HL Deb 10 December 1963 vol 253 cc1111-23

2.57 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Conditions for grant of rights]:

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to subsection (3): Provided that the restriction imposed by paragraph 2(1) of the said Part II shall not apply to the offer for sale or sale of any plants or material forming part of or derived from any plants during the period commencing 12th November, 1963, and ending on the day on which the fifth scheme to be made by the Ministers under this Part of this Act comes into force". The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will be aware that the position of the breeder of a new variety at the moment is that he has no protection at all. When this Bill comes into force, and when a scheme has been produced for that variety, the breeder will be able to register the variety, to issue licences and to collect royalties. The object of this Amendment is to deal with the period between the introduction of this Bill and the coming into force of a scheme under the Act.

As your Lordships will know, if any variety has been offered for sale the breeder is automatically disqualified from applying for registration when the scheme comes in. There are at the moment a number of varieties ready for commercial sale. Immediately, therefore, the breeder is put in the position of having to decide whether to go ahead and sell the variety, in which case he automatically forfeits any rights he will have under this Bill, or whether to hold the variety off the market until the Bill becomes law and the scheme is produced. On the whole, the more valuable the variety the greater will be the chances of remunerative royalties, and therefore the more incentive there will be for the breeder to hold the variety back off the market. This applies not only to our own breeders but, in the case of imported varieties, to agents who are acting for breeders abroad.

I think all your Lordships will agree that it is important that new varieties which give improved yields should come into commercial production at the earliest possible moment and should not be held back waiting for the passage of this Bill, so possibly depriving the farmers or horticultural growers of the variety for, maybe, up to a year; because to put a variety on the market is quite a long process, and for a wheat coming in next autumn it would have to be started early in the spring. This Amendment is a purely temporary provision and is to apply only until Her Majesty's Government produce the fifth scheme under the Act. This may seem a rather odd provision, but the reason is that when Her Majesty's Government have introduced the fifth scheme they will then be in a position to ratify the International Convention. It is probable that once that has been done a scheme of this nature would be contrary to that Convention. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to agree with me that this raises an important point, and I hope he will be able to give me a helpful reply. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 36 at end insert the new proviso.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD)

I apologise to my noble friend for mistiming by a minute my entry. I had been given to understand that the Committee stage would begin a little later. I think I have followed the whole of his argument presented to-day in favour of his Amendment and I am impressed by it. What he is suggesting, I think, is that as a result of the Bill as it stands there may be a pause in the introduction of new varieties. The Bill now before your Lordships will invest the plant breeding world with an element of certainty, which it has long asked for, and, I hope, of confidence. But the terms of the Bill, being an enabling Bill, cannot, of course, spell out that certainty beyond a given point of detail. I cannot in fact say what schemes relating to which crops will be the first to be laid, nor upon which dates.

Consequently, this element of certainty of which I have spoken is, as my noble friend pointed out, a qualified certainty. Breeders are faced—and we see this—with the dilemma of whether to go ahead with marketing their new varieties without waiting for the Bill to reach the Statute Book, or of withholding them until the schemes have been made under Part I enabling them to submit an application for the grant of rights. My noble friend is perfectly correct in saying that.

As the Bill stands, marketing before a scheme comes into force would rule out a subsequent grant of rights, and the Amendment moved by my noble friend is designed to ameliorate this by allowing a variety to be sold at any time from the publication of the Bill—that is the twelfth of last month onwards—without invalidating the subsequent application for rights. In an effort, which I assume is to meet the Government's difficulties, and which I appreciate, my noble friend does not propose a blanket exemption; he proposes that the concession should be limited to varieties covered by the first five schemes made by Ministers under Part I of the Bill. This, I can also appreciate with my noble friend, is not simply to the advantage of plant breeders, but also to the advantage of agriculture as a whole, in that whether a new and improved variety may be available as from now, efficient farmers should not be obliged to wait a season longer than they need.

Knowing him as I do, I am sure that my noble friend will accept that the wording of his Amendment will require rather more careful examination than I have so far been able to give it. There are certain problems to consider—for example, it would seem only fair that a producer of a new variety of seed during this period before the scheme should be warned that the breeder might later be applying for rights, and that this obligation to inform and to warn should be laid upon the breeder.

There is yet another point which concerns the position of those growers and merchants who acquire supplies of seed for plants in the prior marketing period. Are they to have a prescriptive right to a licence from the breeder, when in due course he is granted rights in the variety? I hope that what I have said will give an indication of my sympathy with my noble friend's purpose, and subject, therefore, to consideration of the points which I have made and others which may emerge, I hope to find it possible, if my noble friend agrees to withdraw his Amendment, to introduce an Amendment at a later stage to achieve the main object which he has in mind.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the way he has received this Amendment. I realise that there are considerable difficulties over it, and I certainly have great pleasure in withdrawing it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Seeds regulations

16.—(1) The Minister, after consultation with representatives of such interests as appear to him to be concerned, may by statutory instrument make such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose— (e) of prescribing anything which, under this Part of this Act, is authorised or required to be prescribed, and regulations under this section shall be known as seeds regulations.

3.6 p.m.

LORD WISE

had given Notice of two Amendments to Clause 16, the first being in subsection (1)(d), to leave out "and", and the second to insert at the end of paragraph (e): and of preventing the sale of seeds of a type or variety which will produce plants of an inferior quality, or of seeds infected with disease. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first of the two Amendments standing in my name. May I suggest to your Lordships that we take the Amendments together? The first Amendment is simply drafting in relation to the second Amendment. Clause 16 deals with the regulations which are to be attached to the sale of seeds. Under this clause Ministers may make regulations by statutory instrument after consultation with interested parties. I understand that certain consultations have already taken place with interested parties in regard to this particular Bill. Possibly the Bill has been drafted as the outcome of some of those consultations.

This particular clause deals with five points. The first is for ensuring … reliable … information … as to the nature, condition and quality of seeds which are being sold". The second is for: preventing the sale of seeds which are deleterious, and of preventing the sale of seeds which have not been tested for purity and germination, or which are of a variety the performance of which has not been subjected to trials". The third is for: preventing the spread of plant disease by the sale of seeds. Next, there is the regulating of descriptions under which seeds are sold; and lastly, of prescribing anything which the Minister is authorised to prescribe.

So far as I can see, the particular point which I have to raise is not covered by subsection (1) of that particular clause. The Minister may say in reply that the clause as it stands fully covers every conceivable point which may arise in the sale and quality of seeds. But it omits reference to low-grade seeds which are likely to produce plants of an inferior quality, or of seeds already infected with disease. These are two most important categories, and I hope that the Government will take notice that they are omitted from this particular clause.

We have to guard against defects of this sort. There is nothing worse than seeing a field of inferior plants, which may not be due to the poorness of the soil but may be the result of bad seed, or perhaps partly due to diseased seed. In the future, in which we must strive to produce first-class crops of high quality and purity, we cannot afford to tolerate any subversive action by any seed grower or merchant, whether here or overseas, in the supply of inferior seed. If my Amendment fails—and I hope it will not fail—the farmer can be subjected, without redress, to the passing off to him of something which will not be apparent until the time arrives, if and when it does arrive, when the plants show themselves well above the ground. This should be avoided if, as we hope, farming is to increase its already high efficiency. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 2, leave out ("and").—(Lord Wise.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking together these Amendments on interrelated subjects. I thought that he would find it to his convenience as well as that of the Committee to do so. The Amendments make it clear, as does his speech, that he accepts the view which I expressed on Second Reading that any widening of the powers to control imports of seeds conferred by Clause 24 would entail a corresponding power to limit the marketing of home-produced seeds, if we are to meet our obligations under GATT. It seems to me that this Amendment was intended to pave the way to Amendments 4 and 5 to Clause 24. To my regret, in view of the personality of the noble Lord who is moving them, I do not feel able to accept these Amendments, collectively or singly. It appears to me that they stand or fall together, and we do not feel able to accept them.

The Amendment to Clause 16—and a good deal of what I have to say on this Amendment applies equally to the first of the proposed Amendments to Clause 24—appears to raise in a modified form the proposal for a restricted list of authorised varieties. This, for the reasons I explained in my reply to the noble Lord on Second Reading, is in conflict with the normal principles of our seeds legislation. This is, as a general rule, to ensure that the farmer is given as much reliable information as possible about the seeds which he is buying, but the final choice is left to him.

In the case of seeds infected with disease, we already have the necessary powers to prevent the spread of plant disease by the sale of seeds, by means of plant health legislation and, where this may not apply, under the terms of the present Bill. In this connection I would draw attention to subsection (1)(c) of Clause 16, but in relation to the sale of inferior types of varieties we prefer to rely on the powers conferred by Clause 22. Whether we say that only varieties which pass a test of merit may be marketed, or those which fail to satisfy certain criteria should be prohibited, in practice amounts to much the same thing. To require the performance testing of all varieties of every crop, in order to ascertain which of them might be inferior to others, would place too great an onus on the trials organisations, but this logically is what the noble Lord's Amendment would entail.

We must be selective in this, and I trust the noble Lord will agree that the powers conferred by Clause 22 effectively meet the case. This will enable the Ministers to make orders requiring performance trials of certain new varieties (this is where selectivity comes in) and the publication of a report before they are put on the market. In this way I feel sure we shall achieve what we have in mind without recourse to the straitjacket of restricted lists of varieties in every crop which either may or may not be sold in this country.

LORD WALSTON

I was a little disappointed, listening to the Minister's reply to my noble friend's Amendment, for he did not seem to be answering precisely what the problem was. I agree entirely that if this Amendment made it incumbent on the Minister to have a prohibited list of certain seeds which could not be sold that would put the industry into too much of a straitjacket. But Clause 16 says: The Minister, after consultation with representatives of such interests as appear to him to be concerned, may by statutory instrument make such regulations … —not "must" or "shall", but "may". Therefore, even if my noble friend's Amendment were adopted, the Minister would not be forced to prohibit certain varieties of seeds: but he would only have the power to do so if it seemed to him, after due consultation, to be right that it should be done.

This is not simply a question of each individual farmer's wishes. Of course, if some farmers prefer to go in for a type of seed which is susceptible to disease because they think the quality or yield, whatever it may be, worth the gamble, one could say: "Why should they not be free to do so?" But when it is a question of disease, and particularly disease in potatoes, since it can spread rapidly to one's neighbour, one is not taking a gamble just with one's own crop but also with one's neighbour's crop. I feel that the Minister, while not being forced to prohibit such things, should at least have under this Bill the power to prohibit, if, after consultation, that seems desirable. The Minister's argument was directed more against its being compulsory on the Minister to do it rather than permissive. I therefore hope that he will reconsider his rejection of my noble friend's Amendment and look into it in rather more detail.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

As the question of potatoes has been raised, I should like to point out that the seed of a potato is not the thing which is commercially sold. In point of fact the potato is a split plant, so that I do not think it is covered. I would also point out that a more superior type of seed which may well succeed in good land may fail utterly where the conditions are more difficult. Therefore, although I sympathise with the feeling behind this Amendment, I support the Minister entirely in his contention that it would be very dangerous indeed to clamp on a straitjacket of this type. It might have the reverse effect to that desired.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I am happy to have the support of my noble friend Lord Stonehaven. At the same time, I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Walston. It may be that I put too much emphasis on the aspect of Lord Wise's argument which referred to the obligation on the Minister to take this action, but in fact we feel that it would be wrong, and certainly out of step with existing seeds legislation, to enable a Minister to prohibit the sale of a certain type of seed and to extend this over the whole field of agriculture. It may be that we can do more than we are doing to extend our information and advice. I should like to look at this. But we seriously think that where advice is given and a farmer reads this advice, as every farmer is free to do, this should be sufficient to prevent him, to dissuade him, from using inferior seed. Of course as regards diseased seed, as I explained to the noble Lord, we have measures to prevent its sale.

LORD WISE

I am rather disappointed with the Minister's reply, but what am I to do? At the moment the matter is a draw, 2—2. I did hope that the Minister would take it back and think it over again; but, if not, then I must ask to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 [Control of imports of potentially deleterious seeds]:

3.22 p.m.

LORD WISE

May I deal with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together? Amendment No. 4 deals primarily with the importation of seeds. It is tied up with the control of imports and, as the Minister said in reply, it bears some relation, of course, to the previous Amendment which I moved. This is an important clause, as it is important that we should stop the importation of bad seeds. My Amendment seeks to do this, and I hope that in this case the Minister will be able to accept it. The clause as it stands does not appear to me to be strong enough and further additions should be made. Again, my Amendment prohibits the importation of seeds from any country. The clause simply prohibits the importation of seeds from countries with different climates, different hours of daylight or other different conditions. I think it is important that, not only should we deal with countries such as these, but we should deal with countries where we might be able to obtain the same classes of seeds as we produce in this country, or as we wish to grow. Therefore I hope that in this case the Minister will be able to meet our wishes. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 42, leave out second ("or").—(Lord Wise.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

I think I can speak to this Amendment rather briefly without discourtesy to the noble Lord, because I did make reference to it in what I said on the earlier Amendment. As regards seeds which are infected with disease, powers already exist to control their import under our plant health legislation, and it is for this reason that there is nothing in Clause 24 of the present Bill. Furthermore, we have the power under subsection (3) (c) of Clause 16 of the present Bill to prohibit the sale of seeds, whatever their origin, which contain more than a certain proportion of any weed seeds, noxious or otherwise. This is of course a fairly strong form of protection. I do not know whether the noble Lord had noticed it in reading through the legislation. To this extent the proposed Amendments to Clause 24 appear unnecessary.

On the general issue of principle, I would refer the noble Lord, Lord Wise, to what I said in regard to his Amendment of Clause 16. While we feel justified in taking special powers to prohibit the importation of certain types or varieties which can lead to the deterioration of our domestic strains by admixture or cross-pollination, or which are patently unsuitable to this country because of their different climatic origins, we do not feel justified in taking general powers to prohibit the importation of types or varieties which are not in themselves harmful. As I said before, to ascertain whether a given variety is in some undefined way inferior to other varieties, we should have to submit all new varieties coming on to the market, whether imported or of domestic origin, to merit tests—a most onerous procedure and one which would undoubtedly be opposed by the whole seed trade.

We are certainly prepared to consider how the arrangements for advice—and this again reflects something I said earlier—could be extended and improved, but in general we are convinced that the method of requiring certain detailed information to be given to a purchaser under seeds regulations is the right one, supplemented as it is, and increasingly will be, by reports from advisory organisations as to the performance of different varieties under United Kingdom conditions. I would suggest to the noble Lord that, of course, most varieties which are most likely to be used extensively in this country are submitted to performance tests, and the results of these performance tests are published for the benefit and information of farmers who may be using them.

LORD WISE

In view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD WISE moved, in subsection (7), after paragraph (a) to insert: () may include provision as to methods by which importers may be required to mark consignments of seeds, by the staining of a proportion of such consignments or otherwise, in order to indicate the country or source of origin of the seed".

The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment on the importation of seeds to which the clause refers, but there is a slightly different proposition here to which I wish to call the attention of the Minister. The order of prohibition under this clause includes two provisions which are to be found on page 26, in subsection (7). The first is a provision by which the importers may be required to prove whether consignments are satisfactory. The second provision covers the form and manner of applications for licences. The Amendment which I wish to move is to include a provision covering the methods by which importers may be required to mark consignments of seeds, by the staining of a proportion of such consignments or otherwise, in order to indicate the country or source of origin of the seeds.

I understand that the staining of seeds is in vogue in various countries. I think it is in vogue in three Commonwealth countries, in three European countries and in the United States of America. The practice is to stain a proportion of a consignment of seeds with certain dyes and the staining appropriate to the country of origin of the seeds is approved by the merchants or importers. It seems to us to be a very sensible arrangement—one which is adopted overseas—and we hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment in order that this practice may be brought into operation in this country as we think the system could be advantageous to us. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Wise.)

3.30 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I followed the noble Lord, of course, with my usual care, but I still do not see how this provision or this obligation could be advantageous to us The purpose of Clause 24 as it stands is to enable Ministers to prohibit entirely the import of seeds which are potentially deleterious. That being so, I find it difficult to see the justification for the staining of imported seeds, which of course are not necessarily inferior just because they are imported. On the contrary, they are often of very high quality, and they have made a great contribution to the agricultural industry of this country. In any case, our seed regulations require that when seeds are sold a statement should be made as to their origin. Thus, even without staining there can be no doubt as to their origin, and to require, in addition, the staining of imported seeds is, in the view of the Government, unnecessary and might even be regarded as discriminatory, which of course we should regret. Naturally, I should like to be more helpful and more amenable to the noble Lord, but, having considered his Amendment, and having listened to his speech, we cannot see in what way his proposal would help the farmers of this country.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Wise, in this Amendment, and I would mention perennial rye grass, which is grown extensively in Ireland. The crop has been grown there for the purposes of seed for a long period, and they have developed a strain which is very prolific in seed but nothing like so prolific in pasture, which is what the farmer who buys the seed wishes to grow. That rye grass is a perfectly good perennial rye grass, but it is vastly inferior to some of, say, the Danish strains, and many others. If it were stained it would, on the one hand, encourage the Irish to improve their seed very considerably, and, on the other, it would readily prevent that seed from getting mixed with other seeds. Three or four foreign countries, including America, have for a long time found this system efficacious, and I cannot see why our own Ministry should not have a close look at effective methods used overseas. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Wise.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My noble friend Lord Stonehaven has suggested a by-product of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. But I wonder whether he appreciates that this Amendment would require the staining of all foreign seed, not merely a particular seed from a particular foreign country. It seems to us to be a very extravagant method by which to encourage any given country to improve any particular seed they might be producing.

LORD WISE

I wish the Minister would look at this again, because I have received very substantial backing from the other side of the House, which I appreciate. This particular system is in vogue in other countries on very satisfactory lines; and if they can carry out the system there I do not in the least see why, if it is likely to improve our knowledge of the importation of seeds, and be to our advantage, we should not put it into use. I hope that the Minister will have another look.

LORD ST. OSWALD

It is understandable that the noble Lord, Lord Wise, should have been encouraged by what my noble friend behind me has said, but, in fact, his reference was to North Irish seed, which does not count as imported seed; so that in any case that seed would not be stained. The example which my noble friend chose, therefore, does not in fact help the purposes of the noble Lord, Lord Wise. But I will certainly look at it again, as the noble Lord has urged me to do so. After what I have said, the noble Lord will understand that I obviously cannot give him any particular promise, but I am attracted by the way he has argued his case, and perhaps either we can have a word privately between now and the next stage of the Bill or he can take such further action as he wishes. But it would be wrong and dishonest of me, I think, to encourage him to think that we should be able to achieve anything.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I must just point out that, besides the six Northern Counties, there is another part of Ireland where they also grow grass.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I thought my noble friend referred to the Northern Counties.

LORD WISE

Having gained that knowledge about Ireland, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding which the Minister has given.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 agreed to.

House resumed.