Tá an tAire agus an Rialtas ag dul sa treo mícheart leis an reachtaíocht seo. Níl siad ach chun tuilleadh praiseach a dhéanamh den chóras cíosanna tithíochta agus cur leis an bhfadhb bhunúsach tithíochta atá sa tír seo. An t-aon leithscéal a bheadh ann as dul sa treo seo ná go bhfuil an tAire dall go hiomlán ar cé chomh dona is atá fadhb na tithíochta faoi láthair agus le blianta anois, agus nach bhfeiceann sé nach bhfuil an Rialtas ach ag cur leis an gcruachás tithíochta. Ní chreidim go bhfuil an tAire dall. Caith…

Everywhere is going up.

Nobody is shouting and roaring.

The Taoiseach used half the time to make his point of order.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: "Amendment of section 38 of Principal Act 2. In subsection 1(b)(i) of section 38 of the Principal Act, to insert the following after "programme service to a licensing body": "for the purpose of remunerating jointly the copyright owner in the sound recording and the performer(s) whose performance(s) are incorporated in the sound recording, in respect of such playing or inclusion".". These amendments relate to issues that were previo…

I am disappointed that the Minister of State has not seen the need to adopt these amendments, which are clarifying a situation that she says does not need to be clarified because it is already in law. Obviously, it is not in law and it is not clear if two different organisations with their legal teams had a look at this. My own legal advisers had a look at this and they all said that, to avoid doubt in any way, these amendments were required. Separate to that, they are required to ensure that there is no underminin…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “which is comprised of a share of any and all payments collected or collectable by or on behalf of the copyright owner under section 38(1) after deduction of justifiable and documented costs of collection” for “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 …

I move amendment No. 3: In page 3, to delete lines 16 to 32, and in page 4, to delete lines 1 to 14 and substitute the following: “(a) by the substitution of the following subsections for subsections (4), (5) and (6): “(4) Subject to subsections (5) to (9), and unless otherwise agreed by or on behalf of the persons by and to whom it is payable the amount of equitable remuneration payable under this section to the performers on a sound recording is equal 50 per cent share of the payments referred to in subsection (1…

The likelihood of somebody returning a year later is as unlikely as somebody taking a case in the first place, unless they have money behind them. That is one of the issues when we resort to the courts. It is not as simple as that. I accept that an individual can take a case but even if a person represents himself or herself where there is a grievance, he or she usually requires legal advice. Legal advice at different levels is expected for different courts. That is one of the reasons we must try to avoid pushing c…

It is just strange. All of the other disputes concerning licensing arrangements under the Act will continue to be dealt with by the controller. That also seems to stray into adjudication. That is the concern. Only one part of dispute resolution is being shifted from the controller to the courts. Disputes under section 38 will still be dealt with by the controller. A difficulty arises under the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel in cases where repeated disputes as to the valuation of rights arise between d…

I move amendment No. 6: In page 4, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(d) by the insertion of a new subsection (11): “(11) The calculation of equitable remuneration due to each individual performer shall be carried out in accordance with subsection (4) by a licensing body for performers’ rights registered under section 280 in respect of a scheme that includes management of the right to equitable remuneration. Where there is more than one such licensing body and in default of agreement as to which li…

The Minister of State said these amendments are outside the scope of the Bill. Obviously they are not because they have not been ruled out of order. They have been found to be in order. The matter is within the scope of the Bill because we are talking about CMOs representing both the producers and the performers. Part of this has to do with who represents the unrepresented, those who have opted out of the CMOs and who are not tied in. As it currently stands, they are represented by the producers. That is like the e…

I could go on and on.

I am trying not to delay. As the Act is currently structured, a producers' CMO is put in control of the collection of licence fees to be shared with performers, not all of whom will be represented. In circumstances where the Act does not give performers' CMOs an ability to carry out extended collective licensing, and in the absence of an arrangement between the producers' CMO and the performers' CMO, the producers' CMO conducts extended collective licensing of the rights of unrepresented performers without authoris…

I move amendment No. 7: In page 4, to delete lines 19 to 36.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 280 of Principal Act 4. Section 280 of the Principal Act is amended by— (a) the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (g) of subsection (6): “and (h) where the scheme is intended to include and to be operated not only on behalf of rightsowners who have authorised the applicant to manage the kind of rights intended to be covered by the scheme and that are conferred by this Act, but also on behalf…

I move amendment No. 9: In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 281 of Principal Act 4. Section 281 of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of “otherwise authorised it, as specified in that certificate” for “exclusively licensed it, as specified in that certificate”.”.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 5, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 288 of Principal Act 5. Section 288 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of “, or, it is incorporated in a sound recording which qualifies for copyright protection under Part II of this Act” after “this Chapter”.”. This discrete additional amendment to section 281 is to address the way the Bill, as proposed, is not yet compliant with EU law on the shared right to equitable remuneration under Article…

I welcome the fact that the Minister of State is taking on board that there may be a need for further examination. In some ways, when you put amendments, you hope you are proven right but you are also hoping you are proven wrong because that means the officials and those who are better at drawing up legislation have covered the angles where, on this side of the House, we sometimes see an issue, and have tried to plug a hole that has been exposed. In this instance, I am more confident in these amendments than some o…

I admit like everybody else it is a complex area in some ways. That is why some of the explanations to the amendments can sometimes be a bit convoluted because it is a difficult area of law. As the Minister of State pointed out, it is trying to ensure that we transpose into law the full effects of an EU directive and that we get it right. In this instance, I do not think we have got it right. We did not get it right in the past. That is why we are at this stage. We are addressing failures in the past. We may be bac…