Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Minister of State. In some ways, that is the luxury of pre-legislative scrutiny, where a Minister proposes something and we go through the heads of the Bill and we agree or do not agree with what is proposed. We can tinker with the Bill before the wording is decided. The problem now is that unless the wording in a Bill setting out a measure is changed, it becomes an Act. The key part of the process is to try to ensure that we put nothing in legislation to hinder or cut across what is intended. That is the reason I asked at the start of the meeting about the Long Title. The intention is to try as much as possible to faithfully transpose the EU directive into Irish law to give effect to what was intended in the first place and also to give full effect to the decisions that were taken following litigation by RAAP to ensure that the power dynamic disappears and that nobody benefits in a way that cuts across the original intention in the EU directive from 2006.

I will come back to the questions again because in some way they relate to the next section. The key part of this amendment is to replace the amendment to section 208 of the principal Act so that we have the protections required. Collective management organisations are key and front and centre of all of this. They represent the artists and ensure that they get their fair dues and that we do not burden the artists or CMOs with extra work by having to go to the Circuit Court. I do not know the cost involved, but the cost of going into court increases when one steps in the door. Unless a case is settled at the door of the court, the costs increase substantially after that. That can have a chilling effect on an artist or an organisation, in this case RAAP and PPI, and stop them pursuing justifiable cases for remuneration.

I mentioned another point but I do not think the Minister of State replied to me on it. It related to the wording "reasonable collecting costs". I am concerned about the lack of definition in that regard. Perhaps the Minister of State could look at the matter. If she intends to continue with the wording, then perhaps we could have a definition section at the start of the legislation to explain it, because the term used in the general scheme of the Bill is "viable collecting costs", which is closer to recital 28, which I mentioned earlier. The meaning of the term is defined as "not exceeding justified costs". I do not need an answer now but it is something we must address. The law must be clear for people who are trying to assert their rights in the future.

I am still intent on pushing the amendment because it is a key amendment to the Bill. I already indicated that. The next section is opposed. I have dealt with some of that but I will come back to it. Of all of the amendments I have pushed to a vote, this amendment captures the point that has been raised with me and others by those who are in the industry and feel we have an opportunity to get it right. We do not want to come back here with an amendment Bill in two or three years because we messed up. It is good that the Minister is looking to delve into this again. I will leave it at that on amendment No. e1 unless somebody else wishes to make a point to me or the Minister. At this stage, I am happy to leave it at that.