HL Deb 10 December 1963 vol 253 cc1127-36

3.43 p.m.

Committee stage resumed.

LORD WISE moved, after Clause 24, to insert the following new clause:

Powers of the Minister to prevent deterioration through cross-pollination

".—(1) The Minister may, after consultation with such bodies as appear to him to represent the interests of seed growers and of seed merchants, make such regulations by statutory instrument as appear to him to be necessary and expedient for the purpose of ensuring, so far as is practicable, that the trueness to variety of seeds produced from plants grown for seed should not be endangered or suffer deterioration by the cross-pollination of those plants by other plants.

(2) Such regulations may in particular provide for the definition of zones and the Minister may serve notice in writing on any person who occupies land within such a zone requiring him to remove or destroy any plant, of a type or variety specified in the regulations, that is growing on that land.

(3) Any person who within 48 hours of the receipt of such a notice as is referred to in the foregoing subsection fails to comply with the requirement stated in the notice shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary jurisdiction to a fine not exceeding £20."

The noble Lord said: I rise in this instance to the attack with more confidence, after what the Minister promised me in regard to the last Amendment. The Amendment that I seek to move now is for the insertion of a new clause after Clause 24. The Amendment falls into three parts. The first says: The Minister may, after consultation … make such regulations by statutory instrument as appear to him to be necessary and expedient for the purpose of ensuring, so far as is practicable, that the trueness to variety of seeds produced from plants grown for seed should not be endangered or suffer deterioration by the cross-pollination of those plants by other plants. We have dealt with the importation of seeds. This clause deals with plants which are growing and may in various ways come into contact with plants on adjoining land which may be pure. The first stage is one of protection of pure seed; the second stage in my Amendment deals with the establishment of areas in which such seeds are grown; and the third stage with the penalty which may be imposed on a grower who has not complied with an order from the Ministry.

First of all, let me say a word or two about the first portion. I want to say at this point that the seeds industry are very much in favour of the insertion of this particular clause into the Bill. It seems to me an essential principle of keeping all seed stocks pure and preventing those seed stocks which are pollinated by insects or wind from being adulterated by neighbouring crops of the same species, but of other varieties, which are in flower at the same time. That is more or less what I said a moment ago. The particular point which I am making has been very much stressed by the influential Committee which, as no doubt the Minister knows, considered the question of the seeds industry; and they are pretty emphatic that some particular zone should be set up whereby seeds could be kept pure.

The second portion of my Amendment deals with the question of a notice by the Minister, who can serve notice on a person who occupies land within such a zone requiring him to remove or destroy any plant, of a type or variety specified in the regulations, that is growing on that land. That is, if that particular plant is obnoxious to other plants growing nearby. That seems to me a very reasonable provision; and if the person who has received notice does not carry out what he is required to do within 48 hours he is liable to a penalty in the ordinary way. I hope that the Minister will accept this because I want to stress particularly in his mind that the industry is anxious that these provisions should be put into operation.

Amendment moved— After Clause 24, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Wise.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

I have listened with interest and a good deal of sympathy to the plea advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and I can understand why he can feel more confident in this than in the earlier Amendment. He wishes the Minister to take power in this Bill to assist the seed production industry to deal with what is the difficult problem of cross-pollination between different varieties and different species of plants. Unless adequate distances are maintained between the different seed crops, as much as 1,000 yards in some cases, there is a real risk that the wind, or bees and other insects, may carry pollen at the flowering stage from one seed crop to another, with the result that some proportion of the seed may later be found to be not true to variety or type, through no fault of the grower himself. This is the noble Lord's point and it is valid. Off-types will become apparent only in the following crop, by which time the seed may have been widely distributed to farmers and in some cases exported.

The production of seed true to type and variety is the responsibility of the seed growers and contracting merchants, with the Government encouraging, advising and assisting, for example through voluntary certification schemes whose aim is the production of authentic seed. It has, however, been represented from time to time that growers and merchants were finding it increasingly difficult in some areas to select suitably isolated fields for seed production. Even after contracts have been signed, the arrangements can be disorganised by changes of cropping plans on the part of other growers in the vicinity, and even by the neglect of gardeners and allotment-holders, in allowing their unused cabbage or other crops to run to seed. The problem is essentially one of satisfying competing claims for the available land.

As the noble Lord has pointed out, the Committee on Transactions in Seeds examined this problem and reported in favour of conferring powers on Ministers to intervene when voluntary efforts had failed to safeguard the purity of seed crops. The Committee proposed that the seed production industry should first get together and prepare zoning schemes, where particular districts or other areas were allocated to particular seed crops, so arranged as to avoid cross-pollination. This is already done on a voluntary basis in the major seed-producing counties (I am thinking of Lincolnshire, East Anglia and Essex), and the Committee even proposed that the Minister could be called in to put such a scheme on a compulsory basis, with power to deal with offending crops which spoilt the careful arrangements made in the scheme. This is substantially the main purpose of the noble Lord's new clause, although it goes a good deal wider by giving the Minister a general power of regulation.

I believe that there is much in what the noble Lord has said about the difficulties of seed production in certain crops, and certainly in what he said about the importance of varietal pure seed in crop production. I should, however, like him to consider what he is suggesting (if he follows the zoning proposal to its logical conclusion) that the Minister should be empowered to do. He is asking, in the first place, that the Minister should be able to impose a particular pattern of cropping on farmers within a zone, affecting not only the seed producers themselves, most of whom may perhaps be in favour of the scheme, but farmers growing other crops, from which they may wish at some time to take a seed crop. Where, at the present time, persuasion must be used by the grower or the merchant to secure the removal of seeding plants which do not fit into the plan, under the proposed new clause, this duty will devolve on the Minister and it will be a criminal offence to disregard the Minister's regulations. We should, I suggest, hesitate to replace voluntary methods by such drastic powers, unless it is clear that voluntary methods have seriously broken down. I do not think that the noble Lord has suggested that this is the case, although I recognise that there may be difficulties.

The matter does not end there, where the noble Lord leaves it. Another source of cross-pollination is the casual seed crop taken by the allotment grower and the neglected plants in the cottage garden. These also must be destroyed or removed, and it would not, I think, be sufficient to provide for the imposition of a fine, if the Minister's direction was ignored. The fine would not prevent cross-pollination. The damage would have been done. A power of entry would be required by the Ministry's inspector, together with a power in the last resort to destroy or remove the offending plants.

I recognise the seed-growing industry's problem, and I appreciate their difficulties in this matter of cross-pollination. It is, however, clear from what I have said that the remedy proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, in the new clause now before the Committee, raises considerable difficulties of enforcement, and I fear that, if it were accepted, we should be running the risk of weakening the industry's determination to seek its own self-evident advantage by mutual agreement. It is, I believe, unusual for farmers or gardeners to refuse their co-operation when the needs of seed production are pointed out to them. After all, the breeding of the best seed is for their eventual benefit. Therefore, I recommend to your Lordships that we should continue to place reliance on voluntary arrangements and the power of persuasion. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wise, in thinking out his Amendment, as he has most carefully done, realised, with all his care, what it would require in terms of enforcement.

LORD WISE

I appreciate the long explanation which the Minister has given, and which I am certain will be read with interest, not only by me but also by members of the seed industry throughout the country. In view of what the noble Lord has said—no doubt there are difficulties—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 25 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 [Extension of Act to Northern Ireland]:

LORD ST. OSWALD moved, in subsection (3)(b), at the end of sub-paragraph (iii), to leave out "and" and substitute: (iv) after paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 there were inserted the following paragraph— '3A. In relation to proceedings before the Tribunal in Northern Ireland—

  1. (a) paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Schedule shall have effect as if for the references to the Lord Chancellor there were substituted references to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and
  2. (b) references in paragraphs 4 and 7 of this Schedule to the chairman or deputy chairman shall be construed respectively as references to the chairman or deputy chairman appointed for such proceedings';
and".

The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of Government Amendments concerned with the provisions for the operation of the Appeals Tribunal to be set up under Clause 10 of the Bill. The purpose of the Amendments is to adapt these provisions as regards the chairmanship of the Tribunal in relation to appeal proceedings taking place in Northern Ireland or Scotland. The need for these Amendments arises from the fact that the Tribunal may be called upon to deal with cases arising in any part of Great Britain and, when Part I of the Bill is extended or proposed to cover Northern Ireland, in that country also. The Tribunal may sit anywhere in the United Kingdom, and for this purpose the Government consider that it would be desirable for appeal proceedings in each country to be heard under the chairmanship of a suitably qualified member of the legal profession of the country concerned. This will also facilitate any post-Tribunal proceedings on points of law arising in the courts of the country where the Tribunal sat. The appointment of a suitable person as Chairman should, of course, rest with the appropriate legal authority in each country, and the Amendments provide accordingly.

The Amendment to Clause 38, which I am now moving, gives effect to the Government's intentions as regards Northern Ireland. The remaining Amendments in this group, other than those of a purely drafting character, concern proceedings in Scotland and arise on Schedule 4. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 34, leave out ("and") and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2: Part II [Rules for grant of rights]:

3.59 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in Part II, to add to paragraph 2(1): Provided that the restriction imposed by this sub-paragraph shall not apply to any sales or offers made in relation to or in pursuance of a contract providing for the production of the plant variety under the control of and for re-sale or return to the person entitled to make an application for the grant of plant breeders' rights or his agent in respect of that plant variety". The noble Lord said: Schedule 2, Part II, of the Bill deals with the rules which must be complied with before a variety can be registered. Paragraph 2(1) says that no plants of a variety must be sold or offered for sale before the scheme comes into force, and the object of this Amendment is to exclude certain types of sale.

There are sales in what one might call the multiplication period—that is, when the plants or seeds of a variety are being multiplied prior to sale to the general public. Breeding new varieties is a lengthy process, and I understand that in the case of cereals something like 14 years is quite usual. You start off with many thousands of plants and gradually, by a process of selection, after about seven years you begin to realise that certain varieties are likely to have commercial value. You then want to increase these as quickly as possible and have them tried out under as many types of conditions as you can. So the practice is that this seed, particularly in the case of cereals, is sold to farmers to grow the crop on and sell it back to the breeder. Sometimes it is sold back; sometimes the seed is supplied and then the crop is sold back and the cost of the seed deducted. But in either case, it is a kind of sale, and under the Bill as it stands the breeder would be disqualified from applying for registration of the variety. Therefore, when it was put on to the market, he would not be able to claim variety in it, which this Bill is designed to give him. Even if under Schedule 1 he applies for registration and for protection, he is still barred from selling the seed. Therefore, during this period this process cannot go on.

If some Amendment is not made, it will mean that a large number of growers will either be put out of court by the Bill or will have to try to find some loophole, and this is not very satisfactory. It would also disqualify all those varieties which are at the moment in the process of being developed and are approaching the time when they will be ready for commercial sale. Many of these varieties have been sold in the way I have mentioned, and they would be disqualified. As I have tried to point out, this is something which would cause considerable difficulty to plant breeders and would in many cases be most unfair. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 10, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD WALSTON

I think it is essentially a very common-sense and worthwhile Amendment that has been put forward by the noble Lord, and I hope the Government will look on it with as much sympathy as they did his last Amendment. It does not in any way undermine the principle of the Bill, but simply supports it and makes it much easier for the objectives of the Bill to be put into force. It is not, as some Amendments may have been considered to be, solely in the interests of the seed producers or importers of pedigree seeds, but is in the interests of the proliferator of the seeds—namely, the farmer and the eventual user. I very much hope that we shall hear from the Minister that the Government will accept the Amendment.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I am obliged to my noble friend for his clear explanation of the purpose of the Amendment, and I would say at once to him and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that it is not the intention to forbid the bulking up of varieties prior to the introduction of the scheme or to the submission of an application for rights on pain of the breeder's losing the opportunity to apply for a grant of rights in due course. I recognise that the breeder may often find it necessary to arrange contracts with growers for this purpose. The terms of various multiplication contracts which are used for this purpose may or may not involve a sale of seed. But I am advised that in some cases performance of the contract may amount to a sale and so invalidate a subsequent application for rights. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that an Amendment of this nature would not undermine the principle of the Bill, and, in the circumstances, I accept that a suitable Amendment should be made to the Bill exempting transactions of this kind from the prior marketing restrictions in Schedule 2. If my noble friend would agree to withdraw his Amendment, which I think does not fully accomplish what he has in mind, an Amendment in appropriate form will be introduced at a later stage, and if possible before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am grateful to my noble friend for the assurance he has given, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 [The Plant Variety Rights Tribunal]:

LORD ST. OSWALD

This is a drafting Amendment, linked with the Amendment to Clause 38 and with the next Amendment to this Schedule. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule is concerned with the appointment of a Chairman for proceedings in England and Wales and, by the application of Clause 38, with the appointment of a Chairman for proceedings in Northern Ireland. The term "advocate" has a Scottish connotation only and is therefore inappropriate in these paragraphs. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 31, leave out ("advocate").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 44, leave out ("advocate").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

This Amendment makes provision with regard to the chairmanship of the Tribunal for proceedings in Scotland comparable to that which has already been made for Northern Ireland by the Amendment of Clause 38. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 41, line 47, at end insert— ("3. In relation to proceedings before the Tribunal in Scotland—

  1. (a) paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Schedule shall have effect as if for the references to the Lord Chancellor and to a barrister there were substituted respectively references to the Lord President of the Court of Session and to an advocate; and
  2. (b) references in paragraphs 4 and 7 of this Schedule to the chairman or deputy chairman shall be construed respectively as references to the chairman or deputy chairman appointed for such proceedings.").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 3, after ("words") insert ("'Any").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.