Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for the proposed amendment and I understand the intent that lies behind the common good proposal to allow for the possibility of interference with intellectual property rights enjoyed by individuals and corporate entities in pursuit of the common good.

We had a good discussion about that on Committee Stage and also on the floor of the Dáil with the Senator's colleague, Deputy Peadar Tóibín.
To clarify again, patents are but one form of intellectual property rights, a term which also includes copyright, trade marks, industrial designs, etc. Our Constitution specifically recognises the importance of property and Article 43 acknowledges the natural right to private ownership of external goods, stating: "The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership...". However, the Constitution also recognises the principles of social justice and provides that the State may, as occasion requires, delimit by law the exercise of such rights in the exercise of the common good. Therefore, the various laws that govern intellectual property rights provide saving provisions of the type with which the Senators are concerned. These provisions allow Government, if necessary, to legislate where there are public interest issues at stake.
At national, European and international level, intellectual property rights enjoy protection that is set down under well established and respected principles. At international level, the State is party to a number of international treaties and conventions that provide for the type of common good provision that the Senators are proposing. These include the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, dating from 1883, and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement of 1994, known as the TRIPS agreement. The TRIPS agreement, which introduced intellectual property into the international trading system for the first time, remains the most comprehensive international agreement on intellectual property to date.
In summary, whether at national, European or international level, IP protections are not of themselves absolute rights, and there exist provisions to allow states to apply derogations that allow for the suspension of part of the legal obligation which can operate to restrict some rights under certain circumstances, such as in the pursuit of broader compelling public policy reasons or for greater public interest considerations.
While fully appreciating the intent behind the Senator's amendment, I am not in a position to accept the amendment, as it would be wholly inappropriate to provide for the limitation of intellectual property on a blanket basis in a provision of the Patents Act. It is more appropriate that the status quoprevail, allowing for the delimitation of rights in certain expressed circumstances under the various IP legislative Acts, EU instruments and international treaties or agreements to which the State is party.
I hope that clarifies the position. We believe there is sufficient cover to do what the Senator wants to do in certain circumstances, but it is unnecessary to bring it in across the board.