Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 2024

I remind members joining us remotely that they must be on the Leinster House complex. Apologies have been received from Senator Paul Gavan.

Today's meeting will be a discussion on the implementation of EU Regulation No. 2023/2411 on geographical indications for craft and industrial products. Geographical indications provide for the intellectual property rights for products that are specifically linked to the area in which they were produced. Some well-known examples include Waterford blaa, Connemara hill lamb and Irish whiskey. The implementation of EU Regulation No. 2023/2411 will allow for intellectual property rights to be established for craft and industrial products. The committee is pleased to have the opportunity to consider these matters further with the following representatives of organisations. From Friends of Waterford, we have Mr. Bernard O'Connor, senior counsel, and Mr. Michael Glanzer, who is joining us online. Mr. Glanzer is having technical difficulty and we hope to get him online during the meeting. From the Design and Crafts Council of Ireland, DCCI, we are joined by Mr. Peter Hynes, chair; Ms Mary Blanchfield, CEO; and Mr. Muiris Kennedy, adviser. From Cork Craft and Design, we are joined by Ms Mary Palmer, chair. From Chambers Ireland, we are joined by Mr. Ian Talbot, CEO, and Mr. Shane Hughes, policy and international affairs manager.

As always, I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practices of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Opening statements have been circulated to all members. To commence our consideration of this matter, I invite Mr. O'Connor to make opening remarks on behalf of the Friends of Waterford.

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. We have talked to Deputies O'Reilly, Shanahan, Barry and others. I thank all members for having this meeting to discuss this important issue. We are here because the business of glass in Waterford has reached a critical point and may soon be lost. The EU legislation the Chairman talked about has given us an opportunity to save this heritage. Right now, almost all production of glass sold under the name "Waterford" is produced outside of the county of Waterford in a place called Rogaška in Slovenia. A very limited amount of glass is produced in the visitor centre in Waterford. The number of artisans left is less than a dozen and many of them are long past retirement. The skills and expertise of these glass-blowers, cutters and engravers, perfected over half a century, are now being lost.

The legislation that came into effect in October of last year can remedy the situation by registering the name "Waterford" as a geographical indication for the benefit of the Waterford community, its residents and the workers. We understand the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is planning on advising the EU that Ireland intends to adopt implementing regulations. We do not know that this will happen. One of the reasons we asked for this meeting is that notice has to go to the European Commission by 30 November, which is in five or six weeks. We do not know what the Department will do. We believe it will notify the Commission that Ireland will implement this regulation.

The Friends of Waterford proposal was developed in consultation with local residents, Unite the Union workers and its Waterford branch, and with the assistance of legal and financial advisors. We believe our proposal will preserve the name "Waterford" for Ireland and Waterford, contribute to the maintenance of a craft in Waterford and ensure that the craft skills and expertise are preserved and transferred to new generations. We propose that, in conjunction with South East Technological University, a degree course be developed in all areas of glass-making, including preservation of skills, design and advanced technologies. We believe, too, that it will maximise local employment.

What is a geographical indication, GI? A GI is an intellectual property designed to protect cultures and traditions. We strongly believe that Waterford qualifies as a geographical indication. The EU has adopted this law for craft and industrial products and that is what we believe Waterford glass is. The purpose of the law of geographical indications is to ensure that a reputation built up over generations for a specific product from a particular location is protected collectively for the benefit of the community. We have many examples in terms of agricultural products. We have Parma ham or champagne while in Ireland, we have the Waterford blaa, Irish grass-bred beef and Irish whiskey, which is a whole-island GI.

A GI must be contrasted with a trademark. A trademark is a privately owned property right. The trademark for Waterford is owned currently by Fiskars, a Finnish corporation, which I will come back to later. The use of the EU trademark is not tied to the city or county of Waterford.

Under our proposal, the use of the "Waterford" name would be available to all producers in Waterford who met the applicable standards. Those standards would require that the glass be blown and cut in Waterford and meet quality and artisanal requirements. The association would be charged with ensuring the proper use of the GI for the benefit of residents of the county and city of Waterford, those employed in glass-making and engraving, and, more generally, the Republic of Ireland. Our idea of an association could serve as a model for other GIs, such as Donegal tweed or Connemara marble.

Our proposal also feeds into a 2015 study from the Design and Crafts Council of Ireland which recommended positioning Waterford as a global centre for glass. Existing producers wishing to produce quality crystal in Waterford will be invited to participate in the association structure. The association will seek to expand the product mix and be in a position to invite others to participate. The board would be advised by legal counsel and a financial adviser. Unfortunately, I understand the financial adviser who was to participate cannot get online but let us see.

We need to talk about Fiskars. It is the largest marketer of crystal under the name "Waterford", principally to the US market. There is an interesting interplay between the GI, which would be a publicly held intellectual property right, and the privately held trademark. I can explain how that might work. Right now, crystal accounts for about - this is a guesstimate - 6% of Fiskars's overall sales. Fiskars is a Finnish corporation which moved from being a gardening tool manufacturer to a luxury good manufacturer. Most recently, it bought Georg Jensen, the Danish silver maker. We believe getting the Waterford geographical indication right will benefit Fiskars in the long run. We have reached out to Fiskars but it has not said "No" or "Yes". There is already a bit of a kickback against Waterford Crystal using the "Waterford" mark when it is known it is not made in Waterford. Awarding the GI to the community carries very little risk for Fiskars.

We urge committee members to take advantage of the opportunity granted by this new legislation and to implement it according to the Friends of Waterford's suggestion.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I thank you for the invitation to present to the meeting, which is extremely important. I am chair of the Design and Crafts Council of Ireland. I am joined by Ms Mary Blanchfield, our chief executive officer, and we are supported by Mr. Muiris Kennedy, a consultant who has worked in this area for some time.

The Design and Crafts Council of Ireland is the national agency for craft and design in Ireland. We support designers and makers to develop their businesses in a sustainable way and advocate for the societal benefits of Irish craft and design, both nationally and internationally. Our activities are funded by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment via Enterprise Ireland. We currently have 64 member organisations and more than 3,500 registered clients, which are generally small companies and sole practitioners. We are a company limited by guarantee with a board of 12 directors, four of whom are appointed directly by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, including the chair. The remaining eight directors are elected by the DCCI membership organisations. Grant Thornton’s economic impact assessment of the design and crafts sector in Ireland found that the craft sector generates €2.9 billion in gross value added. It also found that the sector is the tenth largest employment sector on the island of Ireland, with 19,000 operational enterprises supporting 59,000 employees.

We provide practical supports to emerging and established designers and craftspeople through a range of programmes and services. We are conscious of the need for continuous training and skills development for the design and craft sector to ensure a continuous pipeline of innovative products are coming on stream to the market, both nationally and internationally. We provide a mix of blended, online and in-person courses in business skills, as well as advanced craft courses in jewellery and ceramics at the DCCI academy in Thomastown, County Kilkenny, in partnership with Atlantic Technological University. Each year, we organise a number of national and international trade and consumer events including Showcase Ireland, which was founded in 1976 by DCCI. It is one of the country’s largest international trade shows. The annual event is attended by trade buyers from more 25 countries and generates significant revenue for the Irish economy. Our Made Local nationwide campaign highlights the importance of supporting the local design and craft community by buying sustainably produced craft and design. Now in its fourth year, this campaign has shown the positive impact initiatives like this can have for designers, craftspeople and the economy as a whole.

Our executive team is responsible and accountable for the leadership and day-to-day management and operation of the organisation. The team acts within the approved policies of the DCCI board of directors and consistent with the priorities of its clients. The executive team comprises the CEO and heads of department, who report directly to the CEO and provide regular updates to the board. The CEO reports to the DCCI chair and board. Our office and the DCCI National Design and Craft Gallery are located in Castle Yard, Kilkenny, with 20 full-time employees at present. The DCCI academy building is located in Thomastown, County Kilkenny. This year has seen the opening of our jewellery craft school, which will hopefully be followed next year by the ceramic school. Watch the space in Thomastown. I will now hand over to DCCI's CEO to take the committee members through the rest of our opening statement.

Craft geographical indicators in Europe are subject to different levels of protection, depending on the country of origin. Ireland, together with a number of other member states, does not have a specific legal framework providing GI protection for craft and industrial products. Producers have to rely on unfair competition or consumer deception laws combined with trademark protection to provide a degree of intellectual property, IP, protection. Key sectors in the Irish rural economy such as Donegal tweed and Connemara marble face significant challenges with the loss of intellectual property through counterfeiting and copying in export markets, which is undermining these iconic Irish brands and causing the gradual extinction of local skills. The new EU geographical indicators legislation will provide IP protection and EU recognition for a range of craft sectors such as Donegal tweed, Connemara marble, traditional Aran knitwear, Irish lace, hand-cut crystal, ceramics, and Irish jewellery and goldsmithing.

Irish craft and industrial producers can benefit from GI designation for a mix of economic and social reasons. Typically, these will include heritage and affinity with the region, protection of traditional skills and increasing market share through the protection and use of brand names providing quality assurance to consumers. Indirect spin-offs centre on intangible benefits associated with origin and competitive advantage by adding value and improving the international reputation of Irish craft producers. Craft and industry GI designations have a wider role to play in community development, supporting local employment in rural areas, adding credibility to local craft traditions and providing opportunities to add value to the local economy. The new EU craft and industrial geographical indicator, CIGI, scheme will strengthen craft producers, stakeholders and consumer loyalty about the local region and its products and help create a sense of pride about its craft producers and the important role they play in the local economy and in tourism developments. Many authentic craft and industrial GI products, such as Donegal tweed and Connemara marble, are partly or largely hand-made and part of the local heritage of the region, which creates a unique point of difference for consumers who want to know where products come from and how they are produced. Traditional craft products are better for the environment, and by supporting craft producers, consumers feel they are behaving in a more socially responsible manner engaging with local communities.

DCCI has been working on the ground with craft producers demonstrating the practical implications of the new legislation at local craft level. We provide an expert GI consultant - Mr. Muiris Kennedy, who is here with us today - to work with key craft sectors to assist in their preparation for GI registration. Donegal tweed and Connemara marble were selected as a pilot programme as the most likely to fit within the framework of new regulations. In conjunction with EU craft bodies from France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Belgium, DCCI is a member of the World Craft Council Europe expert working group interacting with the European Commission's DG GROW division and the European Union Intellectual Property Office on the impact of the implementation process at producer level in member states.

A key objective will be getting craft stakeholder and producers buy-in and understanding about the new craft and industrial geographical indicator scheme and provide clarity as to how the new regulations will be implemented and how producers should apply. DCCI is working to provide a practical toolkit for craft producers on the advantages of the scheme and how to apply for registration. DCCI will be working closely with Enterprise Ireland and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to ensure the craft sector maximises the benefits of the new legislation, which will enhance the international recognition of many of our traditional craft products at home and in international markets.

I thank the committee for the invitation. I am the chair of Cork Craft and Design. I have come today representing our organisation, which is a social enterprise with a membership of 115 artisans producing work in the county of Cork.

My own experience as a craftsperson involved in community-based craft organisations goes back more than 30 years. During this time, I served on the board of Design and Craft Council Ireland as a general board member for six years, and subsequently have been the appointed chair of Showcase Ireland CLG, for the last three years. In addition, I was recently appointed to the strategic committee of the board of the World Crafts Council International. As I mentioned, Cork Craft and Design has a membership base of 115 artisans, each of whom runs a small business aligned with the membership criteria associated with Design and Crafts Council Ireland. We are a limited company supported by a board of eight members, including the chair. We employ two staff members, one of whom is part time and additional part-time staff as required for special projects, such as Craft Month. As a not-for-profit social enterprise, we operate on tiny margins with any excess income supporting ongoing projects and development, including the mentorship of a small group of applied arts graduates. We operate a craft shop in the Douglas Woollen Mills in Cork, and although sales are healthy, we are dependent on funding through various public and private sources to maintain our business.

Fifteen years ago, inspired by Craft Northern Ireland’s August Craft Month, Cork Craft and Design launched Cork Craft Month as a local celebration of craft in Cork, with extensive support from our county arts officer and the local enterprise offices in Cork. This event has grown year on year and in recent years, with the support of Design and Crafts Council Ireland, August Craft Month has become an island-wide, month-long celebration of craft. This past August, we supported and advertised 80 events in County Cork. These included, exhibitions, talks, workshops, open studios, and a pop-up shop in a new location.

A number of our events were deaf accessible and staff were encouraged to use public transport whenever possible. This year, we partnered with a number of local arts organisations to broaden our programme and raise awareness of the creative sector in Cork to a wider community. As an organisation, we have little experience or knowledge of the geographical indications for craft and industrial products in Europe. I am not aware of any products unique to Cork that might qualify for the programme. During my final year on the board of DCCI between 2020 and 2021, however, there was some discussion of the proposed geographical indications programme for craft, as this was under development in Europe. The DCCI has done a substantial amount of work on this since I finished my term on the board.

This programme could be of huge value to indigenous craft producers in Ireland. The guidelines and systems for application need to be clearly and widely dispersed to the craft community. We, as a community, need the government to provide sufficient support to educate and inform potential participants about the processes involved in applying for participation and the tangible benefits of being part of the programme. Donegal tweed has had recognition as a unique regional product from Ireland. Connemara marble, Aran knitwear, Irish lace, Irish cut glass, the Skib basket, the Dunfanaghy currach, the Naomhog currach and the Galway Hooker are others that come to mind. While uilleann piping has UNESCO recognition, could the manufacturing of these pipes not also be recognised as a unique product indigenous to Ireland?

In closing, I will share some anecdotal observations. First, we see more young people coming into our shop because they want to support small Irish businesses and they perceive these objects as being something special from Cork. They also want to support makers who are using local material and local support businesses such as printers, packaging manufacturers and postal and courier services. The marketing of “made local” by the DCCI continues to heighten awareness of the benefits of supporting local makers and businesses. Furthermore, the younger generation has a real concern that we should not be culturally appropriating other cultures traditions or objects without due consideration and credit given. Karl Lagerfeld of Chanel used sweaters in his collection in 2015 that were copied from original Fair Isle designs, without due credit given. Harris tweed was the only fabric to have a protected status at that time. There was uproar among the creative community. While he used similar designs again the following season, credit was given to the original designers involved. Dior launched its cruise collection featuring Scottish plaids in 2024, including new patterns designed by young new designers. The collection was launched and promoted in Scotland. We need to embrace this opportunity and promote it to the public and making community. Anything that can be done to support small manufacturers and manufacturing in Ireland is of benefit to local communities and economies. We look forward to the implementation of the geographical indications for craft and small industries programme. I thank the committee for the opportunity today.

I wish to add a brief addendum. As regards the collection I spoke about in Scotland, Dior collaborated with Le Kilt, Harris Tweed, Johnstons of Elgin, ESK Cashmere and Robert Mackie. This is a big multinational fabric house collaborating with five Scottish brands on a collection. It is the kind of thing we should be aspire to.

It is pleasure to address the Cathaoirleach and committee today. I thank them for inviting us before the committee on behalf of Chambers Ireland. Our membership consists of the 36 affiliated chambers of commerce nationwide that are active in and central to each of their local economies. While we tend to be generous, each of our chambers of commerce is deeply wedded to its town, city, county and, ultimately, community. As an organisation, we are advocates of free and open trade. Trade has been a core element in developing our economic growth and prosperity. It plays a critical role in expanding market access, driving innovation and strengthening competitiveness. EU membership has transformed the economy and granted us access to the largest trade network in the world through a combination of access to the Single Market and 40 individual agreements with countries and regions, enabling exports worth €3 billion to benefit from reduced tariffs. This is not something we should take for granted. While these figures signal success, we must not allow complacency to set in. More needs to be done to enable indigenous businesses to trade. It is with regret that we see missed opportunities, such as protecting the intellectual property of Irish products, for example. In recent times, trade tended to only feature at the political level with the onset of Brexit or in regrettable opposition to the EU free trade agenda. We ask Oireachtas Members to reject misinformation regarding free trade agreements and consider their intrinsic value to our competitiveness.

Similarly, we were extremely disappointed the referendum regarding the Unified Patent Court was postponed earlier this year. If passed, businesses would have had a straightforward route to registering patents and a better chance to protect their intellectual property in multiple markets throughout the Single Market. Postponing the referendum means patents still have to be litigated separately in the national courts of each country. Only large firms have the capacity to absorb the costs required. The notable financial gains to be made, along with the opportunities for Irish companies in protecting their intellectual property are, therefore, lost. With this in mind, it is critical we seize the opportunities with regard to geographical indications for Irish craft and industry. The focus must be on leveraging these to their fullest extent.

The regulation provides a cross-border framework within which products can obtain official EU recognition, fortifying intellectual property rights. Alongside granting manufacturers a competitive edge in the market, this formal recognition ensures product authenticity; boosts economic growth for local manufacturers; preserves cultural heritage; and fosters fair competition. In simple monetary terms, products with geographical indication status generally command roughly double the market price of similar, non-certified products. This not only benefits manufacturers but also the local economies and value chains to which the product is linked.

For Ireland, the focus on craft and industrial products is promising. Strategy will be key, however. It will be crucial to pre-empt any challenges and make the regulation accessible for businesses. It cannot be overstated that businesses will require help in navigating the administrative burden. The route to registration should not be unduly onerous on them. As a starting point, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment should develop a strategy to seize the market opportunities I alluded to. Mapping exercises with local manufacturers and communities should be undertaken. There should be a focus on quality, regional products and the local knowledge required to manufacture them. The Department should examine best practices for registration. This should involve examining, for example, the consortia-led model in Italy where government authorities work closely at national and regional levels with producer associations to push for GI recognition. With more than 300 products registered, this provides a template for success which we should not be discouraged from emulating.

I encourage the committee to reflect on the following points: full and rapid implementation will be key to delivering on the benefits and allowing our craft and industrial sectors to flourish; and the Government must be proactive in making compliance with the regulation accessible to deliver on the benefits for both businesses and our local economies. I am aware Deputy Bruton is present, who is a former Minister. He did a great job with the actions plans series. An action plan for GIs may be a good starting point. Let this not be another missed golden opportunity.

I thank our witnesses for coming before the committee. Every contributor has outlined a series of opportunities. I am seeking to tease out the timeframe. In the submission from the Friends of Waterford Association, what I am hearing - and I open to correction on this - is that the skills exist but are heading in the wrong direction. The opportunity exists now to do something. Is the association ready for this? If it moves quickly, are the building blocks in place? Has there been much engagement with the Department on registration and how that will be rolled out? I also have a specific question for Chambers Ireland, which I will come to later. We will start with that first question. Can the Friends of Waterford Association outline the timeframe? Why can this not wait? Why should it not be put on the long finger? What is making it urgent?

I thank the Deputy for the question. The legislation sets out a timeline and requires Ireland to notify the Commission by 30 November 2024 as to whether it intends to do something. Ireland then needs to implement the rules within one year by the end of December 2025. Those are the two legislative dates. We have not engaged with the Department, although we have tried to. The Department has regularly told us it is dealing with it and that when it is ready, it will talk to us.

Unfortunately, it has not been ready to talk to us so far.

The skills are dying and the people are dying. People are retiring or whatever. There has been the taking on of two apprentices in the craft shop in Waterford. That is a good sign in bringing something back. There seems to be, through the current user of the trademark, the idea that it needs to boost something in Waterford but we need to move quickly.

I welcome that two apprentices have been taken on. Mr. O'Connor should not get me wrong but scope surely exists for more. There is a reference in the submission a possible degree course in SETU, the tourism opportunities, etc. It is a case of moving quickly at this stage rather than anything else to seize that opportunity before it is gone.

We have outlined that there is an opportunity here and Ms Palmer outlined some of the good work that is being done in the social enterprise space. It is not often that we discuss at this committee a business idea that is also a social enterprise idea that will work well and could be driven by the Department. Is Ms Palmer confident that there is an appetite in her sector for people to engage with this or does is there a lot of work to be done in helping people engage with it?

There is some work to be done. As I said, I am not aware of any products in Cork, although in the past day or two someone mentioned Cork silver might qualify.

The appetite is there. The idea of having one's livelihood protected in some way is a huge opportunity and really important.

As far as what we do is concerned, there is something similar to what we do in many counties around the island. It is just that we happen to be the biggest. That might be because Cork is the biggest county. We also have a disproportionate number of craftspeople in Cork compared to most counties.

Maybe I will start on it. There are two aspects to it. There is the preservation of the heritage, particularly in Waterford. There is a particular urgency around that because of the trading history of the past 30 years. There is a real danger that a generations long asset is being lost. Our role in that is to support local producers. It is to support local partnerships in development the skills. We do not have a set formula for developing this centre of excellence but we know there is a huge opportunity there. We, as the national agency working in the space between the Department, Enterprise Ireland and local producers, will do what we can to bring the various strings together. We think there is a huge opportunity and the urgency is really important.

Mr. O'Connor is talking specifically about Waterford Crystal but it is across other GIs, as we mentioned in our opening statement, such as marble and ceramics. We have two centres of excellence based in Kilkenny, jewellery and goldsmithing, with ceramics hoping to start next year. They are both run in partnership with Atlantic Technological University. There is nothing to say we cannot do that with another body in another region in the country if given the resources to do so.

-----on the point about reviving something, recreating it, and re-importing it and getting some partnership going with the current owners of the private branding, it is fundamentally important to understand that once this goes it will not be recreated. While it may be revived, it will not be re-imported.

That is key for us to understand. The time is tight and the opportunity is unique.

I am conscious Mr. Talbot wants to contribute as well on this. Could he also outline any engagement that Chambers has had with the Department on this?

First, on the urgency of doing something, we consider any opportunities there should be implemented urgently anyway. We certainly take the point. In a former life of mine, I worked in Waterford Glass for a couple of years, and I know an awful lot about the organisation, its great heritage, etc. I was there in 1988-89. The workers with the skills who were there at the time have well retired now. There is an opportunity going to waste there.

We should also not lose sight of the fact that, for example, in the area of training, we still have what was the vexed question of the National Training Fund. I believe in the budget there is some element of opening it up but there is €1.5 billion available for training. Money and resources probably are not an object there. We take the view in the training area that if the money is available, the skills to train will become available too. Potentially, there is a role for Skillnet to play as well here too.

There are so many reasons to say that this is a great idea; it is an absolute shot to nothing and why would we not do this.

That is really coming across.

I will declare an interest. I have a small connection with Waterford Crystal going back many years.

I would be grateful if Mr. Talbot could outline any contact Chambers Ireland has had with the Department so that the committee can get a handle on how far advanced this is.

All we are hearing from the witnesses is about the opportunity. I am not a massive fan of pilot schemes because I often think they meander on and do not come to a conclusion. Is this something that would lend itself well to a pilot with a specific focus or does the opportunity exist for this to be rolled out everywhere? Many of the witnesses mentioned the need for supports in helping business to access and engage with this. There would be a need to have that, particularly in the social enterprise space, but maybe it is something that would build up slowly over time. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a tight timeframe for some, there are possibly others where time is not so urgent. I am conscious of the skills, in particular, in Waterford Glass, that will be lost and the opportunity, not only for tourism but also for employment and education, that could be lost. Is it something that might lend itself to a pilot?

Like the Deputy, I do not like pilot projects because they wander. The general availability of the facility is important. At the same time, if I look at the agricultural sector, I see that GIs have been promoted or there has been a piggybacking effect by the big GIs, such as Champagne, Bordeaux, Parma ham and Parmigiano. These big GIs have helped spread the message and helped people getting in. In that sense, Waterford is clearly the big one that could be a vehicle for the spreading of the concept of GIs into other crafts in Ireland.

My colleague, an Teachta Cullinane, is someone who favours this as potentially a pilot project if it is not something that will happen right across. The Deputy has a definite preference for that.

On the consortia-led model, Chambers Ireland referred to best practices. We love these. They have been done elsewhere where one can simply take somebody else's, not repeat their mistakes and take the good parts. How much backing has the consortia-led model in Italy from the Italian Government? How much of it is government driven or government-agency driven or how does that come about?

This is something that is very much in place at both the local and national level in terms of government. There is a lot of interaction between the producer associations and also with local government. That is our understanding of it. One of the reasons we included this is that it is a massive success in Italy. When you think about GI-registered products, you have roughly 70% or 71% coming from countries like Italy and Spain - the Latin countries, essentially. It is not really being taken up in the northern European countries.

I think it is, especially with regard to food. They are very proud of it and that is why you have the producer-led model as well. They definitely have a concerted effort. If you try to pass off your product as, for example, Parmesan cheese in Italy, even before GI registration happened, that would not happen. I will put it that way.

I apologise as I have to speak in the Chamber and have to go. To finish out, there was State-wide outrage at what happened in Waterford and I think people continue to be outraged at the notion that somewhere, in a shop, there is somebody buying a piece of Waterford Glass and thinking it has come all the way from Ireland when in fact it has never been anywhere next nor near it. There is a huge opportunity here and I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence this morning. I apologise but I have to head to the Chamber.

I thank all our guests for coming in this morning. What they have put before us is really interesting. The next thing we should probably do after this meeting is write to the Department, ask it for a note on this and invite it in to discuss it further. I have a few questions. Mr. Talbot mentioned in his presentation that it would be crucial to pre-empt any challenges. What challenges does he anticipate?

With respect to free trade agreements - I know it is not definitively free trade - I suppose we are nervous about the fact that free trade becomes very contentious when things go to Parliament. From our perspective, we can see that the benefits of free trade to Ireland have been enormous. We know there is a big challenge where the strength of FDI in Ireland versus the indigenous sector is a fact and we need to build up indigenous businesses. Yet, there have been challenges to things like the CETA free trade agreement. There is a nervousness about Mercosur. I just read this morning on Mercosur that the EU Commission is now looking at a specific fund for the farming industry. This is a report; it is not fact yet. It is something to help to get the farming community happy with the Mercosur agreement, for example. There are things that, on the face of it, look like great opportunities for Ireland, both for FDIs here but more importantly to grow our indigenous businesses. We keep just not getting them over the line. They were the challenges we were referring to.

We do not see any reason this would not be done. We do not think it is complicated. There is huge benefit. There is a time aspect to it and it should not be contentious, so let us just move forward.

I attended the showcase on a few occasions. I think I met Mr. Hynes and Ms Blanchfield there. It was very impressive and uplifting to see the work going on, and the enthusiasm and creativity that happens there and is on show. I understand this regulation came into effect in November 2023 and will be fully applied sometime in December 2025, as has been set down. In the meantime, it has been said that a number of areas have actually gained the status in Ireland. Could the witnesses tell us more about how they did that and how that is going? Whoever wants to come in can answer that.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. The protection of geographical indications for agricultural and wine products and spirits predates significantly this new regulation. We have quite a lot of experience with food and drink GI products. They have been registrable, if you like, since 1992, and wine before that but spirits and foodstuffs since 1992. The purpose of this regulation was to complete the set of products that could be the subject of a GI. Our international law commitments say that we must have it available for protection for all goods. In the EU, we had limited the number of goods for which it was available to foods, spirits and wines. Now we have just completed that.

The pilot programme was mentioned. We were working with and specifically picked two iconic brands. Donegal Tweed is one of those. It has not, as yet, got the registration. The legislation has not been approved. It is getting ready for setting up a structure, a producer group. With regard to these particular GIs, the designation is not owned by an individual; it is owned by the collective. Donegal Tweed, collectively, will own the PGI, not one individual weaver or whatever. It is preparing its structure and getting ready to make the formal application. To do that, you have to have an existing proper producer group. You have to have production protocols, which everybody has to follow. They have to be evaluated, monitored and controlled. It is in the process of doing that, which takes a considerable amount of time and effort but it hopes to be ready by the end of this year as one of the first applicants for the new scheme. Does that answer the Deputy's question?

No. I do not think it has been confirmed but as far as we are aware, the Department that has responsibility for this new legislation is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Within that Department, they have allocated the responsibility to implement the actual scheme, the applications and verification to the IP office in Kilkenny. It will be the first port of call with regard to applying for the registration, and it will handle the application and any queries on meeting the criteria of the scheme.

Okay. In any of these things, we look at the SWOT analysis. Are there any downsides to this, or any threats out there we should be aware of? I am thinking of various geographical restrictions.

I understand that if one part of the production element is located in a geographical area, that will suffice to register. Am I correct in saying that?

Absolutely. The producer group, as such, defines the geographic area or whatever. We spoke a lot about Waterford. I was involved with the famous Waterford blaa, which does have a protected geographical indication, PGI, designation. The curious thing about the Waterford blaa is that one of the bakers was actually located in Kilmacow, which is in south Kilkenny. However, we did manage to get the geographic area to include south Kilkenny, so Kilmacow is included as part of the geographic area for the Waterford blaa. To answer the Deputy's question, the geographic area is defined by the producer group, which in turn has to have it approved then by the national authority, which is the Intellectual Property Office of Ireland in Kilkenny. Then, it subsequently goes on to be approved finally with the European Union Intellectual Property Office in Alicante in Spain, which checks with the other 27 nations for any further objections.

I will come back to Mr. O'Connor in the few minutes I have left. He indicated a clash between the trademark that is held by Fiskar and the GI patent, if you want to call it that, which he is looking at for Waterford. Could he delve into that a little bit further? It seems to me to be leading down to somewhere kind of like the four goldmines whereby there could be a lot of litigation around this. How can that be resolved in Mr. O'Connor's view?

Generally, the EU law favours geographical indications over trademarks. There is a bias in favour of geographical indications written into our law. That does not mean there might not be a fight over it. Generally, however, what the law currently states is that priority is either given to the GI or where a trademark has been established in the marketplace for a number of years, there should be co-existence. Unless there is a problem with the co-existence then there will be co-existence. What exactly that means is-----

I appreciate that. I thank the Cathaoirleach very much. I am sorry for joining the meeting late; it is a little early in New York. The Deputy's question is spot on. The practicalities here, putting aside the law, are that the current trademark owner has every reason to engage in some discussion with both Irish authorities and the people of Waterford to sort out the application for both the GI and the trademark. Their principal market is the United States. It is going to be critical for that market that it has, in some form, the blessing of those present. Therefore, I cannot imagine as a practical matter litigation being the outcome here, in part because I am mindful of the old Spanish curse: may you win all your litigations. It is not a sensible route for either party to go.

With regard to compatible legislation, particularly with regard to our nearest market, the UK, and with Brexit, as far as I am aware, the UK will not be introducing similar legislation for craft as it has with agrifood. However, in connection with the application to Northern Ireland, which includes the Windsor agreement, there has been no decision taken as to whether it will extend the European-type legislation into Northern Ireland. The UK Government has not made a decision on that as far as I am aware.

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in today and for their time. It is very important work, and it is very unique. Ireland is full of amazing people who do amazing work around design and crafts. I have one question specific to County Clare and a more general question. In County Clare, we have many great design and craft workers, as the witnesses probably know. What is the simplest route to supports for them? Is it through the arts officer in Clare County Council or is it directly to Design and Crafts Council Ireland? It is just to inform myself so I can better support local artists and craft workers.

The second question pertains to the following quote:

In 2021, Kilkenny was designated a World Craft Council Craft City and Region, one of only four regions to achieve this recognition in [all of] Europe. This prestigious internationally recognised award is the result of an application put forward by MADE in Kilkenny, a craft collective of designer-makers ... [who formed in 2009]. It ... [has the capacity to] greatly enhance Kilkenny’s [and, indeed, Ireland's] reputation as a craft destination [being one of only four places in Europe]. The application, judged by an international panel of jurors, was the result of several months of hard work by MADE in Kilkenny members who had to demonstrate the region’s craft activities in the areas of making, education and training, and exhibition spaces.

All this hard work will be for nought unless this great opportunity is supported by the local authority and relevant Government agencies. This was all done voluntarily by people who are very busy being creative. Has DCCI given any supports to this great project to date? Why was the leading group in the field not invited to speak to us today since we have a Waterford-specific one? This is an amazing-----

-----and one of the most prestigious places in Europe. Has it been given any supports. Are we making use of this amazing prestigious thing? Some of them contacted me about asking this question, so it is fairly genuine. What is the best and simplest route for craft workers? Often, creative people are not great at bureaucracy and figuring out grants. I spend a lot of my time helping people to get grants because they are not always easy to access. The witnesses might answer that question as well.

Going back to Deputy Stanton's question about threats, one of the threats we would have to consider here are the resources and the cost involved in making these applications. As Mr. Kennedy said, they could go up to five years. As I said earlier, Mr. Kennedy has been working with two groups. There is a cost involved, and time and resources from the producers themselves. More often than not, these producers are small groups, and they are coming together in their own time voluntarily to do this. Therefore, going back to the Deputy's question about threats, there is a cost that would have to be looked at.

With regard to the MADE in Kilkenny application for the status it received, that was a wonderful achievement for Kilkenny. We have been working in that regard. The local authority is driving that now with regard to keeping that status for Kilkenny. Kilkenny County Council has put together a working group and commissioned a strategy to be done by a strategist around keeping the status for the county of Kilkenny. A member of Design and Crafts Council Ireland is also on that working group.

I am asking whether it has received any financial supports or funding apart from this new thing Ms Blanchfield said has now been put together by the council?

This status was awarded in 2021.

The member of the design and crafts council executive team has been on that working group. On the supports, MADE in Kilkenny is separate from the geographical indications issue we are here to discuss. MADE in Kilkenny comprises many different disciplines. It is not about one particular geographical indicator for one particular skill.

The budgets are tiny. I have only been in the chair since December last year but the budget to which DCCI operates is really small. In respect of supporting local crafts, we are not officially a grant-giving body. We support activities on an exhibition or activity basis. If we were to get into that space, which is a discussion, the budgets would need to be ramped up to enable us to be effective.

On the question of a pilot programme, I absolutely agree that pilots are dangerous because they presume that you put all your eggs in one basket and nothing happens elsewhere while the pilot is developing. To the point that has been made about larger companies having the resources to lead the way, a wave of GIs is bubbling along. Waterford is the leader for many reasons. Connemara marble and Donegal tweed have also worked in that space. The decision has been made by the Department to set up the Intellectual Property Office, IPO, as the registration authority, which is fine because we need an independent registration authority. We also need an enabling body to work with the evolving opportunities that are out there. We need to learn from Donegal, Connemara and Waterford and evolve a model that can be used, by and large, in the applications and may be tweaked to suit the opportunities that will arise. I am sure there are some in Clare too but we just have not had the opportunity to get out and understand where they are yet. That is the role that DCCI sees itself as having. There is a resource issue to go with that.

I represent the largest collective in Ireland. The budget for an event we run in the summer is €60,000. DCCI gave us €5,000 this year, which was a big benefit. Its budget is tiny. The collectives are going to the arts officers in their cities and counties and local enterprise offices. They may be going to Fáilte Ireland. They are going any place they can for funding because there are so few funds available for the craft community and sector.

I will start by making an observation. Two deadlines have been mentioned: 30 November and December 2025. As I understand the situation, and I stand to be corrected, 30 November is the deadline for the Department to legislate. If that deadline is missed, the issue will go into the basket for the European Union to make the decision. Is that correct? If that is the case-----

There is a process in place but there is a decision to be made in the next six weeks. It seems there is a strong feeling and mood across the board at this meeting that we should steer our own ship. We should put our hands up and say that Ireland wants to legislate in this regard. I do not know if the Chair wants to take a recommendation from the committee at the end of the meeting but we need to prepare some kind of message for the Department because there is a time factor here. I will get down to asking questions.

I am interested in the proposal from the Friends of Waterford. It seems to be, for want of a better term, a community-based GI committee. I am interested in how and why it has been put together. Why do the witnesses think this is the best way of protecting the GI as opposed to other ways or options of doing it? Could the witnesses say a little about that?

There were a couple of thoughts and reasons as to why we thought this was the best way to proceed. The first question you ask yourself is what are you trying to achieve with the GI. A number of people commented on the registration process, and that is certainly an element of it. We would ask the committee to consider that it might be just the first step. The second step we were trying to consider was production protocols and standards. We asked who would be better to think about, implement and monitor those standards than the people who are intimately involved in the process, which means the workforce, producers and the other people the committee has testifying before it today. Part of the thinking was that we were trying to bring the relevant expertise in production to the decision-making body.

As a number of others have said, we are also trying to use the GI to create additional value in the community. We are trying to attract other businesses or investment which can make use of the GI. This is an example that is limited to Waterford, but the glassmaking and crystal engraving capabilities would be applicable to certain other types of decorative art, wall units and lighting fixtures. Those are certainly things that are done by other glassmakers. In that way, you are using the GI to promote activity in the community by spreading out the activity. To do that, you need some folks who can speak the language of those other businesses and investors. We attached to the committee people such as Mr. O'Connor, who we sought out as the leading expert on GIs in Europe and we were lucky to recruit him, and others, such as me, with a finance background. That way, we can have a meaningful conversation with other groups and can use the association as a way to spawn other economic activity. Treating this in the same way as a patent is like treating pilots of airplanes in the same way as pilots of boats.

They are both in transportation but GIs are different from other types of intellectual property.

The Deputy asked where we drew on the notions here. Comparable issues may be going on in Ireland, although I am not aware of that. We drew on activities with which I have been involved in the United States and Germany. In the United States, we have things called labour management committees, and in Germany, there are works councils. I happen to have worked with labour unions in both countries, where we have brought financial expertise to try to resolve a financial and operational issue that labour and management are often trying to sort through. By analogy, we thought this would be a useful way of thinking about this, with the relevant parties who have most at stake being advised by people who can bring the relevant expertise to them. We also observed that many of the current mechanisms did not seem to have had an especially successful outcome in respect of Waterford. We know what those have been like and where we have ended up today, and that was the thinking behind the proposal.

I thank our guests. I acknowledge Mr. Tom Hogan and Mr. Jimmy Kelly in the Gallery, who both have a significant legacy in the form of Waterford Crystal. Mr. O'Connor and I have spoken a couple of times previously, and I thank Mr. Glanzer for his early start this morning in New York.

I am from Waterford, in case our guests have not guessed that, and I have had an interest in this area for some time. I tried previously to get some apprenticeship activity going through local enterprise and so on to get people out of retirement, and we ran into all sorts of problems relating to, for instance, who would provide the insurance, which is one of the main issues we face. There is recognition in Waterford that we have a fantastic skill set in artisan glass, but it is dying out because people are ageing and a great number are no longer working in the sector, even if they would like to give back.

I know one or two people who were in this space and left it, which is another difficulty. They were fantastic glass cutters but they could not make a business out of it or keep it going. The idea of a geographic indicator, therefore, is an absolute must. I am sure some of our guests have visited Venice and seen Murano glassware. The high standard can be seen in every shop you enter and the power of that brand is everywhere, regardless of where you go, with intellectual property rights to that. I share my colleagues' concerns regarding, first, the activity of the Department in respect of trying to move this application forward. I have had interaction with the IP office in Kilkenny, which does good work, but I am not sure how strong its resource base is to try to progress this quickly, which is something we might note as a committee.

A key ingredient in glass-making is the raw glass, which relates to furnacing. There is currently a furnace in the House of Waterford Crystal and a small furnace in Kite Design Studios and I think there is one in Heritage Irish Crystal. Those are the three I am aware of in Waterford in any event. The first issue is that people have to get access to molten glass and have a pathway to do that, especially if they are not allied with a company. Will Mr. O'Connor outline the idea of there being a craftsman's area and how this would all work in the context of governance, employment and how people will be remunerated?

That is a very complex question and putting it all into a one-minute answer will be difficult. Nevertheless, one of the issues for a GI is that one of the production processes needs to take place in the area. Whether that includes the production of glass, as opposed to the cutting, carving and blowing of it, will need to be discussed among the committee members. This would, I think, address one of the Deputy’s issues, namely, the availability of molten glass in Waterford. It is clear we need to get some form of a motor going again in the building-up of skills in Waterford. It seems that needs to be done through an arrangement providing for a greater number of apprenticeships among those who already have an economic benefit from the name. We think we need to work with the local technological university to build those skills.

We also need to work with those producers who are outside of Fiskars and educate them as to what exactly the advantage of a GI is. We know from the food sector that a GI gives a price advantage over the equivalent commodity product of between two and three times, which is a significant benefit for this branding as a GI. As I said, we do not yet have experience in craft and industrial products but we can expect something similar from the registration of the GI.

To the question on glass-making, the objective is to maximise employment in the value-added work. The production of molten glass can be done elsewhere, and perhaps more efficiently. What you are trying to tap into, as one of the previous speakers mentioned, is the ingenuity of the Irish people. That is where the added value can be achieved. Elements of the production may or may not be relevant for the GI.

In general, the idea of GI is important and, as has been pointed out, GI status was achieved for the Waterford blaa, which is a Huguenot bread recipe, as the committee will be aware. It is quite distinctive and we are very happy to have it in Waterford, and we can certainly see the benefit it would have right across-----

Yes. We certainly see the benefit of the status across the country. To Mr. Kennedy, achieving GI status for an organic product such as a bread could take five years, but could it be the case that for something such as an industrial product, where there are not health and safety issues relating to human consumption, it would take far less time?

Not necessarily, because the regulations state that all the individual processes that take place have to be validated. There have to be production protocols and processes for monitoring them and they have to be audited. All the producers have to agree to follow the same procedures, and that takes time. I do not know how long the process will take for craft products. I have no idea.

I thank everyone for the presentations. The consultation is under way. What happens on 30 November, as I understand it, is the Department would have to seek a derogation that it would not go ahead with this. From the consultation, there is no signal there is an intention by the Department not to go ahead with this. I do not want to panic people. It would have to be actively trying to move away from this scheme before 30 November. I doubt there is a worry on that front. It is quite clear the protection comes into place, or the possibility of applying comes in, from 1 December 2025, so we have time to get this right.

What this seems to do is give legal protection against direct or indirect commercial use that will weaken the GI, imitation and false claims. That is what it protects. It is not a development strategy as such. Do we have challenges of this nature in the case of Donegal tweed and Connemara marble? The other thing I notice in the directive is if a body that is outside the geographical area has been operating for five years, it has a legitimate right to object within the process. Where are we with our potential GIs? Are there are a lot of imitators out there? Are they so long in business they would have established rights to object to this process? It seems we need to complement GI with something else. It is not a development strategy in its own right. It is simply a legal protection whereby someone could go to court and challenge someone introducing alternative schemes. I would like to hear a little more about how important this is to the long-term development. I see it as just one element of a bigger strategy.

On Waterford specifically, it says the application must be made as a producer or producer group. Is there a producer group that is in a position to apply? As Mr. O'Connor described it, this Finnish company seems to be trading for some time. In an ideal world we might have the sort of arrangement he described where there would be some form of partnership developed and the Waterford sector would develop in tandem with this international player. Is there a route to that we could try to explore or design?

I will start on that if it is okay. The Deputy's point is really important. The GI designation is not a panacea. It does not guarantee success simply because of registration, even if it is not opposed and there are not complications, and there will always be some complications. It is a stepping stone to the national level in the first instance, although the three areas we have talked about are pretty well recognised nationally, and then to international recognition of the excellence of an area for producing a particular range of products or related products. That is where the role of the DCCI comes into the mix on this. We have been in preliminary discussions with the Department, though I would not want to overblow what has been discussed or the stage it is at, and with Enterprise Ireland. There is an emerging recognition that there will be a need for the registration to be a first step in a process of development to create - and to the point on Murano glass - an ecosystem that allows the growth and continued development of the heritage skills in the area and makes a commercially viable collection of smaller producers who benefit from the effort of the registration. That is a longer term process and extends long beyond the registration process.

On Fiskars, the existing trade mark and the new GI, as the Deputy knows from the regulation, the GI must have a specification. The specification is what it is that makes it special, what the link is and a whole series of issues that would be put down. There is glass production in Waterford outside of Fiskars. It is limited but it is there. It is probably sufficient to make an application for registration of the GI. Then the GI would have to have this specification. We believe it would be in Fiskars' interest to get involved in the process of defining what the specification is. Let us say that in a worst-case scenario it did not and those producers who were not part of Fiskars went ahead and sought to register the GI, there is an opposition process and that process is designed to create compromise between the applicant and the opponent. There are many points at which there can be co-operation between the two so we do not, as Mr. Glanzer said, come to a conflict. We have reached out to Fiskars and it has not said "No". It has not said "Yes" either, so we have not had really substantive conversations, just like we have not had substantive conversations with the Department, which we were looking for as well.

That is a very good point. It would provide protection against counterfeiting to Donegal tweed and Connemara marble. Both are international brands and are competing internationally at the moment. There is a lot of counterfeiting going on and it is undermining the credibility of their core brands. They find it difficult as smaller producers to have the resources to be able to challenge particular look-alike products because a trademark must be registered in each individual country and that is very expensive. With the new GI system each producer, such as Donegal tweed or Connemara marble, would not necessarily have to register their product or trade name in each country. That gives them protection. On the other hand, from a business perspective, it gives a point of difference many competitors would not have. A lot of producers in the marketplace do not have PGI European recognition for their product, so if a producer does, it gives an extra point of difference that enables it to enhance its offer to potential buyers. It also enables companies to extend their reach into other markets they would perhaps not be able to without PGI protection. From a business perspective and a counterfeiting perspective it is very beneficial to producers.

As an aside and to return to a point Deputy Stanton referenced on Showcase, and to the point you should never lose an opportunity to advertise, Showcase 2025 is the 50th year in which the event will be held. It is going to be a really big party and we hope to see everyone there, including everyone in this room.

I have a final question. Ms Blanchfield mentioned the costs involved. I am interested in exploring that a little. I am thinking of the smaller producers, for instance, that Ms Palmer is championing so well. What is involved in preparing an application? What must be done in proving the link to show something is unique to an area and defend it from objections? There may be objections from others. I presume quality control comes into it later, as well as marketing and so on.

I understand there is also a GI symbol at European level but that the costs involved in getting it are onerous for small producers. Will somebody comment on that?

It is a very good point in the context of the challenges for smaller producers in particular and how they can go about completing the application process given they have limited resources. Moreover, they have to go through an investigation by a Government authority. There is no one answer. At the outset, we need to have like-minded producers working together who believe they should put time and effort into this process to get the application over the line. There are certainly supports, albeit limited, with Design and Crafts Council Ireland providing mentorship and so on. Local enterprise offices throughout the country are also very helpful and can provide financial support to help producers get through the application process. There are supports out there. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the challenges that relate to applying for this. It is not a trivial matter. The more coherent the producer group is together, with people thinking along the same lines, the easier it will be to have the registration approved.

Yes. There are bilateral agreements between the European Union and certain third-country markets. The products must be named. For example, there is a joint recognition and reciprocal agreement between China and Europe for 100 GI products. China has 100 products recognised within Europe and vice versa, including Irish spirits such as whiskey. That is done at a European level. Again, it starts with our Government, which makes the recommendations to Brussels, and the Commission then negotiates as part of its bilateral trade agreements with third country markets.

I must just add briefly that one reason the European Union adopted this legislation to cover craft products related to the demand from third country producers in bilateral trade negotiations. They said that because we wanted them to protect our agricultural GIs, they wanted us to protect their craft GIs. We have a number of existing free trade agreements that commit the Union to protecting those craft products, and we do not have a regulation for it.