Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tairgim: “Go léifear an Bille don Dara hUair anois.”

I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

I welcome the opportunity to introduce the Forty-first Amendment to the Constitution (Agreement on a Unified Patent Court) Bill 2024 to the House. In line with Article 46 of the Constitution, the Bill sets out a proposal for an amendment of the Constitution and if passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the proposal will be submitted by referendum to the decision of the people.

Before I go through the Bill, I will first give some background and context to the legislation. The concept of the patents package has long been recognised as being of particular importance to the SME sector in the EU, as the classical European patents under the European Patent Convention are expensive to obtain and maintain. A key difficulty cited by patent owners of classical European patents is the high cost of protecting the patent against infringements and other legal challenges.

Due to the high costs involved in the national validation and maintenance of European patents, many patent owners currently only patent their inventions in a handful of countries. This makes inventions less valuable as the lack of protection in other countries makes copying them easier.

The agreement on a unified patent court, UPC, was signed on 19 February 2013 during the Irish Presidency by the then Minister for enterprise, Deputy Richard Bruton, at a ceremony in Brussels. It provides for the establishment of a specialist court to decide private party litigation with direct effect in participating EU member states.

This agreement is part of the wider unitary patent system. The unitary patent is a legal title that provides uniform protection across all participating countries on a one-stop-shop basis, providing huge cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. It enables a single approach to patent registration and litigation across up to 24 EU member states with a combined population of approximately 400 million. The significant reduction in patent registration costs and annual renewal fees should encourage patent owners to protect their patents in more countries and reduce the risk of patents being infringed.

In July 2014, the then Government approved Ireland’s proposed participation in the unified patent court under an international agreement, and the setting up of a local division of the court in Ireland, subject to the passage of a constitutional referendum. The new system suffered various delays, including two internal constitutional challenges in Germany regarding the voting system in the Bundestag and the UK withdrawing its ratification due to Brexit. We also had the pandemic so a referendum was not feasible. One essential requirement of the agreement was that there must be at least 13 ratifications, which had to include Germany, France and Italy. Germany only filed its ratification in early 2023, enabling the UPC’s entry into force on 1 June 2023. Now that the system is operational and the UPC administrative committee announced an appropriate remedy to the Brexit issue in June 2023, with Milan replacing London to host a central division of the court, it is timely for Ireland to proceed with a referendum.

This Bill is short and I will now outline the provisions. Section 1 provides that the text set out in both the Irish and English languages in the schedule will be inserted as a new subsection 11 in section 4 of Article 29. The proposed new subsection will permit the State to ratify the agreement on a unified patent court which Ireland signed up to on 19 February 2013.

Section 2 is a standard form provision and provides that the Bill may be cited as the Forty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Agreement on a Unified Patent Court) Act 2024. If the referendum is successful, Ireland will become the 18th participating member and so the unitary patent will also have protection in Ireland. A local division of the unified patent court will be established in Ireland if we have a successful result, and this will offer users an accessible, cost-effective and more efficient option for broad patent protection and dispute resolution across Europe. If Ireland does not ratify the agreement, a company or researcher will have to register a unitary patent to protect their invention in the 17 participating countries but then also pay separately to register it in Ireland, meaning extra costs for Ireland-based patent owners. They would also have to travel to a participating country in Europe to enforce their unitary patent legal rights and incur various costs.

I will now go through some of the reasons Ireland’s ratification of the unified patent court is important. First is for the competitiveness of our small businesses, second is for our overall national competitiveness, and third is how it will enhance the science and research and development agenda. The overall reform is arguably much more important to SMEs than it is to multinationals. Larger companies can more generally afford the expense of patent protections and litigation in different jurisdictions. SMEs have far fewer financial resources. Having a specialised local unified patent court in Ireland will mean that the patent owner can enforce their rights on home ground. Small businesses and researchers would be much more keenly affected by costs if they have to travel for patent cases to other member states and engage legal professionals in other jurisdictions.

We want to ensure we put in place measures which will continue to support business growth and innovation while reducing administrative and financial burdens. Currently, the patent renewal system is quite fragmented, with different levels of annual renewal fees, individual national legal requirements and payment transactions in different currencies. The cost savings under the new unitary patent system are significant. It will cost less than €4,700 to maintain a unitary patent for an average of ten years, down from a current €30,000 today, if this agreement is validated in all 24 member states.

Lowering the costs for business is a strong underlying principle for establishing the new unitary patent. This is particularly relevant to the small business sector. If we want to help small businesses grow and scale, we need to ensure we build and maintain a level playing field for Irish businesses competing with businesses elsewhere in Europe. A streamlined, easier and cheaper Europe-wide patent protection will help Irish businesses to export to a greater number of countries across Europe, which is a key focus of the Government’s export strategy.

Enterprise Ireland-backed companies saw huge export growth to the eurozone in 2022, with the eurozone now representing 25% of all exports by Enterprise Ireland-backed companies. Exports to the eurozone increased by 28%, reaching €7.9 billion. There is huge opportunity for Irish companies to expand trade in UPC participating countries once the product has patent protection. A unitary patent covering most of the Single Market would be of immense value to an innovative SME or start-up with scalable potential.

It is important to emphasise that the unified patent court does not replace existing patent protection schemes but provides another option to our intellectual property creators. Companies can choose which patent strategy is suitable for them. Unitary patents will not replace the existing national and European patents but can be combined with these options. Many companies may, therefore, adopt their own bespoke patent strategies combining the old system and the new unitary system for different products and inventions.

Participating in the UPC is also strategically important for our national competitiveness as we are increasingly trying to attract and develop R&D activities here in Ireland. We all know that foreign-owned firms have a strong impact on the Irish economy by contributing substantially to Ireland’s exports, jobs, expenditure in the Irish economy and Exchequer funds. Our participation will enhance Ireland’s reputation as a high-tech economy with strong IP protections. This will boost our attractiveness to foreign multinational companies already established here and those that are making decisions on where to invest.

Seventeen countries have already ratified, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands and Sweden. These countries are our direct competitors when it comes to attracting foreign companies. Competition for American investment in Europe is intense. We must keep upping our game in terms of our value proposition. We want to ensure that Ireland remains well positioned to sustain our success in attracting FDI. Intellectual property protections are one of the factors that investors cite when making investment decisions. Our participation in the unified patent court represents for Ireland an opportunity to enhance the credibility of our messages to inward investors, namely, that Ireland is an attractive location for high-tech and research, development and innovation activities; that the Government recognises the value of intellectual property to enterprise; that it is committed to providing a supportive environment for the development of IP and for protecting and enforcing IP; and that Ireland is a serious competitor for IP-based foreign investment. I believe that if Ireland does not ratify the agreement, there would be a real risk of reputational and operational damage to Ireland’s innovation economy, as non-participation may be perceived as a legislative and structural weakness.

Perhaps less obvious but equally important to take into consideration is the work of our researchers in the higher education sector. The European Patent Office patent index 2022 reports that five of the top ten Irish applicants for European patents were from Irish universities. The main fields for patent applications from Ireland were in medtech, computer tech, pharma, electrical machinery, apparatus, energy and biotech. The number of applications is increasing, and Ireland is now ranked in eighth place in European patent applications per million inhabitants.

Establishing a local unified patent court would demonstrate that Ireland is an IP-friendly location for undertaking research and development in Ireland’s higher education and research system. It will support our science, technology and innovation ambitions. We want to provide our SMEs, entrepreneurs, inventors and researchers with the same patent legal protections that are available in other participating member states which are establishing their own talent in their own local court.

I spent this morning in University College Dublin in my constituency. It is an institution that will be familiar to many Deputies and their constituents. It was to attend an event to mark Ireland and Scotland’s collaboration in space technology. Many people smirk when they hear Ireland has a space programme but it is a programme in which 104 Irish companies are engaging with the European Space Agency. It is a key innovator in NovaUCD as well as the Tyndall institute in University College Cork. It is starting to employ hundreds, if not thousands, of people already. The technologies the programme is working on and harnessing include GPS and satellite technologies. These are genuinely life-changing technologies. One accessibility company allows a person with additional needs, say, a wheelchair user, to download an app and, using space technology, to access information indicating the exact location of parking places or accessible entrances, for example, into a football stadium, such as the Bernabéu where Real Madrid, which is a client of this company, plays. It could be Sandyford business district in my constituency, which is visited daily by hundreds of people who might be unaware that there are more than 200 wheelchair parking spaces available. They will know, however, if they download this app.

The programme is also having a huge impact on our agriculture sector in relation to transport mobility, crop protection and soil pH levels. It also has an impact on technology in sport, including on head injuries. These types of inventions using space technology are coming out of Irish institutions and are being pioneered by Irish students, postgraduates and academics. They can be patented in Ireland but we are giving them the option now to protect that patent in 17 other jurisdictions, thereby saving them money and giving them the opportunity to use their intellectual property to better society and provide a living and employment to hundreds of people.

It is a real practical example of where this is working in one sector I had not already mentioned. One issue that will always come up in any referendum, in particular where it concerns Europe, is that of sovereignty. The Government’s position is that a local division of the court in Ireland ensures we can have the administration of justice related to international patent law carried out on home ground. If we do not ratify the agreement, then Ireland will be on the outside looking in, and Irish companies and multinationals based here will need to travel to other participating member states to have their UPC patent cases heard. Those costs can be significant. It will also damage our reputation. To be clear, this new court will not diminish our sovereignty. However, it will improve the Irish intellectual property regime and our legal infrastructure for patent protection.

I know this referendum is technical in nature. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle and other have referred to the heavy technicalities of this. However, it will be important for Members of the Oireachtas interested in industry, research and development stakeholders and relevant legal professionals to explain that it will benefit Ireland’s reputation and improve costs for business, and to make the case for a "Yes" vote. I have said that the new unitary patent system is the single most important reform in the history of the European patent system since its creation in 1973. We want to make sure Ireland can take full advantage of what this new system has to offer. It is, therefore, our responsibility to ensure the electorate understands the positive impact our participation in the Unified Patent Court could have on Ireland’s reputation, on investment, innovation, research, entrepreneurship and job creation in all regions across the country. The unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court is already active in 17 other participating member states, and it is in everyone’s interest for Ireland to become the 18th participant. The way we convince everyone to back this referendum, which will hopefully be held on the same day as the local and European elections is to be clear how this will benefit small and medium enterprises across the country, and how it will benefit society more widely. Everyone in this House has campaigned in a referendum at some stage, and many of us have campaigned in European referendums over the years. I cut my teeth in the first Lisbon referendum.

One thing we always have to be aware of are the clear misinformation and disinformation campaigns. The last European based referendum in this State was the fiscal stability treaty. Research following that campaign, which saw the passing of the referendum, showed the two biggest issues that came up with voters considering that referendum were abortion and conscription on demand into a European army. That was the fiscal stability, fiscal compact treaty, which was solely based on financial matters and the outworkings of the financial crash. Neither of those issues had anything remotely to do with the referendum. However, because it was a EU referendum, actors were able to add that disinformation and misinformation into the debate. I have no doubt that will unfortunately happen again in this campaign. It is, therefore, the responsibility of all of us in this House, whether or not we support this referendum, to be clear about exactly what we are asking the people to vote for. I am clear on what I am asking people for, and that I would like them to vote "Yes".

I thank the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in particular its Chair, Deputy Quinlivan, and members of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, the Green Party, Sinn Féin, the Labour Party, People Before Profit Solidarity and the range of Independents who considered the matter, and for their report in December 2022. I agree completely with their supportive comments and calls to expedite the referendum on this important issue. This Bill is a priority for our small business exporters, our research system and all patent owners, and I urge cross-party support. I commend this Bill to the House.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. Sinn Féin will support this legislation and we will await the publication of the wording of the referendum to make a further decision, which is entirely reasonable. I apologise in advance for my alternating and interchangeable pronunciations of the word "patent". We might tack something onto the referendum, so we can make a definitive statement on it, because I find myself drifting between the two.

In 1973 the European Patent Convention was signed, resulting in the establishment of the European Patent Office. Ireland has been a member since 1992. The Minister of State referenced that this came into force on 18 June 2023. We will be the 18th participant, so we have not exactly rushed into this and as a result of delays I believe we have lost some opportunities to bring a court here, and the Government needs to take some responsibility for this. We recently also failed to secure the European Money Laundering Agency. There needs to be some reflection on the part of the Government.

Notwithstanding that, if ratified, we will be the 18th participant. There are 17 ahead of us but still more to follow. The main roles of the UPC and the UPO are to strengthen co-operation between the states of Europe in respect of the protection of inventions, and the European Patent Office states that "such protection may be obtained in those States by a single procedure for the grant of patents and by the establishment of certain standard rules governing patents so granted". The Unified Patent Court is a further reform in this area, which will fundamentally change the system in Europe and Ireland. As stated in the report of the joint committee:

This reform consists of two pillars, i.e., the creation of a European patent with unitary effect (“unitary patent”) and the establishment of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), an entirely new multinational court for pan-European patent litigation.

The Unitary Patent (UP) and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) are the building blocks of the UP system which will supplement and strengthen the existing centralised European patent granting system. They will offer users a cost-effective and procedurally attractive option for broad patent protection and dispute settlement across Europe. The Unitary Patent system is expected to become operational in the first half of 2023. The UPC is a common patent court open for participation of Member States of the European Union and created by the "Agreement on a Unified Patent Court" (UPC Agreement or UPCA), which is provisionally applicable since 19 January 2022.

A single court ruling will be directly applicable in the member states that have ratified the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement was signed as an intergovernmental treaty in February 2013 by 25 states (all EU Member States except Spain, Poland, and Croatia).

A unitary patent system is now in place and the unified patent court entered into force on 1 June 2023. The UPC is common to 17 member states and has been signed by seven further states and can be ratified by them at any time. This is a court comprising judges from all participating member states of the EU. It is being set up to decide on the infringement and validity of both unitary patents and classic European patents. The purpose of the Unified Patent Court is to fundamentally reform the patent system in Europe and Ireland and to provide a legal framework. The report states:

A single court ruling will be directly applicable in the member states that have ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement. This will enable patent holders to enforce their rights and defend patents in one single ruling, providing a cost-effective remedy and protections.

Something we discussed at some length at the enterprise, trade and employment committee was the extent to which there are great advantages for small to medium enterprises in cutting down on bureaucracy, paperwork, and so on. The report states that:

Ireland requires the successful passing of a constitutional referendum to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement, as it entails a transfer of jurisdiction in patent litigation from the Irish courts [to the European court].

At present there is no single European patent valid in all Member States. Instead, individual patents must be held in each country where the patent is to be applied. Applications can be made to either the national patent office in each country or by making a single application to the European Patent Office (EPO) [It was illustrated to us clearly how cumbersome that can be.]... European patents are granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) under the 1973 European Patent Convention (EPC). At present most patents currently in force in Ireland have been granted by the EPO, which is a centralised European clearing house for patents. The Intellectual Property Office of Ireland (IPOI), based in Kilkenny, has similar competence. However, most of the activity from a patent perspective tends to go through the EPO ... These patents must subsequently be litigated separately in the national courts of each country, with separate legal representation and costs and with the prospect of different outcomes.

It boggles the mind that in a unified European Union there could be different outcomes in different courts. It is almost impossible for small to medium enterprises to deal with that. The UP and the UPC will create a patent enforcement that works effectively, efficiently and economically for companies and for SMEs. Delay from Government in deciding on the UPC has resulted in us being unable to lobby for the court to have its operations in Ireland. Paris is now the central division of the court of first instance, and Luxembourg the seat of the court of appeal. We await the publication of the referendum wording and look forward to engaging with Government and businesses on this matter.

I will say a word about the referendum. It is important. It will be incredibly technical. I have said we will reserve our position until we see the wording, but it will be very hard to get people excited about it. The Government's current referendums will be held on 8 March. I am not detecting a huge amount of enthusiasm, and I doubt the Minister of State is either. It is not something that has sparked the public imagination. With the greatest of respect to the greatest advertising brains in the world, I do not think this will spark public interest. Notwithstanding that, the opportunity exists to have a respectful and informed debate, which I hope we will have in the run up to the referendum.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, referenced, as Chairperson of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I was pleased to facilitate an examination of the Unified Patent Court, UPC, in 2022. In selecting that topic, the committee was keenly aware that Ireland was well behind many other countries in Europe on this issue. Although Ireland signed the Unified Patent Court agreement in 2013, the required referendum to alter the Irish Constitution and ratify the UPC has yet to take place. I understand it is now scheduled to take place in June 2024.

The purpose of the Unified Patent Court is to fundamentally reform the patent system in Europe and Ireland and provide a legal framework. The reform consists of two pillars, that is, the creation of a European patent and unitary effect in the establishment of the Unified Patent Court, and an entirely new multinational court for pan-European patent litigation. A single court ruling would be directly applicable in the member states that have ratified the Unified Patent Court agreement. This will enable patent holders to enforce their rights and defend patents in one single ruling, providing a cost-effective remedy and protections. As has been said, Ireland requires a successful passing of a constitutional referendum to ratify the Unified Patent Court agreement as it entails a transfer of jurisdiction in patent litigation from the Irish courts to an international court. In publishing that report, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, IBEC, the Law Society of Ireland and the Association of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys for providing comprehensive submissions to us. All the submissions greatly assisted the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment in its deliberations and analysis of this topic. I also wish to thank the members of the committee, particularly Deputies O'Reilly and Stanton, for their collaborative work in agreeing that report at the time. I also thank the secretariat of the committee for its work in the report and those who assisted the joint committee with its consideration of that issue.

One of two recommendations the committee made at that time was that preparatory plans be put in place for the establishment and host of a local division of the Unified Patent Court in Ireland. Unfortunately, we have now probably missed that opportunity. The witnesses we called expressed concern about the timeline regarding Ireland's participation. They all spoke to the economic benefits they believed being in the court and having a local division will have for Ireland. That was 18 months ago and since then, there has been very little discussion on this matter in the public sphere. Now, three months out from a referendum, we are discussing the Bill.

IBEC in its comments about the establishment of a UPC spoke of the strategic position this State is in as an English-speaking European state, and that this presents a huge opportunity for us, especially with the departure of Britain from the EU. It further argued that this State could leverage its position as a hub of the patent industry to attract foreign direct investment, which is obviously a tantalising prospect. It reckons that having a local division could be of benefit to the economy by hundreds of millions of euro every single year.

So far, so good, but there are alternative positions on ratifying this court and it is important to take stock of some of those. Some suggest that at the moment, without the UPC, a patent challenge occurs in an individual country and that the ruling applies only within the state sphere. They suggest that with the UPC, a patent would be threatened in multiple countries at the same time. They further suggest that SMEs may not have the capability and resources to navigate what would be a complex legal landscape across Europe. They also suggest that the system could lead to a split in the patent landscape with competition between the unified patent and non-unified patent countries. Not all the EU countries are signing up and some have stated that it is not for them.

I am concerned that in the run-up to the June referendum, there will not be enough time to detail to the electorate what the vote is about. As my colleague said, it is a complicated and probably technical and boring Bill, the merits of which we will have to try to persuade people about on the day. We have left it very late in the day to be discussing this matter in the Chamber. I am concerned that without enough time to digest the particulars of what people are being asked about, the turnout will be very low. It will obviously help that the vote will take place on the same day as the local and European elections but there still needs to be a significant information campaign in advance of the vote to ensure turnout and ensure people know what they are voting on. A "Yes" vote in the referendum will allow the State to join the Unified Patent Court system. It has taken the European Union a long time to get to the position where the systems are operational. They have been in operation in 17 EU states since its inception in June 2023. If we do ratify the UPC, it will hold full authority in certain patent matters over time. It will have exclusive jurisdiction over patents and patent matters. It is a complex and technical change that is being proposed and is an issue unlike other recent constitutional changes on which, with the exception of the two taking place next week, I suspect many in the electorate will not hold a deep-seated conviction.

The UPC is a court with judges from all participating member states to decide on the infringement and ability of both unitary patents and European patents. As I said, the court is over a decade in the making, with the agreement of the Unified Patent Court being signed in February 2013. Since then, it has had its challenges. Stripped to its most basic, it seeks to unify the patent system across the EU to replace the current complex system, encompassing both national and European patents. It is an attempt to homogenise the system across the member states.

Many see the court as a significant achievement regarding intellectual property rights, while others have concerns that this changes the role of sovereignty of those states that have signed up. There is, therefore, much for us to consider and there will be a lot for the electorate to consider as well. Ratifying this court is not straightforward and there are many merits, but there are also some demerits. I have a huge concern that with such a short timeframe between now and the vote, the public will not have time to make an informed decision on this matter. If we want to join the UPC, then we must amend Article 29 of the Constitution. I would prefer not to see this decision made with only a minority of eligible voters casting their ballots. We need to ensure we get as large a turnout as we can. Their needs to be a focused and relatable information package created to ensure the electorate makes an informed decision. It is really important that people are informed on what we are asking them to vote on before the referendum.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all understand the importance of the issue we are dealing with as regards patents. I am fairly sure I will mispronounce that word a number of times before the end, so I apologise in advance. The fact is that this is quite complex for many people. It is going to be incredibly technical. We all know the issues that have existed with referendums for a long time and from time to time, spurious arguments have been made, sometimes refuted and sometimes not so well refuted. We will need to make sure that due diligence is carried out in that regard. In fairness, as Deputy Quinlivan said, an information pack needs to be provided so that when people ask questions, we can at least give them a straightforward answer.

While accepting that we are supporting this legislation, obviously, we have not seen the wording. We will need to see the wording before a final decision can be made. I think people realise the whole idea around the unitary patent system and the Unified Patent Court in the sense of streamlining this idea across Europe with regard to patents. Deputy O'Reilly said it has been quite a long journey since 1973. Even though we may be dealing with this in a very short timeframe, there was probably a longer run-in time in which we probably could have addressed this. There is no "probably" about it; we could have addressed this. If we are talking about this across the board, we know the legal framework and the whole idea that it needs to be simplistic. We need to make sure that SMEs, individual developers or those who are involved in innovation have reasonable access to this system. Of course, it makes more sense that we do not have to fight this across every state in Europe. We would like to think at some point, if we are to join up, we would seek that even more countries throughout the European Union would join. Then, we need to have a better set of rules and regulations around the patent system across the board.

We all know that people - when I say "people", I mean big corporations - have been able to use holding patents, which have held back development and innovation and, in some cases, held companies that are developing really breathtaking technology back from getting off the ground. However, the fact is that they were held up in court proceedings by Big Brother, which had far greater resources. That is the wider issue. We have to address something. Alongside dealing with this particular issue, we have to talk about technology and innovation across the board. We know that Ireland has particularly benefited from being an IT and communications hub. We know all the issues that brings. We know about cybersecurity. We know about the possible threat and the particular attack on the Department of Foreign Affairs, DFA. We know we need to be ever vigilant. We need to ensure we have the capacity. It was somewhat positive to see the National Cyber Security Centre, NCSC, out in front of this issue. We need to make sure it and the other parts of our IT defence apparatus have all the resources that are absolutely required in that regard.

If we are talking about referendums and elections, we know the whole issue we are dealing with now where disinformation meets AI and bad actors of all sorts, both organised and disorganised, and the issues with weaponised algorithms. A number of committees have met in the last while with both Coimisiún na Meán and the Electoral Commission and there are some positives here. A number of us have also met with representatives from the tech sector but I have yet to see the solution that is out there regarding those threats we see in all those players that are able to use, as I say, these weaponised algorithms and new technologies. We are up against it, particularly if we are talking about the entire sphere of elections.

There is a need for investment and facilitation. I spoke about the tech sector and the great advantages we have had but we have also had a certain element of kickback. It is only in the past few days that Deputy Nash and I have spoken to the Minister of State about the issues with PayPal. We obviously hope the numbers will be a lot less than what is in the public domain and that those workers who have obviously given great service are provided with a worthwhile package and whatever facilitation can be done to help them into other employment. Deputy Nash and I spoke as well about the issues in Glen Dimplex. While we know that is a reorientation of a business and of an industry and it might mean pain for some people in the short term, we would like that to be as limited as possible and hope that the State would play its part. The good news on this is that the locations in both Dunleer and Newry are obviously safe. There is probably a need across the board for a huge level of reorientation in relation to businesses.

From a European point of view, we also have a particular issue around European directives. There is the fine under the video sharing directive that is somewhat late. We probably need to make sure we have our due diligence done and our act together on that particularly. If I am talking about the tech sector, we need to make an assessment of the changes that are happening at the minute. We need to make sure we engage with the likes of the Regional Development Centre in DkIT, which has involved itself in a huge amount of innovation and engaged with a huge level of stakeholders cross-Border and across industry, whether medtech or anything else, in producing companies that are doing real business. That level of innovation has to be put in place. We cannot just rely on big players and FDI. We need to make sure that while we have them we get the benefits of them. The one good piece of news among all that negative was of Pentagon Technologies in Dundalk with 100 new jobs to be provided over the next number of years in the semi-conductor industry. However, I would put it back to the Minister of State that alongside protecting workers rights and those other issues I raised, we really need to look at some sort of review across the board for the tech sector looking into where the dangers and the difficulties are and where we can get our best bang for buck from innovation and job creation into the future.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We, in the Labour Party, very much support this legislation and we have been aware for some time of course that there would be the requirement for a constitutional amendment and ratification of the Unified Patent Court. Which way are we pronouncing patent? I am not sure. It is interchangeable.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is completely interchangeable.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is now worried about it.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are looking forward to the debate and I am interested to see what exotic creatures emerge on the "No" side and what those arguments might be. It will probably be the least-challenging job the Electoral Commission will have over the next period. The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, stated earlier in his contribution that the original commitment was signed by the State in 2013. The idea has been around now for a long time. It has been on the agenda of successive Governments and we are finally here. While I might remark that they speak of little else in Termonfeckin than the patent court system, I do not mean to be obtuse because this actually is important. It is not the abstract idea it appears to be. It is technical and complex but it is not abstract. The adoption of these streamlined processes will be very important to give business certainty but also to ensure Ireland continues to be a recognised centre for research and development and innovation, because that is where our future lies, and that we take the high road with quality jobs and innovation, research and development in industry. This week, I met - as I do quite frequently - with senior leaders in Enterprise Ireland which is an incredibly impressive and important State agency. We talk a lot in this Chamber and elsewhere about the important of foreign direct investment in our country and it is important and will remain an important feature of our industrial strategy. However, what we tend to talk less about is the significance of the kinds of industries supported by Enterprise Ireland and the kinds of high-value, productive jobs for which entrepreneurs in the export space supported by Enterprise Ireland are responsible. We can never take that for granted. Innovation, research and development and how we support that is really important, and intellectual property and patents generally are very important for business and enterprise models and for future jobs. I am glad the Minister of State mentioned the issue around Ireland's involvement in the EU space programme and so on. People often dismiss research and development as something abstract and something that does not matter. It must be remembered that when you are actually researching one thing, you might find you have a solution to something else and that this solution can then be commercialised. You might not necessarily be addressing an economic issue but you are addressing a social problem as well sometimes. That is what innovators and entrepreneurs do. This is a really important proposition for Ireland and the Labour Party welcomes the publication of the legislation on the discourse we are having - I will not call it a debate - this afternoon on this.

With the Unified Patent Court already operational in 17 of 26 member states since June last year, we acknowledge that Ireland has been playing catch-up on this. Of the 25 signatory members, Ireland is one of six signatory states yet to enact the UPC. Considering the gravity of what is at stake and the potential knock-on consequences to fundamental economic stability, we must ensure our full participation is not left waiting or wanting. The passing of this legislation and the subsequent amendment can make a huge and material different to our economy and society. Previously, the processing of patents required to be applied and enforced on a state-by-state basis. The passing of the European Patent Convention in 1978 at least reduced the applications to a single application but did not do anything on enforcement. Currently, a patent granted by the European Patent Office giving effect on paper across all member states, requires the person granted the patent to then validate that patent in each country. Obviously, this can be prohibitively costly especially for smaller entities or individuals and that is just registration and recognition. We have to be mindful of all of this and how important this would be to high-potential startups and innovative companies here. Ireland relies on national legislation by way of the 1992 Patents Act but no patent court relies on the commercial court to manage disputes and a litigant must file disputes in each member state individually. This is obviously prohibitive to small companies or individuals as it requires in-depth and extensive legal knowledge and support - and indeed reach - to enforce an IP claim across the EU and beyond. The protection of intellectual property is especially important to Ireland as home to many of the world's leading global corporates in the tech, pharma, medical devices and biotech sectors. These are all fundamental sectors to our economic well-being and providing participation in the patent court is essential to maintaining and growing engagement in these sectors.

It is estimated that the passage of this amendment would pave the way for an injection of €1.6 billion annually into the economy. It is certain that for research and development activity, to facilitate co-operation in patent registration and enforcement is essential. It is not merely of benefit to large multinationals but is also crucial to small individual firms, to innovative entrepreneurs involved in high-potential start-ups and so on.

UK litigation firms have welcomed the proposal that Ireland will host a local division of the court to facilitate streamlined English language and common law litigation on intellectual property here. The opportunities for Ireland are huge. Some of the world's largest players in the IP law area have opened offices here on the back of these EU changes to IP protection and our home-grown legal expertise has been recognised as having world leaders in the field with three Irish firms winning industry prizes for IP work last year.

A constitutional amendment is required to ratify the UPCA because Article 34.1 of the Constitution states that:

Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.

Because of this article, we must create a constitutional provision to permit our participation in a court other than the courts as established under our Constitution. The agreement on the Unified Patent Court was signed by 25 member states and Ireland is a signatory to the UPCA. Poland, Croatia and Spain are not currently signatories. That may evolve in time. We recognise that the UPC and the UPCA are seen as significant advancements in the management and protection of intellectual property rights but the area remains complex. As with any change, uncertainty will always abound and in the member states where large international IP issues are uncommon, there are valid questions. However, given Ireland's globally significant tech, pharma, bioscience and medtech sectors, participation in the UPC is vital.

As questions arise as to the status of the UPCA as being a court common to contracting member states, or an EU court, become settled we must monitor and assist SMEs and individuals to navigate their way around this new regime. This will ensure it is not merely large multinationals capable of hiring expensive top legal firms to handle their IP that will benefit but that the protection of intellectual property is practically and procedurally available to all who seek it.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister and his officials on bringing forward this important legislation. I was seized by the importance of this legislation on 13 July 2022 when representatives from IBEC appeared before the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Chairman, Deputy O'Reilly, I and others were taken by the importance of the UPC Act and Ireland becoming part of the court.

This is probably among the most important work we will do for the State in the long term. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle put her finger on it when she spoke about it being hard to stay awake for this discussion. Others agreed with that sentiment. There is a conundrum here. Some years ago in America, Drew Weston wrote a book entitled The Political Brain:The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. His thesis was that people vote with their hearts, not their heads. Part of the conundrum we have with this type of legislation is that while it is vitally important, it is not emotional. It does not seize people in the same way as other legislation and issues we discuss here.

Deputy Naughten and others outlined very well the importance of legislation. Just to clarify, the word "patent" is pronounced differently on either side of the Atlantic. I looked it up earlier. In any event, we need to recognise the importance of this patent court and how we become part of it. Denmark ratified the agreement ten years ago, in 2014, shortly after it was signed. We have been ten years waiting to do it, which is far too long, but I welcome the fact that we are doing it now.

I have a question for the Minister and I hope he will give me an answer to it. I hope this constitutional amendment will pass. The fact that we are having the referendum in June at the same time as local and European elections means there will be a big turnout and hopefully people will be seized by it and will vote "Yes". As far as I can see, none of my colleagues who spoke are opposed to joining the court. In fact, there is broad agreement. It begs the question, with the McKenna judgement, if someone jumps out and says they are opposed to this, one would have to ask why. In my view, there is no downside to this at all. It is all positive, especially for SMEs. Deputy Naughten and others pointed out that SMEs will benefit hugely from this. The large corporations are big enough to do their own thing, no matter what. They are okay right now because they have the resources, personnel, expertise and potential to go and fight their corner anywhere on the globe. The indigenous SMEs will benefit massively from this. They will not have to go to Italy, Germany and France and all the other countries that ratify this agreement to register their patents, fight their corner and litigate afterwards. They will be able to do it here in Ireland. They will be able to register the patents once and litigate once, which will save costs, trouble, expertise, travel and everything else that goes with that. That will mean these companies will soon be encouraged to lodge patents, develop new technologies and register them. This is a massive benefit for our indigenous SMEs.

We will not second-guess the people but hopefully they will vote "Yes" in this referendum. What happens next? What preparation has been done in the Department and by the Government to ensure the court is established? How long will it take for a court to be set up here? I assume that quite an amount of preparatory work has been done on this. People might argue that we cannot do anything until the people have their say in the referendum. We should be prepared in any case and we should be moving as quickly as possible on this.

Much of my contribution draws on the work of IBEC. One question people might ask is why we need a referendum. We are required to hold a referendum before ratifying the agreement on a unified patent court because of Article 34.1 of the Constitution, which states "Justice shall be administered in a court established by law by judges appointed in a manner provided by this Constitution". The agreement on a unified patent court, with its commitment to an international court that will ensure patents rights, is not currently compatible with the Irish Constitution. Therefore, we need the people's permission to insert a reference in the Constitution similar to that in Article 29 allowing Ireland to participate in the International Criminal Court. It is a similar type of vehicle. We need to have a referendum because we cannot go ahead without such a reference. IBEC notes:

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is one part of a two-part package that also includes the Unitary Patent. This unified patent package will create a simpler and more efficient mechanism for obtaining and enforcing patents in Europe. The UPC will be a newly established single court system under international agreement for pan-European patent litigation and enforcement. It will ultimately have exclusive competence in respect of infringement and the validity of all patents granted by the European Patent Office (most patents in Ireland are granted by the EPO).

The unified patent package is needed simply because the current European patent enforcement system does not work effectively for many companies, in particular, SMEs, as I said. IBEC goes on to note:

The current system of country-by-country patent protection and litigation is extremely expensive, time consuming and resource intensive. Under the new system, there will be centralised mechanisms of both protection and enforcement. This could be particularly beneficial to Irish SMEs. SMEs tend to have only a few patents covering their core technologies - these are often their most valuable assets. Under the existing system, pan-EU protection and enforcement can often be prohibitively expensive for such companies, but the new system would make this a more realistic prospect for them.

Ireland is required to hold a referendum to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement. Doing so would ensure that Irish businesses have the same strategic competitive advantage available under the new pan-European IP system as those businesses in European countries which are already part of the new UPC system.

Ireland would host a local division of the Unified Patent Court.

Under the UPC, a dedicated Local Division of this new European patent court would be established in Ireland. This Irish Local Division of the UPC would provide specific comfort for enterprise, in particular indigenous SMEs who are increasing their rate of patenting but might not have much exposure to patent enforcement procedures. Companies finding it necessary to enforce their European patent rights will only have to litigate in one single location. This has not been available to Irish companies before. It will provide better access to enforcement for companies that currently cannot afford to litigate across different countries or jurisdictions.

There is a strong business case for Ireland's participation in the system. An IBEC APTMA 2022 survey found that 78% of businesses would be likely to increase their patenting activity to protect their innovations if Ireland were to sign up to the new unitary patent and unified patent court system. Ireland is uniquely positioned to establish itself on the international stage as a patents enforcement hotspot.

This will bring substantial gains for the wider economy, gains that will go far beyond an increase in legal services. An Irish local division of the UPC that is English speaking and rooted in the Common Law tradition would be attractive to European patent litigation that might otherwise have occurred elsewhere. More importantly, it would support the further expansion of the patent-intensive sectors, such as medicine, medical technologies, biopharma, and life sciences. These technologies across the country are creating jobs that benefit SMEs and boost Ireland's innovation performance.

IBEC has estimated, as Deputy Naughten said, that the value added to the economy from Ireland's participation in the UPC could be worth as much as €1.6 billion per annum. That is not to be sneezed at. That is why it is so important. It would also mean that Ireland would become far more attractive to FDI and companies that want to establish themselves here. I understand that since the Government has decided to go ahead with this referendum there has been an increase in the number of companies that are actually looking to Ireland. These are companies with legal and technology backgrounds that want to come and establish themselves here simply because we are hopefully on the verge of ratifying this referendum and decision. This is very important.

By international standards, there is a low rate of patent litigation before the Irish courts, although a recent increase in local litigation by the pharmaceutical sector has been reported. It has been estimated that Ireland has 0.2% of the share of European patent litigation, but it should be noted that raw patent case counts are often not particularly informative, especially when compared over time and across jurisdictions. They can be open to misinterpretation. For example, is a low rate of litigation in a country indicative of fewer underlying disputes? Is it the case that disputes can be settled prior to a court or are they simply not enforced at all? If this is added to the fact that under the current European patent enforcement system, Irish companies will have to resort to litigating in other European countries to enforce their rights. These are rights that might cover larger, more lucrative markets.

This is a win-win for everybody concerned. One of the key benefits of the UPC is that companies that find it necessary to enforce European patent rights would only have to litigate in one single location at a time, which would be here. The system is truly pan-European.

The other issue that has occurred since all this started is that Britain has left the European Union and it had a very important role to play here. We had the opportunity to step into that in a certain way, as has been said earlier, but that did not happen. Nevertheless, we can benefit hugely because, as I said, we are English-speaking and we are under a common law jurisdiction. The use of the new system will strongly welcome a local division with a reputation for emphasising speedy case management that demonstrates quality and consistent judicial decision-making. The Dusseldorf local division of the UPC has identified the quality and availability of judges as integral to its success on a European scale.

Ireland's local division has two additional powerful but distinct advantages. It is to be established against the backdrop of a native English-speaking environment and the common law traditions that Ireland can offer. This is hugely important. Ireland can exploit the fact that non-EU FDI is more receptive to the UPC litigation that would otherwise be destined for a UK, local or central division. That may now be up for grabs. The central division is now gone, as we know, but we still have a huge opportunity here to gain massively from this.

I encourage the Minister of State to put in place a strong, well-thought out campaign to inform people, as well as to inform colleagues in this House and the other House. Many colleagues do not understand the importance of this. There is the fact that we are discussing this on a Thursday afternoon when many Members are gone. That is the way the cookie crumbles, but it is probably not advantageous either. This is probably one of the most important decisions we will make in a long time for our economy and businesses going forward into the future. If we do not do this, we will run the risk of slipping back on this one - big time.

UPC is different from other courts in Europe because, for the first time, it will provide a forum for private parties to settle disputes in Europe on a transnational basis. It has the ability to offer parties that are willing to litigate patents in Ireland the scope and impact far beyond anything that could be hoped for through an indigenous court whose jurisdictional reach does not extend beyond the borders of the State. Our ambition to become an international centre for commercial litigation arbitration necessitates being an active participant in the UPC system because it may be a model for future initiatives to develop transnational dispute resolution in the EU.

There are huge benefits to this above and beyond what we are actually doing. I commend the Minister of State and his officials on tabling this at this time. I encourage him to ensure that once the referendum is hopefully passed, we are ready to move as quickly as possible to establish the court. The selection and training of judges will be important parts of this. If we get this right, others in Europe might decide to come to Ireland to settle their disputes. That is to be welcomed as well. This is a win-win for everybody.

As I said earlier, because this is not an emotional issue and because it is technical, many people will switch off and not engage with it. That is a risk. I hope it will pass. I do not detect any negativity from Members on this issue. It will be interesting to see how the McKenna judgment will be used here, but that is for another day. I thank the Minister of State for his time.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his words of wisdom. I call the Minister of State to wrap up.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In particular, I thank the seven Deputies who contributed to this important debate, which was conducted in a good tone.

I want to address some of the issues that were raised before we conclude this Stage. With regard to the comments made by Deputy O’Reilly, I welcome her support for the legislation and her decision to see the wording in it before she makes a decision. She may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this might be the first European referendum Sinn Féin has supported. We welcome that. Welcome to the good side.

This is definitely worth passing and worth doing. Again, I would like to repeat my words of praise to Deputy Quinlivan and his colleagues on the committee for his chairing, their work on this, and the very detailed report that was prepared. My Department and officials were happy to engage with the committee and he was very kind in his remarks about them. He hit on two key issues, which every Deputy also referred to. One of these was the need for a very clear information campaign. A campaign can be split in two ways. There will be the Government campaign and there will be the work of the Electoral Commission. That will, of course, be information-based and will provide clarity, myth-busting, etc. There will also be a political campaign. As Deputy Stanton will be aware, I have been given the onerous task of leading my own party, Fine Gael, and its campaign in support of this referendum. We are at an advanced stage of planning our public meetings around the country and engaging with business leaders.

In particular, we engaged with SMEs, as well as the trade union movement, to show just exactly how good this will be for workers, businesses and, crucially, for society and people who will benefit from the innovation that will be protected by the UPC. I am aware that Fianna Fáil has appointed Senator Malcolm Byrne to lead its campaign. I urge all parties, whether they are in favour of the referendum and the wording that will take issue in due course, to also appoint their members to lead campaigns and allow us to have a fully functioning campaign.

Deputy Stanton raised the question of what impact the McKenna judgment might have. We have seen in previous referendums that even when there is widespread support in this House, there will always be people who oppose them. An academic research paper was presented from Maynooth University a number of years ago. It said that one can take it as read that close to 20% of the population will always vote “No” in any referendum. I think the closest we came to that figure was in the 18% who voted against our original accession to the European Economic Community in 1972. The exception was the historic and monumental passing of the Good Friday Agreement, where common sense thankfully prevailed among pretty much everyone in this jurisdiction.

We have to accept, which we have heard it in debates previously in this House, that there are people who simply reject the notion of intellectual property. They think that people should dedicate their lives to research, science and innovation and invest their moneys in the greater good. That is a noble ambition, but I simply do not agree with it in terms of practicality or results. Yet, there will be those who take that position.

There are those - I could use many words to describe them, but it would not be parliamentary for me to do so - who will simply oppose anything that comes out of the European process. They will be lined up and willing to engage with the McKenna judgment and ensure that their voice is heard. They are welcome to have their voice heard. I genuinely mean that, but it will be crucially important for us to have a debate based on actualities and facts of what we are asking the people to vote on.

As Deputy Nash said, Ireland is a recognised innovation centre, not just when it comes to the life sciences but the tech sector. We need to support that innovation.

I wanted to touch on an issue Deputy Ó Murchú raised, which is slightly off the topic at hand, but it was pertinent. As the line Minister of State, this is a great opportunity for me to respond to him about the recent announcement on redundancies in PayPal. He and Deputy Nash had engagement with my office and parallel officials, as have Senator McGahon and Deputies O'Dowd and Munster.

We will ensure that all statutory obligations are met by the employer. We are already working with the local Intreo office in County Louth to make sure there are other opportunities in employment or training for those who will be impacted. When we look at the tech and digital sectors more generally and the shifting patterns, it is fair to say that the past 18 months have been extremely difficult. Deputy O'Reilly and I discussed at length the need for unionisation in our tech companies and the very great work the FSU was doing in organising in many of these companies. The fact of the matter is that there has been a worldwide shift post-pandemic in the tech sector. It has seen global job losses. Heretofore, where tech companies based in Ireland have reduced headcount, it has been far below the global averages. That is something we have welcomed. We have a very strong suite of legislation to support redundancy. On balance, we have seen far more jobs created in this jurisdiction in the past 12 months than we have seen lost, particularly in the tech sector. For every redundancy that has been announced, there have been four jobs create. For those workers who are affected, there is never a good time to lose a job for those whose families depend on it, but we will work with them to ensure they get equivalent jobs of equivalent salary and conditions in their geographic region. I look forward to working with Deputy Ó Murchú on that again, particularly on more specific debates on the issue.

Colleagues will forgive me if I do not drift too far into the cybersecurity debate because I think that would really be stretching the patience of the Ceann Comhairle. I do want to touch on a couple of points raised by Deputies Naughten and Stanton. Deputy Naughten was one of the only Deputies who used his full speaking time, along with Deputy Ó Murchú, and every word was bang on. He raised a number of extremely pertinent issues. Like Deputy Stanton, he stressed that this would benefit SMEs, and it really will. The crux of the UPC is to provide a level playing field for small and medium business that are innovating and enterprising across Europe. The multinational corporations and large companies have the resources to challenge in multiple jurisdictions at multiple times, whereas this new system, simply in registering the patent, will benefit an SME. They will save up to about €25,000 just from the get-go, no challenges needed or anything like that. That is the benefit.

In the last year or so that I have been in this role, I have been very lucky to travel the country and work with SMEs, be they local enterprise office client companies, Enterprise Ireland client companies or those just generally working in Ireland, and to see how they are innovating. I was speaking with one tech entrepreneur. Deputy Naughten referred to the ag-tech industry but this was more the equine tech industry. He had a really wonderful piece of software developed and patented here in Ireland. Due to pressures of organisations far bigger, he was left with the choice of fighting infringements or selling his intellectual property. He sold the intellectual property and good for him, he did very well and was able to start another company. Not everyone is in the lucky position to receive an offer to sell. Some simply see their hard work and effort moved on. Another was a very small company, I will not name where it is in the country because it comes down to sensitive issues. Two gentlemen of a certain age who had worked for a large pharma company for over 25 years and had the innovation are working with their local enterprise office on their own, just two people. They are working on a piece of technology that will be transformative for patient care not just in this State but across the world in the next couple of years. It is a piece of technology that requires investment. It is acutely sensitive. Like all good politicians when we visit a business, I took out the phone to get a picture and they nearly broke the sound barrier asking me not to take photos. Even if it were known what machinery they were using, that would be a risk. It is a highly sensitive, competitive area and SMEs are absolutely at risk from larger companies that want to take their hard-earned work and examples and move on.

Deputy Naughten referred to today being Rare Disease Day as well as the leap day. He put it in context that one in 17 people is suffering with a rare disease in this country. It is not that rare when you think of that. An awful lot of people are dependent on orphan drugs being developed, made and distributed in Ireland by really innovative companies. He mentioned one such company that he and I had the pleasure of visiting on Monday in Monksland on the Roscommon side of Athlone. I was reminded about a hundred times upon entering the facility that it is on the Roscommon side, not just by the local politicians. That company, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, has over 200 employees in Monksland and a commercial office in Dublin as well. I took the opportunity to implore those employees to vote Yes in this referendum. I did the exact same thing when I was in UCD this morning for a conference on space technology, and asked all the academics, researchers, students and business people there to vote Yes. My appeal, therefore, to all those who have contributed to this debate, if and when they come out in favour of this referendum, is to use every appropriate platform to engage not just with SMEs and business owners but workers and those who are benefiting from life-changing drugs, treatments, devices and software, and to ask them to inform themselves and to vote Yes. I hope the referendum will take place on 7 June with the local and European elections.

Deputy Naughten put in a very clear request in respect of the Science for Peace organisation with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Deputies Naughten and Stanton were wearing their sustainable development goals badges, as they regularly do. I received a lovely badge in the post yesterday from the Centenary Girl Guides branch in Dundrum outlining their commitment. It is one of the SDGs to make sure we have access to clean, safe water for everyone. Deputy Naughten makes an excellent case in respect of forming a central database or repository to enable us to take advantage of lapsed patents. There is a bit of work involved and it will require collaboration and co-operation across jurisdictions. Perhaps the central administrative purposes of the UPC will make this even easier in due course.

Deputy Stanton made a couple of points beyond the implications of the McKenna judgment. I agree with him fundamentally. He shows the wisdom of someone who has been here for nearly 30 years when he says politics is often a matter of heart versus head. Deputy Stanton would have been able to tell that to the person who wrote that book without having to do any research. This will be a very difficult referendum to put the emotive sell into. We are rightly talking about jobs, livelihoods, salaries, businesses and opportunities. However, we are also talking about the development of vaccines, treatments and medicines that are keeping people alive today, allowing people to live a life they would not be able to live if it was not for the patent in this jurisdiction. We always say "patent" with a long "a" sound, by the way, and thanks for the clarity. Because of those patents, those people are living their lives. That is the emotive string that we will have to put into this campaign in due course.

In response to Deputy Stanton, if the referendum is successful and a local court is established, it will have three judges presiding, with at least one of the three having the nationality of the member state hosting the local division. We have the opportunity not just to recruit and train an Irish judge but to look beyond Ireland. On what happens next, if and when this referendum is passed and I certainly hope it will be, enabling legislation will be required. Officials are currently working through the preparatory issues such as the provision for establishing the court and a physical site for it. A Minister would need legal authority to allocate a budget to a new court and to assign staff. However, the Attorney General's office will not be in a position to draft legislation until a vote has been put to the people. There is only so much we can do before a referendum but I assure the Deputy that we are certainly working across all Departments to identify issues. When this referendum is held, I hope it is a positive result and I hope Members present and all of us who want this to go forward will support it.

The minute it is passed, we will press the button to get it up and running as quickly as possible. We will do it in a thorough and clear way and in a manner that any legal impact requires, but we want to get it ready.

I will conclude as I know there is other business for the House to get through. A few Deputies present have referred to other jurisdictions that have not yet ratified the UPC. The official ceremony to mark the UPC was held a few months ago in Luxembourg. I was the only ministerial representative to attend from a country that has not yet ratified it. I was asked directly by the Taoiseach to attend to ensure the message goes out that we intend to play a full part in this. There is a legal requirement for us to ratify it. I have already laid out the clear reasons beyond our control for the delay, including the pandemic and the legal challenges in Germany, but I acknowledge the point the Deputy made about Danish ratification in 2014.

Other member states that have not yet ratified it have not been as clear about their intentions. To be frank, there is an issue in Spain. It wanted the court to sit in Spain, rather than Milan. That is a disappointing argument and if that were the way Europe worked, none of us would engage in any of the institutions, bodies or agencies of the European Union that are not located in our State. Ireland has the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development site in Meath and Eurofound in Loughlinstown. There are only so many of those that can go to each member state. Perhaps in another debate, Deputy O'Reilly can enlighten us about how Sinn Féin would have secured the anti-money laundering agency for Ireland, which will go to the European financial centre in Frankfurt.

I am going to Croatia as part of my St. Patrick's Day trade mission. I will hold two bilateral meetings with relevant ministers in Croatia and will discuss how we are progressing in ratifying the UPC and how a referendum is set up. The fact that the father of one of those ministers happens to be the Croatian ambassador to Ireland is certainly a bonus. We will also talk about how we can encourage Croatia to join, because Croatia is a growing market of importance for Ireland. For example, there are more than 20,000 Croatians living and working in Ireland, many of them ironically in the life sciences sector. We want to make sure that as many EU member states that are able to join this court do so as quickly as possible.

I thank all Members for their engagement. I look forward to the Bill going through Committee and Remaining Stages and I implore everyone to engage as comprehensively as possible in the debate in the Houses on the legislation and the referendum in due course. Ultimately, I want to see this referendum pass and the legislation enacted swiftly.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate everyone involved in that piece of important work.