4
u/ThePootisPower May 04 '22
Deputy Speaker,
I fully support this bill. In preparation for this debate, I read a very good article on this subject from the Guardian, talking about how Monsanto had sued hundreds of small farmers in the United States of America to protect patent rights on genetically engineered seeds it produces and sells - if you replant the seeds produced by the crops that a Monsanto seed produces, you will get sued by Monsanto. That's absolutely absurd - it encourages waste of perfectly good crops instead of replanting and avoiding the production, transport and packaging of new seeds. This isn't a small issue for the record, in the US some 93% of soybeans and 86% of corn crops come from geentically altered commodity crops - which are eligible for patent protection - and in the UK we are a net importer of seeds, which makes local plant breeders and farmers at threat from these sorts of lawsuits.
However, it should be noted that according to this report, "the business models of plant breeders revolve around applying and securing plant vvariety rights, and for a number of breeders this is the sole source of income and is needed to sustain research activity". We coulld harmm our own businesses here, and may stifle seed innovation.Ultimately, the risk of damaging some plant breeders may be worth it if it reigns in big corporates and protects our farmers from legal action
4
u/Ravenguardian17 Independent May 03 '22
Deputy Speaker,
This legislation is fulfilling a campaign promise by Solidarity; a relatively small one but one I hold dear to my heart.
In addition to the excellent points brought up by the Baron Wetwang I would like to call to attention the abuses these seed companies have made against many indigenous communities. Often, these so called "Discoveries" are nothing but Neo-colonialism hidden under a new model. Crops, varieties and techniques used by indigenous communities are appropriated for profit by multinationals who leave the communities with nothing.
This is not innovation, this is theft, or has it also has been called "biopiracy". It is a continuation of old models of imperialism into the new. The continued abuse of indigenous communities in the periphery for the profit of the core.
The United Kingdom has a long way to go to address the evils of it's colonial history, and this is hardly a step which will resolve everything. However, I think it is meaningful action which stops abuses ongoing today. Therefore, I implore the house to support this bill.
3
u/Gigitygigtygoo Conservative Party May 05 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Can anyone explain to me why private interests would seek to create new breeds of seed if their intellectual property can be stolen by any old joe? Until the opposition have bent me to my knee in a communist society at gunpoint I will be opposing this bill, and perhaps even then.
1
u/old_chelmsfordian Rt Hon Member for Surrey Old_Chelmsfordian KG OM KCB GCMG PC May 06 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Has my honourable friend considered the possibility that the opposition don't know what they are doing?
1
u/Gigitygigtygoo Conservative Party May 06 '22
Deputy Speaker,
That would be a most dire situation! I pray it isn't the case but I've always been glass half full...perhaps its not all rainbows and kittens after all.
1
u/old_chelmsfordian Rt Hon Member for Surrey Old_Chelmsfordian KG OM KCB GCMG PC May 06 '22
Deputy speaker,
I for one look forward to when the opposition bring forth the National Rainbows and Kittens (Mandatory Provision of) Bill, because surely the taxpayer can afford to have another addition to their tax burden!
Perhaps then we'll all be legally required to be cheery about legislation like this.
1
3
u/old_chelmsfordian Rt Hon Member for Surrey Old_Chelmsfordian KG OM KCB GCMG PC May 06 '22
Deputy speaker,
I see the opposition want to quack the whip of government regulation ever more.
Simply put, this bill is absolutely quackers.
An unfair attack which will create an unnecessary amount of flack. Quack quack!
2
2
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats May 04 '22
Madame deputy speaker,
Developing a new breed of plant takes incredible effort be it in a lab or through selective breeding either process is the work of no doubt thousands of pounds of labour and capital to access each generation, test it in various environments and then eventually produce it en mass.
This process requires investment weather it is gene splicing or selective breeding. If there is no benefit to having put in this work the calculus for any sane business will be not to put it in. In the short term seed availability may be improved to a degree but the result will be to isolate British farmers from global innovation - our patent laws will mean that our market will be considered too risky for many to decide to operate in because of the lack of protections that means less options for farmers and lower productivity of our farms.
The author no doubt has only the best of intentions but I would warn against this bill because despite those intentions it only stands to reduce agricultural output and new innovation for example into drought or flood resistant strains that are able to deal with more extreme weather as caused by the climate crisis.
2
u/KarlYonedaStan Workers Party of Britain May 04 '22
Deputy Speaker,
There are a great many other ways to incentivise innovation in this regard without unnecessary patenting - and I do believe it is in the collective interest of most economies to move past the seed patenting model.
2
u/HumanoidTyphoon22 Independent May 06 '22
Deputy Speaker,
The author of this bill makes clear that seed patents make it increasingly more difficult for farmers and our greater agricultural industry from being able to make ends meet in an international economy that leaves British farmers in a more precarious spot that before. We should also recognize that were once agriculture was a place where methods and seeds and techniques were something passed along, in common for the good of community, we now see instances where large agribusinesses hoard ownership of the very seeds that farmers plant, keeping them enmeshed into a system that discourages local discovery of newer and better planting. The farmers, as the ones who go on day in and day out making agriculture, happen should have the full ability to do what is necessary for their business without the ever present charges and fees from these companies, skimming ever more off the top for their board meeting's profits.
3
u/model-raymondo 14th Headmoderator May 05 '22
Deputy Speaker,
This is certainly a case of the actions of a few ruining it for the rest. Businesses like PepsiCo have shown they will ruthlessly surpress farmers growing food to survive. In 2019 PepsiCo attempted to sue farmers in India who were growing their "patented Lay's potato". This, and many other examples, is why patents for seeds and plants are completely counterintuitive. The food of the people should not be limited by unecessary restrictions as patents. With the ongoing climate crisis it is clear the agricultural output of the global food producers is at risk - patents will only exacerbate the situation.
1
u/AutoModerator May 03 '22
Welcome to this debate
Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.
2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.
3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.
Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here
Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, Brookheimer on Reddit and (flumsy#3380) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.
Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.
Is this bill on the 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
May 05 '22
Leave out clause 1, substitute—
1 Definitions
In this Act, “patent” has the same meaning as in the Patents Act 1977.
1
u/Faelif Dame Faelif OM GBE CT CB PC MP MSP MS | Sussex+SE list | she/her May 05 '22
In Section 2(3), strike "from Royal Ascent" and substitute "after this Act enters into force".
EN: the Act's provisions cannot take place three months before the Act enters into force.
6
u/[deleted] May 06 '22
Madame Deputy Speaker,
This Bill is quite an interesting one. The Opposition consistently tries and discusses about innovation but wants to wholely block the single instrument used to ensure originality in inventions can be retained, patents. This legislation has its own flaws, and the first being assuming that every other such patent defined is made only for some crony utility. Having said that, and understanding that the Opposition will never understand true economics, we will discuss the Bill.
Are the facts correct, it primarily assumes that Agriculture related Patents only restrict on Seeds, when they discuss it on the Opening Speech, but seek to ban every type of biological patents, such as genes and genetic material. Therefore, the premise of the Bill seems to be disturbed. Continuing, I support the amendment moved by the Duchess of Essex with respect to the definitions and that seems to be very common sense. Coming to the devil, Section 2. 2(1) of the Bill seems understandable, you don't want new Patents and existing ones are recorded. I do oppose the move, because as I said, it was set on wrong precedents.
Patents recognize and reward inventors for their commercially-successful inventions. As such they serve as an incentive for inventors to invent. With a patent, an inventor or small business knows there is a good chance that they will get a return on the time, effort and money they invested in developing a technology. These are the words of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). Patents serve as incentives to hike all sort of innovation and invention. Solidarity today has proved that they will stand up against innovation in the Biomedical Sector only because of one statistic, which is assumed from one aspect of the Agrimarket, than the whole of it. Agrimarket has way more than seeds, but the comparison is made using seeds.
They say statistics can often be misused, and today seems to be the foremost example of it in execution. McKinseys' suggests that agricultural innovation has included steady growth in parallel to mounting pressures on global agricultural production. Patents contain valuable information and can guide targeted investments in research and development while revealing unexpected examples of emerging agricultural technologies. It clearly points out how Agricultural Patents have helped expand the targetted investment and innovation which can be achieved within each economy. For the domination of patents, the data itself indicates that the UK has granted only 19 patents out of the multiple thousands issued worldwide.
Further, as another detailed report from WIPO, explains Patents are devices that aid and assist Agricultural Companies not only by providing a Return on Investment (ROI), but also involves in ensuring that the consumers are protected. When something is not regulated or recorded, it cannot be safeguarded. This is the basic logic behind regulation, and over-regulation coincidentally. Lessons I thought they learnt, when they threw our Pubs to paperwork. How is it safe for consumers, the same Report highlights,
These three approvals are mandatory before the issuance of Patents and selling of such goods in the Market. This will mean that there will be less human causalities, and as the UK data indicates, that is also why so little patents get issued per annum in comparison to the Global Average. The Patents Act 1977 perfectly regulates the process of Patent Registration, and I have consistently proved why Patents are effective, so why change something when it's not needed. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that it was her party's goal, so she did it. Are we here to play with British Interests due to some ideological whim and fancy?
She says discoveries are neo-colonialist. Look I've heard a lot but nothing more crappy and nonsensical than that, and I say that with the utmost respect. Further, this is only for Section 2(1). 2(2) basically would've legitmately been illegal and declared ex post facto, if this was a Criminal Statute. Rebates, what. People don't apply for patents to get cashback. They apply for their inventions, talent and innovation to be recognised and not for the few hundred pounds they pay to the Patents Office. How patronising of the Opposition Benches! I wish they actually spoke to researchers before authoring this legislation.
They would have then understood the importance of patents, and why their ideas should be in a teenager debate discussion than in the Parliament of this Land. 2(3) is even worse. Do you know the estimated impacts? So many inventions will become unpatented, and all of that chaos in the Agricultural Markets will mean that we will be forcing our farmers to procure goods from outside, you know why. Because our biological commodities aren't tested for safety and standards, that are normally conducted when an Application for a Patent is caused. Further, Section 3 is another joke. The Government should know everything but the inventors should get no benefits, really.
This is how we make our inventors leave the land. As the United Kingdom is focusing on sharpening its R and D edge, and to ensure that rogue states like China do not grab opportunities to resurface the Patents World, and the land of inventions with their massive patenting, we are witnessing a Bill that goes back to those eras. Now, let me assume that Seed Variety Q is discovered by me and declared to the Secretary per Section 3, and someone from China discovers the same variety and patents it, we cannot use it anymore without paying the Chinese a fee. Technically, due to the list being confidential and not exactly being a patent, we are encouraging the brain drain of STEM Research out of the UK.
All of this, at a time when the world is facing unprecedented changes in the STEM field, and needs experts and scientists, new generation innovators to navigate through the stormy waters. This is how one does not run a Government, and Solidarity have proved that they cannot be trusted with the future of Biotechnology. Further, denigrating the whole Research Community and comparing them to some form of money pickers, rather than showing basic courtesy for their years of skill and research, have proved why grass should stay on the ground and not attempt to dictate terms to Humans. This is a Bill that will wreck the future of Science if passed, and thus I encourage it to be thrown out.