Parker David: Patents Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Patents Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12956. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to address respectfully Steffan Browning’s proposed amendment to clause 15 of the Patents Bill in Supplementary Order Paper 124 and explain why it is that the Labour Party will not be favouring that amendment. Thank you for consulting us about it and the way in which you have gone about that.The explanatory note or the letter that came with the Supplementary Order Paper said that one of the things that the amendment intends to do is to stop people—in its current form it says it encourages biopiracy of indigenous resources. I understand the member’s concern. There have been some quite I suppose famous cases around the world that have been referred to. One relates to the scientific properties of theNeem tree which is an Indian tree as I understand it. Have I got that right? Yes it is an Indian tree the extracts of which have long been used as a control of insects and other fungal infections in trees. There were patents taken out that were then said to have been used to stop the traditional uses of theNeem tree despite the fact that that had been a long-standing practice.Secondly there were assertions—and I do not understand enough to know whether all of these assertions were right—that it seemed unfair that the insecticidal and fungicide effects ofNeem tree extracts could be commercially taken by someone who claims that they have discovered the chemical reason that that is occurring in a way that prevented other people from doing it despite the fact that they had always done it. I agree that that seemed unfair. If that was properly described I have problems with that. But that does not mean to say that I think that this amendment can be supported because what this says is that you will not be able to patent organisms including plant varieties and traits in organisms and that is the issue that I want to deal with.We know that we have a lot of challenges environmentally in the world. One of the challenges that we have is that the form of energy that we use at the moment produces carbon emissions that are put into the atmosphere. We know that in order to reduceemissions we need to do lots of things. One of the things that we may need to do is to bring forward scientific research into organisms that help prevent that from occurring or enable othersubstitutionary forms of evidence that are not high in greenhouse gas emissions. For example the conversion of plant material into biofuels may require or may be advantaged by the use of bacteria or other organisms that are discovered in volcanic vents deep at sea. Thesethermophiles as I think they are called are organisms that can survive very high temperatures.I think there is a proper question to be asked or to be asked by those who are researching in favour of making those discoveries as to whether what they are discovering is something that is novel that is of utility and that was not known previously in a way that should be patentable. I find it hard to see a distinction—a hard distinction—drawn in respect of that sort of discovery that would mean that it should not be patentable and I think that the societaldisbenefit of preventing patents in those areas would be that we do not have discoveries that help us overcome some of these other planetary challenges that we face.So I think that if I properly understand that—and it is possible that my understanding is wrong; if it is I invite Mr Browning to point it out. I am not here saying whether those discoveries should be made through or variations in the organisms should be—I do not think this is through this bill a debate about genetic modification or more traditional technologies. I think the same principle applies to both here which is not to advocate for genetic modification; it is just to say that the same principle applies.If I give another example the technology that is being pursued byLanzaTech is taking the flue stream gases of steel mills that are carbon monoxide I understand rather than carbon dioxide and using a process to convert that carbon monoxide into ethanol which is a fuel that can then be used as a substitute for fossil fuels. Overall the environmental impact of steel production is reduced as a consequence. My understanding is that the process does involve organisms that are going to be modified through technology in order to make them more efficient so that that becomes a viable technology.LanzaTech could not do that and could not raise the money to make that advance in science if it were not for the protection that it gets through patents. My understanding of this amendment proposed by Steffan Browning is that if it passed it could prevent that patent from being granted which would then cut off the money forLanzaTech—Hon Member: No.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well it would not cut off the money forLanzaTech? I think it probably would. If it could not get an economic return for its investment it would be less likely to make an investment in it. For those reasons based on our current understanding of this amendment the Labour Party will not be supporting that Supplementary Order Paper.