Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

Our evidence is based on concerns that Government policy should ensure an environment in which artists can have a sustainable career for the duration of their working lives as artists. Mr. Kavanagh is correct when he says that copyright creates an important revenue stream. However, it must also be recognised that the bulk of income for artists arises, in the main, from the initial contract for the sale of their work. Prior to 2004, trade unions and representative organisations had the capacity to collectively bargain for freelance artists. We could negotiate minimum fees, set minimum rates and publish fee guides. Those fee guides were, by and large, adhered to by the industry. This had a twofold effect. It assisted artists in creating sustainable careers and it created fair working conditions and practices for them. Since 2004 we have been unable to practice collective bargaining. Representative organisations are now restricted in this activity because of what we believe is the unfair application of competition law to freelance artists. This has a negative effect. It has reduced artists' incomes because a minimum floor can no longer be negotiated. It has pushed artists into higher dependence on social welfare. From our perspective it is a foolish economy, in that this kind of law creates a further burden on the Exchequer. When looking at Government policy it is important to recognise that legislation is required to free cultural workers from this inappropriate application of competition law. This would allow a situation - such as exists in the United States and parts of Europe - to create standard minimum payments for artists, thus reducing their ongoing reliance on the social protection system in the State.