Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are alternate and will be discussed together by agreement.
Patents (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee Stage
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (3), lines 6 to 10, to delete all words from and including "on" in line 6 down to and including "provisions." in line 10 and substitute the following:
"no later than three months after the passing of this Bill into law.".
I put down this amendment to ascertain why the Bill cannot be brought into effect immediately although I suppose there are good reasons for it. My secondary reason was to put some timeline on it because on Second Stage in the Dáil we supported the Bill based on the fact that it would be good for the economy and it would bring many benefits in its wake. We are keen to find out when exactly these benefits will manifest themselves because it cannot happen until the Bill comes into law.
I thank the Deputy for his proposed amendment. The amendment refers to section 5(3) and the motion is for the deletion of lines 6 to 10 and the insertion of "no later than three months after the passing of this Bill into law". The text of section 5(3) is standard and allows for the Act to come into operation on a date or dates to be specified in an order or orders. This gives ministerial discretion on when the Act would become effective in law.
The purpose of the subsection is to allow for any administrative changes required before the Act can be commenced. In this instance it is necessary for the corresponding patent rules to be amended to bring them into line with the London agreement. The proposed amendments to the Patents Rules 1992 are being drafted at present. I assure the Deputy that it is my intention to commence the Act and the new Patents (Amendment) Rules 2011 by way of an order or orders as near to the enactment of the Patents (Amendment) Act 2011 as possible. I am not in a position to accept the Deputy's amendment on this basis.
I understand that certain changes, administrative and otherwise, must be made before the Bill is brought into effect. In rejecting the amendment, the Minister of State is effectively arguing that he does not anticipate the Bill, once enacted, coming into operation within three months. While I accept he will act in this regard as quickly as possible, I ask him to provide a more definitive timeline for those who are interested in when the legislation will enter into force.
I assure the Deputy there is a sense of urgency about this matter. However, I cannot give him a definitive timeframe today. Dialogue with the Office of the Attorney General is ongoing. We are in a queue, if one will, in terms of our deliberations with the Attorney General. We are pressing her office as much as possible to try to have the legislation expedited in as timely a fashion as possible. While I am not in a position to give a definitive timeframe, I am cognisant of the need to ensure we get all the pieces together and expedite the legislation as quickly as possible.
I have a couple of questions. The European Patent Office was established in 1973. Why did Ireland not recognise it until 1992? I accept my question is broader than the legislation.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed amendments to the Bill. Perhaps the Minister of State will address other issues when he concludes.
On the amendment, is further legislation expected? I understand we will recognise a new Europe-wide patent mechanism. Could we postpone our decision on that matter given that we have already delayed since 2008?
We will deal with the amendments before returning to the Deputy's questions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (3), line 7, to delete "Enterprise, Trade and Innovation" and substitute "Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
What is the reason for the delay in transposing the directive since 2008? People could have saved between 20% and 30% of the cost of a patent application if we had introduced this legislation earlier. We have our backs to the wall in many areas because of European legislation. Why can we not start to transpose European legislation as soon as it is initiated at European Union level? Why must we wait for a number of years before doing so?
If the Deputy wishes to check the record, the initiation process for this legislation was started some time ago under the previous Government. I am not trying to fudge the question in any way but I can only speak about my time as a Minister of State. We are discussing Committee Stage of the Bill in a new Parliament that was given a mandate this year. I contend that we are proactively engaging with the matter in hand. In terms of the historical perspective, there was a process of engagement and the legislation was initiated. As to the reason the Bill did not come to Committee, Report and Final Stages earlier, one could argue - again I am not trying to fudge the question - that is a matter for previous Administrations.
The officials remain the same.
This is not the appropriate time to discuss the issue. Perhaps we can discuss it in private session once Committee Stage has concluded.
The message we are sending today is that the unitary patent is a matter of European Union policy, as agreed by all of the member states. The concept of the EU patent, which was previously known as the "Community patent" is to provide a patent system that is affordable and devoid of administrative barriers across the member states. We all buy into that process because it will benefit all stakeholders. Any Irish businesses seeking to bring goods to market or exploit the potential of their intellectual property and so forth will be able to do so in a streamlined and consolidated process. We are evolving towards that position. What the Bill does is legislate for the London agreement to which Ireland signed up. It is another staging post. The Government is actively grappling with this matter and, as I indicated to Deputy O'Dea, issues have arisen in respect of further engagement with the Attorney General. The matter is ongoing and we are taking a proactive approach to it as we are conscious of the need to expedite the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.