HC Deb 25 February 1964 vol 690 cc381-91

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

10.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

As the House will observe, the Bill is a little less controversial than that which we have just been discussing. None the less, it is equally important and it has its complexities, too. The Bill has emerged from consideration in Committee with little amendment, save for the addition of a new Clause in Part III dealing with measures to prevent injurious cross-pollination affecting seed crops.

The main purpose of the Clause is to facilitate the production of high-quality seed of certain roots and vegetables which are in great demand by our own growers and also for export. These are produced mainly in East Anglia, and one great difficulty encountered by the seed growers there is to isolate one crop from another to prevent cross-pollination, which causes deterioration and loss. There are admirable voluntary zoning arrangements which my right hon. Friend does not propose to disturb, but these cannot work efficiently if other growers or gardeners allow a field of cabbage intended for market, or even a few plants in a garden or allotment, to run to seed within the zoned area.

Clause 33 provides a remedy for this by empowering my right hon. Friend, subject to proper safeguards, to have the plants removed if there is danger of injurious cross-pollination to an established seed crop. As hon. Members will, no doubt, recall, a similar principle is embodied in the Weeds Act, 1959, which controls the spread of injurious weeds to other land. This Clause was carefully considered and generally welcomed in Committee, and hon. Members will not perhaps wish me to describe its provisions in detail. I would only say that the Clause is strongly supported by the National Farmers' Union, representing both seed growers and seed users, the seed trade and the National Allotments and Gardens Society. All these bodies realise the importance of high-quality seed, and I am sure will encourage their members to follow a good neighbour policy so that it should seldom be necessary for my right hon. Friend to employ the new powers conferred by this Clause.

While my right hon. Friend regrets that he has not found it possible to accept other suggestions for improving the Bill, he shares many of the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House during the course of debate. It is fully accepted, for example, that the Controller of the Plant Variety Rights Office will occupy a key post. Its importance for the successful operation of Part I of the Bill cannot he exaggerated.

The Government intend to make an appointment to this post as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law, and arrangements for the practical implementation of the Bill will be put in hand without delay. The Controller will be a Civil Servant with functions extending throughout the United Kingdom.

I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that, as in the case of patents, rights in a variety should be valid throughout the United Kingdom, and this is what the Bill provides. I do not think that the Controller's office will develop into a large body. It will not duplicate but will act in co-operation with the various organisations which at present exist for carrying out trials of new varieties in the various parts of the United Kingdom, and there will also be close links with the agricultural Departments.

To explain the workings of the Bill a little further, Part I, on plant breeders' rights, will be brought into operation by stages as schemes are made by the Ministers for the various species of plants. We shall push on with the making of schemes as quickly as we can so that the benefits of plant breeders' rights are made available as widely as possible. When a scheme has been made, breeders in the species concerned may apply for rights and their new varieties will be tested for distinctness, uniformity and stability. There will be no performance testing at this stage.

Under Part II Ministers will prepare an index of new varieties, and they will build this up section by section for the different species. A new variety must be distinct before it can be admitted to the index and this would involve the same kind of test as under Part I. In addition, under Clause 22 Ministers may select any section of the index and require new varieties of the species concerned to undergo a merit test before they may be put on the market. Thus any one variety may need to be tested for distinctness both for plant breeders' rights and the index, and also for merit under Clause 22.

I am sure that hon. Members will agree on the desirability of avoiding duplication and unnecessary expense, and the Government intend that all these tests should be conducted under comprehensive arrangements worked out between the agricultural Departments and the Plant Variety Rights Office.

There will, of course, be opportunities for breeders and others interested to make representations if they are not satisfied with decisions; for example, about whether a new variety should be granted rights or included in the index of varieties. There will also be opportunities for appeal to the independent tribunal. Publication of all these matters will be undertaken in the usual way in the farming and trade Press but, in addition, a special gazette will be published by the agricultural Departments. This will be a mine of information on all the matters dealt with under the Bill.

There are two other points that it might be desirable for me to mention. Firstly, Clause 16 confers wide Regulation-making powers on the Ministers, and I suggest to hon. Members that it was wise to cast the Bill in this form in order that, when Departments talk with the industry on the detailed provisions of the Regulations, it will be possible to adjust them to the industry's needs and take full account in future years of changes in requirements and techniques. Naturally, the industry attaches great importance to consulta- tion and the Bill lays a duty on Ministers in this connection.

Secondly, what is now Clause 32 deals with the Government's powers to regulate the importation of seeds. The Clause does no more than transfer certain import control powers over seeds from the Board of Trade to the agricultural Ministers and its presence in the Bill does not indicate any change of policy. The opportunity has been taken, however, to define the Government's powers more precisely so that the industry may know where it stands. In exercising these powers, it is the Government's intention to continue on the same lines as in the past, and the Clause is wide enough for that purpose.

While suggestions have been made that the Government should take much wider powers over imports and exclude seeds which fail to reach some Government standard, I feel sure that the right course at this stage is to develop testing, information and advice so that farmers can make a well-informed choice. This is what the Bill does and I think that there will be general agreement that we should not consider embarking on a stricter control of imports—involving a corresponding control over home-produced seed—without further evidence that such a policy would be to our advantage. The Government will keep the matter under review and, in particular, careful note will be taken of the impact of any restriction on the trade in seeds which might be introduced in other countries.

This is a long and rather complex Measure which will play an important part in the future development of the agricultural and horticultural industries by encouraging the breeding of improved varieties and the marketing of the best seed. Our seed control measures under this Bill may be claimed to be both progressive and enlightened, without being unduly restrictive, and my right hon. Friend is much encouraged by the favourable reception which the Bill has had both in this House and in another place, in his belief that the policies it embodies will prove of lasting value to the agricultural and horticultural industries.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)

We have already discussed the Bill in Committee and in the House and I do not propose to detain hon. and right hon. Members for long. I was amused when the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill had had a very favourable reception. His hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) was rather critical of the Bill and he made some vigorous contributions to our earlier debates. Although I disagree with the hon. Member, I respect his point of view but it has since been muted and I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will not find any opposition to the Bill tonight.

The Bill could have been considered in greater detail. This is why I complained about the holding of the Committee stage at short notice and the lack of time for hon. Members to consult various organisations which were affected. We on this side of the House in no way disagree with the principle of the Bill. It arises out of two major Reports by the Committee on Transactions in Seeds in November, 1957, and the same Committee's report on plant breeders' rights which was issued in July, 1960. We all know also about the international Convention.

I wish the Bill well. It introduces progressive legislation to protect plant breeders' rights. The Plant Variety Rights Office and the new administration generally will, I hope, bring benefits to the industry. In no way do we criticise these provisions. The control of imports has been mentioned and we all also accept the regulations governing the sale of seeds and seed potatoes as an improvement on existing legislation. We wish the Bill well and we shall examine its administration carefully. It is a long overdue Measure which I hope will be enacted quickly.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard (King's Lynn)

I should like to raise a further point on the importation of herbage seeds and to say something about the Bill in general. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in explaining that there were powers in the Bill to prevent the importation of undesirable or useless sorts of herbage seeds, went a long way to satisfy me, but I am still mystified to some extent by the way in which G.A.T.T. is said to come into this business.

We proposed in Committee that, in addition to the provision in the Bill to prevent seed which had been produced in climates different from our own, or seed to be used for the adulteration of British seeds, coming into this country, there should also be general powers to prevent the importation of seeds known not to be useful in this country. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument was that this would be contrary to G.A.T.T. He said that if we introduced that kind of restriction on seed brought in from abroad we should also have to introduce restrictions on seeds produced here.

I thought that that was exactly what the Bill did and that its whole purpose was to tighten up on the selling of seed of inferior quality or undesirable nature. Therefore, I should not have thought that there was any question of its being contrary to G.A.T.T. to include that kind of provision in the Bill. However, I have to accept my hon. Friend's explanation, but I still retain a doubt whether it is a good thing to allow inferior seed to be brought into this country and how G.A.T.T. could possibly frown upon our taking measures at the point of entry to prevent the arrival of these seeds. The National Farmers' Union, which has studied my hon. Friend's reply in Committee, still does not feel at all happy that he has gone quite far enough on this point.

Now, a word about the Bill generally. I raised a doubt about the whole principle of granting rights to plant breeders on two grounds. First, I thought that there was an objection to granting copyright or patent rights—call them what one will—to the producer or discoverer of a variety of living organism, plant or animal. I still retain that doubt. I do not think that these people have created anything. They have been fortunate. They have been ingenious. But the basic living thing is there for a start, and I think that there is a fundamental difference in this respect from a machine or any other kind of invention. I must still maintain my objection on that ground.

Secondly, I had a doubt because I was not at all sure that the Bill would bring about the improvements in plants which it was supposed to bring. At best, it will be very long-term in its operation. We shall not see the results of the Bill, even if they are good—and I hope that they will be, because, having stated my basic doubt, I wish the Bill well—for a very long time. I beg to doubt that it will produce much result at all, and my doubt has been confirmed, as the Bill has proceeded, because it has become obvious that it will be very patchy in its operation.

The inclusion of rose breeding as a special subject for the grant of rights among all the ornamental plants and shrubs makes one wonder whether this Measure will produce the results throughout the plant kingdom which have been claimed for it. The rose propagators in my constituency, who are very important people in providing rose bushes for private gardens and parks, and the rest, are very skeptical about the Bill. It is true that the breeder of a new variety, having got it registered and gone through all the performance, will be obliged, ultimately, to release the rights to enable propagators to use it, on certain terms, but I think that it will be a very long process to get him to release those rights compulsorily.

The singling out of roses among all the ornamental plants for likely special treatment under the Bill gives rise to the feeling that this has been a Measure to deal with special cases rather than with the generality of plants. I think that this justifies my feeling that we may be a long time before we see positive results from the Bill in the plant kingdom generally.

In Committee, I raised the question of sugar beet seed breeding in relation to the Bill. I know that it is to apply particularly to cereals and potatoes, and it may well be that we shall get some good results from its application to those two crops, but I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend said that sugar beet seed breeding would come within the purview of the Bill or not, or whether there was likely to be a scheme which would incorporate this particular plant.

If it is to be included, I should imagine that there would be grave practical difficulties in bringing it within the scope. If it is not included, that is a condemnation of the Bill, because this is an important crop in our agricultural economy and if the Bill does nothing to help the breeder of new sugar beet varieties, that is a substantial condemnation of the principle of the Bill.

Having raised these further points of criticism, I repeat what I said on Second Reading. Having registered my basic difficulty about giving full approval to the Bill, I wish it well in its operation and I sincerely hope that it will produce the results claimed for it, because the plant breeder makes an essential contribution to the improvement of our agriculture.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Hilton (Norfolk, South-West)

As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, this is an important Bill and it would be wrong if it went through without discussion. That is not to say that I intend to make a long speech, but I wish to refer to Clause 24, which deals with official testing stations. My opinion is that the Clause is drawn far too narrowly and that it could be widened considerably and so benefit the small body of seed growers without doing damage to countries from which we import seeds.

I wish to refer to inferior seeds, as did the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), and to staining, which is also covered in the Clause. As I see it, Clause 24 is designed to empower the Minister to control imports of what are described as "potentially deleterious seeds". These include one or the other of two types of imported seed, either bad seed which might cause deterioration of our good seed by cross-pollination or physical admixture, or seeds which are unsuitable for use because they were produced in countries with different hours of daylight or climate to our own.

Those inferior or useless seeds may be produced in countries with similar climates or hours of daylight to our own. These countries are the commonest source of supply of our imports. It seems that under the terms of the Clause, such seeds could be prohibited entry only if there were risk of their adulterating our better home-produced seeds. Seemingly, these inferior seeds would be admitted for use in those parts of the United Kingdom where this risk was negligible—for example, Scotland and Northern England.

Some of the Western European countries are adopting a policy of progressive improvement in the quality of seeds which they import. Our own policy on seed imports seems to compare very unfavourably. For the past 15 years, some varieties produced in countries with similar climates to our own have been prohibited entry under the Import Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act. These varieties have been considered by the Government research stations as being of little value to British agriculture. Will the Parliamentary Secretary at least give an assurance that in future, under Clause 24, he will be able to exercise the same restrictions of entry against these undesirable varieties and kinds of seeds?

I wish also briefly to refer to staining, because I believe that Clause 24 would be further strengthened if the Minister took powers to introduce what are known in many countries overseas as staining systems. These already operate in Canada, the United States, Australia and other countries, where, by the addition of a dye to a small percentage of a parcel of seeds, the origin of the parcel can be recognised. For example, clover seed imported by Canada has to be stained to the extent of 1 per cent. with one colour if it originates from a desirable source or with some other colour if it is from a less desirable source.

This proposal is by no means intended to be generally discriminatory as between home-grown and imported seeds. It would be applied in special cases to safeguard the authenticity or the strain purity of English stocks from adulteration. A simple but significant example arises in the production of English red clover seed, particularly in the Eastern Counties and in my own constituency in Norfolk. Here, in climatically favourable seasons, this seed is harvested in substantial quantities and is exported to North America. The purity of the English stock is at present liable to become mixed with an inferior imported variety from Canada, thus threatening not only home supplies, but a valuable export trade. The straining of the foreign seed in this case would warn farmers to whom it might be supplied that it should not be used for multiplication.

Adoption of this proposal would, I believe, be advantageous not only to farmers in their capacities either as seed producers or seed users, but also to seed merchants who are endeavouring to develop an export trade. I believe that the proposals which I have now suggested are very important to the people of this country who are producing seeds. I consider that all possible steps should be taken to prevent the entry into this country of any undesirable varieties and kinds of seeds. So I would ask the Minister for an assurance that he will incorporate into the Bill the proposals I have—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

Order. The hon. Member cannot on Third Reading discuss putting things into the Bill, but can discuss only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Hilton

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

But if the hon. Gentleman cannot now do what I have suggested, will he bear these proposals in mind for the future, because I believe they will be beneficial to British agriculture?

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

By leave of the House, I would very briefly reply to the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton).

I was asked whether sugar beet was within the scope of the Bill. The answer is, "Yes, it is", but we must recognise that there are difficulties; this is not one of the easiest crops to prepare a scheme for. My hon. Friend thought the Bill had not been viewed with kindness by these concerned with seed propagation. This is not so. The Bill is strongly supported by the organisations concerned with rose growing and breeding.

Mr. Bullard

Not in my constituency.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

On a national scale it is.

I turn quickly to one basic point of substance common to both hon. Members. That is the question of control over seeds coming to this country. Perhaps my hon. Friend was confused about this. G.A.T.T. does not permit import restrictions on grounds of general quality unless they are paralleled by controls over home-grown seeds, and this Bill does not, in fact, so restrict sales of home-produced seeds. All it requires is trials to be held before sale to test performance. This means that both foreign seed and home-produced seed has to be tested.

My right hon. Friend makes an Order; the results of the tests are published; and the farmer or horticulturist who purchases the seed can see for himself and make up his own mind whether or not he will buy. It is up to him. So far as imported seeds are concerned, they cannot be stopped from coming in on these grounds. If we were to draw up a list of foreign seeds not up to some standard of our own devising, we should have to apply the same test here at home.

Mr. Bullard

I am accepting what my hon. Friend is saying, of course. I am sure that he is right about it, but may I just draw his attention to this parallel? We do not allow the importation of certain plants and seeds on account of disease. Surely the prevention of importation of deleterious seed would be more in comparison with that, than with comparisons between varieties. I should have thought there was a definite comparison with, for example, the prevention of diseased seed potatoes coming in.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

What my hon. Friend was talking about originally was the prohibition of inferior quality seed, and I was arguing against him on that. I was pointing out that one would need a yardstick, and deciding where to put the yardstick would be very difficult. Moreover, it would have to apply at home as well. This would not be a workable proposition and would be something which would be wrong.

My hon. Friend was right in saying that some of these provisions will be rather long term. Even so, I am sure that the House will welcome the Bill. I hope I have satisfied the outstanding anxieties which my hon. Friend has expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.