This amendment was suggested during the course of Committee Stage by Senator O'Quigley and it is in the form usually used in Bills in connection with the laying of orders before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Performers' Protection Bill, 1968: Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 6, after line 51, to insert the following:
"(4) Every order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the order has been laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done hereunder."
The Chair understands that there is a printer's error in the last line. The last word "hereunder" should read "thereunder". The House is free to make that change.
I am very glad that the Minister has brought in this amendment because I think it does improve the Bill and maintains the authority of Parliament over these orders when made. I am sorry that the Minister did not avail himself of the services of the Parliamentary draftsmen to make the amendments that we were suggesting to 7 and 8. I had found it quite difficult to work out the kind of amendment that would have been agreeable to the Minister if they had been put down but it was not possible, I think, for the ordinary person to put them into parliamentary language. However, I am grateful that the Minister has introduced this particular amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
I should like to refer to some of the points raised during the Committee Stage debate, particularly in connection with the definition of the words "performance" and "performer" Some doubts and, indeed, perplexity were shown in the House on that occasion. I have looked into this matter and the position appears to be that the reference in the definition of the word "performance" to electrical means relates to the manner in which the performance is rendered audible or visible. It has been necessary to define the word "performance" in a mechanical performance because of the possibility of confusion arising where the person, the compère or the disc jockey, operates the mechanical device. The reference to electrical relates only to the manner in which the performance is rendered audible or visible and not to the performance itself.
In connection with a point raised under section 4, the provisions of this Bill are to the effect that a record made without consent in a country in which consent is required is deemed to be in contravention of our Act. If it is dealt in commercially or used in broadcasting here in this country it is not a matter for the Irish authorities but for the performer himself to initiate proceedings against the dealer or user and to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the record was made unlawfully abroad. The performer must be presumed to know what the law is in his own country where the record was made.
There may have been some confusion in which it may have been thought that the onus was being put on a performer in this country to establish what the law is in another country. This is not so. A performer in another country seeking to institute proceedings in this country will have to prove what the law is in his country.
May I interrupt the Minister to ask will these be civil or criminal proceedings?
Criminal proceedings which the aggrieved person would initiate in the district court. In the normal way there could be a case in which the Attorney General would initiate proceedings in the public interest but here it will be an aggrieved person who will initiate them.
A novel way but we will have to see how it works.
With regard to section 8, some dissatisfaction with the wording was expressed. I admit that in the section the words "which appear to the court to have been made in contravention of this Act or to be adapted for the making of records in contravention of this Act" may possibly be somewhat superfluous but not to the extent to be clearly that they were. On the other hand, I do not think they are superfluous to the extent that it would be necessary or, indeed, desirable to delete them. I say that because this section is on the lines of a similar section in the 1958 British Act. There is a great deal to be said particularly in this field of performers' protection for having as far as possible the laws of this country and the laws of Britain on the same lines.
Indeed, we have subscribed to a Convention on the unification of the law and undertaken as far as possible to have our laws conform with those in other countries. Particularly in the case of Britain there is a great deal to be said for having, where possible, the same wording in this field so that judicial proceedings will tend to be fairly well uniform and that the people who will be concerned not only in this country but in Britain can be reasonably sure where they stand under the judicial interpretation relating to the laws of performers' protection.
On section 9, I think Senator Yeats mentioned the freedom which was given in relation to the inclusion of a performance by way of background in a record or film. The Convention does not make specific provision for this but it does provide that a contracting State may provide for "the same kind of limitations with regard to the protection of performers ... as it provides for... in connection with the protection of copyright in literary or artistic works". In section 14 (4) of the Copyright Act, 1963, there is provision for freedom for the inclusion of an artistic work in a film or television broadcast by way of background. An artistic work under the Copyright Act is, of course, a visual work and could not form the background to a record or sound broadcast but the inclusion of a performance without consent by way of background in the exemption given by section 9 of this Bill is in accordance with the Convention and follows on the lines of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1963.
Finally, some Senators referred to the misspelling of the word "principal" in section 9 (b). The Seanad Office had already noted this for correction in the next printing of the Bill. I may just add that the matter is under control.
I should say we are obliged to the Minister for his further explanation of the technicalities of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.