DURATION (Hansard, 24 June 1997)

§ Mr. Baker
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
I understand that I should not have called you Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir Alan. I hope that you will forgive me. Some of us are still learning our ways in this place and the intricacies are many.

The Chairman
Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that we are all learning in this place.

§ Mr. Baker
That makes me feel better.
736 The amendment is to test the Minister on the reasons for including subsection (2). Subsection (1) clearly states for how long plant breeders' rights should have effect. Subsection (2) seems to undermine that by saying that those specific periods can be removed or extended but gives no maximum period. Earlier contributions to the debate showed that hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted, albeit with different interpretations, to ensure that plant breeders' and farmers' rights were balanced. Subsection (2) would weigh those rights in favour of plant breeders and away from farmers. I should be grateful for any clarification and assurance on that.

§ Mr. Rooker
Indeed, we are all learning. This is all new to me, too.
Clause 11, as the hon. Gentleman says, is an important clause which extends the period of protection for most trees and vines from 25 to 30 years, as compared with the 1964 Act, and from 20 to 25 years for many other species. Potatoes already enjoy 30 years protection, and a few minor ornamentals and tree species are protected for 25 years under the 1964 Act.
I cannot accept the amendment because it would prevent periods of rights being altered by secondary legislation, which is currently possible under the 1964 Act. As I said on Second Reading, 80 per cent. of the Bill is existing law. We are not introducing a great deal of new legislation. If we were doing so, the House would rightly want to proceed with the Bill in a different way.
It is unlikely that the powers in the clause would be used very often. The current periods of protection mirror those in the Council regulation. The periods specified in the clause bring the position in the United Kingdom into line with that in the European Community. Should they be changed by regulation by the Community, that would lead to considerable confusion and unfair competition, if the UK were unable to respond quickly to bring the periods of protection into line with our own legislation. We need the power to do that by secondary legislation.

§ Mr. Baker
I am grateful for the Minister's clarification and for his assurance that he would not—or rather, that the Government would not, as I doubt whether he will still be in the same role in 30 years' time, although he may be here perhaps in a different role—extend the time limits willy-nilly, and that the purpose of the clause is to accommodate European legislation. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.