Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)

This issue lead to a huge public reaction. A huge number of e-mails opposed the intention of the Minister of State to sign the order and organisers of an online petition said they have collected over 80,000 signatures. I spoke to the Minister of State last week. The raising of the issue by Members has led to this time being set aside to debate the issue, which I welcome. This debate will be meaningless if the Minister of State signs the order anyway. If there is to be genuine debate, the Minister of State should suspend the order, publish primary draft legislation and proceed in the normal way through the Oireachtas. That would require a more comprehensive measure and would allow for genuine debate and input from interested parties. It would provide the opportunity to ensure that any legislation, ostensibly to protect the rights of copyright holders, would not threaten access and freedom of information at the same time.

I also remind the Minister of State that the programme for Government undertook not to continue with the unhealthy practices of incorporating EU directives into domestic law unless as part of primary legislation. I suggest in light of the huge reaction to this and the implications it might have, this represents a good opportunity to put that promise into effect. The absence of democratic scrutiny on this measure has been highlighted by critics, as has the fact that the statutory instrument, as drafted, gives too much interpretive powers to the courts.

One of the main reasons for the order is Mr. Justice Charleton's order in the case brought by EMI. Allied to that was the apparent threat by other copyright interests to take action against the State. Is it the case that the Government would rather issue a diktat to placate the major music companies than deal with this issue in a legislative matter which would take into account a broader range of interests and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and European rights?

I particularly stress the dangers of not simply translating court judgments into legislation, given that in a previous case involving Internet access Mr. Justice Charleton admitted he made a mistake. The case involved was brought by EMI which forced Eircom to block access to a site called Pirate Bay. Mr Justice Charleton granted the order but later admitted he had been mistaken in doing so in the absence of any notice to the request for information from the party affected, Pirate Bay.

The implication of the statutory instrument which the Ministers proposes to sign and of the ACTA legislation which will come before the European Parliament in a few months is even more serious. Those who are knowledgeable about the area, including many who are part of what is a relatively thriving sector of the economy, believe if the trend towards restricting access on the Internet is successful much of its value would be lost. It will also threaten a significant number of jobs in the State.

While intellectual property rights need to be protected, measures framed at the behest of, or to reflect court decisions in favour of large music companies, for example, are not the correct way to proceed. It has also been pointed out by people with expertise in this area that the decision of the European Court of Justice in a recent case has not been taken into account in drafting the statutory instrument. The court referred to a number of tests it said needed to be applied before an injunction could be granted against a site.

While there are people who profit from pirating music and film, most of what is uploaded onto the Internet is done on an individual basis. It has become a huge area and one in which those with expertise rarely threaten the rights of individual musicians or other artists. There must be some way of tackling large-scale commercial piracy without restricting the sort of information and other sharing that such a major part of the use of the Internet. I would therefore call on the Minister of State to withdraw the proposed statutory instrument and put his proposal in draft legislation that can be properly debated and decided upon in the House.

See this speech in context