Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, are related and amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are cognate and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Industrial Development Bill 2008: Committee and Remaining Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, paragraph (a), line 11, to delete “inserted” and substitute “as substituted”.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Billy Kelleher, to the House. These are drafting amendments and I propose to discuss amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. The following points arise. The sections referred to in the Bill are all substituted sections and were not inserted in the 2003 legislation. The amendments correct this inaccuracy. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel drafting manual clearly distinguishes between inserting and substituting provisions. This distinction appears on page 73 of the manual. The amending sections refer to substituting rather than inserting and, consequently, I believe the Minister of State should accept the amendments.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. While the Government obviously would like to be flexible and accommodating in respect of this Bill, I have consulted the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the advice I received stated the amendments are not to be accepted in the context of that office's drafting practice. While I would have had no difficulty in respect of this amendment, I have been advised that it would be ill judged to take on board the Senator's amendments, given they are not in accordance with the drafting practice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Unfortunately, I cannot accommodate them.
I thank the Minister of State for his comments and accept the advice he has received. While I reserve my position, I will not press these amendments.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, paragraph (f), line 26, to delete “the substitution of” and substitute “substituting”.
This drafting amendment has been tabled for two reasons. First, the Labour Party hoped to ensure consistency with the previous paragraphs (a) to (e). Second, page 73 of the drafting manual clearly prefers “substituting”.
My response is similar to that in respect of the previously discussed amendments. I would have no difficulty in accepting this if the advice were to the effect that I could accommodate it. Again, however, this wording is not in accordance with the drafting practice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and, for that reason, I am unable to accept this amendment.
I accept the Minister of State's hands are somewhat tied on this issue and that he has received this advice. Consequently, I will not press the amendment.
As amendment No. 11 is consequential on amendment No. 9, amendments Nos. 9 and 11 may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
These amendments pertain to intellectual property rights affected by section 19 of the 1961 Act. I will clarify the reason for these amendments. Under the Industrial Research and Standards Acts 1961, there is a provision that any discoveries or inventions resulting from research carried out by or on behalf of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards are the property of the Minister. Subsequent amendment to the legislation has resulted in a development whereby under this Act, research carried out by Eolas, Forbairt, Forfás and Enterprise Ireland, as well as the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, are the property of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Historically, employees of the agencies carried out research on behalf of the agencies. Over time, however, the role of the agencies has changed and research no longer is carried out directly on behalf of agencies such as Enterprise Ireland.
To retain ownership of intellectual property that is created in this manner would not contribute to the strategy of fostering and promoting innovation. The current practice is that when a State agency funds research that leads to the creation of intellectual property, under the national code of practice such intellectual property is owned by the responsible research institution, which often is a university, as opposed to either the research funder or the individual researcher. While I could continue, I believe I have provided sufficient clarity in thisregard.
The introduction of the additional section to provide for patents and intellectual property issues necessitates amendment to the Long Title. I refer to the amendment to the existing section 5(3). Following the introduction of the proposed new section 5, this section will become section 6(3). It is proposed to amend the wording of the existing section 5(3) as follows:
This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may appoint by order or orders either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions.
The wording has been amended by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.
I have a question regarding costs to the Exchequer. While I understand no costs will be incurred, I wonder how all these changes can take place without incurring any costs.
There will be no particular cost to the Exchequer. Obviously, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland already have the resources. Consequently, no additional cost will arise from the changes this legislation will enact.
While I appreciate the Minister of State's response, I wish to ascertain whether there will be costs to any of the agencies regarding the requisite formalities on foot of the enactment of this legislation. I appreciate that both the Minister of State and the Bill's explanatory memorandum have noted there will be no cost to the Exchequer. Surely, however, measures such as the transfer of shares or the transfer of a nomination of one person to another necessitate the exchange of some legal documents. While my point does not necessarily pertain specifically to this Bill, I am trying to establish who carries the costs when such changes are required. Is it the case that there will be no costs whatsoever at any level? I ask out of curiosity.
These programmes already have been put in place as part of the national development plan and, every year, such anticipated costs will have been included anyway. Consequently, the effect of this legislation will not place any additional costs on the agencies as such costs already will have been anticipated.
I greatly appreciate the Minister of State's reply in that regard. When the required changes go through the required processes, may I take it that should any costs be incurred by those involved in the process, they would not be asked to fund them from their existing budgets but that the requisite additional costs would be allocated to them? It has been brought to my attention that on previous occasions, people have been asked to comply without a budget allocation having been made on the matter because they were told there would be no costs. While I am quite satisfied by the Minister of State's remarks, I make this point because it has been brought to my attention in the past.
One has the national development plan as outlined, and every year an Estimate is taken from that, which means that any costs are included and calculated therein. However, I am led to believe no additional cost will be incurred in this regard. Were the Senator to point out exactly where he can discern anticipated costs, I may examine it, but my assumption is that no additional costs will be involved.
I thank the Minister of State.
I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senators and Seanad staff. I also thank the officials in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment who have been working diligently on this Bill for many long hours. Given the efficiency of the House, I might initiate much more legislation herein.
We are efficient.
Yes. I thank everyone.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials. We have shown our efficiency through the manner in which the Bill has been dealt with. The legislation is not contentious. Largely technical in nature, there was no need to make significant amendments.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, for attending to deal with Committee and Remaining Stages of the Bill. I will take the opportunity to express my appreciation for the officials who participated today and the last time.
Regarding the Seanad's efficiency, much was teased out when the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coughlan, attended previously. Knowing that the Minister of State is from the rebel county, my colleagues and I believed it best to give him an easy time lest he react.
He might be needed for the hurling yet.
It may be part of the reason for our efficient dealing with the Bill. On a serious note, I welcome the passing of the legislation and, given the current climate, I hope it will assist agencies in ensuring the right environment is created whereby people, particularly entrepreneurs, are able to do the good work of which we know they are capable.