Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the patent referendum legislation before us. I listened to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's comment when she came into the House initially and she is quite correct in that. I have a young man, Dara O'Sullivan, in the Public Gallery and I was trying to explain to him what a patent actually is. It is important that we do not take these issues for granted and that we make an effort to explain to people what we are talking about here.

The reality is that a patent confers upon the holder, for a limited time, the right to exclude others from exploiting that particular invention. That exploitation could be in making that invention, using it, selling it or importing that particular invention, except without the consent of the owner of the patent itself. The patent is effectively a form of industrial property which can be then assigned, transferred, licensed or used by the owner. In order for an invention to be patented it must be novel, unique, involve some type of an inventive step and be susceptible to industrial application so that it can be used in industry. Here in Ireland, most of the patents are involved in software. In my own home town of Athlone we have Ericsson, which has a massive number of patents. In fact when one goes into the plant in Athlone there is a whole wall of the registered patents and the staff there who had those registered. There are also patents in the whole pharmaceutical area which I will return to in a few minutes.

Patents are set down by territory, meaning that a patent granted in Ireland by the Intellectual Property Office of Ireland based in Kilkenny is only valid here in Ireland. The objective behind this particular referendum is to establish a unified patent protection system that is applicable across the EU member states that sign up to this. It will mean that an inventor can access a new single patent that provides uniform protection across those member states and has access to a single court to enforce that, rather than having to go to individual courts in different parts of Europe.

At the moment if someone comes up with a novel idea, a new drug, a new piece of software or a new agricultural invention, they have to go country by country to get their patent registered. This, in particular, is a big barrier to small Irish companies doing that. We see right across this country a huge level of innovation, particularly in the agri-tech area. The last thing we want is a situation where we come up with something novel and innovative here only for it to be replicated in some other part of Europe or the world. The one that comes to mind is McHale which is a big agriculture engineering company in the west of Ireland exporting their particular balers and different equipment all over Europe and all over the world. This could be undermined if they did not have the capacity to register their particular type of baler.

That is what we are talking about, namely, giving the opportunity not just to the big multinational companies but to small, local companies or individuals with a good idea to be able to do that in a streamlined process at reduced cost and having a simplified court system to see that enforced.

It is estimated that this could benefit the Irish economy to an annual value of approximately €1.6 billion. IBEC estimates that having the current patent system means it costs an individual or small business somewhere between €7,000 and €15,000 in terms of translation and other costs to register a patent at the moment. That is before they have to go and enforce it if someone tries to replicate their idea. Then they are involved in courts in different parts of Europe. There is the time and the cost that is involved in that. What we want to see is a single system across Europe that I hope will drive the innovation economy here in Ireland. It would support many innovators and small businesses in registering their ideas.

One of the criticisms that has been made of this unified patent system is that it will not benefit small businesses and is mainly for big business and the vast majority of small businesses across Europe do not have patents. However, we are different in Ireland in that we have a lot of small businesses do that have their own patents. A survey of businesses in this country showed that 80% of companies have patents at the moment. The companies that do not have stated that the current high cost of bureaucracy is stopping them from registering some of their innovative ideas. More than 80% of small businesses and micro-businesses around this country have stated they are very likely to increase the number of patents they will register under this new system. While across Europe as a whole there may not be a benefit for small and micro-businesses, here in Ireland we have a huge opportunity in terms of our local businesses exploiting this particular legislation if it is enacted in our Constitution.

We need to take a proactive approach to this referendum. Ireland has a very prominent role in the life sciences and the pharmaceutical sector globally. Nearly 90% of the employees in those companies in Ireland are engaged in medicines that are patented at present. Those employees are dependent on having access to those protected patents and having a unified, Europe-wide approach on it provides us with a far greater opportunity than was the case heretofore. Because of that, it is important that we make an effort to get out there and explain to people exactly what we are trying to do.

There is a responsibility on every company in this country that holds patents to explain to their employees the impact of this, and ask them to explain to their families and neighbours the significance of the passing of this referendum. We cannot take this for granted. We should not take it for granted, and there is a responsibility on all of us to explain it to the public. If Ireland were not to ratify it, Irish companies would have to go cap in hand travelling around Europe and going to huge cost to try to protect their own intellectual property, their innovative idea they have come up with and to ensure that no one else copies it anywhere else in Europe. For that reason, we need to ensure we have an effective campaign and that we explain to people why this is so important.

I will give one of the reasons I believe this is so important. We are here on the most opportune day to discuss it. Today is the rarest day of the year, 29 February. It happens once every four years. Of course, it is also international Rare Disease Day. One in 17 people in this country has a rare disease. A lot of them are dependent on what are called orphan drugs, small numbers of drugs being manufactured for a small number of patients across the globe. They are the medications and treatments that they are dependent on to live, function and walk around in our communities around this country.

The Minister of State was with me last Monday in our own biopharma cluster in Monksland, south Roscommon. We were in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which is involved in manufacturing orphan drugs, small volumes of drug for a very small patient cohort around the globe. A lot of the research and development is being enhanced and developed here in Ireland and in Athlone. Those jobs and that operation would be in jeopardy if we did not have a robust patent system. Across the road from it is Alexion, another rare disease company, and again it is dependent on this. It is not just these companies that are dependent on this system; it is the one in 17 people with a rare disease around this country, and their peers around the globe, who are dependent on it as well. That is why it is important for them that these protections are enshrined in our Constitution.

Before I finish, I want to bring up one broader issue with regard to patents, which is something that Ireland as a country should take on. I hope, on foot of today's discussion, that the Minister of State will look into it. I have the honour of co-chairing the Inter-Parliamentary Union Science for Peace school. The Science for Peace school uses science, and some of its collaboration and operational models, to bring legislators and members of parliaments closer together, tasking them with trying to solve regional problems on pivotal transboundary issues, one of which is the issue of water that we have been looking at, and using science as a neutral umbrella. We are taking parliamentarians from around the world in regions that have traditionally been in conflict, bringing them together under the neutral umbrella of science, offering parliamentarians and parliamentary staff capacity building and empowerment training, and developing their evidence-based decision-making skills. It is a really innovative approach we are taking on this.

Last September, we had a Science for Peace school focused on the issue of water, where we brought members of parliaments, parliamentary staff, scientists, water experts, researchers and other stakeholders from different sectors all across the globe together. We engaged in constructive dialogue, knowledge exchange and partnership building with a view to developing effective strategies and policies to try to ensure we can share out water better and also develop new water resources. That parliamentary meeting last September identified a number of areas where we could see global co-operation. One of those was in the area of expired water patents. Every single year, there are between 5 million and 7 million patents that lapse, or products that go off-patent. However, there is no way of knowing what those technologies are. There is no unified system and no central database, and once they lapse, that is it. They evaporate into thin air. A lot of these are very innovative ideas. They are off-patent, which means they can be easily utilised in different parts of the world. One of the primary objectives we have with regard to the sustainable development goals is that every single being on this planet has access to clean water and sanitation. There are an abundance of technologies available that can do that, which are off-patent, yet no one knows about them.

One of the recommendations that the Science for Peace school made was to create a repository on water solutions and best practices, including patents that have lapsed, to provide a comprehensive knowledge base that could be used and accessible in developing countries - and developed countries, for that matter - to address unique or challenging water problems. Water was just one area that we were focused on. This could equally be applied elsewhere. Let us start with one route on it. This is an international group of people that has said that this is an opportunity to achieve the sustainable development goals and to reduce conflict in regions of the world where there are problems with water resources by using the knowledge base that is already there and that has been developed. However, it is effectively and literally going down the drain, and nobody knows what knowledge is there or what could be utilised or applied in different parts of the world. I ask the Minister of State to look into this.

This is not just me saying this. We have all signed up to the World Trade Organization, WTO, agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, TRIPS. Article 66.2 specifically addresses this issue of the facilitation of knowledge transfer, and ensures there is a responsibility on those who hold that knowledge to facilitate its transfer, particularly to the developing world. The TRIPS agreement sets out that these patents should, without discrimination, be made available and be applicable in different parts of the world where they could benefit individuals.

That requires two things to happen. First, there needs to be flexibility in supporting a viable technology base in some of these developing countries because they just do not have the capacity. We can give them the solution but if they do not have the capacity to unlock the patent, utilise it and apply it on the ground, then it is of no use to them. We have a responsibility, along with other countries that are part of this patent agreement, to work with some of the least developed countries in the world to give them the capacity to utilise some of the patents that will be registered as a result of this legislation and, hopefully, the referendum in June. We are not only looking at our indigenous economy but we are seeking to raise all boats and give everyone an opportunity, regardless of where they live, to benefit from the system.

The second point is that there are no clear incentives in place to facilitate this knowledge transfer. This is a global agreement and it is gathering dust. We are not utilising it at all, even though there is a responsibility on those countries that hold these patents to facilitate their transfer to the developing nations. However, if these countries do not have the capacity and knowledge, they will never be able to utilise them. Let us ensure, across the member states that bring this legislation and the unified patent system into force, that we share the knowledge. We should work with developing countries to facilitate them to utilise the knowledge to benefit their citizens and citizens across the planet equally.

See this speech in context