Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 1999: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 54 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 55.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 48, lines 21 to 23, to delete subsection (2).

This amendment relates to recordings by educational establishments of broadcasts. Subsection (1) allows them to make copies or recordings for their own use for educational purposes within the institution. However, subsection (2) tags on an exception to that so schools and colleges do not know where they will stand in the future. They may be subject to demands for money from organisations which may obtain a licence from the Minister under section 166. Many of them are concerned about this prospect. Subsection (2) is too nebulous, unsure and not tied down enough at this stage for us to proceed with it and therefore I propose it be deleted.

It is the view of the Government that the rights holders in broadcast and cable programmes should be in a position, should they choose to do so, to assert their rights in relation to broadcast and cable programmes copied by or on behalf of educational establishments through a licensing scheme, subject to the safeguards set out in section 166. Failure to allow this could result in a significant erosion of the property rights of broadcast and cable programme rights holders since it would facilitate free copying on a scale whereby their ability to exploit some broadcast and cable programme material normally could be seriously undermined. This would be particularly true of material of educational interest, which is perhaps not specifically made for educational purposes. This category encompasses a considerable share of broadcast and cable programme output.

I very much appreciate the position outlined by the Senator but the exception will stand until a licensing scheme is put in place. This a common position taken throughout the Bill and I am unfortunately not in a position to accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 55 agreed to.
SECTION 56.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 48, lines 37 to 39, to delete subsection (2).

This amendment relates to photocopying in a school or other educational institution and relates very much to dramatic, artistic and literary activities. From my involvement in youth drama productions, I know the costs of staging them are in many cases substantially added to by the cost of scripts etc. I appreciate copyright holders have a right to recoup where scripts are sent. However, occasions arise where at short notice portions of work need to be photocopied for immediate use in class. The limitation that only 5 per cent of any work may be copied by or on behalf of an educational establishment in any calendar year is unduly restrictive and I propose its deletion.

The position is similar to that in relation to amendment No. 21 in that it is absolutely necessary to impose very strict controls on reprographic copying exceptions, however worthy their object, because of the power of photocopying to produce large numbers of inexpensive copies to the great prejudice of rights holders' legitimate interest. It is necessary to remember that reprographic copyright royalties are expenses legitimately incurred by educational establishments. Something similar could be said about electricity bills, expenses for the renewal of furniture and repairs to the fabric of the building. International law places strict limits on our capacity to extend exceptions in general and it is my view that an educational photocopying exception without the 5 per cent threshold would exceed these limits as it could in practice seriously undermine the normal exploitation of many copyright works. I am putting in a nominal figure of 5 per cent.

I also have much of experience of this from my days as a teacher. We want to be reasonable and practical and to accept that a certain amount of reprographic or photocopying activity takes place. We must strike a balance so that people can do a certain amount of photocopying but that they do not abuse it by photocopying entire books. As this is a pragmatic and sensible proposal, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 56 agreed to.
Sections 57 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 60.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 50, subsection (2), lines 22 and 23, to delete "or with copies of more than one article contained in the same issue of a periodical".

I have already mentioned the need to strictly limit photocopying exceptions. The amendment would have the practical effect of allowing entire journals to be copied by librarians and archivists within the scope of this exception, an activity which could have adverse consequences for the ability of publishers to exploit their assets, particularly in the case of publishers of small circulation and specialist journals. I cannot accept this outcome or, in consequence, the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 60 agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Sections 61 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 65.
Question proposed: "That section 65 stand part of the Bill."

There is an exception clause in subsection (2). Work relating to heritage or culture has been discussed here on many occasions where there is doubt about its origin and where a version of it or something which has been passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation is copyrighted by somebody in another state. There is a danger the librarian or archivist may be working under the assumption that the work is not protected by copyright. What protection have they in this case?

This is a new provision for copying by librarians or archivists of certain unpublished works. It is proposed that librarians or archivists may make and supply copies of the whole or part of a work which has not been lawfully made available to the public, that is, unpublished works from any work in the permanent collection of the library or archive, without infringing copyright of the work or any illustration accompanying the work in a typographical arrangement. Librarians or archivists would be permitted to do this, provided the copyright owner has not strictly prohibited copying of the work and the librarians and archivists know or are aware of that fact. It is intended that section 65 will only be used by librarians or archivists when supplying copies to persons wishing to use such copies for private research or study and they will only provide a single copy of such material.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 66 to 70, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 71.

I move amendment No. 26a:

In page 54, lines 1 to 6, to delete subsection (2).

There is a danger that the freedom of these Houses to order and carry out their work could be infringed by this provision. It means an Oireachtas committee cannot publish copyright material in a report without the consent of the copyright holder if the material is on public sale. It seems strange and wrong for any Bill to seek to regulate what the Oireachtas, either collectively or in any of its committees, can publish. We should be the judges of that in the public interest. It has been in the public interest on many occasions recently that committees of these Houses have been able to receive and report on whatever they wish, without the freedom of the Houses being infringed. The democratic freedom we enjoy in these Houses and use on behalf of the people will be infringed and we should not tolerate that.

I thank the Senator for tabling this amendment. There may be some confusion about the intention of section 71. The point of subsection (1) is to ensure that, where the Government or the Oireachtas has reason in the course of its business to make available to the public certain materials which might generally be described as "unpublished", it may do so where circumstances so require without incidental complications arising out of the fact that the copyright in such a work might be owned by the persons who submitted the material in question or by others. There are many examples of works which might be made available in this way, such as letters and submissions which, lowly as they may seem, may still be capable of meeting the tests for copyright protection.

It is not the intention of the section to give the Government or the Oireachtas permission to make available to the public copies of works which have been lawfully made available to the public by their authors or rights owners by means such as conventional publication or the placing of the material in question on an Internet site. This would represent an excessive interference with the rights of authors and other rights holders to exploit their intellectual property, which I do not believe was intended by the Senators. Since subsection (2) is designed to preclude this undesirable side effect which could arise from subsection (1), I am not in a position to accept its deletion. Material can always be published if rights holders consent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 71 agreed to.
Sections 72 to 95, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 96.

I move amendment No. 26b:

In page 61, subsection (3), line 35, after "or" to insert "(otherwise that to a person's family member or friend for private and domestic purposes)".

As the Bill stands, many people could end up committing an offence under this provision. If I video a programme and then lend it to a friend or family member I am breaking the law. That happens in every household

That was cleared yesterday.

I do not think an everyday activity in many houses should be put in doubt and I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

I appreciate the Senator's concern but I would have thought that as a practical matter family members, and in some circumstances even friends, could reasonably be regarded as included in the scope of the section, which is intended to cover only private copying for time shifting purposes. I hardly imagine the use of copies envisaged by the Senators could reasonably be regarded as being covered by the term "offered or exposed for sale, rental or loan or otherwise made available to the public" as in the subsection. However, I would be concerned that a specific reference to the legally uncertain class of friends could leave the way open to copying and circulation of copies beyond the very limited scope intended for section 96. I appreciate where the Senator is coming from but by inserting the amendment we could make the situation worse. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No 26c:

In page 61, subsection (3), line 37, after "public" to insert "for reward".

This is an alternative approach to the same problem. I think we should make clear that only commercial activities are prohibited in this context, which is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

I have a problem because the legitimate interests of artists and of other copyright proprietors are capable of being severely damaged not just by illicit copying, distribution and making available their works for reward but also by uncontrolled free copying. Any free copying must be confined to strictly defined and limited exceptions which do not interfere with the normal exploitation of protected materials, as is required by international corporate law. This acceptance could undermine the essential limited character of the time shifting exception in practice and could therefore not be accepted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 96 agreed to.
Sections 97 and 98 agreed to.
SECTION 99.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 62, lines 26 to 28, to delete subsection (3).

This relates to the section and the provision of modified works. As I understand it, we are providing that a designated body may make a copy of a work for the purposes of modifying that copy to meet the special needs of a person with a disability, for example to have a work reproduced in Braille. I know Senator Cassidy will be aware that the Midland Health Board, in conjunction with the National Council for the Blind, produces a "newspaper" for the blind, with the assistance of volunteers working for the council and the financial support of the health board. This is disseminated by cassette tape to registered blind people in the midlands area. I am concerned that when the licensing scheme in introduced there will be a charge for this and I do not think this should apply to material for the disabled.

I very much appreciate the Senator's concern and I want to make it clear that we are concerned about the position of people with disabilities. I reject the amendment on a similar basis as in the case of amendment No. 2. I am very sensitive to the need to ensure that disabled people are facilitated in obtaining access to corporate work which they need. However, the safeguards for rights holders included in section 99, including the right to organise licensing schemes if they so choose, are considered necessary if only to avoid a situation in which bodies might abuse the exception and use it as a basis for fundraising. Such a development could actually injure the interests of disabled persons since it would encourage rights holders to act in ways that would inhibit the supply of modified intellectual products to the disabled. The House would agree with me that this would be a most undesirable outcome. I am advised that this question has been raised in the context of negotiations on the forthcoming EU Directive on Copyright in the Information Society and will be discussed again in that context, but no conclusion has yet been formed as to the appropriate form of an exception in favour of the disabled in the context of the proposed directive. The outcome of these negotiations could have a significant bearing on the future of exceptions to copyright, this exception included. I will be keeping this progress under careful review. Let me assure the Senator that the issue is being raised in that context and it is right to be concerned about it and we will watch those developments closely.

In light of the evolving copyright law in the EU and in the context of the Minister's reply about the EU directive, will he bear in mind the general thrust of lobbyists in the EU and America is towards the greater protection of copyright? Most copyright owners, as represented by big business, are mainly concerned about dollars and euros. The EU Legal Affairs Committee has debated many of the copyright initiatives and this has led to recommendations to the Council of Ministers meeting which the Minister attends. I suggest the Minister should seek a balance in protecting the rights of the consumer and the copyright owner. I am not attempting in any way to teach my granny to suck eggs. As a publisher, I welcome any tightening of the controls that would eliminate piracy or infringement of copyright, but there is a danger that in so doing we could go too far. The Minister of State acknowledged the difficulties.

Organisations representing the disabled wishing to use a copyright work for fundraising purposes usually receive permission from the copyright owners, but some copyright owner, as represented by big business, could refuse outright or agree subject to taking 90 per cent of the profits. I hope this example will inform the Minister's thinking in further discussion under EU directives.

Senators will appreciate that I have responsibility for consumer affairs as well as for international trade. Let me assure Members that I am aware of their concerns and will monitor developments on this issue. I am equally concerned about the position of the disabled and will watch the position in that regard. The setting up of licensing schemes should be taken up with the relevant organisation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 99 agreed to.
Sections 100 and 101 agreed to.
SECTION 102.
Question proposed: "That section 102 stand part of the Bill."

RTE is concerned about this section. I take it that if we need to re-enter amendments we may do so on Report Stage. I will compliment the Minister when we reach sections 103 and 106.

Will the Senator repeat his question?

I am concerned about this section on behalf of RTE. I am sure it has made representations to the Minister.

RTE is concerned about sections 102 to 106, inclusive. We are grateful that the Minister has proposed the deletion of section 103 and 106. Can the Minister respond to their concerns?

This group of amendments on this issue are all concerned with reducing the possibility of a waiver of paternity rights or the integral right to be conveyed on authors and performers by the Bill while continuing to forbid the assignment or alienation of these rights. To an extent, forbidding assignments while allowing waiver is somewhat paradoxical. Experience in the United Kingdom, which allows waiver of moral rights, suggests that as a matter of practice waiver of moral rights is a standard feature of contracts which otherwise deals with the assignment of economic copyrights, such as publishing contracts and film deals. Whatever the theoretical differences there appear to be few practical differences between waiver and assignment in practice. The provision in this Bill rendering moral rights unwaiverable was designed to avoid a position in which, as in the UK, waiver of moral rights is demanded as a matter of routine from artists selling rights of their works, except in the rare instances where the artist enjoys exceptionally strong bargaining power. This position is particularly prevalent in book publishing and more so in drama and the film industry.

Since the publication of this Bill strong representations have been made to the Department that the existence of non-waiverable moral rights on the face of legislation could damage seriously Ireland's marketing position in relation to attracting to the country investment in the production of films, broadcast material and the like. We have also received representations stating that the persistence of an unwaiverable paternity right, in particular, could occasion concern to investors and companies considering involvement in some areas of the software industry which use the services of employees and independent contractors in developing computer programmes.

In the face of the arguments I have outlined the Department and I have decided to change policy on the matter. I will clearly specify that all moral rights should be capable of waiver, including a person's right to privacy in respect of com missioned photographs and films, and a person's right not to have a performance falsely attributed to them. These proposed amendments are considered by the Department to be necessary to achieve this aim.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 42 and 43 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 63, before section 103, to insert the following new section:

"103.–The paternity right shall be incapable of assignment or alienation but shall be waivable in writing by the author.".

I welcome the Minister's proposal to delete sections 103 and 106. If section 103 is deleted there is no need for my amendment.

The Senator's amendment is irrelevant in view of the Government amendment and, therefore, it should be withdrawn.

In the list of the additional amendments the Minister of State's amendment does not have a number but it is listed after amendment No. 26c. The side headings state that the sections are proposed to be deleted. The Minister of State gives his assurance that he is deleting the sections.

We will come to that. Is amendment No. 28 withdrawn?

I would like to hear the Minister's response.

The Senator's amendment is covered by the group of amendments starting with amendment No. 30a.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 103 deleted.
Section 104 agreed to.
SECTION 105.
Question proposed: "That section 105 stand part of the Bill."

This section is subject to the same provisions I mentioned earlier on behalf of RTE.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Section 106 deleted.
SECTION 107.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 64, subsection (2)(b)(iii), lines 37 and 38, to delete "which offends public morality".

My amendment relates to exceptions to the integrity right. The section proposes to give unregulated censorship rights to cable operators. Many cable operators are scattered throughout the country and they provide various standards of service and some are more accountable than others. It is unwise to give them a wide-ranging power such as this because they are in effect limited companies and not answerable to public bodies. It is unwise to give a censorship function to a private body. In any society censorship should be limited. Where it is carried out it should be conducted in a regulated fashion by an authorised body.

I appreciate this qualification may appear to be unclear and old-fashioned. However, it has a practical advantage in ensuring that in unusual situations in which broadcasters and cable programme service provides feel the need to revive material to eliminate objectionable content and their right to do so is not established by contract, the service providers in question will at least not be totally barred by moral rights considerations. I accept that the precise interpretation of this provision may find its way to court. However, there is sufficient practical reason to maintain section 107(2)(b)(iii) in its present form.

Will the activities that any of these bodies may carry out under this provision be monitored or regulated? Will the Department or any other agency monitor these bodies to see if the provision is being used in a fair manner?

The reason for this provision is that we are concerned about objectionable content in material being broadcast. There are other means of control. However, from our point of view the amendment suggests that we delete "which offends public morality". The inference of what the Senator has said is that there may be a tendency to broadcast undesirable material. I wish to retain the provision in the Bill to ensure that does not happen. There are many ways to monitor this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 107 agreed to.
Sections 108 to 111, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 112.
Question proposed: "That section 112 stand part of the Bill."

Irish film makers are concerned about section 112. They believe that moral rights subsist for the same period as copyright and may be transferred upon the death of the author under section 112. I am sure the Minister of State has heard this argument.

We are not aware of a particular problem with regard to film makers. I would be glad to deal with any instances which arise during the course of the Bill.

I will communicate with the Minister of State.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Amendments Nos. 30b to 30f, inclusive, form a composite proposal with amendment No. 30a and these amendments may be taken together.

Government amendment No. 30a:

In page 67, before section 113, to insert the following new section:

"113–(1) Subject to subsection (3), any of the rights conferred by this Chapter may be waived.

(2) A waiver made under this section shall be in writing and signed by the person waiving the right concerned.

(3) A waiver made under subsection (1)

(a) may relate to specific work, to works of a specified description or to works generally, and may relate to existing or future works, and

(b) may be conditional or unconditional, and may be expressed to be subject to revocation,

and where a waiver is made in favour of the owner or prospective owner of the copyright in the work or works to which it relates, that waiver shall be presumed to extend to his to her licensees, successors in title or other persons claiming under them unless a contrary intention is expressed.

(4) Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as excluding the operation of the general law of contract or estoppel in relation to an informal waiver or other transaction in relation to any of the rights referred to in subsection (1).

(5) It shall not be an infringement of any of the rights conferred by this Chapter for a person to undertake any act where the person entitled to the right conferred by this Chapter has consented to the use of those rights by that other person."

The Bill introduces for the first time into Irish copyright legislation provisions on moral rights for authors and performers. Moral rights consist mainly of the paternity right which is the right to be identified as the author of a work, or as the case may be, the performer of a performance, and the integrity right which is the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work or, as the case may be, a recording of a performance.

Article 6.1 of the Berne convention requires that the moral rights shall exist independently of the author's economic rights and that they should stay with the author even after the transfer of the said economic right.

The same is true of Article 5 of the performances and phonograms treaty in respect of performers. These amount to less than a prohibition of allowing moral rights to be capable of a waiver. Accordingly, the Department provided that the rights would be incapable of a waiver, assignment or alienation. However, the Department was also conscious that if these moral rights were to be unwaivable they should, nevertheless, be capable of being dealt with effectively by any means short of actual waiver in such a way as would prevent their persistence from significantly undermining the capacity of primary rights owners and rights purchasers to exploit protected material effectively and to their mutual advantage.

In other words, by explicitly prohibiting alienation or assignment, as well as waiver, it was not intended that authors be prohibited from settling the manner in which these moral rights should be addressed by rights purchasers in a contractual context. Authors and rights purchasers should, in that context, be entitled to conclude a specific agreement which is mutually satisfactory in the overall context of the contract. In this regard the Department received legal advice on the matter confirming that the present text of the Bill, which provides that these rights are incapable of waiver, assignment or alienation, should not preclude this.

However, since the publication of the Bill it has been strongly represented to the Department that the existence of unwaivable moral rights in legislation could seriously damage Ireland's marketing position in attracting investment in and the production of films, broadcast material and the like. It has also been represented that the persistence of an unwaivable paternity right in particular, could occasion concern to investors and companies considering involvement in some areas of the software industry which uses the services of employees and independent contractors in developing computer programmes.

In light of these arguments the Department decided to change its policy and specify clearly that all moral rights, including the right of a person to privacy in respect of permission for photographs and films, and the right of a person not to have a work or performance falsely attributed to them, should be capable of a waiver. These proposals are considered necessary to achieve this aim.

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 113.
Government amendment No. 30b.
In page 67, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) A waiver made under section 113 of the paternity right or the integrity right by one joint author shall not affect the rights of the other joint authors.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30c:
In page 67, lines 11 to 14, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following subsection:
"(3) The right conferred by section 111 to privacy in photographs and films is, in the case of a work made pursuant to a joint commission, the right of each person who commissioned the making of the work and where a waiver is made by one of them under section 113 that waiver shall not affect the rights of the other persons.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 113, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 30d:
In page 67, before section 114, to insert the following new section:
"114.–The rights conferred by Chapter 7 shall be incapable of assignment or alienation.".
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 114.
Government amendment No. 30e:
In page 67, lines 35 to 41, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following subsection:
"(3) Where, under subsection (1), a right becomes exercisable by more than one person—
(a) it may, in the case of the paternity right, be exercised by any of them,
(b) it is, in the case of the integrity right or the right of privacy in photographs and films conferred by section 111, a right exercisable by each of them, and
(c) any waiver of the right under section 113 made by one of them shall not affect the rights of the other persons."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30f:
In page 67, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) A consent or waiver binds any person to whom a right passes under subsection (1).".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 114, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 115 to 121, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 122.

I move amendment No. 30g:

In page 71, lines 25 and 26, to delete subsection (5).

This amendment proposes to delete subsection (5) which states that hearsay evidence may be accepted for the purposes of any hearing under subsection (4). In our legal system there is a general presumption against the admissibility of hearsay evidence and where it is admitted it is done so cautiously and with strong safeguards. Gardaí engaged in combating terrorism over the past 30 years know how hard it is, even in such cases, to submit hearsay evidence in court. This provision to too general and there are no limitations. There is no reason hearsay evidence should be admissible and it is extraordinarily generous to corporate interests. This would not be tolerated in any other aspect of civil or criminal law and it should be deleted.

There may be some misunderstanding of this subsection. It merely allows the acceptability of hearsay evidence in separate trials on the issue of copyright ownership. It does not compel the court to attach any weight to this evidence. I am concerned that, if this section is deleted, it would produce a situation in which, as a practical matter, copyright owners would be required under our general laws of evidence, even in limited trials of this nature, to bring into court witnesses capable of giving direct evidence of the ownership of copyright for cross-examination.

Given the international nature of much of the copyright industry this would place a great burden on many copyright owners attempting to vindicate their rights. It would give an open opportunity to undeserving defendants to raise issues on ownership merely to secure delays in legal proceedings and would be contrary to the intention of section 134 which embodies presumptions in favour of plaintiffs in copyright action, designed to avoid the excessive burden of assembly of evidence and delay which occurred under the Copyright Act, 1963.

If we are to comply with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, such excessive barriers to redress for copyright owners must be removed. I am sensitive to the need to maintain a balance between the interests of rights owners and potential plaintiffs when determining provisions such as this. The legal advice available to me, as on other matters concerned with copyright remedies and penalties, is that the balance struck by the present text is appropriate and free from constitutional infirmity. However, in declining to accept this amendment, I will be happy to consider further legal or other submissions which Senators make.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 122 agreed to.
Sections 123 to 126, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 127.

Amendments Nos. 30h and 41a are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 30h:

In page 73, lines 12 and 13, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph:

"(b) articles specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a work, which the person hawking, carrying about or marketing those articles, knows or has reason to believe that they have been or are to be used to make infringing copies of a work, or".

These amendments are tabled for reasons of clarity. Section 127 deals with applications by copyright owners to the District Court for seizure of infringing copies of a work, articles specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a work and protection defeating devices. Since section 241 contains a similar provision in respect of owners of the rights in recording a performance, it refers to illicit recordings of a performance instead of infringing copies of a work. It is not apparent from the wording of sections 127(1)(b) and 241(1)(b) who exactly has to know or have reason to believe that the article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a work or recordings of a performance has been or is to be used to make infringing copies of a work or illicit recordings of a performance. Accordingly, the Department considers that these proposed amendments clearly state the person who is hawking, carrying about or marketing the articles concerned is the person who must know or have reason to believe that they will be used to make infringing copies of a work or illicit recordings of a performance.

I compliment the Minister of State on this section. I hope those involved in piracy in the audio visual market will take heed of it. One of the weaknesses of the 1963 Act was the inability of the Garda and copyright owners to pursue hawkers, as the Minister of State quaintly describes them. I wondered why that term was used because I did not think it was legal parlance. I do not require the Minister's advisers to explain to him and the House why they continue to use the term because we know what is meant by it.

One sees hawkers on the streets of our towns and cities and there has been massive piracy in Border areas. It is an outrageous infringement of copyright, especially in Ireland where small independent record and music producers, after years of trying, have a successful song or album only to find pirated copies on the streets of our towns and cities. I welcome the provision and I hope the Minister of State will, in conjunction with his colleague in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, provide the necessary resources to wipe this cancer from the streets of our towns and cities.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 30i:

In page 73, lines 26 to 28, to delete subsection (4).

The amendment proposes the deletion of section 127(4) which states:

A witness or deponent shall not be obliged to indicate the source of the information upon which that witness formed the belief that material may be found in a particular location.

I know what the Minister of State is trying to achieve but I am concerned we are putting into this legislation provisions which would not normally be accepted in other aspects of our legal code. There is no stated reason a witness should be free under the Bill to conceal his or her sources of knowledge. The section as drafted means a court cannot order a person to reveal their sources. In other legal proceedings where there are safeguards for witnesses which allow them on occasion to conceal their sources, the court can, if it sees fit, order them to reveal their sources, and this has been done on a number of occasions. This provision seems to rule out the court having that freedom and I am advised there may be constitutional difficulties with ruling out that power for the court.

My concern is the deterrent for those involved in piracy. Small fines are provided for in the Bill. People have moved here from other countries to become involved in piracy and are creaming off unbelievable amounts of money to the tune of £20,000 per person per day. A fine of only £1,500 or six months' imprisonment and £100,000 for other offences is mentioned in the Bill. This is small money considering the number of offences the Garda Síochána found in County Louth alone as recently as last Christmas.

I am not so sure that £100,000 or five years in jail would be considered small punishment.

On section 127(4), it is important I clarify matters because there may be some misunderstanding about it. This has the limited objective of allowing copyright plaintiffs to apply for search warrants for certain offending materials without revealing the name or names of the persons whose information provided the basis for their belief that such materials could be found on certain premises. It does not compel a court to take a certain view of the weight of such evidence in certain cases nor does it extend to the trial of substantive actions on breach of copyright which might follow the discovery of infringing materials on a premises. In any event, failure to find such materials will certainly rule out any possibility of a successful action for breach of copyright following on the search and could expose a copyright owner who had negligently applied for search warrants to the risk of legal action on the part of the object of the warrant. That is an important point.

Much thought went into this subsection and this measure has been represented to the Government as vitally necessary if many copyright owners are to be able to take the first step in getting the necessary evidence to vindicate their right in the event of infringement. It is especially important in the case of commercial concerns where a principal wish to uphold the law against infringement by, for example, an employee may be frustrated by the fear of dismissal in the event of his or her name being revealed. Given that the section would in no way allow an action for breach of copyright to be sustained on the basis of hearsay evidence based on anonymous information and that actual evidence of infringement would be needed to sustain such an action, I am convinced that no injustice is effected by this section and that, on the contrary, its presence is necessary to ensure that the regime of remedies against copyright infringement contained in the Bill is fully effective.

I assure Senators that I have taken careful legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General on this point and that this advice is consistent with my view on the matter. This Bill has been a long time in gestation and has undergone much consultation. It has taken the two years since I took office and this subsection has been repeatedly debated. The thrust is to get it right and I hope my explanation is acceptable.

In support of the Minister of State's view, I will cite one example. Some 12 to 18 months ago, I was in Henry Street where, outside a major record store, a hawker was selling pirated tapes of both Irish and international music. Tapes are normally used as they are cheaper than CDs. I spoke to the store manager about this and he said there was nothing they could do because the Garda was constrained by legal requirements. If my interpretation of this section is correct and the Minister of State has clarified it, that store owner can now apply to the District Court to compel the Garda on foot of that permission to pursue the perpetrators of piracy, something he had not been able to do before now. The provision is a major advance and the Minister of State is to be complimented on including it in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 127, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 128.
Government amendment No. 30j:
In page 74, line 31, to delete "subsection (7)" and substitute "subsection (8)".

The aim of this amendment is to correct an incorrect reference in section 128(9).

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 128, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

There are strong powers attaching to this section, some of which are necessary. However, where such powers are given to any private citizen there should be a penalty for abuse of those powers. It does not appear that penalties will be imposed on those who abuse these serious powers. For that reason, I oppose the section.

This is a new provision which allows for a right of seizure for copyright owners of infringing copies, articles or devices specifically designed or adapted for making infringing copies of a work and protection defeating devices, subject to certain conditions and criteria being met. This section is considered by my Department to be another important provision in the enforce ment of copyright and the battle against counterfeiting. I am anxious that Senators will give the provision their support.

It is a very important provision and it is worthy of our support.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 129 agreed to.
SECTION 130.
Government amendment No. 30k:
In page 75, line 30, to delete "128" and substitute "129".

The basis of this section is to provide exclusive licensees with the same rights and remedies as copyright owners. One such remedy is the right of a copyright owner to obtain conversion damages as provided for by section 129. A reference to exclusive licensees also being entitled to conversion damages was omitted from section 130(2) and this amendment is designed to correct that omission.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 130, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 131 to 133, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 134.
Government amendment No. 30l:
In page 77, subsection (5)(c), line 40, after "Government" to insert "or of the State".

Section 180 provides for Government copyright and subsection (1) refers to a work being made by an officer or employee of the Government or of the State. The reference to section 180 in section 134(5)(c) omits the term "or of the State". The amendment is designed to correct that omission.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 134, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 135.

I move amendment No. 30m:

In page 79, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) In this section ‘loan' means a loan for reward and in particular does not include a loan to a family member or friend for private and domestic use, and ‘lends' shall be construed accordingly."

This amendment relates to our previous discussions on items being loaned and it is linked to concerns about the over-arching nature of the Bill. It seems that if a person made a video of our deliberations for the "Nine O'Clock News" and gave a copy of it to us following the conclusion of business he might be liable to serve five years imprisonment and pay a fine of up to £100,000. If that is the case – and I hope it is not – we are going too far.

We do not intend that to happen. As with the Senator's earlier amendments on section 96 which deal with the time-shifting exception, I do not believe this amendment is necessary to achieve the perfectly understandable purpose which underlies it. The specific reference to the legally imprecise term "friend" could open the way to an acceptable abuse. For these reasons, while I would like to consider further the utility of an amendment along these lines I cannot accept it at present. I should point out, however, that the concept of a "loan for reward" is essentially contradictory in terms of this Bill. The fact that the transaction was for reward would, in fact, make it a rental transaction rather than an act of lending. As already stated, I cannot accept the amendment but I would like to consider it in the context of the further development of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 30n:
In page 79, subsection 4(c), line 34, to delete "broadcasting or including" and substitute "broadcasting a work or including a work".

Section 135(4)(c) refers to copyright being infringed by "broadcasting or including in a cable programme service", but it does not specify what exactly is being broadcast or included in a cable programme service. This amendment is designed to correct that omission and clearly states that it is a work that is being broadcast or included in a cable programme service.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 135, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 30o:

In page 80, before section 136, to insert the following new section:

"136.–A person who, for monetary gain, makes a claim to enjoy a right under this Act which is, and which he or she knows or has reason to believe is, false, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine not exceeding £10,000,000 or to both."

This amendment provides severe criminal penalties for people who break the law in regard to the infringement of copyright. As a safeguard and a statement on our behalf that criminal penalties are not all aimed in the same direction, we should require that people who commit fraud in the corporate sphere should be subject to the same sanctions as an unfortunate librarian who may make two copies of an article instead of one. I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment.

I thank the Senator for the suggestion of introducing criminal sanction for false claims of copyright and I will certainly consider the matter. I cannot accept the amendment because any innovation in relation to the remedies for copyright infringement and penalties for copyright offences must be carefully weighed in the overall context of the scheme of remedies and penalties in order to ensure that the rights of both rights owners and potential defendants are respected, even when the latter prove to be infringers. A number of Senators have already stressed the importance of this matter during the debate on the Bill and that which occurred on the Intellectual Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. While I will examine the matter and take the advice of the Attorney General in respect of it, I believe that whatever the outcome the proposed maximum fine of £10 million might be considered somewhat excessive even for a crime as heinous as this.

I accept the validity of the Minister of State's comment that the fine is too excessive. However, before Report Stage it might be worth considering the way this matter is dealt with under Scottish law. Scotland has the lowest rate of illegal duplication in the entire EU.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 136.

I move amendment No. 30p:

In page 80, subsection (2), line 33, after "or" to insert "arraigned on".

This amendment involves a correction in legal terminology.

I have not had the opportunity in the short time available to consult the Office of the Attorney General on this amendment which appears to be a matter of legal drafting style rather than one of particular substance. However, I will raise this matter with the parliamentary draftsman at the earliest opportunity and I will proceed, in due course, in accordance with his advice. If the amendment can help the legislation in any way I will be glad to accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 136 agreed to.
Sections 137 to 139, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 140.

I move amendment No. 30q:

In page 83, subsection (4), line 38, after "force" to insert "and has been certified asbona fide and in accordance with this Act by the Revenue Commissioners”.

The section provides that the owner of the copyright in a work need do no more than give notice and the importation of goods to which such a notice relates is illegal. There may be constitutional difficulties with the provision. Such a result should be achieved only if a decision is made by a public authority, as proposed in this amendment.

I thank the Senator for his suggestion and I understand this amendment is intended as a safeguard to help ensure that section 140 operates transparently and effectively. Similar to the last amendment, I have not had an opportunity to consult with the Attorney General's office and the Revenue Commissioners as to the legal and practical implications of the acceptance of this amendment. I will consult with them and I would like to have an opportunity to consider this amendment further.

Will the Minister of State indicate why the Revenue Commissioners are involved in this aspect of the Bill? I would have thought that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would have to be involved in the prohibition of the importation of licensed works. This raises an interesting question. In the context of the owner of the copyright in a work, a book publisher could decide that he or she would not allow a particular book to be made available here. Can any other third party make such a decision? I am curious to know why the Revenue Commissioners are involved in this aspect of the Bill.

The Revenue Commissioners are involved because this is a customs matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 140 agreed to.
Sections 141 to 143, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 144.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 31 in the name of Senator Henry is related to amendment No. 34 and they may be taken together by agreement.

Mr. Coghlan

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 85, subsection (1), line 19, after "a" to insert "licensing contract or".

Senator Henry has expressed some concern about these matters, particularly on Second Stage. I will leave it to Senator Henry to outline the detailed argument of these matters on Report Stage.

I am curious why this amendment has been tabled. It seems to provide only for a change of wording. The section reads "The terms of a licensing scheme . . ." and the amendment proposes that the words "licensing scheme" should be changed to the words "licensing contract". I am not sure why there is a need for such a change. It seems that change is merely for the sake of semantics.

We are talking about the licensing authorities, in this instance, IMRO and the Mechanical Cabaret Protection Society, which have licensed arrangements and licensing agreements. I would have thought that if the Senator wished to change the wording of the section she would have proposed the word "agreement" rather than the word "contract". The message that is being conveyed is that it is a scheme of licensing operated by the licensing authority. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's reply to this amendment.

The proposed amendment may be based on a misunderstanding in that the provision in the Bill is designed precisely to deal with problems arising out of the collective administration of the rights by such bodies as authors' rights societies, where the terms of the scheme are generally set in accordance with the general tariff. In such circumstances, users of protected material require special dispute resolution mechanisms to address difficulties with the features of the scheme. Similar protection will not be required by parties negotiating individual contracts where an individual bargaining process is involved. It would be appropriate for the Senator to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 85, subsection (1), line 20, after "by" where it firstly occurs to insert "a copyright owner or by".

For reasons similar to those outlined on amendment No. 31, there is no need for this change. The provision is designed specifically to deal with a difficulty that can arise where there is a collective management of rights rather than that of individual contracts. As a consequence, the amendment is not appropriate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 85, subsection (1), line 20, after "Controller" to insert "by a person who claims to require a licence, or ".

Apart from the fact that such a change is inappropriate to a provision essentially designed to deal with collective management situations, there is a particular difficulty here in so far as to allow individuals to make such applications would leave the way open for a concerted campaign of applications designed to delay, perhaps indefinitely, the implementation of licensing schemes, even where such schemes were perfectly reasonable. The dispute resolution function of the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks is not designed to deal with such cases.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Section 144 agreed to.
Sections 145 to 148, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 149.
Government amendment No. 34a.:
In page 88, subsection (1), line 2, to delete "156" and substitute "146".

The amendment is proposed to correct an incorrect reference in section 149(1) to section 156 instead of section 146.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 149, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 150 to 153, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 154.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 41b, and 48 are related to amendment No. 34b and they may be taken together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 34b:

In page 90, subsection (2), line 20, to delete "subsection (1)" and substitute "section 151 or 152.".

Section 154(2) refers to the benefit of an order being made under subsection (1) of this section, however, subsection (1) does not provide for the making of orders. The orders being referred to in subsection (2) are made under sections 151 or 152. Accordingly, this amendment is proposed to correct the incorrect references in subsection (2) and to clarify that the orders concerned are made under sections 151 or 152. The same applies in section 261 in the performers' rights part of the Bill and section 335 on the database rights part of the Bill and similar amendments are being proposed to those sections.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 154, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 155 to 175, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 176.
Question proposed: "That section 176 stand part of the Bill."

Will the Minister explain the purpose of the definition in this section?

It is similar to other legislation and fulfils a basic requirement that our copyright law applies to our territorial waters and continental shelf.

When this was raised by Senator Gallagher, I could not help but reflect that if, for example, we returned to the days of Radio Caroline and pirate ships, they could operate with impunity in our waters without paying any royalties, as they did at that time.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 177 to 179, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 180.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 34c and 35b are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 34c:

In page 102, subsection (1), line 40, to delete "requirement" and substitute "requirements".

These amendments are proposed in respect of sections 181 and 182(1)(a) because the Department considers it is better to refer to requirements as to qualifications as there is more than one requirement to be met in order to qualify for copyright protection.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 34d:

In page 103, lines 1 to 8, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following new subsection:

"(4) Government copyright shall expire in like manner as other copyright.".

It is difficult to see the justification for a 125 year period of copyright to be held by the Government. This indicates that this year the Government might extract commercial benefit from Government publications of 1874. This amendment proposes a level playing field and ensures Government copyright expires in the same way as that of anyone else.

I appreciate the principle of the amendment which deals with an issue we discussed earlier in the debate and seeks to ensure the Government does not enjoy an unfair advantage in terms of the duration of its copyrights as compared with other copyright rightsowners to the disadvantage of citizens and other persons wishing to use material governed by Government copyright. I would be happy to consider representations on this in general. However, I cannot accept the amendment in its present form. The idea of expiry of Government copyright in "like manner" as other copyright is insufficiently precise. I remind Senators that the most usual trigger for expiry of copyright duration is a term of years measured from the end of the natural life of a person. Since Government in the sense in which it is used in this section is a perpetual entity which does not have a life—

We are glad to hear that.

—at least of the kind suitable for measurement purposes, it is clearly not possible for its copyright to end in the normal way suggested by the amendment. I am conscious of the reason the amendment has been put down and I will examine it.

I support the Senators on the other side of the House. When we discussed section 36 last night we gave a commitment to look at this and I urge the Minister to do so. A number of points were made, particularly in relation to Government publications and Irish books published by the State, etc. I urge the Minister to take on board what has been said, as he gave a commitment to do yesterday. I have no doubt he is a man of his word.

As was said yesterday, Governments profess to worship the new god, OTA, and they are naturally disseminators of information. I urge the Minister to reconsider this because we should not make fish of one and flesh of another. There is too much of a differential.

The Minister raised a fundamental issue which I had not considered in our previous discussion. The fact that the Government is not a life entity changes matters, which is why the Minister should look at this carefully. I am not attempting to defend the Government's right to extend copyright. As the Minister said, the EU directive implemented here to extend the life of copyright means anyone who is a copyright owner retains it for his or her lifetime and for a further period of 70 years after they have passed on. For example, if someone dies aged 70 years, the copyright is retained within the family estate for 70 plus 70, which is 140 years.

In this section, the Government as an entity, without any start of life as a Government, is proposing that copyright be retained for 125 years. I am raising the issue as a counterbalance so we know where we are going. While clamouring for a reduction to the norm of 70 years, we should keep in mind that it is not 70 years in real terms but rather 70 years plus the lifetime of the author of the work. Using the biblical life expectation of three score and ten, this suggests an average period of 140 years. That is how I interpret this. Perhaps the Minister will say that is not what is meant.

I have no ideological hang up about whether it is 75 years or 125 years. However, I am curious about the implications. I am not very clear on what is Government copyright and what is not. For example, does it extend to the film archive financed by the Government, through Bord Scannán na hÉireann, which goes back to the beginning of film making? The State financed many films made by some leading film makers of the day who have since progressed to greatness, for example, Louis Marcus. Apart from books, there is the audio visual area. Does the Government retain copyright on those recordings? If so, does it receive royalties? What advantage is it to the Government to retain copyright? Is there a significant windfall from this? Is there a Shaw-like arrangement with painters or authors whose royalties continue to be paid and amount to a significant amount of money? Many institutions in the State, for example the Hugh Lane Gallery, benefit from the royalties accruing from the work of George Bernard Shaw.

I do not want to labour the point but this is a fundamental issue. If the Minister cannot clarify the point tonight, perhaps he will return to it on Report Stage. I may be surprising the Minister as I did not discuss this with him prior to the debate.

We discussed this issue in some detail yesterday and today. Unlike other areas of copyright where there is a 70 years plus life or 50 years plus life period, we will have to make specific provision in this section for a set number of years. I am open to the number of years involved. Senator Mooney rightly identified the comparison between the duration of Government copyright and the 70 plus 70, 140 years period. This reference is useful. With regard to what the Government collects, my understanding is that the Office of Public Works supplies agency would have royalties in certain matters. However, copyright has been renounced in the area of legislation. We spoke earlier about architectural and artistic works, of which there are a number. We will get the Senator further details on the precise, limited areas where royalties are collected.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 34e:
In page 103, subsection (6), line 13, to delete "(4)" and substitute "(5)".

Section 180 contains provisions on Government copyright. This amendment is proposed to correct an incorrect reference in subsection (6), which provides that the provisions relating to Government copyright shall be akin to copyright generally, except for the provisions outlined in subsections (1) to (4) and to any expressed exclusion elsewhere in the Bill. However, the Department considers that all the provisions prior to subsection (6) should be excepted and, accordingly, proposes this amendment to ensure this will be the case.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 180, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 181.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 103, subsection (1), line 18, to delete "Government" and substitute "Houses of the Oireachtas".

A lesser, but not wholly unimportant objective of this Bill, is to clarify the position regarding copyright interests in Government and Oireachtas materials, which is rather unclear under the Copyright Act, 1963, in relation to Bills and Acts, in particular. As regards the assignment of copyright interests in Bills and Acts, the subject of these amendments, I would see this largely as a matter of convenience. This, however, is of some importance since it is necessary that these rights can be dealt with effectively by their rights holder. This is so even if the process of dealing with the rights involved is no more than positively refraining from collecting royalty payments in respect of such materials, which has been the de facto position for over two years under the terms of a decision by the previous Government. While I am not in a position to accept these amend ments now, I will bear the views of the Senator in mind for further consideration in the course of the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 35a and 36a are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 35a:

In page 103, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following new subsection:

"(3) Permission to publish an accurate text of any enactment or part thereof is hereby granted to any person subject only to such conditions as may be imposed for stated reasons in a particular case by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.".

The laws should be freely available in a democracy. Consequently, the State should not restrict the rights of anybody to make the text of the law available, as long as it is accurate.

I appreciate the Senators' intention in tabling these amendments, which reflect the desire, which I hope we all share, to make materials of legislation and Government available to the widest possible range of users, subject to the minimum necessary level of control. As I have already indicated, I am willing to give the serious questions raised by Senators in relation to Government and Oireachtas copyright the careful consideration they deserve. I shall include these proposed amendments in that consideration.

The policy of the present Government and its predecessor has been that users should be allowed to copy Acts of the Oireachtas and statutory instruments in which the Government asserts copyright under the Copyright Act, 1963, in whole or in part without any payment of royalty. This policy is informal but is no less effective for that. Specific provisions on Government and Oireachtas copyright, such as those in the Bill, are necessary to dispel any uncertainty as to where control of these interests rests. While remaining willing to debate what is the most proper and convenient balance between Government and Oireachtas copyright, I am sure neither the Government nor the Houses of the Oireachtas would be anxious to reverse the liberal policy regarding the use of legislative materials which users of such materials have enjoyed under the present Government and its predecessors. It may well be that this policy could best be continued on an informal basis, rather than through rigid legislative provisions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 181 agreed to.
SECTION 182.
Government amendment No. 35b:
In page 103, subsection (1)(a) line 26, to delete "requirement" and substitute "requirements".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 35c:
In page 104, subsection (7), line 14, to delete "(5)" and substitute "(6)".

Section 182 contains provisions on Oireachtas copyright. This amendment is proposed to correct an incorrect reference in subsection (7). This subsection provides that the provisions relating to Oireachtas copyright shall be akin to copyright generally, except for the provisions outlined in subsections (1) to (5) of the section and to any express exclusion elsewhere in the Bill. However, the Department considers that all the provisions prior to subsection (7) should be excepted and, accordingly, proposes this amendment to ensure this will be the case.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 182, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 183.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 104, subsection (1), line 17, to delete "Government" and substitute "Houses of the Oireachtas".

On a point of information, does the undertaking the Minister of State gave to look at this matter again extend to this amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 36a not moved.
Section 183 agreed to.
Sections 184 to 186, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 187.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 38 is an alternative to amendment No. 37 and amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are alternatives and are related. Amendments Nos. 37 to 40, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 107, subsection (6), line 22, to delete "a work" and substitute "an encyclopaedia, newspaper, review, magazine or other work".

I move this amendment on behalf of Senator Henry, with her permission. She is concerned that the term "a work" might not encompass an encyclopaedia, newspaper, review, magazine or other unspecified works. Perhaps the Minister of State will make a brief comment.

These amendments are, as I understand it, of a technical nature designed to secure the effective operation of the book depository provision contained in section 187. As I said in my reply on Second Stage, I recognise on reconsideration that there are serious technical flaws in this section, which resulted from an inappropriate application of strict copyright principles to the area of book deposit, which is no longer connected with copyright, except by coincidence. Some of these flaws are pointed up by these amendments. I thank Senators for clarifying these points.

However, while it is my definite intention to put right the technical defects of section 187, it would be better to do so following a comprehensive review of the section by my Department, in consultation with the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. One purpose of this review will be to see whether it is possible to achieve the required effect without using the often antiquated language of the Copyright Act, 1963, which is not wholly absent from the proposed amendments. This will only be possible at a later stage of the Bill's parliamentary life. With this in mind, I would be grateful if Senators agree to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.

I move amendment No. 38a:

In page 107, subsection (9), line 44, after "delivered" to insert "and in addition the person shall be liable to be ordered to comply with this section".

The provisions on the deposit of books are an important part of preserving records for the future. The amendment will enable the courts to require a person to comply with the section.

Subject to the comments which I have made on section 187, I am not sure if the amendment adds to the clarity or effectiveness of the subsection. As I have indicated, section 187 will need careful as well as radical recasting. I will bear the substance of this amendment in mind when doing so but I would not be happy to accept it at this point.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 107, after line 50, to insert the following new subsection:

"(12) The Minister may, by order, extend the provisions of this section to other copyright work.".

The Minister has indicated that he will look again at this section. Perhaps he would look at this proposal which relates to libraries of record. Given that so much published material nowadays is in a form other than book form, it would be wise to give the Minister an enabling power to make the extension as suggested.

There are two difficulties with this amendment. The power it would give the Minister is sweeping in character and while I have not had the opportunity to obtain legal advice on the point, I would fear that such a power might be found to be unconstitutional. The question of extending library deposit requirements to new media is vexed. It is not a question for copyright law which, properly speaking, has no connection with depository provisions. No such formality over copyright protection has existed in Ireland for many years.

The Senator has asked for greater consultation on this. It is a matter for the consideration of my Government colleagues – the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and the Minister for Education and Science. I will refer the Senator's views to them for their consideration. Also, I do not consider myself to be in a position to consider the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 187 stand part of the Bill."

I am aware that the Minister has made commitments in the House and he will know of the strong representations which have been made on the section. I am a nominee of the Library Association of Ireland. Serious concern about this has been expressed by both the public and educational library systems. The main problem centres on subsection (2):

The delivery of copies under subsection (1) should only be made where the delivery does not prejudice the interest of the person who makes the book available under subsection (1)

I hope that the Minister will remove that offending reference in his redrafting of the section. If it is left in book journal publishers will interpret it as meaning that the obligations under the 1963 Act to provide journals, books and other related materials to named libraries in these islands could be removed on the basis of cost. Book publishers could state that they were no longer prepared to provide a number of copies of any publication because of cost and they could quote this reference which says that it would prejudice their interests.

Whatever else the Minister may do, I hope that element will be removed. It is important that the public and educational libraries continue to receive journals, publications and books free of charge. The charge on the public purse and the effect on the already limited resources of the library system would be unsustainable if libraries had to purchase books which they currently receive free of charge.

There is a move among book publishers and owners in this regard and also by authors and those negotiating contracts. Their attitude is that there is no purpose in giving away publications for free to educational establishments. The get rich quick attitude is permeating society and altruism is being abandoned.

It is important to express those feelings while bearing in mind that the Minister is open and will be responsive to the representations which have been made to him on section 187. I hope that the redrafting will retain thestatus quo that pertained in the Copyright Act, 1963.

I assure Senator Mooney and the other Senators who have raised this issue that this section will be radically changed. We were using tight copyright provisions in relation to the provision of deposit of certain copyright materials. We will have to go back to the drawing board on this. The highlighting of this issue has been a major advantage of this debate and I thank Senators for that.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 188 to 190, inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 191.
Question proposed: "That section 191 stand part of the Bill."

The Minister should look again at this section. A performance qualifies if a performer is resident or domiciled in the State or if the performance is given in the State. A number of rights are granted to a performer but one of the rights which comes in for criticism is the "making available" right. Will the Minister comment on that?

The term "making available" is used to take account of modern technology.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 192.
Question proposed: "That section 192 stand part of the Bill."

There is reference in the section to Parts III and IV which concern the rights of performers. It says that a performance is a qualifying performance where it is given in the State or elsewhere by an individual domiciled or resident in the State or elsewhere. How would groups or orchestras based within the State but performing outside it be protected by this provision? Would it apply to them at all?

The rights in the performance would be relevant here.

I am not sure about this. Individuals are covered but groups are not covered.

Would the Senator repeat the question?

I am talking about Parts III and IV. Can a performance be a qualifying performance if it is given by the National Symphony Orchestra, for example, in Britain?

It would be necessary if there were exclusive recording rights in regard to performance elsewhere they would be upheld in the State. That is the net point, as I understand it.

Even if the performance was by an orchestra rather than an individual.

Yes, if it is a corporate body.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 193 and 194 agreed to.
SECTION 195.
Question proposed: "That section 195 stand part of the Bill."

This section more or less confers the same protection on a performer as on a copyright owner. Therefore, under section 195, a performer has much greater control over what can or cannot be shown on television, cable, the Internet, in public, rented or lent or issued to the public. The rental and lending directive granted performers the right to prevent their live performances being broadcast or communicated to the public but it specifically excludes the right to prevent a recorded performance being broadcast. It has been suggested that this section confers too great a right on performers and I would welcome the Minister comments on it.

Surely it could be argued that a performer providing a creative outlet has the right to decide on how that performance is portrayed in much the same way as a film director, who may have total ownership and control over their work, can decide how that is portrayed. I am not sure I understand from where the argument is coming. I detect perhaps that if the performer's rights in this area were further diluted, it could give more extensive powers to radio and television stations or theatre owners to decide not only on the hiring of a performer but also to instruct them as to how they should perform their work. If that work is a copyright work, then surely the right of copyright is retained by the performer in respect of their own work and it is exclusively theirs. One hires a person on that basis.

We have had several instances of creative differences which have arisen. One of the more famous ones which springs to mind is that between Michael Flatley and the production team of Riverdance. There were very serious creative differences between Michael Flatley and the management company in regard to his role. Maybe I am going down the wrong road but the Minister might be able to amplify the matter further.

If the Senator compares the performer's rights here with those we have given to authors, he will find we have, to the greatest degree possible, managed to give the performer the same type of rights as the author. That is the thinking behind this matter. Is Senator Coghlan concerned that they have too many rights?

As far as my officials and I are concerned, we have tried to make sure performers have similar—

I am not making a judgment.

Our intention was to give them similar rights to those of authors.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 196 and 197 agreed to.
SECTION 198.
Question proposed: "That section 198 stand part of the Bill."

Article 8, subsection (2) of the directive provides for compensation in the form of equitable remuneration for the broadcasting of recorded performances to the public. Under the directive, performers did not have an exclusive right to prevent their performances being broadcast. Section 198 implements this article in respect of sound recordings. There has been some criticism in respect of this section and its relationship with section 195. It has been argued that this is unnecessary given that performers have much stronger rights under section 195 and on the basis that performers should not be entitled to hold the exclusive rights to grant or withhold consent and to equitable remuneration. I would like to hear the Minister's comments.

This seems to infringe on performers rights. The section reads: "A performer has a right to equitable remuneration from the owner of the copyright in a sound recording where the sound recording of the whole or any substantial part of a qualifying performance which has been made available to the public for commercial purposes is – (a) played in public,". The section also refers to the right to equitable remuneration as being transmissible by testamentary disposition or by operation of law, as personal or moveable property, and it may be assigned or further transmitted.

Boyzone is a typical example of what we are talking about. It is a musical group whose members are essentially performers. It is managed by a management structure which is performance related and relates to the expliotation of that group's popularity. It, in turn, enters into a contractual arrangement with a record company, which is a separate corporate entity. The record company and the management of Boyzone come to an agreement on the performance, manufacture and sale of records. That is called a performance royalty which is agreed on an individual basis by the artist and the record company. What seems to be suggested in Senator Coghlan's argument is that there should be some diminution in this and the weight of favour or benefit should be on the side of the copyright owners as distinct from the performer. I argue that they are the one side of the same coin.

With respect, I was not making a judgment. There has been some concern. I am merely voicing it and allowing the Minister to comment.

I was attempting to put into context those concerns and was trying to outline for the benefit of the House the argument the Senator made with which I would not necessarily agree, but it is down to the Minister and it does not matter what I say.

We are obliged under the rental and lending directive to implement it directly. We need section 198 because of our obligations under this directive to which we have referred on a number of occasions.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 199 to 212, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 213.
Question proposed: "That section 213 stand part of the Bill."

This section relates to educational institutions and basically allows for the playing of sound recordings and so on at an educational establishment for certain purposes if the audience is limited to teachers, pupils or persons directly connected with the activities of the establishment. It goes on to say that a person is not directly connected with the activities of an educational establishment by reason only that he or she is a parent. A person who is a parent visiting an educational establishment is not covered by this section. This is ludicrous and unworkable. It gives the lie to the notion that parents are partners and the main players in education. Parents are supposed to be full partners, not merely in the educational system, but in each school. This is not workable in practice.

On Friday last week I attended an end of term performance in a playschool where the children had been taught to perform to a recording of Sleeping Beauty. The parents were invited to attend and the teachers from the playschool were also in attendance. This section proposes that it is fine if a performance is limited to teachers and pupils but if the parents are asked to attend for an event, which does not involve a charge at the door, they are not covered. I think this is ludicrous and I ask the Minister of State to look at it again.

We considered this issue earlier and I appreciate the Senator raising the matter. However, the copyright legislation must be interpreted strictly and firmly. In making exceptions – this was debated in the context of photocopying – one must concentrate on all the events that take place within educational institutions. I accept, as a former teacher, the point raised by the Senator and I wish we could take the middle ground on the issue. Unfortunately, we are faced with making black and white decisions on legal grounds. If one takes this issue, photocopying and the overall treatment of the educational system, one will find that we have been reasonable. I made the point earlier that collection agencies have made particular arrangements with schools over the years. I hope there will be greater flexibility in this area. The scenario put forward by the Senator is valid, but legally one must be very specific with regard to exceptions. The rules under the Berne convention were mentioned and my hands are tied in relation to the strict legal framework within which I must operate. However, I accept thebona fide nature of the Senator's concerns.

Those who collect for rights in this area must try to interpret this with a modicum of common sense.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 214 to 240, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 241.
Government amendment No. 41a:
In page 129, lines 18 to 21, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph:
"(b) articles specifically designed or adapted for making recordings of a performance, which the person hawking, carrying about or marketing those articles, knows or has reason to believe that they have been or are to be used to make illicit recordings of a performance, or".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 241, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 242 to 260, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 261.
Government amendment No. 41b:
In page 142, subsection (2), line 1, to delete "subsection (1)" and substitute "section 258 or 259".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 261, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 262 and 263 agreed to.
SECTION 264.
Question proposed: "That section 264 stand part of the Bill."

My point relates to the manner in which collection agencies do their business and the role of the controller. I hope a proper complaints procedure will be put in place which will be manifest to members of the public. There was general agreement on Second Stage that the way in which some of the collection agencies do their business can be intimidating and aggressive. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that all angles are covered because the conduct of some of these collection agencies is unacceptable at times. They enter small shops, small pubs and small organisations throughout the country demanding that people fill in application forms and questionnaires. This is wrong and I hope the legislation will address the issue.

I assure the Senator that I am conscious of this matter which was raised previously. I have had a number of meetings with collection agencies and I have conveyed to them the concerns of Members. We must remember that these societies have an important function in the system of copyright protection but it would not be appropriate to reopen that debate. The Bill proposes to introduce registration schemes for licensing bodies dealing with copyright of performers' property rights and database rights. These registers, which will be kept by the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, will provide users of copyright materials and the public with easy access to basic information on the register of societies, including the names of their offices, the classes of rights holders which they represent and the scales of charges which they apply.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 265 to 292, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 154, before section 293, to insert the following new section:

"293. – The paternity right shall be incapable of assignment or alienation but shall be waivable in writing by the performer.".

As the Minister is probably aware, RTE is concerned about this section. It has pointed out that, in relation to moral rights of performers, the Bill provides, as in the case of authors, for the right of a performer to be identified as the performer of his or her performance. RTE is anxious there is clear demarcation where performers do not need to be identified. RTE suggests there should be a list of specific exceptions, for example, where the identity of the performers cannot be ascertained or, in respect of live performances, where the number of performers would make it impossible to identify and list them at the end of a programme. The general phraseology in the Bill that a performer need only be identified "where prac ticable" is unclear and will result in confusion. RTE would like statutory guidance as to when it would or would not be deemed practicable to include the names of performers. I welcome the Minister's comments.

Since the publication of the Bill, it has been strongly represented to us that the existence of non-waivable moral rights in legislation could seriously damage Ireland's marketing position in relation to tactical investment in and production of films, broadcast material and the like. It has also been represented that the persistence of an unwaivable paternity right in particular could occasion concern to investors and companies considering involvement in some areas of the software industry.

On the face of the arguments outlined, we have decided to change the policy in this matter and clearly specify all moral rights, including the right of a person to privacy in respect of commissioned photographs and films and the right of a person not to have a work or performance falsely attributed to him, should be capable of waiver. Essentially that is the Government's position on this issue and as this is the case, hopefully the amendment can be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 293 deleted.
Sections 294 and 295 agreed to.
Amendment No. 43 not moved.
Section 296 deleted.
Sections 297 to 300, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

Amendment No. 44 is a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 44:
In page 156, before section 301, to insert the following new section:
"301. – (1) Subject to subsection (3), any of the rights conferred by this Part may be waived.
(2) A waiver made under this section shall be in writing and signed by the person waiving the right.
(3) A waiver made under subsection (1)–
(a) may relate to a specific performance or a recording thereof, to performances or recordings thereof of a specified descrip tion or to performances or recordings thereof generally, and may relate to existing or future performances or recordings thereof, and
(b) may be conditional or unconditional, and may be expressed to be subject to revocation,
and where a waiver is made in favour of the owner or prospective owner of the rights in the performance or recording thereof, or performances or recordings thereof, to which it relates, that waiver shall be presumed to extend to his or her licensees, successors in title or other persons, claiming under them unless a contrary intention is expressed.
(4) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as excluding the operation of the general law of contract or estoppel in relation to an informal waiver or other transaction in relation to any of the rights referred to in subsection (1).
(5) It shall not be an infringement of any of the rights conferred by this Part for a person to undertake any act where the person entitled to the right conferred by this Part has consented to the use of those rights by that other person.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 45:
In page 156, before section 301, to insert the following new section:
"302. – The rights conferred by this Part shall be incapable of assignment or alienation.".
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 301.
Government amendment No. 46:
In page 156, lines 33 to 38, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following subsection:
"(3) Where, under subsection (1), a right becomes exercisable by more than one person–
(a) it may, in the case of the paternity right, be exercised by any of them,
(b) it is, in the case of the integrity right a right exercisable by each of them, and
(c) any waiver of the right under section 301 made by one of them shall not affect the rights of the other persons.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 47:
In page 156, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) A consent or waiver binds any person to whom a right passes under subsection (1).".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 301, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 302 to 334, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 335.
Government amendment No. 48:
In page 171, subsection (2), line 6, to delete "subsection (1)" and substitute "section 332 or 333".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 335, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 336 to 347, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 348.
Question proposed: "That section 348 stand part of the Bill."

I raised this matter on Second Stage. It is in the context of dispute resolution and references of disputes to arbitrator and the arbitrator in this instance is the controller. I asked the Minister if he might consider the American model of a board of arbitration of three or four eminent people. I raised this because I felt that, given the rather stretched resources in the Department which deals with dispute cases, unless there is an increase in resources, there would be an inadequacy in this area relating to disputes. This was represented by the various licensing agencies. This goes back to an earlier comment by Senator Cox about transparency and accessibility by the public. If the Minister can satisfy me that this section will address many of those concerns and that he believes the office of the controller will be able to adequately rise to the task in the area of dispute resolution and copyright, I will obviously be reassured.

As the Senator said, we have had a debate on this. It was suggested it might be advantageous to establish an arbitration panel or commission which would have the objective of allowing copyright related disputes to be resolved in an expert context without the expense of court proceedings. Consideration was given to the possibility of establishing expert level dispute resolution along the lines of the copyright tribunal in the course of preparation of this Bill. The conclusion was, that given the volume of disputes in the relatively small Irish market for copyright protected works and the fact that many serious disputes are likely to require the attention of the courts in any case, the establishment of such a body would not be justified in Irish circumstances, on operational grounds or on grounds of cost. The copyright and related rights holder and the community of users of copyright protection material should be aware that I will continue to take an active interest in the ongoing interaction between the exercise of rights of copyright rights holders and users of copyright material. Should further measures in the area of dispute resolution prove proportionate and necessary on the basis of future developments, I will consider them. I am aware of the Senators' views on this and I will monitor its operation and future developments.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 349.
Question proposed: "That section 349 stand part of the Bill."

We oppose this section. Under the Constitution, the Attorney General is the legal adviser to the Government not to anyone else. It seems to be unconstitutional to attempt to make him a legal adviser to any other person by statute.

We should not oppose the idea of the controller consulting the Attorney General on cases of doubt or difficulty arising in connection with the administration of this Bill. Such provision would seem perfectly consistent with the operationally independent status of the controller in such matters. I will give further consideration to the Senator's comments but I cannot accept his amendment on the grounds that it is reasonable for the controller to consult with the Attorney General if difficulties arise in relation to the administration of the Bill.

This section seems to be redundant. The legal advice of the Attorney General is not necessarily superior to anyone else's legal advice. The courts may prove it wrong or right if it is tested. I ask the Minister to reconsider this amendment. If the controller has a legal doubt, he can seek legal advice and he should be able to decide from whom to seek it.

It is open to the controller to seek legal advice from the most suitably qualified or eminent senior counsel or anyone else he regards as fit.

He might get it for free from the Attorney General but he would have to pay for it elsewhere.

Given that the functions of the Attorney General are defined in the Constitution, we should not seek to breach them by statute law.

I accept the points made by the Senators. However, most Senators are aware that the controller has a unique sense of independence. He could be compared to a Department in many ways. He gets advice from the Office of the Attorney General under the 1963 Act. I will review the situation in light of the Senators' comments.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 350.
Question proposed: "That section 350 stand part of the Bill."

This section deals with devices designed to circumvent protection. Is the use of software encompassed in the definition in subsection (2)(a)(iv)?

We debated on Second Stage the evolution of technology and whether this legislation is up to speed with the development in technology. I referred earlier to a comment in the American media that ongoing disputes about photocopying rights could quickly become redundant in an age of digitalisation. Perhaps the Minister might clarify what Senator Gallagher is talking about because it has cropped up from time to time. This Bill reflects current technological advances. I wonder whether it takes account of what might happen in the future.

I thank the Senators for raising this issue about devices designed to circumvent protection. I refer Senators to section 2 which states that a "protection-defeating device" includes any device, function or product, or component incorporated into a device, function or product, the primary purpose or effect of which is to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or otherwise circumvent, without authority, any rights protection measure'. Circumventing software is included.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 351.
Question proposed: "That section 351 stand part of the Bill."

We know how contentious the television deflector issue has been for many years. Is it the case that under this section someone who receives their multi-channel broadcast from a deflector system in the area would be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500?

I suggest that in the overall area of copyright protection it should be the supplier of the service and not the person receiving it who would be liable under this law. The vast majority of people can receive British television stations through organised cable networks. Cablelink is the largest company in this sector. It has entered into contractual royalty agreements with the various satellite television stations in Britain and it pays a royalty each year for the use of the service, which is then transmitted to people's homes.

Prior to these agreements and the existence of Cablelink, the vast majority of people on the east coast received the British stations from aerials which were pointed in the direction of the Welsh transmitters and people in the Border counties received them from aerials pointed towards the north. We were pirating that signal but there was nothing the television companies could do about it because we were outside the legal jurisdiction. As it became more widespread and more television viewers demanded to receive British stations – approximately three quarters of the country now receive them – the British stations threatened through the courts to introduce sanctions unless those who were retransmitting their services in this country entered into royalty agreements. That has now happened. The charge imposed by television service providers is not reflected in the television licence fee, which is separate, but in the annual fee charged to Cablelink and other cable customers.

I suggest that the recipient of the service in counties Offaly or Leitrim should not be liable under this law rather it should be those retransmitting the service. Perhaps the Minister of State could clarify whether deflector operators are breaking the law.

We are talking about rights protection measures. The section refers to encrypted broadcasts. Satellite broadcasting will change. Section 351 refers to unlawful reception in the context of encryption and not deflectors. The debate on deflectors is for another forum.

I agree with Senator Mooney that we should go after the person who supplies unauthorised material. I have no doubt the suppliers of re-broadcasts will not have difficulty getting around encryption measures. It is not fair that the individual who has his television tuned into what may be an illegal re-broadcast should be liable for a penalty such as this.

Provided the person holds a licence for the receiving apparatus, they are not doing anything illegal by receiving a broadcast.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 352 to 355, inclusive, agreed to

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 50 is related to amendment No. 49 and they may be discussed together by agreement.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 180, before the First Schedule, to insert the following new section:

"356.–The amendment of the Act of 1927 effected by section 59 of the Copyright Act, 1963, which amendment is set out for convenience of reference in the Schedule to this section, shall continue to have effect notwithstanding the repeal of the said section 59 by section 10.

SCHEDULE

Section 70 of the Act of 1927 is hereby amended by—

(a) the substitution in subsection (2) of ‘before the expiration of a period of five years and six months from the date of such registration' for ‘within the prescribed time before the expiration of the said five years', and

(b) the substitution in subsection (3) of ‘before the expiration of a period of ten years and six months from the date of such registration' for ‘within the prescribed time before the expiration of such second period of five years'.".

The purpose of this amendment is to repeal the content of section 59 of the Copyright Act, 1963. This will enable us to repeal that section and thus repeal the 1963 Act.

These amendments are technical and concern the need to preserve the effect of section 59 of the Copyright Act, 1963, pending the enactment of comprehensive new legislation on industrial designs which is currently at an early stage of preparation in my Department. I had thought the approach embodied in the Bill as it stands, that is, of doing this in the Schedule dealing with transitional provisions was entirely effective and appropriate and I would be disinclined to depart from this approach, however I shall give full consideration to the possible advantages of the approach suggested by the Senator.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Amendment No. 50 not moved.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

Acting Chairman

When it is proposed to take Report Stage?

Next week, subject to the agreement of the Whips.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 6 July 1999.

We have gone through a necessary exercise this past day and a half and I know the Minister of State has taken our comments on board. We had a very constructive discussion this afternoon, but had our debate yesterday evening been less long-winded we may have been able to have had a greater debate on some of the amendments today.

There were moments of frustration and elation but as I listened to the chorus of "agreed" to a series of sections, I was reminded of my late father's party piece, the trimmings of the rosary.

This Bill is of great significance for the economy and I thank the Fine Gael and Labour Party Senators who were present to the end of this useful debate. I will take account of the constructive comments.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow morning at 10.30 a.m.