I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. On Report Stage, each amendment must be seconded.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, to delete lines 26 to 32, and in page 4, to delete lines 1 to 13.

I second the amendment.

I welcome the Minister of State. The first amendment I have tabled removes the Circuit Court as the default option for resolving disputes, and the second removes the provision in the Bill which removes the controller's role in dealing with disputes from section 208.

I am concerned about what the Bill means in practice. I fully support implementing the CJEU ruling, but it must be done in a way that is workable and practical for performers. That is why I feel it is important. They have been waiting years for this. The Bill might outline a default remuneration of 50-50, but if people cannot enforce that right, then it is not a real right. I am disappointed that the Seanad voted down the amendments I introduced last week to address this because I believe they were practical fixes. They would have nailed down equitable remuneration as a shared right, brought clarity around deductions by collecting bodies and put in place a workable collective system for performers. Without those changes, there is a real risk that the Bill gives performers a right on paper, but no rights in practice. It also makes disputes far more likely, which is a major concern.

This brings me to the amendments I have tabled today. Another major issue with the Bill is the fallback to the Circuit Court in instances where there is a dispute over equitable remuneration. My amendments seek to address this. The Minister said that such disputes are rare and complex. If this is the case, that is exactly why we need a specialist, low-cost route to resolving disputes, not court proceedings. This is a huge change that is unique in the entire European Union. We are the only country that has introduced it, and none of the other countries in the European Union have done so.

We have not been given clear explanations as to why the vast experience of the controller of intellectual property is being ditched and replaced by almost 40 Circuit Court judges, who operate the length and breadth of Ireland, and most of whom will never have heard or tried a matter under copyright law in their entire legal careers. The Government simply tells us that this is on the advice of the Attorney General. This ignores the reality for most performers. They will not take Circuit Court cases because it is too expensive and risky. They will be priced out of their right to equitable remuneration. If there is a dispute, they will have no practical way to use their rights. In practice, these rights are administered collectively through licensing, collection, matching and distribution. The disputes that have led to the CJEU ruling and, subsequently, to this Bill relate to rules and transparency, not individual performers arguing over small payments. The court is a blunt instrument to address these kinds of systemic issues.

Thousands of Irish artists are not receiving the performance royalties they are legally entitled to, and I know many of them. Recorded Artists Actors Performers, RAAP, which is represented here today, believes they are receiving less than half of what they are entitled to, roughly €3 million instead of €6 million in 2024. That is outrageous. It is the big record companies, which are a multimillion euro industry, that are holding onto that money. There is no transparency around this. That is what is really worrying. This legislation purports to enshrine a 50-50 split in law, but the collection and distribution of public and broadcast performance royalties lies entirely in the hands of PPI, which is controlled by the huge record companies and major recording labels. There is no meaningful independent oversight of collection and distribution. That seems to be just fine with the Government, but it is very worrying. Artists do not know where that money is. They are not showing us the books. They are not showing us why they are only paying €3 million, when it should have been €6 million.

The Minister of State knows, and I have said this many times in the House, that the artists who are performers - I include myself in all of this - are not people who are inclined to go to court. It is not something that is in us. It is quite daunting, and we do not have the money to do it. It can be quite overwhelming to even consider something like that. It is terrible that you have to go and fight with these big record companies for what you created. It is very worrying. Low-income artists will simply not be able to match the resources for litigation that major corporations have in the event of any dispute regarding the distribution of royalties. The Government says that court orders are enforceable, and that is fine, but that is not a reason to send performers to court by default. If there are issues around enforceability, the answer is really to strengthen enforcement powers through low-cost specialist resolution mechanisms, instead of shifting the whole thing into litigation.

It is important that certain questions are answered. What is wrong with the functions of the controller of intellectual property that justifies moving those functions to the Circuit Court? Was the controller consulted in relation to this change? Was any assessment done on cost and access to justice for performers? Can the Minister of State point to any other EU countries that rely on the courts as a default route for dispute resolution?

Throughout the progression of this Bill, I have asked for engagement with the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, but to date, none of the Ministers have engaged directly with me or RAAP. We need their engagement to be able to change the trajectory of this legislation, which is not fit for purpose and will fail to achieve the Government's stated aims. That will make an unfair and inequitable situation much worse.

The debate shows that the Act of 2000 needs a wider review, and that is my ask today. I am looking for a commitment from the Minister of State, and I really hope she can consider this. Maybe we could have a chat about it. In particular, I am looking for a commitment to conduct a full review that will be completed in the lifespan of this Government, includes performer engagement and produces a published outcome. That would be fantastic. The Bill is fine, but we need a full review going forward. I hope the Minister of State can make that commitment today.

I thank Senator Black for her amendments. I know this is heartfelt and, of course, she is speaking from experience, which many people cannot do when speaking to amendments like this. I want to put on record that I come from an arts background in the creative industry, so I have an empathy for this.

When we were on Committee Stage, I encouraged RAAP to, and I think it had the opportunity to, engage with officials from the Department. I am sorry it did not get a meeting with the Minister, Deputy Burke. I am happy to meet RAAP in the future to talk further about a review.

For the moment, I thank the Senator for the amendments that she tabled on Committee Stage, and also thank Senators McDowell and Conway and other Senators for their engagement on the Bill. However, I am unable to accept the amendments, which propose to delete sections 3C, 3D and 3E of the Bill and restore the existing subsections (4) to (10), inclusive, of section 208 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act. We have extensively debated the role of the controller as compared with the court as the final arbiter of such disputes, and the rationale for this change, throughout the legislative process.

The Bill brings this function from the Controller of the Intellectual Property Office of Ireland in favour of the Circuit Court. The adjudication of such matters extends into a judicial remit and, therefore, the courts are best placed to decide on these matters. I do not accept that this will negatively impact on performers or producers in Ireland.

The inclusion of the 50:50 split is designed to clarify the meaning of sharing the "single equitable remuneration", thus creating legal certainty. In any case, it is noteworthy that since the Copyright and Related Rights Act was enacted in 2000, there had been no referrals to the controller until a dispute arose between two collective management organisations, CMOs, which remains ongoing before the courts and was referred to the controller during this process but was not heard. No disputes have arisen since then. This Bill seeks to reduce the likelihood of any dispute even further. It expressly provides in the proposed subsection (3A) that equitable remuneration less reasonable collecting costs shall be shared equally between the performer and the producer. Circumstances where there is a deviation from this default 50:50 split would be extremely unusual. Further, the parties may negotiate and agree to share the equitable remuneration in a different way, as provided for in the proposed subsection (3B) of this Bill. In the unlikely event of a dispute, the proposed subsection (3C) provides for the possibility of either party to make an application to the Circuit Court for a determination.

As has been discussed on previous Stages, the Government does not accept that the collective management organisations are excluded from the disputes process. An individual may take a case or a licensing body or collective management organisation may take a case on behalf of its named member or members.

Can I get a commitment from the Minister of State to have a discussion about a review going forward? Will the Minister of State meet me and we can discuss that?

I thank Senator Black and Members of Dáil and Seanad, in particular members of the Select Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, for their co-operation and robust engagement on the Bill. As I have said throughout this process, it is imperative that this legislation be enacted. While only a short Bill, it introduces necessary amendments to the Copyright and Related Rights Act, as amended, following a Court of Justice of the European Union ruling delivered in September 2020. In light of Ireland's forthcoming Presidency of the Council of the EU, ensuring consistency of our national copyright legislation with EU law has taken on added significance.

As has been discussed previously, while we appreciate the potential negative impact this Bill may have on royalty payments to the music sector in Ireland and the wider European Economic Area, EEA, Ireland cannot unilaterally legislate to withhold royalties from countries that do not provide for these within national law, given the Court of Justice ruling on this matter of EU competency. We understand that the European Commission is actively considering this matter with a view to proposing legislation in 2027.

I would like to thank the Minister, Deputy Burke, and the Ministers of State, Deputies Dillon and O'Sullivan, who aided the passage of this Bill through the legislative process. I would like to take the opportunity to thank officials in the Department. I sincerely believe - I can stand corrected - that there has been engagement between RAAP and officials in the Department, perhaps long before my time as well.

I am happy to sit down with the Senator at a later time to discuss the review.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, to delete lines 30 to 35.

I second the amendment.

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

Now.

Is that agreed? Agreed.