I move amendment No. 1:
In page 10, line 37, after "of" to insert "a".
This amendment was tabled solely to correct a printing error.
Patents Bill, 1991: Report and Final Stages.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 20, lines 24 and 25, to delete ", at his descretion,".
The effect of this deletion is that, when the Minister's order is made under section 31 (2), the examination tasks involved will be obligatory on the Controller rather than discretionary. The amendment was inspired by the debate on this subsection on Committee Stage, in particular by Deputy Barry's wish to have this subsection strengthened. It is appreciated that Deputy Barry wanted a different approach to patents examination from that provided in the Bill, but it was explained, on Committee Stage, that his approach involved the continuance of the present old style examination on applications which has led to the current unacceptably large backlog in the Patents Office. For that reason Deputy Barry's approach is not acceptable but I went as far as I could in relation to his proposals.
I thank the Minister of State for the thought he has given this. Obviously I do not agree that he could not have gone further but I appreciate that he has made an effort to travel some of the road with me. Therefore I accept his amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 20, line 25, to delete "suggesting amendments" and substitute "requiring amendment of".
Again, this amendment is in response to Deputy Barry's Committee Stage amendment No. 26 in which he also proposed the deletion of the words "or suggesting amendments to,". In the Minister's present amendment, however, those words are being replaced by the words "requiring amendment of", the connotation being that more positive action will be involved on the part of the Controller.
With the two foregoing amendments, section 31 (2) is now more tightly worded and has more bite.
Again, with the same comment, I agree with the Minister's amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 68, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
"(5) Any application referred to in subsection (1) which is published under the Treaty shall be treated for the purposes of section 11 (3) as published when, and only when, a copy of the application has been supplied to the European Patent Office in English, French or German and the relevant fee has been paid under the European Patent Convention.
(6) Any application referred to in subsection (1) which is published under the treaty in a language other than English, French or German shall be treated for the purposes of section 56 as published when, and only when, it is re-published in English, French or German by the European Patent Office under the European Patent Convention.".
This amendment, which adds two new subsections to section 127, is in response to an amendment tabled by Deputy Barry on Committee Stage. On reconsideration of the Deputy's Committee Stage amendment it was considered that the addition of two subsections would add greater clarity to the section and would be a suitable supplement thereto. The purpose of the two additional subsections is to make more clear how section 120 will operate in relation to international applications designating the State whose publication under the Patent Co-operation Treaty may take place initially in a language other than English, French or German. The mechanisms of section 120 itself already deal with applications designating the State which are published in English, French or German. I reiterate that the points advanced by Deputy Barry were fully taken into account in the drafting of this amendment. I thank the Deputy for his contribution.
I appreciate the attitude the Minister has adopted between Committee and Report Stages with regard to a number of amendments I tabled. He asked me to withdraw them on Committee Stage to afford him an opportunity to consider them and, if necessary, reintroduce them. I appreciate that he has done that. This Bill is now better than originally drafted. I do not make that point in any triumphal sense. I mean merely that the to and from of Committee Stage debate has produced something better than obtained before. I thank the Minister for taking that amendment on board.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 68, to delete lines 30 to 37.
I am disappointed the Minister has not taken on board the ideas I advanced on Committee Stage, although I was not very hopeful he would do so. Nevertheless, I thought there might have been a possibility he would reconsider the matter. Therefore, I must reiterate the arguments I advanced on Committee Stage in favour of my amendment which involves the deletion of section 128 of the Bill. This Bill basically is to give effect to international agreements relating to patents and, I contend, gives the Minister powers way beyond those he should possess to change the laws and procedures in relation to patents. For that reason I opposed the section on Committee Stage and made the point that, if any changes were required in patent regulations or law, they should be made in this House and not by way of regulation to be introduced by the Minister. This is a principle that applies to many different Bills. There is an important point of principle involved here. I continue to feel very strongly that this section should be omitted.
I cannot accept Deputy Garland's amendment which proposes to delete all of section 128. This section provides necessary flexibility to the Minister to enable him respond to future amendments to the European Patent Convention and the Patent Co-operation Treaty without having to revert each time to the Dáil with primary amending legislation. It is proposed that he be able to make any necessary adjustments by order. That is not seeking too much latitude since purely technical adjustments only could be made in this way. Every such order would have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and could be annulled by a resolution of either House of the Oireachtas. I recommend this approach and in the circumstances, cannot accept Deputy Garland's amendment.
Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?
I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
We come to amendment No. 8. I observe that amendment No. 9 is an alternative. I suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 8 and 9 if that is agreeable? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 8.
In page 70, to delete lines 30 to 33.
This is an amendment to the First Schedule to the Bill dealing with transitional provisions. Paragraph 2 (1) of the First Schedule is the offering one as far as I am concerned. I see its deletion. It reads as follows:
2. (1) The term of any patent granted under the Act of 1964 and in force at the commencement of this Act shall be extended to 20 years, subject to the payment of the prescribed renewal fees, within the period prescribed, in respect of each year of the additional term.
We had an extensive debate on this matter on Committee Stage. If this section were deleted it appears to me that existing patents would expire after 16 years which, as the House will recall, is the position obtaining. The House may recall also that the nub of this Bill was to extend the patent period from 16 to 20 years in respect of new patents, which proposal was fought competitively in the House with an amendment of mine having been defeated on that question.
We come to deal with the transitional provisions, that is, the position of patents already in existence which would expire after 16 years in the normal way. The purpose of this subparagraph is to extend the period of these patents to 20 years in the same way and for the same period for which new patents are granted. There is an entirely different matter of principle involved here which it is important to get across.
If a new chemical is patented here, the generic chemical companies know that in years to come that patent will run out. The position is quite different in respect of existing patents. The generic companies have been gearing themselves up to claim a market share of previously patented medicines. Under this Bill patents that were to expire next year or the year after will have a further four years of life. This represents a grave disadvantage and encumbrance for the generic companies. It is in a sense a form of retrospective legislation. I feel strongly that we should take out that clause and at least let existing patents run for 16 years. We have lost the battle on the new patents which are to run for 20 years.
I apologise to the Chair, and to the House, for not being here when my earlier amendments were called. I had not been informed that debate on the Solicitors Bill was discontinuing and that the Bill was being taken now. I just happened to notice it on the monitor and I came to the Chamber straight away. No discourtesy was intended to the Chair, the Minister or the House.
This Bill refers to matters other than pharmaceuticals but the main application involved here is in respect of the pharmaceuticals industry. During the past 16 years various pharmaceutical companies applied for and obtained patents for chemical medicine products, which patents were to last for 16 years. That was the law at the time and there was no hint or suggestion that the period would be any longer or shorter than 16 years. When these companies carried out their research and produced their products they did so in the sure and certain knowledge and expectation that they would have 16 years patented cover for their products. They have made very large sums of money on that basis. The cost of patented medicines is extraordinarily high. Prescriptions can cost £15, £20 or £50. These prices are artificially high at this latest stage.
At the behest of the EC Commission the Government and the Minister asked us to give an extra four years right of patent on those products, something not asked for or expected but representing a huge windfall worth millions of pounds for the wealthiest companies in the world, the multinationals who sell their products across the globe. They are being given an unasked for handout of an extra four years during which they can charge artificially high prices for their medicines. In the view of the Labour Party this is an outrage of the highest order to which the House should not agree. Indigenous chemical companies and manufacturers have been watching the expiry date of patents and gearing themselves to go into business here, to take on workers and open up factories to produce generic drugs of the same variety when the patents expire. Some of these patents are due to expire next year, some the following year and others the year after. As a result of this Bill the generic manufacturers will have to wait four years beyond the anticipated expiry date. The projected employment will be lost and that is a serious matter.
It is also very serious that the public who have to buy these medicines will have to pay the multi-national prices, which may be ten or 20 times the generic prices, for four years longer. Why impose this on ourselves? We are not obligated to do it. We are forming legislation and we do not have to do this. If the EC tell us they want an extension, let us give them a token extension. I have proposed in amendment No. 9 a token extension of three months, which is more than the manufacturers bargained for when they were granted their patents. The directors of these companies must be most surprised and gratified, sitting in their luxurious boardrooms in London, New York, Paris, Bonn and Berlin. They must be amazed that we are giving them an extra four years in which to gain extra millions. It is the kind of bonus which very few people get and in this case the recipients are those who need it least. We should not do this and I appeal to every Member to vote this down and show our protest.
On a point of order, will the Chair agree to Deputy Taylor reentering his amendments? In fairness to him, he was not here due to a misunderstanding. The amendments would give us an opportunity to discuss very important matters which should be referred to.
Acting Chairman
Have I the agreement of the House? Agreed. I understand this is not regular practice but it will be allowed with the agreement of the House.
I thank the Chair for the decision in respect of the earlier amendments. I will deal first with the amendment before us. Amendment No. 8 cannot be accepted. It proposes to delete the paragraph which adds four years to the term of patents life when the Bill becomes law. It is not, as Deputy Garland claimed, retrospective legislation. Any patent which expires before this Bill is enacted will not be increased by four years. This provision applies to patents which are in force when the Bill becomes law. Deputy Taylor's amendment proposes that all patents live on the entry into force of the Bill be given an extra three months. This is equally unacceptable. There was an extensive discussion on this matter on Committee Stage and I explained at length why these patents were being given the extra four years.
Paragraph 2 (1) of the transitional provisions permits an additional four years to be added on to the term of patents which are still live when the Bill comes into force. These patents will have a 20 year term instead of a 16 year term. Paragraph 2 (1) gives expression to this provision and it is important to note that it applies in respect of all patents irrespective of subject matter.
Ireland is now some 12 to 15 years behind its European partners in providing a patent term of 20 years. To refuse to do so now, as provided for in paragraph 2 (1), would give the wrong signals to the international community as regards our seriousness about protecting inventions. In addition, individual patent holders who have been kept waiting for so long for a patent term in Ireland comparable to other European countries would, to say the least, feel very let down. We owe them a gesture of goodwill. However, it should not be forgotten that we are also taking away certain rights which patent holders have under the present law. I will deal with these in a moment.
As I stated earlier, paragraph 2 (1) applies across the board irrespective of the subject matter of a patent. The only sector which has demurred in relation to paragraph 2 (1) is the generic pharmaceutical industry. Nevertheless, their representations have been given serious consideration and the opportunity has been taken to include certain restrictive provisions in paragraph 2 (3) and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the transitional provisions.
It is worth considering the effect of these latter provisions which will directly benefit the interests of generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. This subparagraph bans the making of petitions to extend the term of patents granted under the Act after the entry into force of the Bill. This is a significant curtailment of existing rights. At present a patent holder is entitled to make a petition to the court or the controller for an extension of his patent term and the law allows for the grant of an extension of five years or, in certain circumstances, up to ten years. The curtailment of this right brought about by paragraph 2 (3) will be of direct benefit to generic manufacturers who will be able to make future plans on the basis of the certainty provided by that paragraph.
Paragraph 3 (1) of the transitional provisions deals with the treatment of petitions for the extension of 1964 Act patents which are still pending when the Bill becomes law. The paragraph, as amended by the Minister's amendment No. 73a, was prepared with a view to curtailing as much as possible, and within constitutional constraints, the duration of extensions in these cases. The amendment will abolish the link between the extension possible and the length of time an extension petition was pending, provide for a four-year extension in all cases where a petition has not been opposed and provide in any case where an extension has been opposed that the extension should be decided under the provisions of the 1964 Act. Even though this might result in a few cases in an extension of more than four years, it is necessary for constitutional reasons to permit the continued operation of the 1964 Act in those cases and not to wipe out proceedings already in train before the courts.
Strong submissions have been made by the industry in relation to this matter. A submission was also made by them in relation to the termination of court proceedings in cases already before the courts and which have a third party objection. Those cases must proceed in the same manner. It would be inappropriate for us in this House to bring forward legislation which would restrict third party objections which have already been lodged before the courts. It would also be an infringement of the rights of the court in this regard. From a constitutional point of view, I would find this very difficult to justify. I have discussed this matter with the industry.
Paragraph (4) of the transitional provisions was included with the specific interests of generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in mind. With regard to patents extended under paragraph 2 (1) or paragraph 3 (1), it is provided that any third party may, during the final two years of such an extension, make all such preparations — except the importation or marketing of a patented product — as would normally have to be undertaken to place a generic version of a pharmaceutical product on the market. Such preparatory work will be immune from actions for infringement of the relevant patent and will provide a valuable head start for full commercial marketing after the term of the patented product expires. Generic manufacturers are being catered for in this provision. As the House is aware, it can take up to eight or ten years before a product is placed on the market. Generic companies have to undertake considerable research, as would normally be undertaken in relation to a branded patented product. The preparatory work can proceed two years before the expiry date of the patent. This is an important provision which has been included in the Bill. The generic industry sought a three-year period and other companies sought a one-year period. We struck a balance between both submissions and I believe the two-year period is acceptable to both sides of the industry.
As I stated on Committee Stage, I do not think Deputy Taylor has taken into account the contribution the branded patented multinational companies make to our economy. As I said, they are employers in this economy. They employ approximately 8,000 people while the generic companies employ approximately 1,000 people. Therefore, we must, on balance, recognise the contribution they make. It is grossly unfair to stress the fact that they are multinational companies. As Deputy Barry knows, multinational companies provide very worthwhile employment in his constituency and give tremendous support to the economy. They also make a major contribution to our success in the export field. Therefore, we need to be very careful that we do not give the impression that multinational companies are somehow against the national interest. They make a major contribution to our economy and it is our task to encourage such inward investment. The IDA are doing a tremendous job in this respect.
Many of the points made by Deputy Taylor are unfair. It is somewhat emotive to talk about costs in this regard because at times the generic equivalent can be quite expensive. However, we have to bear in mind the costs incurred by companies in the research and development of a new product. That contribution should also be recognised. The generic companies are involved in a particular area — I welcome such a choice — but they should also be engaged in research and development so as to ensure that they bring new products, where possible, onto the market.
In 1990 exports by the Irish chemical industry amounted to £2.274 billion. This accounted for approximately 23 per cent of total manufacturing exports that year. Exports this year are currently 12 per cent higher than the 1990 level. The chemical sector provide over 14,000 jobs in the economy both directly and indirectly and support many thousands more in that area. They play a very important role in our economy and in the circumstances I cannot accept the amendments put down by Deputy Garland and Deputy Taylor. I want to reiterate that multinational companies make a tremendous contribution to our economy.
This Bill is long overdue. It was originally brought before the House in 1982 but because of changes in Government and the internal case which was taken at the time unfortunately it was not dealt with quicker. This legislation is very important to the industry. I believe the extension proposed in the Bill is reasonable and in the circumstances I cannot accept the amendments.
It is a pity that this has become a dispute between the generic side — as Deputy Taylor said there is a lot more involved — and the multi-national side of the chemical industry, because they both have a role to play in employment creation in Ireland. There is no doubt we would have found it very difficult to attract chemical companies to this country and provide the type of employment to which the Minister referred if this Bill was not enacted.
I understand from the IDA that one thing that inhibited their ability to attract other major chemical industries to this country was the fact that we had not ratified the patent convention, to which we have added our signature, to extend to 20 years the life of a patent. However, the generic industry — as it is called — has an important role to play. I have to say that on balance, given the conflicting claims on both sides, the Solomon's judgment of a three year extension is about the best the Minister could do. I repeat the plea I made to the Minister on Second Stage that he examine the generic side of this industry when the Bill has been passed to see what assistance he can give them because they also perform a role in job creation. It is an expanding side of the industry in the United States and there is no reason it should not be so in Europe in the future. As the Minister has now assisted the international chemical industry he should also try to assist the generic side and help them expand their role, find new markets and give them every assistance to create jobs. The Minister's Solomon's judgment is fair to neither side but it is the best he can do.
I rise to support the stance the Minister has taken in relation to this issue. I endorse the comments of Deputy Barry that it is a pity this debate has gone down the road of a conflict between the generic and the chemical industries. From my perspective, representing the constituency of Cork South-Central, I must place on record the fact that I acknowledge the contribution the chemical industry has made to the local economy in Cork. In an era when manufacturing industry is in decline and when service industries are increasing the type of employment provided in my constituency is well paid, the average wage and salaries are very high compared with other employments. The contribution to the national economy is significant — as outlined by the Minister, 14,000 jobs, directly or indirectly, are provided — and the contribution to exports is also significant. We should get away from the niggardly criticism we hear from time to time about people in their luxurious board rooms. That type of terminology is inappropriate and somewhat immature. We are not all responsible for the state of the world economy. Those industries have made a significant contribution to the local and national economy.
The research and development component of that industry is also significant. The Minister has made the point that it takes considerable investment in research and development to produce many of these products and it would be wrong not to acknowledge that. The Minister sought to achieve a balance between the competing interests in the Bill. He has achieved that balance to the best of his ability within the constraints in which he has to operate and he should be complimented. I agree with Deputy Barry that measures should be taken by the Government to improve the situation concerning the generic companies so that their contribution can become even more significant in the years to come.
We are having a rehash of the debate on Committee Stage. There does not appear to be any sign of a move by the Minister on this matter. The Minister, and Deputy Martin, are trying to devalue the ideological element in this debate. There should be a clear differentiation between native industry which is controlled here, where the profits are ploughed back into the Irish economy, and the multinational companies who take their profits out of this country. I am sure the Minister will agree there is a vast difference between them. Employment is very important but the destination of profits is important also. The profits from indigenous Irish owned industries remain in Ireland while the profits of multinationals are part of the big black hole, are part of the huge shift of money out of the economy. The Minister is not comparing like with like, 1,000 jobs in the generic industry are worth more than 1,000 jobs in the multi-national industry.
I wish to reiterate the point I made on Committee Stage, that the multinational companies make an enormous contribution to job creation and nobody denies that — 8,000 direct jobs and thousands of indirect jobs. I put it to the Minister that those jobs could be provided by the generic industry. I propose to withdraw my amendment but I will support Deputy Taylor's amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
May I reply briefly in respect of amendment No. 9?
Acting Chairman
I do not think you can, Deputy.
The two amendments were debated together. Surely I can reply in respect of amendment No. 9.
Acting Chairman
A Deputy does not have a right to reply when the amendment is withdrawn.
My amendment was not withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 were grouped together. As I understand it, when amendments are grouped together you lose your right to reply. Does the Deputy wish to move amendment No. 9?
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 70, lines 31 and 32, to delete "20 years" and substitute "16 years and three months".
Question put: "That the words and figures proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 102; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Currie, Austin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Davern, Noel.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ellis, John.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- FitzGerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pears.
Níl
- Bell, Michael.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Garland, Roger.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Stagg, Emmet.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Ferris.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I understand that by special order we now return to amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the name of Deputy Mervyn Taylor. Perhaps the Deputy would move his amendment No. 4.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 44, line 5, after "share" to insert "in common".
This amendment is not a matter of any controversy. It is simply to be helpful from the point of view of clarification. The section deals with equal undivided shares. There are two categories of equal undivided shares. There is the "in common" variety and the joint variety. Clearly what is envisaged is that it is the "in common" position that would apply in respect of two or more people owning a patent. That is to say that in the event of the death of one of them it should not go by survivorship to the survivor but that the half share or one-third share, as the case may be, should carry on to the person who represented him.
I know that subsection (6) deals with that up to a point but it does not clarify it to my satisfaction. I am also aware that perhaps the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1890 might also cover the point if it was a business concern that was going on. However, some patents might not be deemed to come within the provisions of the Partnership Act so I am suggesting this amendment for the Minister's consideration to make it abundantly clear that the principle of survivorship would not apply to two or more people owning a joint patent in the event of the death of one or other of them.
I want to express my thanks to Deputy Taylor for tabling this amendment which we discussed on Committee Stage. On Committee Stage I requested the Deputy to put that down as I felt that, as outlined by Deputy Taylor, section 81 needed clarification and it should be made clear whether the share of a co-owner of a patent passed, on his death, to his next of kin or to the surviving co-owner.
Deputy Taylor's amendment clarifies the matter satisfactorily and under his amendment the next of kin will benefit. I, therefore, accept this amendment. It certainly improves the Bill and clarifies that point which could be a very serious bone of contention. Again I want to express my thanks for the wisdom of the contributions made by both Deputies Barry and Taylor in relation to this matter.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 51, line 42, to delete "being a person to whom section 106 (3) applies".
This concerns the question of what person or persons are entitled to represent a party in a proceeding before the controller. That could be an application for a patent or some other consequential matter that the controller would be dealing with under the patent law legislation.
As the section stands it provides that the person may be represented by a solicitor or counsel or by a patent agent, or can represent himself, or can be represented by any other person provided it is a person to whom section 106 (3) applies, and that is, a person whom the Minister approves of. I felt that that qualification was really unnecessary and that the Minister need not set himself up as an examiner of the competence or otherwise of a person to go before the controller. I am sure the Minister has enough to do without being involved in that.
Essentially, it should be a matter for the person who is bringing the application before the controller, the owner of the patent, or the applicant for the patent, as the case may be, to decide whom they want to have with them. If they decide that a particular person is appropriate for them or can do best justice to their cause, then that should be sufficient. It is on that person's head if he decides to bring an unqualified person or has confidence in the person. That should be adequate and I do not think it matters. In many tribunals unqualified people are entitled to appear and do appear. That is the reason for the amendment.
In regard to this amendment put down by Deputy Taylor, I outlined on Committee Stage that I really could not accept the amendment. This is because of the importance of having a person suitable to assist in the submission of a patent application. It is a very important area and we have registered patent agents, about six in total at the moment. We are broadening that and we are allowing a liberalisation of this provision. I believe that having some control over the applicant's advisers is an acceptable approach and I would say in 99.9 per cent of cases there would be no objection to the person making the application or assisting the applicant in making the application.
There is no need to have a patent agent or a representative on behalf of the patentee. In fact, they will be able to make their own submission and application. This will also be acceptable. However, on an issue like this, when important commercial considerations have to be taken into account, it would be practical to avail of the advice and assistance of patent agents. I also believe that by giving people a choice engineers, chemists and others will be able to assist a person submitting an application. I can assure Deputy Taylor that we will expeditiously approve any such submissions. A panel of people, who would be regarded as suitably qualified to assist people in making a submission and putting in an application, will be formed. Therefore it will not be necessary for a suitably qualified person to keep re-applying.
This is a very important matter. Indeed, last Saturday in my constituency I met a person who had a product for which he was seeking a patent and who was going to submit his own application. However, I would advise people to seek assistance in making an application because they could save a considerable amount of time and effort. To be quite frank about it, people need to get the best possible advice before submitting an application for a patent not just in relation to the paperwork involved but in relation to the question of whether it would be worthwhile, commercially, to obtain a patent in the first instance. The provision in the Bill therefore is reasonable.
Deputy Taylor's point would have more relevance if we had decided that patent agents would have the sole and exclusive right to assist an applicant in making a submission. We have liberalised the provision and will allow competition in this area. In the circumstances, although I accept Deputy Taylor's point, which is a reasonable one, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 70, line 46, after "(as the case may be)" to insert "or if, having been so given, such notice has been withdrawn".
The insertion proposed in this amendment is in response to a proposal made by Deputy Barry during the debate on Committee Stage. The additional words being inserted cover precisely the point raised by him and cater for a situation where a notice of objection to a patent extension might have been given initially but was subsequently withdrawn. I recommend the amendment to the House.
I accept the amendment proposed by the Minister of State but I wonder if it is being inserted in the right place — perhaps I am looking at the wrong reference — because I cannot see the words "as the case may be" in page 70, line 46.
The Bill was amended on Committee Stage.
My mistake.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 71, line 1, before "or" to insert "and has not been withdrawn".
Again, this amendment is in response to a suggestion made by Deputy Barry on Committee Stage and will insert the additional words he proposed. Again, I thank the Deputies for their assistance in ensuring that the Bill embodies many of the points raised on Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
That disposes of the amendments on Report Stage. May I now ask when it is intended to take Fifth Stage?
Now, with the permission of the House.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
I would like to thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their contributions to this very important and long overdue legislation. The contributions were very much appreciated and contribute greatly to the quality of this legislation.
I wish to thank the Minister of State for the attitude he has adopted since Committee Stage. He has taken on board many of the suggestions made on this side of the House. I appreciate that.
I wish to repeat a point I made some months ago that this is not the appropriate place to deal with complicated and difficult legislation. Through the Minister of State, I would like to thank the civil servants who assisted him for their courtesy and help but we should consider whether we should deal with difficult and complex legislation such as this outside the Chamber in a small room where we can receive advice as the Bill goes through. Any political points can be dealt with in the House. We are anxious to ensure that the best possible legislation is enacted in this area. Perhaps we could have ended up with better legislation if the Bill had been dealt with in a more intimate atmosphere. Having said that, I thank the Minister of State for his courtesy during the course of the debate on the Bill and his readiness to listen to this side of the House and take on board suggested amendments.
I would like to endorse the remarks made by Deputy Barry and to thank my collegues and the Minister of State for their work on this technical Bill. It is welcome when a Minister does listen to suggestions. That is the purpose of the House. I agree with Deputy Barry when he says that a measure such as this should be sent to a special committee. Only rarely is this done and this is regrettable. The Committee Stage of this Bill should have been dealt with by a special committee. This has been done before — it was done with great effect in the case of the bankruptcy Bill and the judicial separation Bill. During the years there have been forlorn voices calling for this but the Taoiseach of the day always said that he would look at it favourably. However, when it came to the crunch for some strange reason he was always reluctant to do so. This is regrettable.
In thanking Deputies again for their contributions I would like to thank the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for his assistance.
Question put and agreed to.