Before Committee Stage commences I would like to deal with a procedural matter relating to Bills to amend the Constitution. The substance of the debate on Committee Stage relates to the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment, which is contained in the Schedule to the Bill. The sections of the Bill are merely technical. Therefore, in accordance with long-standing practice, the sections are postponed until consideration of the Schedule has been completed.
Forty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Agreement on a Unified Patent Court) Bill 2024: Committee and Remaining Stages
Tairgim:
Go ndéanfar, de réir na bhfasach agus Bhuan-Ordú 184, breithniú ar ailt 1 agus 2 den Bhille a chur siar go dtí go mbeifear réidh leis an Sceideal.
I move:
That, in accordance with precedent and Standing Order 184, consideration of sections 1 and 2 of the Bill be postponed until the Schedule shall have been disposed of.
Cuireadh agus aontaíodh an cheist.
Question put and agreed to.
AN SCEIDEAL
SCHEDULE
Tairgeadh an cheist: "Gurb é an Sceideal an Sceideal a ghabann leis an mBille."
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."
I am happy to hear from any Deputies indicating in this very important debate. I am pleased to present the Bill before the House today for Committee, Report and Final Stages. Addressing the Dáil last Thursday, 29 February, I was both heartened and encouraged by Deputies' unanimous support for Ireland's participation in the Unified Patent Court, UPC, and the holding of a referendum on that question, with some holding opinion on support for the referendum until the wording is published.
On all sides, various important points were raised regarding the benefits a "Yes" vote for participation in the UPC can bring. Those benefits relate to, first, the competitiveness of our small businesses, second, our overall national competitiveness and, third, how participation will enhance the science and research and development agenda. It is also clear how a "Yes" vote will benefit Europe. The unitary patent system supports the development of a single market across Europe for technology by reducing legal fragmentation and administrative burdens. In terms of exports, it will help Irish SMEs to expand trade into Europe once their product has unitary patent protection. As we know, trade is the lifeblood of our small open economy. Less red tape will make it less daunting for micro and small enterprises with no need to deal with multiple national court systems to defend and enforce their patent rights in participating member states.
The referendum, if passed, will boost Ireland's reputation as it will demonstrate to our indigenous innovators, as well as potential foreign investors, that Ireland is a world-leading intellectual property, IP, location for innovation and innovative businesses to establish operations. A first-class IP system is very important for research and development and innovation activity in our pharmaceutical sector, for example, where Ireland is the third largest exporter of pharmaceuticals globally. Ireland's life sciences sector has a global reputation for operational and innovational excellence. There are 110,000 people in Ireland working in life sciences companies supported by Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland. In doing so, they help to make and market the medicines and medical devices that improve and save the lives of millions of people at home and around the world. I was struck by the statements on rare diseases that preceded this debate, as well as the related comments last week by Deputy Naughten and others. Ease of access to a local court may also help to further embed the existing research and development activities of multinationals in Ireland. These activities offer good, well-paid and highly skilled jobs. We want our value proposition to remain as attractive as possible and to continue to evolve and expand our ecosystem for innovation, which includes having the most up-to-date patent protections.
As supported by Deputies last week, the broader geographic area created by the unitary patent will boost technology transfer, research and development co-operation and other types of technology-related partnerships and may benefit a variety of potential business partners and intermediaries across the European Single Market. We also may see other benefits in terms of the impact on the legal infrastructure, as participation in the unitary patent system and establishing a local court in Ireland will help to drive intellectual property skills and legal expertise in patent law here, which is important for our innovation-based economy. It may attract and generate a wider pool of professional skills and competencies in intellectual property, including legal services and patent agencies here in Ireland.
The new court system will allow for a consistency of judicial approach in patent case law. Up to now, patent holders had to take enforcement proceedings in individual countries, which can lead to inconsistent outcomes across different jurisdictions. Generating a harmonised body of case law in Europe on patent infringement and validity will significantly enhance the legal certainty and transparency of the patent system, benefitting both innovators and the public at large. It will be an additional option for our inventors and innovators. It will mean Ireland, on top of its existing system, will have a local division of the court in Ireland.
If the referendum is successful and a local court is established, it will have three judges presiding, with at least one of the three having the nationality of the member state hosting the local division. However, the parties may agree to have their case heard by just one legally qualified judge. If the referendum is not passed, our inventors and innovators will have to use the unified patent courts of other member states if they want to protect their property under the new unitary patent system. This would mean greater expense and inconvenience for them. Our colleges and enterprises have nurtured incredible innovators. We should do all we can to ensure they have the supportive ecosystem they need to thrive and succeed.
In October 2022, the administrative committee of the UPC announced the list of 85 UPC judges, comprising 34 legally qualified and 51 technically qualified judges from 13 of the 17 initial UPC participating states. Once Ireland has completed its ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, Irish candidates will be eligible to apply to the administrative committee for positions. Deputy Stanton raised this issue last week. The court will provide Irish and Ireland-based businesses with faster adjudication timelines and significantly reduce the burden of overseas travel and associated costs for businesses involved in patent disputes.
While I strongly welcome the widespread support for the amendment within the House, I also appreciate that the subject of patents is not an emotive one. Therefore, it will be our collective responsibility to inform voters of the importance of a "Yes" vote. We will need to emphasise how the Unified Patent Court will be good for creating and retaining jobs, attracting foreign direct investment and driving the export potential among Irish enterprises. Irish participation in the new unitary patent system is critical to ensure the Irish intellectual property regime keeps pace with that of other economies and that our businesses have access to the same legal infrastructure and frameworks as their competitors in Europe.
I acknowledge the support this proposal has received not only in this House but outside it as well among the various stakeholders involved in the knowledge economy. We should do all we can to ensure this sensible and beneficial proposal is supported by the people in June. I look forward to the debate on the amendment and any additional comments Deputies may wish to make. I am very grateful to the Deputies who contributed to the debate last week, particularly those who had previously participated in the discussions at the Oireachtas committee under the chairmanship of Deputy Quinlivan. I especially thank Deputy Stanton for clarifying the correct pronunciation of "patent" on this side of the Atlantic. I ask colleagues to support the passage of the Bill. I look forward to bringing it to the Seanad in due course.
As a consequence of the technical way in which the Bill is dealt with, I cannot speak later on my amendment. I take this opportunity to address it.
We have just had a debate on rare diseases. Last Thursday, we had the Second Stage debate on this Bill, which was very timely. The provisions before us have huge implications for the development of orphan drugs, not just in this country but across Europe and globally. It is hoped that having a unified patent system in Europe will ensure more investment goes into the development of orphan drugs and that we can thereafter get access to them. In the preceding debate, one of the issues raised was the possibility of reimbursement through the Department of Health for orphan drugs. If we do not move forward with this legislation and if the referendum is not passed, the cost of accessing those drugs will be much higher. I hope one of the impacts of the referendum, if it passes, is that it will make access to orphan drugs cheaper. I hope that will be one outcome of it.
The referendum and the decision by the people on it will have a profound impact on industrial innovation and the broader Irish economy. Participation in the Unified Patent Court represents a significant opportunity for innovation-led growth, enhanced intellectual property protection and broader economic prosperity in this country. The discussion last week underscored the potential benefits of the passage of this amendment by the people in a referendum in June. However, the debate also highlighted the challenges, such as the risks of poor communication, potential public confusion and the general lack of interest in the technicalities of the amendment. This may well become more prominent if either or both of the referendums taking place this Friday are not passed. Based on the opinion polls, there is a possibility that will happen. There is potential for a kick-back from the public because of the lack of proper engagement on those two questions. That may result in an even bigger struggle in getting this amendment passed in June, considering it is competing with the local elections, European elections, the election to appoint a mayor of Limerick and, potentially, a general election on the same day. Mention of a general election will surprise some Members of the House but there is a possibility it will happen.
When people go into the polling booth at the beginning of June and are handed the ballot paper asking them to say "Yes" or "No", many of them will wonder what the proposal is about. The presiding officer at the polling station will tell them to go over and look at the notice in the corner.
When they do so, they will see the ballot paper states they are being asked in the referendum whether Ireland may ratify the agreement on a unified patent court. Of the people who read the sentences, 99.9% will ask, "What in God's name is a unified patent court?" I ask that we flesh the wording out and at least explain to people the referendum is to facilitate the establishment of a streamlined patent system that makes it easier to protect inventions across the 24 participating EU countries. I do not believe that is biased in one way or the other.
It demeans the importance of the referendum if we restrict the advice given to the electorate at the polling booth to the existing simple sentence. I strongly urge the Government to take on board the amendment I have tabled because it does at least provide some simple information on what people are being asked to decide on. It is imperative over the coming weeks that we all make an effort to educate and inform the public about the significance of this referendum for various sectors of our economy. Last week, I mentioned the agri-tech sector and today I have referred to orphan drugs, access to orphan drugs, the cost of orphan drugs and the impact this referendum can have on the rare disease community. There could be a huge employment impact right across the economy. Therefore, I ask the Minister of State to think about the amendment I have tabled, which I encourage him to accept.
I do not propose to dwell on this. We have debated it, the committee has discussed it, and I am fairly well across the detail on it. However, I agree with the point made by Deputy Naughten. As the Minister of State knows, my party has not taken a position. Like every political party, mine has its own decision-making processes, but we have supported the holding of a referendum and will take a position closer to the time. It would be doing a disservice to the referendum and its wording if people went into the polling station not fully aware of what the referendum was about. There is potential for it to get swamped by whatever elections are on the same day, be it one, two, three or 20.
We support the holding of the referendum and do not have any difficulty with it, but in order for people to engage on it, it is important that the information be available. In that regard, Deputy Naughten has made an interesting suggestion that I hope the Government will examine and engage on.
It is all about commodifying intellectual property.
Deputy Naughten's comments merit a response. It is fairly obvious from our many engagements on this topic, both in the Chamber and beyond, that I fully appreciate the sentiments behind the amendment and the comments by both Deputy Naughten and Deputy O'Reilly. I do not just appreciate the proposal as I would probably largely agree with it, but I cannot support it. I will give a clear reason, making one point and one commitment.
The statement for the information of voters is intended to set out the proposal that voters are being asked to vote on. The statement has been drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in the Office of the Attorney General. Explaining the subject matter of referendums is a specific function of the Electoral Commission. In recent weeks, we have seen it come to the fore. To expand on the text that has been presented, which was drafted in the view of the McKenna–McCrystal principles, with the Deputy's proposed wording in his amendment would not be appropriate. I have to be guided by that, as he can understand. However, I appreciate that is not the answer he wants to hear. I will be more than happy to engage on the matter further. It is the task of the Referendum Commission, having been funded by the Government, to ensure the subject of the referendum is adequately explained.
Last week, I laid out in the House that I have the good fortune, for what it matters, to have been appointed director of elections for Fine Gael for the referendum. I believe Senator Malcolm Byrne is taking on that role for Fianna Fáil, and other parties might like to appoint someone in due course. We have already held four regional information meetings through the party, working with stakeholders. We will be spending a considerable amount of money informing people and encouraging them not just to vote but also to vote in favour of the proposal. I will be more than happy to open those engagements to people of all political persuasions and none and to make them as open and transparent as possible. As the Deputy might have heard, when we were together in Monksland in Roscommon last week, I highlighted quite clearly to its workers how important the referendum is to their jobs and how important it will be to existing and future patients, particularly given that the company does so much work on orphan drugs, which the Deputy mentioned.
The referendum is a big undertaking. Holding it on the same day as the European elections is good as it will increase the turnout. When people are thinking about wider European debates, they might take this matter into context. I appreciate that does not address the exact point the Deputy made but he will appreciate where I am coming from and what I am bound by. However, I wholeheartedly undertake to honour the commitment I have given. If the Deputy would like to establish a forum or hold a meeting in his part of the world, I will be more than happy to attend, with no political hang-ups or agenda, to address it and to inform and encourage on whatever terms the Deputy deems fit.
Leaving everything to the Electoral Commission is not the right way to proceed. We might be having a post mortem here in two weeks and we may very well regret taking the approach in question. It could be too late regarding the referendum under discussion.
I will make my point again and not press it thereafter. It relates to handing people three, four or five ballot papers at the beginning of June, one of which will be for a referendum. When people ask what the referendum is about and are directed to a notice in the corner of the polling station that states they are being asked whether Ireland may ratify the agreement on a unified patent court, many will wonder what it is about. No one inside the room will be allowed to explain it to them. All I am looking for is a simple elaboration stating the referendum is to facilitate the establishment of a streamlined patent system, making it easier to protect inventions across the 24 participating EU countries.
I accept that the Minister of State may argue about the phraseology I have used, but the phraseology he is using and that the Attorney General has signed off on is insufficient and does not provide information. It is an insult to the public to say it constitutes the provision of information to them on the referendum because it does not. No one will be any the wiser having read it. I do not want to be surprised in mid-June because we slipped up on this. That is my final word on it.
I share some of Deputy Naughten's concerns. The issue of a unified patent court has been sloshing around in the Minister's Department since I was a Minister of State, which is now several years ago. In my humble opinion, the proposed wording is very vague. We are in the business of politics and it is the responsibility of the political system to tease out the wording further. Why would anyone vote for the wording as it is constituted at present?
It gives rise to much confusion.
The other issue, which may have been dealt with in a forum other than this Chamber, is the issue of the status of what I would call "the Six Counties" where patents are derived, innovations are made or patents are filed on foot of co-operation on a North-South basis and a unified effort around the creation of a patent. I can think of an example where, for instance, if a dispute arises, you are in two different jurisdictions. Maybe the Minister of State and his Department officials have already dealt with that possibility but it would be good and useful to hear from the Minister of State in respect of any disputes that might arise on a North-South basis, or where there is a unified approach on a North-South basis when such a dispute arises. What is the status of the two jurisdictions where a dispute is entered into or where a resolution is sought? What is the status of the UPC in that instance? To my mind, that has not been answered comprehensively. If I was to vote on this, until such questions are significantly dealt with, I would be reluctant to try to sell the message of what the Government is trying to achieve here.
I take Deputy Naughten's point but he can appreciate where I am bound at this stage. I fundamentally believe we will be back here in June with a clear decision because there will be a large-scale information campaign going beyond simply what is put on a ballot paper or pinned to a wall in a polling station. We all know that a lot of people, particularly in Ireland, take votes seriously. They take elections seriously. They take referendums seriously. They make it their business to inform themselves and there is a great responsibility on them.
I am concerned about Deputy Sherlock's reluctance but I welcome the statement by his party colleague, Deputy Nash, last week that the Labour Party will support this referendum. Deputy Sherlock will understand the delays beyond our control that happened in this regard. I went through them on Second Stage. Of course one reason for the delay was the UK's decision to withdraw from the European Union and, therefore, withdraw from the formulation of this court.
As it stands, if a piece of technology or a drug is developed with cross-Border co-operation, it is registered for a patent in the jurisdiction where it is registered. The patent can be registered, if it is in Northern Ireland, with the UK patents office or if it is done in this jurisdiction, it is registered with our patent office. That system will not change after this. Rather, what will happen, if we pass this referendum, is that Ireland will join 17 other EU member states where the patent will be protected. At present, that patent is not protected in those 17 EU member states. There is obviously concern about what is going on North-South but there will be no change to the status quo in that regard. I wish there was but, unfortunately, that was a decision taken by 52% of the UK population some years ago.
Cuireadh agus aontaíodh an cheist.
Question put and agreed to
Aontaíodh ailt 1 go 3, go huile.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Aontaíodh an Réamhrá.
Preamble agreed to
Aontaíodh an Teideal.
Title agreed to.
Tuairiscíodh an Bille gan leasuithe, glacadh é chun an breithniú deiridh a dhéanamh air agus ritheadh é.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
- An Bille um an Aonú Leasú is Daichead ar an mBunreacht (An Comhaontú maidir le Cúirt Aontaithe um Paitinní), 2024: Céim an Choiste agus na Céimeanna a bheidh Fágtha
- Back to table of contents
- Ráiteas mar Fhaisnéis do Vótálaithe i ndáil leis an mBille um an Aonú Leasú is Daichead ar an mBunreacht (An Comhaontú maidir le Cúirt Aontaithe um Paitinní), 2024: Tairiscint