Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2007 - Committee Stage - 4th October 2007

Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2007: Committee Stage.

Could I help Senator Ross in his difficulty because I understand it very well? The word “shall” is not being accepted and the word “may” is being left. It is not really the Leas-Chathaoirleach’s ruling. He has been got at-----

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: It is the Cathaoirleach’s ruling.

Senator David Norris: -----by the Government on this and it means it has a leg out. It may not, and probably will not, do it. That is the difference between the words “may” and “shall”. We all know that. It has nothing to do with creating a charge.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: It involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Deputy Michael Ahern: I ask Senator Norris to withdraw the accusation that the Chair was got at. The Government did not discuss this matter with the Chair.

Senator David Norris: I will withdraw the suggestion that the Chair was interfered with malevolently but there is no doubt there is Government influence.

Senator Shane Ross: The Leas-Chathaoirleach said it is a long-standing rule. I am a long-standing Member and I do not recall the rule, so it must be very long-standing. Perhaps the Minister of State - I do not expect the Leas-Chathaoirleach to do so because he is bound by the ruling - or someone could explain how one word means a charge on the Revenue while the other one does not. It is utterly ridiculous. This is undoubtedly going to be a charge on the Revenue whatever happens. It is meant to be a charge on the Revenue.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support Senators Alex White, Ross and Norris. I raised this matter on Second Stage and suggested it would be preferable to insert the word “shall” rather than the word “may” because leaving the word “may” implies a discretion which, as the Minister of State said, we clearly do not have since we are in breach of European law. Like the other Senators, I do not see the problem with this amendment and I support it.

Senator David Norris: We have been given a history lesson and told this is a long-standing practice. The Government has a long-standing commitment to avoiding implementing this scheme. The only reason it is introducing measures at this stage is that it has been found in breach of European law, as the Minister of State said. It did not implement the public lending right, PLR, scheme in the past.

Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following subsection:

“(4) The Scheme should be overseen by a board or monitoring authority whose members shall include representatives from the Irish Writers Union and the Irish Copyright Licensing Agency.”.
In a way this is an absurdity because we are now talking about moneys and situations which may not exist at all. My amendment puts in place a situation where there should be a board or monitoring authority whose members shall include members of Irish Writers Union and the Irish Copyright Licensing Agency. If the word “may” means the Government is not going to do anything - the track record suggests this is the case - then there will be nothing for the board to oversee. That also affects amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 5 is about the disbursal of moneys from the scheme. It is an attempt to follow what I am informed is best European practice in terms of the disbursal of moneys and it ensures not more than 10% of the moneys accruing shall be spent on administration. This is an admirable practice. The only charities I support in terms of famine relief and so on have this provision and state “not more than 10%” while some state “not more than 5%”. The distinguished gentlemen who briefed me on this matter told me that in the case of the United Kingdom, a jurisdiction we frequently follow in terms of legislation, the sums spent on administration are less. I urge the Government to accept these amendments.
It is unfortunate that these amendments now become hypothetical because of the Government’s refusal to accept the word “shall” instead of the word “may”. In one sense, one could say Occam’s razor comes into action as a philosophical principle and that it is absurd to discuss the hypothetical disposition of non-existent moneys. The moneys do not exist and if we accept the word “may” in its most negative construction instead of the word “shall”, they never will. We are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Will the Minister of State clearly tell me that he intends to fulfil the spirit of our European undertakings and our requirement to comply with European directives and that he will establish this scheme? Will he give a commitment to establish such a scheme? Will he assure the House the Cathaoirleach’s decision, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach said, is technical and is simply because it might create a charge on the Exchequer? Will he give a commitment to the House to implement the scheme? Will he address the substance of the two amendments? Otherwise they become a complete nonsense.
On amendment No. 4, if one invokes the principle of subsidiarity, which is one of the great European catchcries, it is important that the bodies most directly concerned with this area have an advisory or monitoring role. Surely it is appropriate that the Irish Writers Union, which represents the authors who will benefit from the scheme, is represented. What is the point in having an Irish Copyright Licensing Agency if it is not included in this very important section of the legislation? It is vital to the moral integrity of the scheme that the money allocated find its way to the authors and not be swallowed up in administration.
Let me explain to the Minister of State that he was delayed in the anteroom because we were at it hammer and tongs in the House debating the Health Service Executive. A point was made by Members throughout the House, including the honourable gentleman who so valiantly represents the Government on this side of the House, that a disproportionate amount of the health budget is wasted on the administration of the executive itself. No Member wants this to be the case in respect of the proposed scheme.
The United Kingdom has implemented a similar scheme fully and appropriately under European regulations and it represents a pretty good model. In 2006 and 2007, the scheme received £7.65 million in grants-in-aid, of which £6.81 million was distributed to authors. This is the way it should be. We must ensure not more than 10% is spent on administration. Will the Minister of State, in his reply, give an undertaking that this scheme will be implemented? That will satisfy my distinguished colleague, Senator Ross, and also Senator Bacik. If the scheme is not implemented, it will be a farce and there will be no point whatever in our continuing to press these amendments. They will be in the land of utopian imagination.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Senator David Norris: As long as it does not cause a charge on the Exchequer, we welcome him. If it does, it is illegal and we cannot welcome the delegates, except in our hearts.

In page 6, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following subsection:

“(4) The Scheme should be overseen by a board or monitoring authority whose members shall include representatives from the Irish Writers Union and the Irish Copyright Licensing Agency.”.

-(Senator David Norris)
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Michael Ahern): On Senator Norris’s question on whether the scheme will be implemented, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is putting through the legislation and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is responsible for the operation of the scheme. It is preparing regulations at present and intends the scheme to be in operation from January 2009.

Senator Alex White: Does it?

Deputy Michael Ahern: That is its intention and it is our intention that it will operable-----

Senator David Norris: I take that as a qualified “Yes”.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Will the Senators allow the Minister of State to finish?

Deputy Michael Ahern: On amendment No. 4, it is the intention of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to establish an advisory committee representing all stakeholders involved, including authors, editors and illustrators, to advise on policy and the operation of the scheme. This undertaking has already been made publicly by the Minister. The Minister contends there is a need to maintain flexibility with regard to participation in that committee. As experience shows, particular organisations often change over time and it would not be appropriate to be so prescriptive in primary legislation as the amendment proposes. However, the commitment to establish the advisory committee is a fair concession to meeting the Senators’ concerns. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government does not exclude representation by the bodies mentioned in the amendment.
While I certainly accept the spirit of amendment No. 5, also in the names of Senators David Norris, Joe O’Toole and Feargal Quinn, I do not consider it appropriate for inclusion in primary legislation. It is the intention of An Chomhairle Leabharlanna to minimise costs where possible and, in this regard, it is drawing on the experience of the UK public lending rights authorities in respect of joint registration, software, sharing of operating systems etc. We need to allow for contingencies in the future, such as additional EU requirements, particular forms of training for staff or the once-off purchase of information technology, and it would be therefore unwise to insert a prescriptive limit of the nature proposed.

Deputy Michael Ahern: I will make the views of Senators Norris and Ross known to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Some of the insinuations made by Senator Ross about people who have been appointed to boards by all parties over the years were totally overboard.

Deputy Michael Ahern: The people in question, who were well-qualified, have done their duties and I am sure those who are appointed to this board will do likewise.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is amendment No. 4 being pressed?

Senator David Norris: I will withdraw it in light of the Minister of State’s indication that the Government has a real commitment to introducing a public lending right scheme.

Deputy Michael Ahern: Definitely.

Senator David Norris: His words are on the record of the House. I am grateful to the Minister of State, who has acted in a courteous manner as usual. This is an important issue. The Seanad has shown its relevance by teasing this matter out and getting the Minister of State’s commitment clearly on the record of the Parliament. I accept that commitment absolutely and I am glad that it has been given. It also means I was correct to follow his invitation to withdraw my suggestion that the Government had tampered with the Cathaoirleach. Like Senator Ross, I am inclined to be cynical. I have not spent anything like the amount of time in the Seanad that Senator Ross has spent here.

Senator David Norris: He has been here since time immemorial, as he has admitted. I am happy to accept what the Minister of State has said. He has done us a service by indicating, as I understand it, that the Government does not have any difficulty with the substance of these amendments. I thank Senator Leyden, who is qualified in this area and has a long-standing interest in and professional acquaintance with it, for expressing his support. It is significant that such support is coming from the Government benches. I know the Minister of State will carry that back to his colleague in the other Department. I will not name the two distinguished gentlemen in the Public Gallery who have given briefings in this area. Having taken the opportunity to slither from the backbenches to whisper in their ears, I understand they are reasonably satisfied with the assurances given by the Minister of State. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendments. I may return to the amendment about the board because I was somewhat tempted by what Senator Leyden had to say.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.