Mary Mitchell O'Connor (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

On Committee Stage on 14 December I thanked the Senators for their amendments but for the reasons I gave at the time I did not accept the amendments. As indicated, I am prepared to revert on Report Stage with an amendment to section 18 which accommodates the concerns Senators had in relation to section 18 and the publication of the controller’s annual report on the scheme. This amendment will provide that the controller’s annual report on the KDB certification scheme will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and will thus be in the public domain. In relation to amendment No. 7 tabled by Senator Mac Lochlainn, I should point out that the controller is an independent office holder who acts under the superintendence and direction of the Minister.

The provision in section 18(2) is a necessary safeguard that allows the controller to undertake his statutory functions without undue and inappropriate interference by any Minister. Senator Mac Lochlainn's amendment would undermine the independence of the controller in carrying out his statutory functions under the Bill. This is also a feature of the legislation governing the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement which is another independent office under my Department. The controller must be able to undertake this function without fear of interference. For that reason, I am not accepting amendment No. 7.

Amendment No. 8 in the name of Senator Mac Lochlainn seeks the inclusion of the name of applicants for the KDB scheme to be included in the report to the Minister. The names of applicants are not included in the controller’s annual reports of his activities for the office covering patents, trademarks and designs. Section 18 of the Bill follows the practice. Moreover, as Senators will be aware, the Revenue Commissioners do not disclose the identity of taxpayers and indeed the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 prevents Revenue from releasing taxpayer information. For that reason I will not accept amendment No. 8.

As regards amendment No. 9 in the name of Senators Higgins and Ruane it is the case that applications before the office will be examined individually on the basis of novelty, usefulness and non-obviousness. In the case of refusals, the office will follow exactly the same process as it does now in relation to refusals of patents, trademarks or designs. That is, the reasons for refusal are case specific and are not made publicly available and that is the intention also in this Bill. For those reasons I do not accept amendment No. 9.