Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I hope I can benefit from the time allowed. Mr. Shaw and Mr. Murphy are very welcome. I will start first with the submission. It was clearly outlined that it had come from a committee within the Law Society. I looked up the membership of the committee and the links. I then contacted the committee to confirm the declaration of interests we received because among the submissions we requested, point 5 clearly outlined what we expected from a declaration of interests. We had to request the declaration of interests, which we received for the intellectual property law committee and that is all I can talk about now. I am surprised because as a Member of the Seanad I must declare any interests I have. When I speak in the Seanad, I declare I am chair of Early Childhood Ireland. I get zero payment for that but I still declare it. The most polite description of the declaration of interests we received is that it is opaque. It does not show the clear links that exist. If someone can clearly outline when they have a conflict, I expect that legal people will argue for different sides. I do not expect that members of the Law Society have no links but I am surprised at how loosely worded the declaration is. Yet, if anyone takes any time to look at the membership of the committee we can see clear links, not just from the companies, that the individual solicitors are clearly working. It is accepted that solicitors can take business but I take issue with the fact that they cannot declare it.

In the declaration it says that one member of the committee was previously employed by P.J. Carroll and Company but he was not a member of the committee while so employed. My question is whether the Law Society has a concern about his previous role in connection with the submission that was made on behalf of the Law Society and how he became a member. What expertise did he bring forward to qualify him to be a member of the committee? What I have seen throughout the hearings we have held is that the tentacles of the tobacco industry are everywhere. We are seeing the same sentences again and again when we receive certain submissions. I want to be assured of the true impartiality that is being put forward. The reason I asked the question about the declaration of interests is because of the reference in the submission to smuggling and counterfeit products. I would have thought that was outside the remit of expertise of the committee on intellectual property law. That is what sparked my question on declarations of interest.

The High Court in Australia held that there was no acquisition of intellectual property rights, as the state did not receive any benefit. If we look at cases in the Irish example, the reality is that they have all been to do with land. The cases all related to land and involved compulsory purchase orders. The State has already limited intellectual property rights on advertising and putting health warnings on cigarette packets. It is a justified and proportionate restriction on the use of trademarks. The State is not proposing to extinguish any rights. Is that the understanding of the Law Society? Will the State extinguish the right or is it about the State restricting and limiting? The State has a responsibility for the common good and also to ensure the public health. The State will receive no financial benefit from doing that. I wonder what the merits of a case would be.