§ Mr. PaiceI beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 15, page 7, line 29, leave out from the beginning to end of line 33 and insert—
'(a) that for the variety to which the application relates it is necessary in the public interest to do so, including the need to supply the market with material offering specified features, or to maintain the incentive for continued breeding of improved varieties,'.The Minister will be aware that the amendment is a direct concern of the National Farmers Union. It was part of the NFU's original submission in response to the draft Bill under the previous Government. I shall press the Minister to tell the House why the Government have not accepted the NFU's view on the matter.The amendment deals with compulsory licences, a system which the NFU believes to be inadequate and ineffective. I understand that a compulsory licence has never been granted. The limited grounds on which the controller may grant a compulsory licence as set out in the Bill are inadequate to accommodate the potato sector, for example, which has become extremely diverse in its requirements. The need to supply the market with specific varietal characteristics has become commonplace.
Moreover, the current system provides the applicant with no anonymity. That often deters an individual who is considering taking on the might of a large organisation.
738 The NFU and the Opposition seek a mechanism within the Bill whereby application for a compulsory licence could be made by way of a corporate approach, which would provide some protection for the individual who was seeking a compulsory licence.
It is imperative not only that the Bill is aligned with European legislation, but that it is updated to reflect the changes that have occurred in this diverse industry since 1964. That is the basis of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept it and give us an assurance of the intent behind it.
§ Mr. RookerIt is important that the point is considered in this place, as it will clearly be raised in the other place.
The amendment looks as though it was designed to widen the grounds of public interest, so that public interest is redefined to include the need to supply the market with material offering specific commercial features—for example, potatoes for chipping.
The amendment is unnecessary. Under the Bill, the controller is required to issue a compulsory licence if a variety is not available to the public at reasonable prices or is not widely distributed. The fact that a variety may have particular qualities would be one of the many factors that he would have to take into account in ensuring that the variety was available to the public at appropriate prices and in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the market.
I accept that such a licence has never been issued under the compulsory system. I am not sure whether anyone has ever tried—and I am not inviting anyone to do so—to question the decisions that have been reached. I do not know whether applications for such licences have been refused, or whether the process of reaching that decision is questioned. There is a system available to anyone who feels aggrieved, whether that is the NFU, any of its members or anyone else.
I see no reason for anonymity. I said earlier that there was a widely accepted degree of openness about this exercise of government and public interest. I would not want to introduce any new aspect behind closed doors.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.