Amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are related while amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are consequential on amendments Nos. 5 and 6 and all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Committee and Remaining Stages.
SECTION 1.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following definition:
"‘Act of 1992' means the Patents Act, 1992;".
The amendment relates to the Patents Office and I ask Members to agree to it. The motivation for it was discussed on Second Stage and I thank Senators on all sides for their co-operation.
The Minister outlined the need for the proper incorporation of the Patents Office in the Bill. I hope it will not involve a conflict of interest but I accept the Minister's bona fides in that regard. The Minister's intention is that there will not be a conflict of interest. However, Senators will recall the debate on the Insurance Ombudsman this week. The Ombudsman was appointed by the insurance industry and therein lay the conflict and the seeds of the dispute. However, I accept the Minister's assurance that there will be no interference with the independent running of the office regarding the duties of the Controller.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 11, to delete "commencement" and substitute "passing".
These drafting amendments were suggested to the Minister in the other House and he said he would consider them.
Section 2 deals with the nub of the issues raised by Senator Ó Murchú, Senator Costello and me. I compliment Senator Ó Murchú on the eloquence and clarity with which he put the case on behalf of traditional music. I welcome the Minister's confirmation that he will consider this matter and particularly the operation of the performance rights organisations. Punters who receive notices from these organisations consider that the law is not on their side. The fear is that this might confirm their impression and the ultimate outcome might be similar to the position which has arisen in relation to insurance where a company will settle a claim rather than contest it because it is cheaper. The type of measures outlined by the Minister could assist music performers, licensees of licensed premises and others to vindicate their rights in an equitable fashion.
This discussion reminds me of the debate on biodiversity and the way many large food, technology and chemical companies in the northern hemisphere are appropriating rights to natural materials, substances and properties which have been used in many countries in the southern hemisphere for generations. We are aware of the difficulties presented by that issue. The appropriation of traditional music is an analogous matter. I do not want a situation where we must try to undo damage to traditional music similar to the type of damage that is being done to traditional peoples in Africa, Asia and Latin America under patenting and copyright legislation. It is a salutary lesson. I thank the Minister for his attention to the remarks made about this matter. I urge him to engage without delay in contacts with the performance rights organisation and to consult Members before the next Bill is introduced.
The law is there to protect people who are right. No one who is doing something within the law will be prosecuted. The Bill is an attempt to protect the intellectual property rights of the people who are entitled to that protection.
This is not a debate about IMRO versus Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann or traditional musicians. The comments expressed have nothing to do with this. It is most unfair to all the legitimate and genuine composers and publishers who have attempted to make a living in Ireland to suggest that the actions of IMRO on behalf of its members are tainted to any degree. Senator Gallagher's suggestion that there is a link between biodiversity policies in Africa and intellectual property rights in Ireland is a quantum leap of gigantic proportions.
Representatives of IMRO are in the United States today to meet the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, the largest royalty collecting agency in the United States, to ask it to ensure that the rights of Irish composers are respected and protected. Members may not be aware that not 1 cent has come across the Atlantic for the public performance of Irish music, including the generic traditional music to which Senator Ó Murchú referred. Can anybody suggest how many times the best known Irish contemporary song, "The Fields of Athenry", which everybody knows and occasionally sings in their sleep, has been performed publicly in bars, restaurants and hotels in the United States? It is unquantifiable but the sad reality is that the composer, Mr. Pete St. John, has not received one red cent from the United States where they have refused to pay public performance royalties. It is not right. It is somewhat ironic that this legislation is a direct response to a legal threat from the United States, yet Irish composers of whatever ilk — from pop and rock, through traditional to folk — cannot get one penny in royalties from the United States.
Let us get our priorities right; this is about the protection of intellectual property. A piece of music can be as validly described as intellectual property as a book. Nobody has any criticisms about paying for a book and the implied royalty that is subsequently paid to the author. However, a lobby has been generated, from goodness knows where, which suggests that, somehow, legitimate composers going about their legitimate business through their own companies — not through commercial companies — who seek to protects their rights, are bordering on the illegal or threatening the very core of the traditional folk music fabric of this country.
I find it an extremely difficult issue. It is amazing that Senator Ó Murchú referred to the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt's, background, but I come from exactly the same background. As Senator Ó Murchú knows, my late father was chairman of the provincial council of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann for over ten years. Therefore, I do not need any lectures from anybody — I am not suggesting they are coming from this House — outside on where my priorities lie in relation to the protection of our folk culture. If I sound a little angry abut this it is because I feel the argument is sometimes moved sideways to protect and follow certain other agendas, although not, I emphasise, by anybody in this House. Senator Ó Murchú and I sing from the same hymn sheet, or should I say the same traditional music sheet.
I thank the Minister of State for his gracious and courteous response to the concerns which have been rightly expressed in the House today, particularly his response in regard to Irish traditional music. The fact that the Minister of State intends to monitor the situation in the lead up to the substantial Bill gives me a certain degree of assurance. We will have the opportunity to make an input to that Bill. I thank Senator Gallagher also for his very kind comments. I do not have any great difficulty in seeing the relevance of the situation in Africa to which he referred. It was a response to a point I made in the House and which was expressed by African delegates to the Stockholm conference which I attended.
It comes back in some degree to what Senator Mooney has already said. There is a legal threat from America but there was also a legal threat from both the United States and Britain that if any effort was made by UNESCO to enhance and develop international legislation regarding the protection of Irish traditional music and the traditional music of other countries as the property of the whole community, they would take action for any losses which they would incur regarding the very music which, to a large degree, they hijacked, pirated and subsequently used as their own.
I accept that Senator Mooney was not referring to me when he spoke about lecturing. When I was elected to Seanad Éireann I received the same mandate as everybody else in the House. We all have particular interests and specialities, but we also subscribe to the culture and mandate of the House itself. It would be particularly wrong if any of us was in any way inhibited from expressing our views, which we regard as reflecting the views of our constituencies from which we have received a mandate.
There is absolutely no doubt but that there is an inherent danger in any copyright legislation until such time as we have satisfied ourselves that it does not do what we believe it could do to the whole corpus of Irish traditional music. Earlier I quoted three cases regarding IMRO. They have not been retracted, there has been no apology and they are a matter of record. I restate them for the record of the House. Fleadh Ceol na hÉireann, the national festival of Irish traditional music, received a demand virtually seeking a licence for playing that music, as did our two cultural centres in counties Meath and Clare. That was the thin end of the wedge. We made it clear to IMRO that if it wished to create a battleground we would resist it vigorously. That was the only reason IMRO backed off. We cannot ignore the facts.
I have no doubt about Senator Mooney's credentials in regard to Irish traditional music. He quite rightly referred to his late father, for whom I had an exceptionally high regard. However, my contribution was not intended in any way to be personal. As the Minister of State pointed out, it was a contribution by all Senators so that the Minister of State himself could benefit when the substantial Bill comes into the political arena.
I thank the Minister of State for having made an exceptionally good point in inviting public debate on this issue. There is a public debate and there will be such a debate by the practitioners as well as those who have enjoyed the music over the years. That is as it should be.
I sincerely thank the Minister of State for his graciousness and courtesy as well as for the undertakings he has given and the promises he has made. However, I would ask him to pay attention to one specific case — that is, the retrospective inheriting of a copyright regarding music which has already been integrated as part of the corpus of traditional music in this country. That could be a fundamental legal issue in the future. The Minister of State should consider that matter.
I do not doubt anybody's credentials in this House. However, on section 2, I find it difficult to accept the evidential shift in the burden of proof from plaintiff to defendant. While I accept what the Minister of State said — that it should be easy enough for the defendant to rebut — the onus of proof should be on he who alleges. That is in keeping with the Irish legal tradition. I accept the Attorney General's advice that there is no constitutional bar to the legislation.
We must remember, however, that piracy can work both ways. Given the number of predators out there, rearrangements of original music scores are possible. As the Bill is framed, someone could establish copyright and steal rights from the original owner or the person to whom the rights were bequeathed. There is also the danger of some long lost cousin coming to the fore.
While I know the Minister of State means well, he must safeguard those who are in the right and that, of course, is what he intends to do. I was heartened by the eloquent contribution of Senator Ó Murchú. I am delighted he is here as a safe and loyal custodian of that tradition and those rights. He is a careful watchdog and I salute his success in standing up to IMRO.
In common with my colleagues, I salute the anti-racketeering section of the Garda Síochána and congratulate them on their successes. As Senator Cox said, we must protect those who are right and we must strike the right balance. I am sure that when the Minister of State comes to deal with the more substantive measure later in the year, he will be striving to achieve the right balance.
Senator Coghlan will agree when I say that the law is there to protect the person who is right. The shift of ownership in section 2 is necessary because there has been no one convicted of piracy or copyright fraud in this State in the past number of years. It is obvious the current protection is not working and that is why there has to be a shift of ownership as outlined in this Bill.
It could have been achieved with a more correct balance.
At present copyright rightsholders taking civil action for breach of the copyright can be required to prove fully in court the most basic points upon which their claims are based, even to the point of having to prove in detail, with the support of witness testimony, the subsistence of copyright in the work in question. For example, numbers of witnesses, often from overseas, may have to be secured to give live testimony on the interest subsisting in a particular copyright. This position was confirmed in a recent Supreme Court judgment. Getting the balance right is a major problem and this is a substantial shift in the right direction.
There has been such diversity of opinion today that we have seen democracy at work. I had to remain silent during the debate on the musical question. I am determined to get the balance right in that area as well. Both copyright rightsholders and IMRO have genuine rights and it is important to make that point. I do not want this debate to degenerate into IMRO bashing or see Senator Ó Murchú versus everyone else. There is no doubt that people who have spoken, whether outlining the genuine rights of IMRO or the cultural issue — the need to preserve our folklore and culture — expressed genuine concerns but both positions will dovetail in this legislation.
It is my duty to produce well balanced legislation having listened and consulted carefully. In response to Senator Gallagher, on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General, I am happy to accept amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
I welcome the sentiments expressed by the Minister. The major danger facing us is that a situation similar to what happened other countries could arise here. Irish music is a worldwide trade name; if something exists in this country which does not exist in other countries it must be protected.
I look forward to the more comprehensive legislation which will coming before us soon. It will outline even further our concerns on this issue. It is now being taken seriously and I congratulate the Minister and the Government for introducing this legislation to copperfasten the rights of copyright holders.
Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 3.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 3 has already been discussed with amendment No. 2.
I would like clarification. Is this the Government amendment to section 3?
Acting Chairman
No. Amendment No. 3 is tabled by Senator Costello.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, line 11, to delete "commencement" and substitute "passing".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 5, to delete lines 14 to 22 and substitute the following:
"‘(9) (a) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) (amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1987) or (2) of this section shall be liable—
(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 in respect of each infringing copy or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both.
(b) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) or (8) (amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1987) of this section shall be liable—
(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both.',".
Amendment No. 4 amends section 3 of the present Bill. This provides for a new scheme of penalties in respect of criminal offences under the Copyright Act, 1963. The proposed amendment is required to remedy a defect in the provision of the present section 3 which would apply the new scheme of penalties on summary conviction only in cases where infringing copies of copyright works were involved, that is to say, to offences under subsections (1) and (2) of the Copyright Act, 1963, as amended.
This amendment will ensure that a like scheme of penalties on summary conviction will also apply in respect of offences under subsections (3) and (8) of the Principal Act where infringing copies are not involved. This latter category includes the possession of plates for the manufacture of vending copies and causing unauthorised public performance of copyright works. We are strengthening the section. This is an issue which has arisen since we discussed the Bill in the Dáil and brings the law up to date in respect of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1987. This now deals with the infringing of plates as well as copies.
I welcome this amendment. This was the greatest problem in the legislation until now — the penalties were not severe enough. When one considers the recent coup by the Garda Síochána in the County Louth area and the enormous profits individuals were making, £10,000 each per day on duplication, these penalties are only the start of what the Government should be examining. There should be a mandatory jail sentence for people stealing intellectual property in such vast quantities. Pirating to the extent of £100,000 per person per week is a disgrace and should not be allowed continue.
The good name of the industry in Ireland is at stake. There were allegations made by sections of the industry that 30 per cent of all products sold in Ireland were manufactured illegally. We have a reputation second to none for the honour with which we carry out our business, but individuals coming from outside the State to indulge in this disgraceful conduct should be stopped. I welcome the Government's intervention but the penalties are not strict enough.
I also welcome that the penalties apply per piece of product. If ten videos or CDs were found to be duplicated illegally, the fines would be for each piece of product. I would like the Minister to qualify that part of the amendment.
I agree with the amendment, the concept and the level of the penalties in particular. It is essential that there are realistic penalties to deter anyone who may be thinking of stealing from a person who has the right to intellectual property. Globally we lose £8.1 billion per annum in revenue to people pirating work. In Ireland the IT sector loses as much as £33.5 million per annum because of software piracy. We could create 2,773 jobs if we cut down on software piracy. People who use initiative and intellectual abilities to develop products, particularly in software, deserve to be protected. Others will speak of those in music and the arts. We are moving into a global market with access through the Internet and the World Wide Web. We need protections for those generating an industry and assisting economic growth.
I fully support the proposals in the Government amendments. However, the references made should be put in context. The Leader referred to the large haul in County Louth. Gardaí were seeking this man for 14 years and it is estimated that he made between £4 million and £16 million per year from piracy in that time. Elaine Keogh's article in The Irish Times on 10 April quotes an industry source as stating: “The man behind this is one of the most brilliant business strategists I have seen. The rental market is down on what it was and since Christmas he has gone into copying music CDs and CD ROM software. I think he will be back at it within weeks. Who knows where he will base his operation.”
A record industry spokesperson stated that a factor in the success of the pirates is the speed at which they hit the streets. Paul Keogh, Chairman of the Irish Federation of Phonographic Industries and MD of POLYGRAM records, one of the more successful international companies operating in Ireland, stated: "We recently brought out the best of Bon Jovi and the pirate version was hitting the streets at the same time." It was the speed at which the pirates came to the market which first led to suspicions that there was a CD manufacturing facility in Ireland. Mr. Keogh also claims that pirates could not be importing the product so quickly — there had to be a manufacturing base in Ireland.
The cost of setting up an illegal manufacturing facility, while seeming prohibitive, is around £200,000 for equipment and discs. This does not allow for factory and labour costs. However, this pales into insignificance when one considers the amount of money to be made as a result of pirated copies and that is why the penalties in the Bill are welcome.
There is another aspect concerning penalties and law enforcement which the Minister of State might address. Piracy worldwide now grosses some £5 billion annually. The industry faces a difficult problem from an unlikely sector — the public — whose perception is that pirated tapes and CDs are no harm. People regard them as a cheap alternative to shop prices. I am sure the Minister of State will take the opportunity to highlight how erroneous a view this is. We all go for what we think is a bargain but the reality is that piracy does not go for quality but quantity. One gets what one pays for. One is wrong if one thinks that by paying half the price for a CD or video one will get a premium product.
Record retailers are receiving significant numbers of faulty pirated tapes. Because the public makes no distinction between the pirated copy and the original legal copy they are going into record stores and trying to insist that the store has an obligation to take back the copy. The Minister of State should use the power of his office to point out that it is a short-term gain and that not only will the public lose out in the long term by the poor quality of the produce, but that musicians, composers, publishers and record companies are also losing out.
In light of this evidence and the ease with which manufacturing facilities can be set up, I suggest that, when the Minister of State is bringing forward the substantive legislation, he considers mandatory jail sentences for the more severe crimes. I understand there has to be a separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Legislature and that the Legislature can only provide the legal framework in which the Judiciary has freedom in deciding on sentences. However, if we are to tackle the problem of piracy the only deterrent is that those who commit serious crimes will receive a mandatory jail sentence.
I welcome the improvements in the Bill. Under the existing legislation the man in County Louth would only have been fined £1,000, having made £2 million. This was farcical. There is a need for mandatory sentencing which the Minister of State should consider in the more substantive legislation.
I thank Senators for their responses and I will examine the issue of penalties. Senator Mooney spoke about the need for an information campaign and I have already been involved in some fora. The Business Software Association is working hard to get across the message that piracy is wrong. However, there is a laissez faire culture and part of the debate will be to bring about a shift in balance of people's responsibilities.
I also acknowledge that the software industry is a crucial sector. We are trying to ensure that all copyright offences are covered by the Bill. Since the Bill passed through the Dáil there was a need for further examination. Senator Cassidy referred to section 3(a) which states:
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 in respect of each infringing copy or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both,
The fine will be up to £1,500 per each infringing copy. This amendment broadens the remit to include the possession of plates and those staging unauthorised public performances of copyright work. We are updating the legislation to cover all the areas required.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 5, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4.—Section 6 of the Act of 1992 is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (3) of the following subsection:
‘(3) The Office shall be under the control of the Controller who shall act under the general superintendence and direction of the Minister.rsquo;.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
"6. In page 5, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"5.7mdash;Section 97 of the Act of 1992 is hereby amended—
(a) by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
‘(1) (a) The Government shall appoint as occasion arises a person to the office of Controller for a term of 5 years on such terms and conditions as shall be specified by the Government when making the appointment.
(b) A person appointed under paragraph (a) of this subsection, whose term of office expires otherwise than by reason of the person being removed from office, shall be eligible for reappointment.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, a person appointed to the office of Controller shall retire on attaining the age of 65 years.
(d) Without prejudice to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this subsection, the person holding office as Controller, immediately before the commencement of this section, shall hold that office on the same terms and conditions, including conditions as to superannuation or other allowance or gratuity, as specified by the Government when making his appointment to that office.',
(b) by the substitution for subsection (3) of the following subsection:
‘(3) Subject to the Controller being in good health at the time of appointment and notwithstanding that the Controller is appointed without a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, the Controller shall, during his term of office, be deemed to be employed in the Civil Service of the State.',
(c) by the insertion after subsection (3) of the following subsection:
‘(3A) The Office shall be located at such a place in the State as may be designated from time to time by the Minister, and the functions of the office of Controller shall be discharged at that place, subject to such exceptions as the Minister may from time to time specify in writing.',
(d) by the insertion after subsection (4) of the following subsection:
‘(4A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Government may remove from the office of Controller a person who has become incapable through ill-health of effectively performing the duties of Controller or for stated misbehaviour or whose removal appears to the Government to be necessary for the effective performance of the functions of Controller.',
(e) by the substitution for subsection (5) of the following subsection:
‘(5) Any act or thing directed to be done by or to the Controller under this Act or any other enactment may be done by or to any officer authorised by the Minister.',
(f) by the substitution for subsection (6) of the following subsection:
‘(6) An authorisation under subsection (5)—
(a) may be made subject to such directions as the Minister may specify, and
(b) may at any time be modified or revoked by the Minister.',
and the section as so amended is set out in the Table to this section.
TABLE
97.—(1) (a) The Government shall appoint as occasion arises a person to the office of Controller for a term of 5 years on such terms and conditions as shall be specified by the Government when making the appointment.
(b) A person appointed under paragraph (a) of this subsection, whose term of office expires otherwise than by reason of the person being removed from office, shall be eligible for reappointment.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, a person appointed to the office of Controller shall retire on attaining the age of 65 years.
(d) Without prejudice to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this subsection, the person holding office as Controller, immediately before the commencement of this section, shall hold that office on the same terms and conditions, including conditions as to superannuation or other allowance or gratuity, as specified by the Government when making his appointment to that office.
(2) The Controller shall receive such remuneration as the Minister for Finance shall determine.
(3) Subject to the Controller being in good health at the time of appointment and notwithstanding that the Controller is appointed without a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, the Controller shall, during his term of office, be deemed to be employed in the Civil Service of the State.
(3A) The Office shall be located at such a place in the State as may be designated from time to time by the Minister, and the functions of the office of Controller shall be discharged at that place, subject to such exceptions as the Minister may from time to time specify in writing.
(4) Whenever the Controller is temporarily unable to attend to his duties or his office is vacant, the Minister may appoint a person to perform the duties of the Controller during such inability or vacancy, and every person so appointed shall for as long as the appointment remains in force have all the powers of the Controller under this Act and as otherwise determined by law and shall receive such remuneration as the Minister shall, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, direct.
(4A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Government may remove from the office of Controller a person who has become incapable through ill-health of effectively performing the duties of Controller or for stated misbehaviour or whose removal appears to the Government to be necessary for the effective performance of the functions of Controller.
(5) Any act or thing directed to be done by or to the Controller under this Act or any other enactment may be done by or to any officer authorised by the Minister.
(6) An authorisation under subsection (5)—
(a) may be made subject to such directions as the Minister may specify, and
(b) may at any time be modified or revoked by the Minister.".
I wish to move an amendment to amendment No. 6.
Acting Chairman
The Senator has not tabled an amendment to the amendment.
Is it possible to table an amendment to the amendment at this stage?
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 6 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1. If the Senator had wished to table an amendment to amendment No. 6, he should have done so earlier so that it could have been taken when the amendments were being discussed. What is the amendment he wished to table?
Can I come back to it on Report Stage? For the purposes of clarification my concern relates to subsection (d) of the amendment which is a new subsection (4A) to be inserted after section 97(4) of the 1992 Act. While I understand and support the necessity for it, I am mindful of the debate on Tuesday on another Bill concerning stated reasons. I suggest it would be in the interests of all concerned that, after the word "necessary", the words "for stated reasons" be included.
Acting Chairman
The Senator should have raised that when the amendments were being discussed.
I support Senator Gallagher's proposal.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 6 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1 and the Senator's proposal should have been raised then.
Can I come back to it on Report Stage?
Acting Chairman
It is a matter for the Leader or Acting Leader when the House takes Report Stage. We received no notice of the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 5, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Intellectual Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1998.
(2) Sections 4 and 5 of this Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may appoint by order or orders either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions.".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
As amendment No. 7 has been agreed, amendment No. 8 cannot be moved.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 be deleted."
One of the major criticisms levelled over the past number of years was the perceived lack of urgency in the Patents Office regarding disputes and arbitration where copyright problems arose. I compliment the Minister of State on his initiatives since taking office in enhancing and widening the role of the Patents Office and improving staffing levels. In the context of the powers now vested in him, what plans has he to ensure a speedy, efficient service from the Patents Office and to ensure it responds adequately to what is becoming increasingly complex legislation? Given that there is a promise to introduce more substantive legislation towards the end of the year, it seems to me the role of the Controller will take on a more significant import within the Department. It might allay concerns expressed heretofore about the workings and activities of the Patents Office concerning copyright problems if the Minister of State were to make a statement on the issue.
I thank the Senator for his comments. Some of the problems he highlighted would have been due to the operation of the old 1963 Act. By introducing this legislation we will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Patents Office. A new liaison system has been put in place between the intellectual property unit of my Department and the Patents Office which acts as an early warning system so that various problems can be dealt with as they arise. The updating of the legislation will make the running of the office more efficient.
Question put and agreed to.
TITLE.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 3, to delete line 5 and substitute the following:
"AN ACT TO AMEND THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1963, AND THE PATENTS ACT, 1992, AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS.".
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I propose a sos for five minutes.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 1.25 p.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Now.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Acting Leader and the Minister of State for their co-operation in responding to the points I sought to make in respect of amendment No. 6. It is proper that there be better accountability to this office in respect of this departmental function. Will the Minister of State assure the House that if the drastic action contemplated in subsection (d) ever comes to pass, the removal of a person would only take place for stated reasons? On Tuesday we debated this issue in the context of the removal of board members from a State board. I seek an assurance that any action contemplated under this subsection will be in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
I also thank Senator Cox and the Minister of State for facilitating a consultation to clarify this matter. My only opposition to the provisions of the Bill relates to section 2. Somebody could rifle a piece of music, slightly rearrange it and, under the Bill, establish copyright to it. That, too, would be piracy. It is no different from the type of piracy we have already discussed.
If somebody acted as I described, it might be difficult to oppose them; in fact, it might be difficult to find a defendant who would bother to come forward. The hallmark of good citizenship in a democracy is acceptance of the law. That is why we must be careful to get the balance right. I believe the balance is not right in section 2. However, I look forward to the introduction of the substantive Bill in due course.
I appreciate the Minister of State's openness and his fine abilities in this area. I also appreciate the co-operation offered to all sides of the House by his officials and the Department. It is refreshing to receive that level of co-operation. Finally, the constructive manner in which the Opposition approached this legislation is a testament to their abilities and their commitment to this House.
I appreciate the comments of the Acting Leader and I thank the Opposition spokespersons for their involvement in the debate and for co-operating in the passing of all Stages of this short Bill — what we call a breakout Bill.
The Bill has provoked an important debate and I will endeavour to address the issues that have been raised. Senator Coghlan commented again on the balance in section 2. I understand the motive for his comments but in view of the problems which have been experienced by those who must deal with copyright, this Bill is shifting the balance in the right direction. However, the Senator is entitled to his view and I accept his reasons.
With regard to Senator Gallagher's concerns, it was useful to have a break and discuss them. I thank the Senator for his co-operation in accepting that this legislation will be applied on the basis of natural justice. In the unlikely event of a person being removed, stated reasons would be offered.
Question put and agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday.