PROTECTED VARIETY (Hansard, 24 June 1997)

§ Mr. Paice
I beg to move amendment No. 9, page 3, line 21, leave out from 'above' to end of line 22.

§ The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, page 3, line 23, leave out from 'may' to end of line 24 and insert— 'impose reasonable conditions or limitations when giving authority for the purposes of subsection (1) above.'.

§ Mr. Paice
I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but the two amendments are specific.
I should like to press the Minister on why he has decided to insert in paragraph (h) of clause 6(1) what most of us would describe as a catch-all phrase. It is additional to the wording that appears in the European regulation, so we are seeing, not a direct transposition of European law into British law, but what, under the previous Government, would have been termed "gold plating"—the habit that some people have of taking a European regulation and not only transposing it into law but adding bells and whistles, with the often undesirable consequential effect of overburdening those whom it affects.
The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to persuade the Government that they do not need paragraph (h) because the EU regulation in the other items covers all the possible acts. If the Minister is convinced that he needs that catch-all phrase, I should be grateful if he would give the Committee some examples of the type of situation in which he envisages that the phrase will need to be used.
731 Amendment No. 10, which, like amendment No. 9, stands in my name and the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), would introduce a requirement that due regard be given to the balance of interests of those beyond the plant breeding industry, which would benefit the whole of the agri-food industry without restricting plant breeders' rights. It stems from the belief that some protection is required from the potential abuse of unrestricted rights, which is detrimental as it stands.
The potato crop is an example which has been mentioned many times. The current system allows for excessive marketing levies, from which breeders derive very little benefit. The purpose of the amendment is simply to introduce the element of reasonableness into breeders' rights.
I hope that the Minister responds positively to the two amendments, which we believe to be in the spirit of the Bill.

§ Mr. Rooker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for the way in which he has spoken to the amendments. He has asked legitimate questions.
Regarding amendment No. 9, it is envisaged that paragraph 6(1)(h) may be used, for example, to extend the breeder's rights in respect of ornamentals to include their use for production of cut flowers. The 1991 convention permits contracting states to extend the breeder's rights to acts other than those specifically mentioned in it. I do not believe that anyone would argue about that.
However, we envisage that, in some circumstances, Ministers might use those powers to extend the breeder's right to the production and propagation of a variety for the purpose of producing cut flowers, foliage or fruit. Similar provisions exist in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 and rights have been extended in a number of species. If, and only if, we are convinced that breeders of ornamentals and fruit varieties need a similar provision to enable them to protect their rights and obtain a reasonable return on them, we would consider using those powers for that purpose. That is why those powers are in the Bill. That is an example of the way in which we envisage using them, and the area in which we envisage doing so.
Some aspects of the Bill relate to the public interest, but we are legislating for relationships between two contracting parties, neither of whom are the Government: the grower and the seed specialist—the breeder. We can set ground rules on some issues, but the way in which they develop their arrangements is for them, not for the House.
I cannot accept amendment No. 10 because it goes further than any provisions in the EC sector or in other countries which protect their plant breeders' rights. If holders of rights impose conditions that are against the public interest, an application can be made to the controller of plant variety rights for a compulsory licence. No licences have been issued, but that is the level of the sanction against those who impose the wrong conditions. That sanction is necessary. If the holder of rights imposes conditions that are unacceptable to a person seeking a licence, but are not against the public interest, that is a matter for the parties concerned. It is not a matter for us to write into the Bill or for the Government to take a view about.
732 I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the Bill should not be amended in the way that he wishes.

§ Mr. Paice
I thank the Minister. On amendment No. 9, I appreciate his explanation of the need to allow for the addition of cut flowers and other items. I thought of another example earlier—gifts—but the Minister did not mention them. What would happen if some bright salesman decided to give away a tonne of seed with a tractor that he was selling? Perhaps the power would be invoked on such an occasion.
I was less enthused by the Minister's reply to amendment No. 10, but I understand what he says about it going much further than the European regulations. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.