John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)

A balance must be struck with patents. There is the risk and reward necessary for people who will undertake long, difficult and arduous tasks in an effort to create something for the benefit of all. For example, Edison made 4,000 attempts to come up with the rubber formula. When he was asked whether his effort was a waste of time and money, he replied it was not, that he had found 4,000 ways that were not successful and that he would find the one that was. He did subsequently and the same happened with electricity. The risk and reward was balanced.

In Ireland, the pharmaceutical, ICT and intellectual property markets are important, strong and expanding and I hope that continues. When we discuss patents, we should consider the perspective of generic drugs that might be developed to save lives in the Third World. I am glad to note there are three permissible exemptions to the basic rule on patentability, which is an important element of the Bill. First, inventions, the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to public order or morality, may be exempted. Second, inventions concerning diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals may be exempted. Third, member countries may exclude from patentability plants and animals other than micro-organisms and essential biological processes for the production of plants and animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes.

An important distinction can be made between what the EU and US are doing in this area. If somebody were to develop a product, which hopefully will happen bearing in mind the green revolution in the 1960s, whereby two ears of corn or wheat would grown where currently only one grows, that would be to the benefit of humanity. Similarly those who are protected by patent should consider those in the Third World whose lives can be saved and put in place provision for those countries who cannot afford to pay the high cost of drugs, notwithstanding the fact that the reward and risk must be balanced.

I am conscious that the human genome should not be patentable in any way in future. Some genetic engineering is frightening to everybody. There is genetic engineering, about which people talk, in so-called Frankenfoods and genetic engineering for cosmetic purposes. However, there is also genetic engineering which could be beneficial to humanity and this must be free of patent. Notwithstanding the fact that patents and the use of them are beneficial for this country, there is great benefit in regularising and ensuring that the European standard is maintained.

This is a relatively short and uncontentious Bill. Ireland's membership of the World Trade Organisation gives rise to the main elements of the Bill. The amendments are included either as a consequence of our status as a contracting party to the European Patent Convention or because of the need to clarify and correct inaccurate wording in two sections of the 1992 Act.

The granting of patents for new inventions to secure to the inventor the exclusive right to exploit the invention for a limited period is a long established and well known instrument of promoting technical innovation and industrial development. After the Industrial Revolution and from the 19th century onwards, all industrialised countries established their own patent system tailored to each country's industrial strategy. The desirability of some international harmonisation of patents was recognised as far back as the 19th century.

The first international convention for the protection of industrial property, the so-called Paris Convention, was signed in 1883. This convention has been revised several times since then and now 157 countries, including this State, are party to it. Under this convention, member countries must provide equal and reciprocal treatment in patent matters for nationals of other member countries and recognise the priority date of an application filed up to 12 months earlier in another member country. The convention also stipulates the condition under which a country can grant a compulsory licence if a foreign owned patent is not being worked in its territory.

A further landmark in international development was the Patent Co-operation Treaty concluded in Washington in 1970 which came into force in 1978. The main objective of the treaty was to streamline patent application filing and novelty search procedures for applicants wishing to obtain patent protection in several countries belonging to the treaty. The treaty was not concerned with the establishment of an international patent but with an international procedure for sharing the work on processing patent applications in patent offices.

In Europe, efforts to create a common patent system resulted in the establishment of the European Patent Convention, EPC, in Munich in 1973. That convention established a European Patent Office in Munich whose function is to grant, on the basis of one central application to that office, in any of its official languages, namely, English, French or German, patents which would be valid in each contracting state designated by the applicant.

In effect, a bundle of national patents emerge from a European patent application and in each designated country the European patent has the same legal effect as one granted by the local national patents office. European patents are granted only after an in-depth examination following a comprehensive novelty search in a collection of several million documents and, therefore, offer a high level of legal certainty. The EPC is not limited in its membership to EU countries and includes such non-member states of the EU as Monaco, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Most EPC contracting states have brought their national patent laws into line with the EPC.

Industry today operates internationally to a greater extent than it did when the European Patent Convention was established in 1970s. There can be little doubt about the desirability of and need for much more international agreement on patents. In 1993 a major step was taken towards worldwide harmonisation of legislative and regulatory practices with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or the TRIPs Agreement, negotiated under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT. The TRIPs Agreement is an annexe to the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, the WTO, and compliance with the TRIPs Agreement is an essential requirement under the new world trading order. The TRIPs Agreement, which came into effect on 1 January 1995, covers all area of intellectual property rights, including patents.

The main objective of the TRIPs Agreement, as contained in its preamble, is to reduce distortion and impediments to international trade by promoting effective and adequate protection of intellectual property rights and by ensuring that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not in themselves create barriers to legitimate trade. Article 7 of the agreement, entitled Objectives, provides that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare and to a balance of rights and obligations. To achieve these objectives, the agreement sets out the minimum standards of protection to be provided by each member country.

There are many technical amendments to the Bill which are necessary, notwithstanding that within the House there is agreement on it. The Bill is uncontentious and I commend it to the House.