Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I do not want to be repetitive. I read the Law Society's submission with interest and the submissions of the various other stakeholders in this pre-legislative consultation.

I assume the representatives are here because they are advocates not of the tobacco industry, but of the protection of intellectual property rights. I assume that is their focus. However, in their submission they strayed into areas such as smuggling. I am not aware of their expertise on smuggling, but I assume it is not to the fore of their expertise and we will stick with the law as it is. While they are entitled to have a view on smuggling, I would suggest that there are some inaccuracies in it. The committee will be aware, for example, that the tobacco companies are part and parcel of smuggling in the sense that most tobacco smuggled into this country is made legitimately by these tobacco companies in other jurisdictions where they flood the market which cheap cigarettes, making it financially viable for smugglers to bring them into this country. That is what is happening. It is not that there are factories all over the world making illegal cigarettes. They are being made legally by these companies, dumped into Third World markets where they flood the market and are then smuggled into here. That is the illicit trade and that is the way it works. It is not that cigarettes are being made in bamboo huts in far-flung parts of the world. They are being made in sophisticated factories throughout the First World. They should be conscious of that when making their views known.

On IP itself, from the Law Society's perspective, the only court from which we can take precedents on this issue is the Australian High Court. The Australian Government's legislative programme was challenged by the tobacco companies and it eventually ended up in the High Court in Australia which, I suppose, would be equivalent to our Supreme Court. The court found in favour of the Australian Government. I am trying to tease this out. Could Mr. Shaw explain what the court found in favour of? Did it find that the Australian Government had a right possibly to usurp or even undermine the intellectual property rights of individual companies for the greater good? Was it, in the context of the greater good being the real issue here, that the state was entitled in certain circumstances to protect its citizens by usurping or overriding the intellectual property rights? I am trying to get a flavour of Mr. Murphy's and Mr. Shaw's interpretation of that issue, bearing in mind they could act for companies that may take this State to court as well. I would like to know what would be their defence or argument.