Mr. Michael Glanzer:

There were a couple of thoughts and reasons as to why we thought this was the best way to proceed. The first question you ask yourself is what are you trying to achieve with the GI. A number of people commented on the registration process, and that is certainly an element of it. We would ask the committee to consider that it might be just the first step. The second step we were trying to consider was production protocols and standards. We asked who would be better to think about, implement and monitor those standards than the people who are intimately involved in the process, which means the workforce, producers and the other people the committee has testifying before it today. Part of the thinking was that we were trying to bring the relevant expertise in production to the decision-making body.

As a number of others have said, we are also trying to use the GI to create additional value in the community. We are trying to attract other businesses or investment which can make use of the GI. This is an example that is limited to Waterford, but the glassmaking and crystal engraving capabilities would be applicable to certain other types of decorative art, wall units and lighting fixtures. Those are certainly things that are done by other glassmakers. In that way, you are using the GI to promote activity in the community by spreading out the activity. To do that, you need some folks who can speak the language of those other businesses and investors. We attached to the committee people such as Mr. O'Connor, who we sought out as the leading expert on GIs in Europe and we were lucky to recruit him, and others, such as me, with a finance background. That way, we can have a meaningful conversation with other groups and can use the association as a way to spawn other economic activity. Treating this in the same way as a patent is like treating pilots of airplanes in the same way as pilots of boats.

They are both in transportation but GIs are different from other types of intellectual property.

The Deputy asked where we drew on the notions here. Comparable issues may be going on in Ireland, although I am not aware of that. We drew on activities with which I have been involved in the United States and Germany. In the United States, we have things called labour management committees, and in Germany, there are works councils. I happen to have worked with labour unions in both countries, where we have brought financial expertise to try to resolve a financial and operational issue that labour and management are often trying to sort through. By analogy, we thought this would be a useful way of thinking about this, with the relevant parties who have most at stake being advised by people who can bring the relevant expertise to them. We also observed that many of the current mechanisms did not seem to have had an especially successful outcome in respect of Waterford. We know what those have been like and where we have ended up today, and that was the thinking behind the proposal.