FARM SAVED SEED (Hansard, 24 June 1997)

§ Mr. Paice
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 20, at beginning insert— `After 30th June 2001, where required to do so by a regulation made by the Council of the European Communities,'.

The Chairman
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (11).

§ Mr. Paice
The subject matter of the amendment was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on Second Reading. The Minister responded by assuring the Committee that the purpose of giving him or his successors the right to remove the exemption at a date other than 30 June 2001 is purely to allow the date to be extended. That is precisely the intention behind the amendment, too.
If the Minister were in my position today, I am sure that he would point out that the Bill as published does not provide for such an extension. He would therefore be serving the interests of the House and the industry, and strengthening his own words, if he accepted the amendment, which merely includes in the Bill the undertaking that he gave earlier.

§ Mr. Cash
The Bill is much more complex and important than its innocuous title suggests, and it poses problems for constituents of mine and for the National Association of Agricultural Contractors. I am glad to note that my successor as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)—I now represent Stone—has already alluded to some of the questions that I want to raise. He appears to have some of the briefing papers that I have.
I abstained on Second Reading because of those difficulties. Indeed, I cannot accept the direction in which some of the provisions are headed. The issue that concerns my constituents and their association most has to do with subsection (6): The Ministers may by order provide that, on such date as may be specified in the order, subsection (5) above shall cease to have effect in relation to a variety so specified, or varieties of a species or group so specified. 733 The reference here to subsection (5) lies at the heart of the difficulty.
European Union plant breeders' rights gave holders rights over farm-saved seed which enabled them to charge a royalty on it. The United Kingdom breeders applied for the EU rights for varieties no older than the end of 1991, as first registered. Some difficult and protracted negotiations led eventually to agreements between the farmers, breeders and contractors on rates of royalty and collection methods. Those agreements were reached on the basis that varieties older than those applied for in the EU would not be royalty bearing. This, for the farmers and contractors, was an extremely important principle and was expected to last for the lifespan of the older varieties.
The arrangement partially maintains an ancient agricultural right. It also helps to maintain a fair market balance in terms of royalty rates; and it is the cornerstone of farmers' and contractors' acceptance of a radical devaluation of their rights.
Subsection (6) will destroy all this unless amended so as to apply only to varieties older than 1 January 1992. That is roughly in line with the practice under European Union rights. Contractors and farmers can live with some aspects of the Bill, but that provision worries them a great deal.
The Bill uses the term "sensibly lower" in relation to royalty rates—a curious bit of Euro-speak arrived at during the discussions on the trade agreements. The extension of rights to all the older varieties would make a mockery of those agreements, as the older varieties may not be "sensibly lower".
I am told that the problem could put the industry back a long way—unless the wording is amended. It is of far greater consequence than has yet been acknowledged. If the Government insist on the Bill in this form, it will cause considerable difficulties for the people who have written to me. I await the Minister's reply with interest.

§ Mr. Lansley
I want to take up again the point I made on Second Reading. The Minister has explained that the intention is to allow Ministers to extend the date from which the provisions can be applied, but that date should not be extended so far as to reduce the returns to plant breeders.
The timing of the introduction of the measure is all-important. Will the Minister refer again to the Government's intention, other things being equal, to introduce the provisions in the autumn of 2001?

§ Mr. Rooker
I hesitated before getting to my feet because I was wondering whether the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) was going to speak to amendment No. 3.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Amendment No. 11 would add a date to the face of the Bill, where required to do so by a regulation made by the Council of the European Communities". I have already offered the assurance that the exemption will not be withdrawn before 30 June 2001; but the Council regulation is quite separate from national law governing plant breeders rights, so it imposes no 734 obligation on the UK. A decoupling may be required in the drafting of the amendment and this is neither the time nor the place to do it. Writing a date in the Bill would present problems because it would tie Ministers' hands if we had to change the date.
Getting space for primary legislation is not easy; the Bill has been in the queue for several years. That is the reality of parliamentary life. It is therefore essential that we can amend our national legislation through secondary legislation just as we can amend legislation that comes through the EC. The amendment couples the date and the regulations, whereas the two matters should be separate.

§ Mr. Cash
As the Minister says, the provision under subsection (6) can be made by order. Clause 45 provides for regulations and orders. The Bill empowers Ministers to make different provisions for different circumstances, and to make other adjustments to the arrangements in question. In the light of what I said about the difficulties that have been caused by the conjunction of subsections (5) and (6), would the Minister be prepared to consider at the very least making an order rectifying the question which the shadow Minister and I have raised?

§ Mr. Rooker
I am no expert and I have not been able to take advice, but I have been in the House long enough to know that the powers under clause 45, which are supplemental, incidental and transitionary provisions, would not come to that. This is a meaty issue, which cannot be dealt with by a technical drafting amendment.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) raised the issue from the other side of the coin. Let us suppose that the date were 2009. I do not wish to be quoted on that, although it may now have been taken down and used in evidence against me. Ministers do not intend to abuse that power, but would use it in the light of agreements with the industry. Following a meeting last week between the NFU and plant breeders, understandings were arrived at and will be complied with in the normal course of professional discourse. If they are not, the first to complain to Ministers will be hon. Members from both sides of the House. They will not be happy if that happens when people enter freely into commercial agreements with which the House does not wish to interfere.
There is a point of substance regarding the drafting of the amendments and I have no doubt that my words will be carefully dissected and probably looked at in another place.

§ Mr. Cash
Further to the point that the Minister has just made about statutory instruments, he seemed a little unsure about the application of orders. Clause 9(11) says: Ministers may by order amend this section as they think fit"— I stress the words "as they think fit"—
for the purpose of securing that it corresponds with the provisions for the time being of the law relating to Community plant variety rights about farm saved seed. Will the Minister reconsider the point that he made, because my question relates directly to whether there is a power to revisit by order the matter to which I referred? Subsection (11) is unusual as it overrides many of the more general points, which I agree would normally apply to the making of orders.

§ Mr. Rooker
At the risk of repeating myself, order-making powers exist throughout the Bill and they 735 are quite specific. There is no general order-making power. Clause 9 contains two such powers. If it were accepted that we could do as we thought fit with one order-making power, the House would operate in that way and would not give Ministers those powers.
The order-making powers in the Bill are specific. The order-making power in subsection (6), which is the subject of the amendment, relates specifically to the date. We are reluctant to write a date into the Bill. I have given a commitment about the date and said that the exemption would not be withdrawn before 30 June 2001, so the amendment is unnecessary. I understand that Ministers can come and go, but I speak on behalf of the Government.

§ Mr. Paice
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has a longer period of service in the House than I, but he would agree that no Minister wants to abuse the powers given to him in a Bill; that does not necessarily mean that, at some stage in the future, that would not happen. The amendment would ensure that it would not.
I appreciate the Minister's argument that the amendment may be defective because it couples two issues that should not be coupled, but I wonder whether I may push him. He made it clear that the Government have no intention of abandoning the exemption before 30 June 2001. Will he give an undertaking that he or his noble Friends will accept an amendment to that effect when the Bill goes to the other place if the two issues are decoupled? I am concerned that the Minister's undertaking should appear in the Bill by inserting that date.

§ Mr. Rooker
I undertake to discuss, well in advance of the Bill going to the other place, with my noble Friend Lord Donoughue, who will take the Bill through the other place, whether the Government can come up with an amendment likely to meet those points.

§ Mr. Cash
Would the Minister be kind enough to give the same consideration to the point that I made?

§ Mr. Rooker
Yes, of course.

§ Mr. Paice
In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.