Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jun 1980

Vol. 94 No. 12

Plant Varieties (Proprietary Rights) Bill, 1979: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to set up a legal structure whereby exclusive proprietary rights can be afforded to plant breeders for new plant varieties. The Bill provides that any such rights granted will be protected against infringment and affords equal treatment for Irish plant breeders and breeders from countries party to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

The concept of plant breeders' rights has been established for many years. Seven of the other eight member states of the EEC are party to the convention—the exception being Luxembourg where no plant breeding is carried out. Altogether 12 countries have acceded to the convention and a number of other countries including the United States, Canada and New Zealand are proposing to do so in the near future.

It is essential that the creation of new plant varieties continues in order to obtain higher yields, better quality and security of crops from the hazards of weather and disease. A new plant variety is the result of a substantial investment of human skill and resources for periods as long as 15 years. Plant breeders are no different from creators of other intellectual property—which can be protected by copyrights and patents—and breeders can only be expected to undertake such expensive and time-consuming work if they can be satisfied that the results of their work cannot be pirated. Without the kind of system envisaged here the likelihood is that plant breeders could expect little return for their work because their propagating material could be freely used for the production of further propagating material for commercial use. The concept of breeders' rights has evolved in order to protect breeders from this kind of exploitation. Breeders would be granted a right whereby, for a period not exceeding 25 years, propagating material of their new plant varieties could only be produced or marketed as such with the breeders' prior authorisation.

Some individual countries have established their own breeders' rights systems but the more common, and in my view the most satisfactory method, is to adopt the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Countries party to this Convention constitute the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants—known as UPOV—which administers the convention. In order to be in a position to ratify the convention, a country must enact legislation which contains the principles laid down in the convention and the purpose of this Bill is, essentially, to enshrine in our national legislation this system of protection of plant breeders' rights.

Almost all the countries from which we obtain seeds or plant material are, or are proposing to become, members of UPOV. The EEC Commission recommend that all member states accede to the convention and take a particular interest in the work of UPOV. The two bodies are at present co-operating towards achieving harmonised systems of plant variety testing with a view to minimising both the workload and financial costs for the countries involved.

There has been increasing pressure from Irish interests for the establishment of a rights system in accordance with the UPOV Convention. Our plant breeders are justified in seeking protection against infringement of their rights for any plant varieties they create. I would hope this legislation would have the effect of encouraging more breeding work in Ireland. A further consideration is our dependence on foreign varieties for our main agricultural crops such as cereals and grasses. Most of the useful new varieties of these species are protected under the UPOV system, and we have been very fortunate in being able to avail of them up to now under what might be termed ad hoc arrangements because it was generally known that we proposed to join UPOV. However, there are serious grounds for concern that, if we do not now press ahead and actually join, then some foreign breeders would not be prepared to continue to allow us use of their varieties. Accordingly, there are, I feel, compelling reasons for this legislation—protection and encouragement for Irish plant breeding interests and easier access to foreign varieties of seeds and plant material.

During the Bill's passage through the Dáil some mention was made of the possible effect of this type of legislation on the genetic resources of the Third World. However, I can assure the House that the existence of plant breeders' rights legislation as such is totally unconnected with the genetic resources position. Many high-yielding plant varieties which would almost certainly not have been developed in the absence of a plant breeders' rights system, have contributed substantially to world food supplies. The very fact that less developed countries have been able to take advantage of these new varieties in my view effectively answers critics who suggest that plant breeders' rights legislation makes it impossible for Third World countries to avail of developments in plant breeding.

On the question of maintaining genetic resources, a number of individual countries and also some international organisations such as FAO and the EEC are already involved in setting up gene banks which will help to preserve "old" varieties that may be in danger of being lost.

I should now like to make a few specific remarks about this Bill. As I have already mentioned, it is based on the principles of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. The convention was signed on behalf of Ireland on 27 September last subject to ratification after the enactment of the necessary legislation.

The main provisions in the Bill are:

Countries party to the convention will be recognised as having a special status in regard to plant breeders' rights.

A breeder granted rights will for a specified period have the sole authority to produce the plant variety for the purpose of commercial marketing. He will also have exclusive rights in so far as the export or import of any reproductive material of the variety is concerned. The breeder may transfer these rights to others on conditions which he may specify, just as in the case of any other property. In the exercise of their rights breeders will, in turn, have a duty to ensure that their varieties are made available on reasonable terms and are maintained true to the characteristics which originally qualified them for rights. If a breeder is considered to have abused his rights—for example, by imposing unreasonable restrictions on authorisation or if the public interest so requires, then it is open to an aggrieved party to apply for a compulsory licence.

The Bill lays down precise criteria for grant of rights and a variety must be distinct from others of the same species, must be uniform and stable in its reproduction and, subject to some transitional arrangements, must not have been previously commercialised outside certain periods.

Provision is made for the establishment of a body corporate to be called the Office of the Controller of Plant Breeders' Rights to administer the rights system. The Minister for Agriculture will appoint a Controller of Plant Breeders' Rights who will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the system. The office of the controller will be somewhat similar to the existing Patents Office. It is hoped that eventually the system will be self-financing but this will depend on demand. The technical and scientific work of evaluating applications for rights would be integrated into the seed variety testing arrangements at present conducted by my Department and the administration of the system would also be undertaken by my Department.

There is provision in the Bill for appeals relating to decisions by the controller and for objections and representatives as regards applications to the controller for surrender, revocation, assignment and so on of rights.

All the interests concerned with plant breeding in Ireland have been consulted and their views taken into account. The immediate aim is to introduce a rights system of suitably modest proportions to meet our needs. While rights under the Bill may be applied to varieties of any botanical species, it is our intention initially to confine rights to varieties of wheat, oats, barley, potatoes, ryegrass and white clover.

I commend this Bill to the House.

I find it very difficult to make up my mind as to whether I should speak in favour of the Bill or against it. Having examined the contents of the Bill, I feel that the control of seed breeding and the development of plant varieties will be in the hands of monopolies, and international monopolies at that. Because of the size of our country and because the influence we have in the development of agriculture is so limited internationally, I have doubts about the potential we would have in the development of new varieties and in conveying that Ireland should be recognised as an agricultural country which should have influence in that field. International monopolies have in the past and up to very recently been powerful in their control of anything they have been involved in. Therefore, I have doubts about the Bill.

I would like to support the Bill because if there is some control over those monopoly influences, the development of new plant varieties and new and extra foods may enable us to give thought to the Third World. The developed world, as we call it, takes very little interest in the Third World. If we can develop sufficient foods that we would be able to supply the Third World with certain foods at a price that they could pay, or even through international bodies without receiving any payment we would be doing good for every race in this world by helping the Third World. Unless we make up our minds now to help the Third World we will be all found wanting and the future of the whole world could be at stake. For that reason there is some cause for me to support the Bill. I would like to know what control we would have over the monopolies created by this Bill. Our influence would be very limited.

When America had surplus food they did not export it subsidised in any way to the Third World. They put a match to it and set it on fire. If development of new plants and new varieties creates more food, that may happen again, and if it does happen then we will all be involved. Our influence here should be seen to be effective. In the past our influence has been ignored and that applies to all other countries who favour the idea of subsidising food for the Third World. Monopolies are very dangerous and people in big business are apt to create monopolies. They are in the business to make money out of it and they would not be in the business unless they could get money for being in it. They would not be interested in the development of new varieties unless they knew that they were going to get finance from their investment. That is the reason I am worried but we should be in there at the same time even though our voice may be limited. We may be able to convince other people who should be involved in the development of those monopolies that we must think of the Third World.

Also, unless we are involved we could be left out of the whole development. We would probably be forced to develop our own plant varieties and we may not be capable of doing that to the extent necessary to keep up with the other countries. Companies in this country and the Agricultural Institute are very involved in the development of plant varieties, but unless the knowledge is available to them about the development of varieties in other countries we will be left far behind.

Sixteen years is far too long for any monopoly to have. I know the reason for giving exclusive rights to multi-national companies for a period of time is the investment they put into the development of the new varieties. Some guarantees must be given to them to allow them to develop the new varieties because of the cost of developing and because some of the new varieties may fail and some would not come up to the required standard. They would have to dispense with them and start again to try to develop other varieties. Some compensation must be paid for that and the compensation should be a period of years. Sixteen years is too long because during that time things do not remain static. You develop and keep developing all the time. The scientific mind does not allow things to remain static. There would be substantial changes every six, seven or eight years and continuing the extension to 16 years is giving full control over longer than 16 years because you are adding eight years to eight years to eight years without ever losing the monopoly control of the plant varieties. I suggest that the Minister would consider the point I am making. I am sure he realises that the scientific mind never stops and that a variety created now would not be the same variety in 16 years' time. That may have been the case ten or 20 years ago but at present and in the recent past you could not produce anything, whether it is plant variety, a piece of machinery or anything else, and say that that is the "be all and end all" of what is being developed. That is not the case. We never stop and we keep going. The population of the world is expanding and will keep expanding and, therefore, this development must keep recurring. It is wrong to give control for 16 years to any company or any monopoly.

The control will not be in our hands and about 98 per cent of the people who will receive patents will be foreigners. In that case we will really have no great interest in the development of any product. Our people who will be involved in it will be two per cent or less of the total and we will have little influence on the varieties that will be developed. One could develop varieties for countries of the Middle East and America which may not suit our climate or our society. For that reason I doubt about whether we would get any great benefit from being a member of this organisation. We may get scientific knowledge of the development of new plant varieties in other countries and the Agricultural Institute may sow the seeds of those varieties and see what the result will be. The first time the seed is sown in our country it may produce bumper crops but the results of sowing that seed on that land over a few years may be very disappointing. The soil in certain parts of our country may not be suitable for the breeding of some new varieties. We should be very careful before we use any new plant developed by outside interests. Our own institutes should develop their knowledge of new varieties introduced here. We should be very careful that we do not sow them wholesale throughout the country without first having them tested on our own soil. The monopoly created by this will have the selling powers and will have documentation designed to convince the people that what they are selling will produce so many tons of a variety of seed—wheat, barley and so on. A lot of that will be propaganda that may influence our farmers to buy the seed. What grows in other countries may not produce enough here to give the farmer a profit on his investment.

It is difficult to know if we should support this Bill. I cannot make up my mind. I have thought about it, I feel there are advantages and disadvantages, but I hope that, whatever will come of it, we will not forget the Third World.

This is not an impassioned address by me because it is not a subject that I know any more about than I have gathered from reading the Official Report of the Dáil on it. I do not need to have access to the Official Report of debates to know about monopolies and patent rights, and that I have a very great suspicion of any extension to any new field of existing monopoly rights. I take the Minister's case on this. I understand the objective. In general I would be in the same doubt as my colleague expressed because I do not know enough about it except that there are risks inherent in the affair. Because I do not know enough about it, it seems to me that I should go along with the Bill and get to work on it for Committee Stage. I would like to compare the system which is outlined with the existing statutory provisions with regard to patents, about which I know something, just to see what snags have been developing in that area and whether we have taken advance notice of them in the provisions we are designing now. I know we have not got to the business of fixing the next stage, but if I am to do any work worth anything I will want a week to look at it.

The Minister is no doubt aware that there is also a movement in the EEC to throw into question even patents where there is a question of interference with free competition. I would like to look at this aspect of this affair, of which I gather from the debate that I have read that the EEC seem to be making a different approach from what their approach generally is with regard to industrial technology. It would be the duty of Senators to inform themselves better than we are informed. This took a leisurely pace in the Dáil and I am not criticising anybody. It is a new area. The Bill was moved in mid-February and finished a week or so ago. We would not be doing our duty if we did not give more consideration to it than we are able to do. That is not to say that we seek to deny the Minister a Second Reading.

There was one point made in Dáil Éireann, and I do not know why it is not made more often or why it has not been made more successfuly generally. I thought it was one of the benefits that we were going to get out of the EEC system. The EEC do not have any hesitation about sending you out the draft legislation at a certain stage, so that you can study it. Among the bodies that get that draft legislation to consider are Memebers of Parliament. We have a Joint Committee looking at the draft legislation. Our original terms of reference did not entitle us to do that, but the Joint Committee on EEC Secondary Legislation now looks at draft proposals for legislation at the stage when it goes to the Economic and Social Council.

We have been able, on behalf of the Irish Parliament, to gather together all affected Irish interests and put them through a political sieve, which is different from the testing they would get in Brussels, and then present an Irish quantity, formulated politically, to Brussels. At the end of the day we get an improved piece of legislation. Why do we not make a change? For years we have copied the British system; but since we joined the EEC one of the good things I thought might come out of it would be that not merely would people with special interests get copies of the proposed legislation, or an outline of the proposals, but Deputies and Senators would get them too. We would be all in on the act and thinking about it long ago before it came to this point. We would have had an opportunity of discovering from our different contacts if this was a good idea, or what were the dangers in relation to it, and give a more considerable review, it might be said a less party-political view, about it. That would then be the best view we could form in the light of affected interests.

I am not threatening anything on Committee Stage, because at the end of the day I might find myself in agreement with all that is in the Bill. I have not had a chance of doing any more than understanding what the proposals are, and reading through the sections. I think more than that should be done.

I thank Senators for their contributions and was pleased to note that there was general agreement with the objectives of the Bill which would put our plant breeders on equal footing with our counterparts in other UPOV countries. Agriculture is much too important to allow any of our services to be put at a disadvantage vis-a-vis our counterparts. For too long now our plant breeders have not been able to enjoy the advantages afforded by this kind of legislation. This Bill, when enacted, will provide reasonable protection for their rights in respect of any new plants they may create. At the same time we will require them to maintain certain standards as regards quality and so on.

Concerning Senator Butler's remarks about the dangers of monopolies, for years the only plant breeders here were in the public sector. There have been some notable successes in breeding here in those years, and this legislation is essential if we are to afford our breeders the protection enjoyed by our counterparts in other countries. We also expect an interest in commercial plant breeding when this legislation is enacted.

Senator Butler also referred to the dangers of giving rights to varieties which might not be suitable for our country. Breeders of such varieties could apply for rights here and could be given rights if—and this is very important—the variety met the requirements of being stable, uniform and distinct. The breeder would then have to pay annual fees to maintain his rights here. However the grant of rights here does not mean that we would recommend it. This is also very important. Even if it meets the requirements it would not necessarily have to be recommended.

Our recommendations as to what are the best varieties to be grown here are given separately and are based on the results of trials carried out in this country by the Department. For these trials the Department issue recommended lists of the more suitable varieties.

Senator FitzGerald also mentioned monopolies. Often, the strongest argument against monopolies is that the cost of the goods or services they supply are in excess where competition exists. It could be argued that the existence of plant breeders' rights in other countries has meant that because of royalties there have been consequential increases in the price of seed. We had to pay these even though we had not a plant breeding rights system. The proposed legislation will not affect the royalty situation. Most seed imported into Ireland is covered by plant breeders' rights and a significant amount is paid by farmers each year.

This legislation will mean that Irish plant breeders will enjoy the same facilities as their counterparts in other countries, including the right to charge royalties and the right to secure them.

I hoped we could get through this legislation today.

I would like to be able to say yes, but I know perfectly well I should not say yes. This is a new measure of a significant legal kind and we have a duty to study it. It is extremely unlikely that we will hold it up but we may make points on it that may be useful to the Minister and his administration, which may be covered in an amending Bill or something of that kind. The Bill has not been studied, should be studied, and will be studied. It need not take too long either. We can decide whatever time suits the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

When will we meet next week?

Wednesday and Thursday.

What about Thursday?

That will suit me.

It will not take long.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 3 July 1980.
Top
Share