered maize. Are they likely to ratify UPOV if they have already banned it?
I conclude by thanking the Minister for attempting to make me understand the Bill. Indeed, he tried very hard to do so and I understood most of what he said. However, I do have these environmental and competition concerns on which I look forward to hearing his comments.
§ 11.40 a.m.
§ The Earl of OnslowMy Lords, I thank the Minister for making a complicated Bill understandable. I apologise for not having added my name to the list of speakers. That was an oversight. I shall speak within the four minutes that are allowed.
I wish to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said. There are distinct worries about genetic engineering and about the concentration of seed companies which are genetically engineering seeds which will only react to their own fertilizers and sprays. That is an anti-competitive practice. However, at the same time we must also realise that without those seed companies and without the agrochemical industry we would not have been able to increase our food production to the point where, from an agricultural point of view, starvation need never occur. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, famines are caused by incompetent and greedy people. If a farmer is shot when he is planting his seeds he will not be able to return to harvest them. That is what causes famine, not the non-availability of proper, well thought out seed and fertilizer policies.
I wish to emphasise what I believe to be a danger of some of the genetically engineered plants. We may all be singing from the same hymn sheet in this regard. A document was sent to me which struck me so forcefully that I thought I should bring it to your Lordships' attention. It may not strictly appertain to the Bill but it is worth quoting. It states,
The failure of a genetically engineered cotton crop in Texas which suffered a severe attack of boll worm which it was modified to resist; increased cyanide content in one potato variety; the lack of marker gene in modified soya due to a gene not staying on the chromosome on which it was placed, the allergenic effect on babies of honey produced from genetically engineered rape pollen;—and this seems to me important—the spray resistant weeds produced by cross-pollination with a modified sugar beet and rape grown some distance away in the European Union trials are a few instances that illustrate the present problems that go with the technology of genetic engineering. In addition there is the inclusion of antibiotic resistant marker genes in genetically engineered crops. This can be passed on to the consumer producing bacteria resistance".1132 We all know that bacteria are becoming progressively more and more resistant. I raise these points for the attention of your Lordships' House. The document came through the post. I believe it is worth while raising these points. The Government say that they are environmentally sensitive and I take that at its face value. I am talking about excellent companies here but the more power is concentrated in those companies, the more we have to be vigilant. It is a case of quis custodiet ipsos custodies—who guards the guards themselves? We must be careful about this matter. I hope that this three minute intervention has had a minor impact on the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
§ 11.43 a.m.
The Earl of ClanwilliamMy Lords, I hope I may speak for one minute to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on his mastery of this extremely complicated Bill. As he said, the matter concerns intellectual property rights. If genetically modified plants had not been introduced by large companies, this Bill would not be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Onslow have clearly stated all the problems associated with genetically modified plants and the dangers that arise when spray resistant weeds are produced. The Soil Association and organic farmers are as concerned about this matter as those who have spoken today. I hope that we shall discuss those anxieties when we discuss the measure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned.
§ 11.44 a.m.
§ Lord Beaumont of WhitleyMy Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the Bill. I assure him that, as with all great performers, it was not so much the jokes as the way in which he delivered them that was important.
This Bill forms part of the battlefield on which the transnational corporations are conducting their campaign to dominate the agriculture of the world. Noble Lords may think that that is an exaggerated way of putting a simple little Bill, so simple that the Government thought that they could get it through another place in 24 hours. Given their majority there, they thought rightly; but if they thought that they could get it through without protest they had another think coming.
Nor is the argument that this Bill is merely the implementation of European law a reason for not considering it carefully. No one has accused my party—at least for the past 40 years—of being anti-European but my colleagues in another place thought the Bill raised such difficult and unthought through issues that they voted against it on Second Reading. Unfortunately convention forbids my attempting to do the same here.
As the NFU has stated in a brief, the Bill should not only mirror EU legislation but should also reflect the considerable changes in commercial practice and market pressures which have occurred within the industry since the introduction of the plant varieties Act in 1964. My honourable friend the Member for 1133 Lewes, Mr. Norman Baker—what pleasure it gives me to deploy that unaccustomed phrase, "my honourable friend the Member for Lewes" —drew the attention of the House to the issues involved and tabled a number of amendments, as I may well do in your Lordships' House, following consultation with the National Farmers' Union, the Soil Association and Greenpeace. Noble Lords will note that is a wide spectrum of concerned bodies.
The seed business is big business. For instance, this year alone Monsanto has bought up three seed breeding and marketing companies for more than £1 billion. The Bill acts in some ways as a catalyst and facilitator for transnational companies to exert unprecedented control over the seed industry—a control which I consider unacceptable here in the developed world and positively appalling in the context of the third world where so many of the genetic resources are found, while the technology for the most part rests in the north. It has been said by the Minister that the whole question of genetically modified seed is not within the scope of the Bill. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others have shown that it is a matter which must be included. Therefore I intend to speak on it briefly. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time on something which is not a major part of the Bill but which I nevertheless consider is a part of it.
There is widespread concern about these matters in western Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about the reservations of others of our European partners—for example, where there are bans on the planting of genetically modified maize. As the noble Lord said, one of the main reasons for the enormous investment is to produce genetically modified seed that is tied into the use of pesticides—and even to produce non-genetically modified seed that is tied into the use of pesticides—so that farmers are obliged to buy those companies' products. Some pesticide patents are due to end shortly; how convenient to be able to patent seeds that are dependent on such pesticides, thus giving them a new lease of life. Often this can be extremely dangerous. Roundup Ready soya may flourish, but the glyphosphate which is involved may pose a serious danger to all surrounding flora as well as to ladybirds and earthworms. Did your Lordships know that there are 32 distinct varieties of ladybird in this country? I advise noble Lords to read Gardening Which? this month which contains a fascinating article on the subject.
Another main reason is to enable the seed cartel to levy a sum on all farm-saved seed. It is indeed right that breeders and innovators be modestly rewarded for their work and be funded to pursue further work. But what is being engineered here are vast profits way beyond anything which could reasonably he called "earned", with rights being given to extend claims beyond 30 years and other rights being given to the ownership of seeds that occur naturally.
The greatest threat posed by this Bill is that it seems to be another step along the road of decline of genetic diversity—that was another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—one of the great threats to the sustainability of the planet. Quite apart from the monopoly problem, the environmental consequences of 1134 the fast move towards genetically modified crops gives cause for grave concern. The note attached to the Bill, which states that it has no environmental impact, is one of the most astonishing misstatements to have been placed before your Lordships' House by otherwise respectable civil servants.
First, there is the creation of a permanent reliance on pesticides. The Government have stated that they are committed to the support of organic farming, as we have been told and is welcomed. However, the Bill raises doubts as to whether there can be any guaranteed organic crops with the risk of airborne spread of material from genetically modified crops next door.
Secondly, there is a danger that a modified crop might become a devastating weed. Many of the traits that geneticists seek to engineer in crops are geared to dominance of and resistance to the normal controls of natural life.
The third environmental point is that there is a danger of increased pesticide residues in the crops of genetically engineered plants. Fourthly, there is the problem of marker genes which can cause resistance to antibiotics—already a problem. There are no end to the problems and the dangers. However, there is the ethical problem of the private ownership of genetic material which is encouraged by the Bill and which, I believe, is ethically unacceptable.
An important point made by the Minister was that the Committee stage will be after the Recess. If that is so, that is indeed welcome. From the speeches made, and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I am sure that amendments can usefully be put down at Committee stage. We on these Benches will join in that process. With those major reservations, I welcome the Bill.
§ 11.51 a.m.
Lord LucasMy Lords, we too welcome the Bill, having been the people who signed up to UPOV in the first place. We are delighted that the Government support UPOV to the extent of bringing forward the Bill. I hope that the Minister will confirm also that he supports the sister organisation, UPOHP—the Union for the Preservation of Hereditary Peers!
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we have three months between Second Reading and Committee stage. I believe that that will prove a useful period. The Bill follows legislation which lasted over 30 years. We expect the Bill to last over 30 years in its turn. Therefore the more consideration and care we can give to it the better. I shall ask the noble Lord a number of questions. I very much hope that he will not reply to many of them. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to put forward anything in Hansard which will make our discussions over the next three months more difficult. I hope that he will merely confirm what he has already said: that he will be open to representations and will listen carefully to what we and others say to him.
Perhaps I may give some indication of the principal concerns we have at this stage, in no particular order. First, as the Minister said, it is probably impossible to define propagating material these days. It can be 1135 anything; it can be a single cell. One can imagine producing a Dollyanthus from a petal that one picked up in a florist shop. Under those circumstances, what is and is not propagating material becomes fuzzy. One can see a difference in the systems. With ornamentals, the breeder will retain control of the process to the point where the pot plant is sold to the supermarket. With grain, the breeder loses control rather earlier. He does not control the grain up to the point where it is sold to the miller but to the point where it is sold to the farmer. There is a propagative step which in conventional terms is outside the breeder's right.
It is a matter of concern to the National Farmers' Union that the Bill may be written in a way which, over time, will allow the multinationals to extend their control over the grain, potato and other trades—it has been achieved in horticultural and ornamentals practice—to the end point. If one has an integrated company, which includes millers or end users, it can enforce the sale of a product to a miller or end user. It can control the way that farmers farm. Farmers will wish to preserve the freedom to operate they now have. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, supports that aim in his heart. We shall have a happy time ensuring that the Bill allows that right to continue.
Clause 15 is an important safety valve. It allows the controller to insist that licences are granted. That provision is in current law. However, it has some deficiencies. If a farmer is arguing with a supplier of a specific variety, in particular if that supplier is, and increasingly will be, a large, widespread company—in farming it is likely to be an agricultural seed merchant or someone of that kind—he will have a wide range of business with the supplier. If that company says, "No, we shall not let you have that variety," and the farmer replies, "I shall stump off to the controller and obtain an order that we shall have it", he had better watch out for the remainder of his business with that supplier. There will be few cases where a supplier will wish to bring a case against the breeder or his agent to obtain supplies. He will usually be frightened off at a much earlier stage.
In essence Clause 15 protects the national interest. As I shall mention when considering other points, there are circumstances where it is important for the nation that plant varieties are properly licensed and available to farmers or whoever needs them. I shall propose that the right of appeal to the controller be extended to organisations which are able to seek from the controller a general ruling that a specific variety be licensed more widely or on more commercial terms. I do not specify any person to whom it should be licensed.
For example, it may be necessary for my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam to use a particularly old variety for organic farming because it is best for that purpose. But the company may wish to withdraw that variety because it wants its main customers, the farmers, to obtain a new variety which requires the use of its own insecticide or fertiliser. It is in the national interest that the old variety continues to be licensed. We want effective use of Clause 15. I am concerned that the old system—it is reproduced in the Bill—will not sufficiently meet the 1136 condition, well described by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, of increasing domination by multinationals.
I turn to farm saved seeds. We welcome the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. At first sight they meet the points raised. I shall be interested to hear his reply to my noble friend Lady Trumpington on that matter.
We wish to take a little further the phrase "sensibly lower". As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the phrase is now a year or two old. Through a series of tortuous negotiations, it has been expanded into a rather complex formula so that "sensibly lower" is dealt with variety by variety. However, we should like a reserve power in the Bill, intended never to be used but there in case things get out of hand, so that at no time over the next 30 years can multinationals, or whoever controls the seed trade, make unreasonable demands regarding "sensibly lower" and say that 95 per cent. is sensibly lower rather than the general figure which, I believe, is now 42 per cent. We should like some long-term protection to ensure that negotiations continue to be conducted on a reasonable basis.
Clause 11(2) puzzles us somewhat. It allows for the extension of plant breeders' rights beyond the 25 or 30 years, apparently without limit. The Government could decide to give a 150-year protection on a given variety without either consultation or limit. If the Government can justify having this power to grant enormous extensions, we wish to see the requirement for extensive consultation before that occurs. Alternatively, we wish to see the power limited to the figure of five years in the EC directive, under which circumstances we shall be happy for the Government to have the discretion without consultation.
Schedule 3 sets up the tribunal and states how it should work. The tribunal is composed of a chairman—who is clearly likely to be legally or similarly qualified and a "lay" person in the sense of not being involved in the seed industry—and one person who is likely to know the way round either side of a dispute. We are concerned that paragraph 7(1)(a) as written could mean that the person chosen, as it were, to represent the farmers (though "represent" is the wrong word) and having that kind of understanding might not necessarily command the confidence of farmers; that he or she might just be any academic or an agricultural consultant of no particular reputation. I should appreciate the Government's assurance, which is all that we seek, that the person chosen under paragraph 7(1)(a) will be someone expected to command the confidence of the farming or forestry community. We seek an assurance that that is the way in which the Government will seek to act.
A substantial point was raised, principally by the British association representing breeders (BARB) regarding traceability of product. The association is principally concerned with ornamentals. When dealing with farm product, there are controls on seed and the whole area is documented and controlled. That is not the case with ornamentals. We are dealing with a product of fundamentally higher value, one that can be produced, 1137 as it were, in secret and then reappear at any number of widely spread outlets such as garage forecourts or the displays of people on the side of the road selling cut flowers. A producer may suddenly find that his or her variety is being offered widely for sale without having any chance of discovering where it is coming from. People clearly do not want to be faced with proceeding against a large number of small operators; they want to find out who is behind the operation.
BARB, quite reasonably, seeks the same rights as breeders in relation to farm-saved seed; namely, the right to information, to find out where the produce is coming from, and then to take appropriate action against, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the lowest possible point in the chain. Without the right to information (this would also apply to farm-saved seed) enforcement becomes impossible. We should like to see the problem addressed in the Bill. France and Germany have offered that sort of protection—Germany, I am told, to the extent of making it a criminal offence to indulge in such activities. I do not see that that would be appropriate in this country; however, it shows that our competitors take the matter very seriously. If we try to enact a measure that is noticeably weaker, we may well find that, over time, the ornamentals breeding industry, which is very strong in this country, will tend to move elsewhere.
There would also be some useful applications in other fields. One matter raised with me by, for instance, the NFU, is that of the problems in the potato market where supermarkets have taken to insisting on a particular variety. The immediate response of the breeders or their agents has been an enormous hike in the costs of buying seed of that variety. That has led to a large black market developing among those who produce the seed, small ware, or whatever form it might take. People can plant without paying the royalty and make the operation very uneconomic for those who obey the rules. If the people who had the rights—breeders or their agents—knew that they could go to any outlet selling potatoes and end up knowing who had supplied them they would be in a much better position to insist that royalties were paid and might even persuade supermarkets to do what they do not do at present; namely, take the sensible step of making sure that payments required of the producers by the breeders are reasonable before the supermarkets specify that a particular variety is the only one that they will buy.
I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, my noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the general problems surrounding the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right: the Bill does not go far into that territory. However, there is a strong argument for making sure that the measures in the Bill do not inhibit our dealing with the real problems which may exist (I do not want to go further than that) and which have been outlined by noble Lords.
I return to Clause 15, which gives those in the industry some control over what breeders do with their rights. It is enormously important that old varieties are kept in the market and that we are not deprived of them and forced to use material that is heavily dependent on 1138 agrochemicals or, in particular, on farming practices which may be undesirable. It is likewise important, and another matter that we should pursue, that the country has access to the genetic material represented by the older, unmodified varieties in case we have to "back-track" and return to their use because of disadvantages unrecognised now but possibly presenting difficulties in the future.
I have received a helpful paper from MAFF on the work being done on genetic resources. It is clear that a good deal is being done, but in a rather ad hoc sort of way, and that the work could be wiped out by the Chancellor "blowing his nose too hard" on Budget Day. It would be a very good idea to anchor in the Bill an obligation to keep and preserve for a considerable length of time, certainly beyond the expiry of their paper rights, as it were, the genetic material of all varieties licensed in this country.
Finally, I turn to the Scottish question. The Bill incorporates the unusual term, "Ministers" rather than "Minister". I refer to Clause 46 of the Bill, where "the Ministers acting jointly" have to take action under the Bill. What will be the arrangement post-devolution? I do not really expect the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to be armed with an answer now; but we shall certainly expect an answer in Committee. We ought to anticipate the changes which may take place in this area. We should not leave the matter merely to be dealt with in a consequential amendment at the back end of some gigantic devolution Bill when such a Bill comes before us. We ought to consider it now.
§ 12.7 p.m.
§ Lord CarterMy Lords, I am extremely grateful to your Lordships for this constructive and very wide-ranging short debate on a highly complex, technical Bill. I am beginning to understand why my noble friend Lord Donoughue was anxious to do the regional trip to Cornwall today and leave me to deal with this measure!
I believe that we all agree that the health of the plant breeding industry is fundamentally important to the future success and competitiveness of UK agriculture and the nursery trade. The debate wandered just a little wider than the Bill itself. I will deal with some of the questions raised; however, owing to the time and the fact that it is Friday, I will write to noble Lords with answers to the other points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked whether the government amendment will permanently exempt the older varieties. I know that there is a problem here. I have already had discussions with the NAAC about this matter. At the moment, the Bill as drafted and the amendment that we shall bring forward in Committee will not meet the noble Baroness's point. I undertake to discuss the point with her and others between now and Committee stage since I know it gives rise to concern.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley asked: why is the Bill necessary? It was put together in something of a rush. The UPOV convention was signed by the UK in March 1991. This Bill is required in order to implement it. 1139 There was wide consultation during the development of the convention. Furthermore, the proposals in the Bill were widely circulated in November 1994. A draft Bill was published in February 1997. Therefore I do not believe that it has been rushed. New crops will be developed with or without the Bill. The importance of the Bill is that it will provide a basis for the development of varieties in the UK.
There was concern expressed by a number of noble Lords about the effect of GMOs, but this is not the place to go into that because the Bill has nothing to do with GMOs. However, there is clearly a need for a debate in this House on the subject. If noble Lords would like to suggest such a debate, I shall do my best through the usual channels to ensure that time is found for it. What one should understand is that GMOs will happen, with or without the Bill. I shall write to noble Lords about the checks which exist on the environmental effects and aspects of GMOs.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked how many states have ratified UPOV. I am told that Israel, Denmark and the Netherlands have implemented it and a number of other countries are well advanced in their preparations. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others made the point about the lack of diversity that could result from the development of GMOs on plant breeding and the concentration of the power of the plant breeder. Although I have already said that it is outside the scope of the Bill, it struck me when I was considering the Bill that biodiversity of the genotypes, certainly with cereal crops, is much wider than it used to be. When I started farming there was one variety of winter wheat which was Cappelle Desprez, there was one variety of spring barley which was Proctor, one variety of spring oats, S172—I am showing off here—and one variety of oilseed rape, Primor. They have long gone and there are now hundreds of varieties. It is true that some of the varieties are fairly close to others and one sometimes wonders whether they have been developed for marketing reasons. However, I honestly think—and I have had it checked—that we will find that the diversity of the cereal genotype is much wider than is generally recognised. There is another point about pesticides. One of the arguments for herbicide-tolerant GMOs is the fact that they require the use of less pesticide rather than more.
The point to remember is that the principle of royalty on plant breeding has long been recognised and the principle of the protection of intellectual property has also been recognised. All the Bill does is to put the two together. There was something of an element of conspiracy theory behind the remarks of my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the multinationals. I often wonder who is behind all these conspiracy theories!
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and others, were concerned that a few multinational companies would dominate the market and force farmers to use their pesticides. I touched on the question of multinational companies in my opening speech. We must recognise that plant breeding is an international activity and that many plant breeders have interests throughout Europe, North America and worldwide. The Bill does not alter 1140 that but it ensures that plant variety protection in the UK is as good as elsewhere, so that breeders can continue their important contributions, bringing forward new varieties which are suitable for UK conditions. It therefore provides a sound basis for investment in developing new varieties for the UK market, which is vital for the success of UK agriculture.
I was struck by the Latin quotation from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow: quis custodiet ipsos custodies. I think it can be freely translated as: who looks after those who look after the others? As Chief Whip, I should love to know.
A question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the extension of rights. Under the Community regime, rights can only be extended for up to five years for a particular species or group. The Bill allows Ministers to extend rights for any length of time. We agree that this open-ended provision is unnecessary. We shall bring forward an amendment at Committee stage which will provide that Ministers may extend rights to a maximum of five years for any specified species or group.
There was also a question on whether compulsory licences could be amended to enable an organisation such as the NFU to seek a compulsory licence on behalf of its members. I do not believe that we can agree with that. A compulsory licence has to be sought by a particular person. A provision enabling the controller to direct a breeder to make his variety more widely available to an undefined group would not be in keeping with the UPOV convention and would be interventionist in the extreme. If, for example, there were 10 growers who each submitted a compulsory licence application in respect of the same variety, there is nothing under Clause 15 which prevents the NFU, for example, from speaking on behalf of those 10 growers. In addition, Clause 23 makes specific provision for an organisation such as the NFU to make representations and applications for compulsory licences where the licence is issued by a breeders' organisation such as the BSPB. That right exists, regardless of whether an applicant for a compulsory licence asked for NFU assistance in preparing a case.
There was also a point about representation on the tribunal. The Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal has a chairman and one person drawn from a panel of individuals with a wide knowledge of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and one person with a specialised knowledge of a particular species or the seeds industry. Panel members are selected for their particular knowledge and skills not to represent a particular sector of the industry. If we go down the road of saying that the tribunal should always include a farmer, then we should have to include all the other sections of the industry: the plant breeders, the seed processors, the seed growers, and so on. The tribunal would be unwieldy and unworkable. However, as regards the panels, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that at the moment two of the six members of the general knowledge panel and two members of the specialist panel are farmers.
1141 On devolution, I believe the subject will come up in almost everything we discuss in the foreseeable future. I was asked whether the work of the PVRO on plant breeders' rights should be devolved. The plant breeders' rights are applicable to the UK and the system is administered on a UK basis. The controller is appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It would be a duplication of effort and resources for rights to be administered separately in the different regions. Those remarks have been in answer to a few of the questions and I shall write to noble Lords on the other points.
In conclusion, although the Bill is long, I believe that we can agree that most of the provisions re-enact those of the 1964 Act, with necessary updating and clarification. The major changes all flow from the UPOV convention of 1991 to which the UK is a signatory. The passage of the Bill will enable the UK to join the growing number of UPOV member states able to ratify the 1991 convention. Officials have carried out long and detailed consultations on the draft Bill. While inevitably not every comment can be reflected in the Bill, all comments have been carefully considered and there has been significant redrafting in a number of places. As I said, we shall bring forward further amendments at the Committee stage. Also, I should be extremely happy to convene a meeting before the Committee stage when all these various concerns can be discussed. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.