Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this important topical matter for debate. I have serious concerns about the wording of the statutory instrument published by the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, this afternoon. The statutory instrument which contains some vague language could have serious consequences for established online freedoms in Ireland. It appears to give the courts open-ended powers to grant orders against Internet service providers, even though no legislative instructions have been introduced to set the boundaries. Like the vast majority of people who have contacted me, I recognise that artists have an absolute right to profit from their work. That aspect of the matter can be parked immediately. However, it is just part of the issue. Under the current wording, a court may seek to block any website with which a user has linked to access infringing material. It leaves it entirely to the courts to decide the grounds on which an injunction may be granted.

The Government is abdicating its responsibility by not introducing primary legislation. I do not doubt the Minister of State's personal intent. However, it is not a question of what he intends to do, rather it is a question of what he is enabling the courts to do. The vagueness I have mentioned could result, by stealth, in this country having laws that resemble the toxic SOPA approach that has been resisted in the United States. This must be enacted through primary legislation. We must give the courts something to interpret. Our job is to do the groundwork by introducing legislation. It is important for us to safeguard this country's international reputation in the technology sector.

Will the Minister of State confirm that under the proposed wording, it will not be possible to take out an injunction against a company such as Google, eBay, Facebook or Twitter? Google alone employs 4,000 people in Ireland. This controversy has been discussed on one of the most referenced websites in the world, www.wired.co.uk, which is read by those working for technology companies. We are constantly told to be conscious of the country's reputation in the money markets. I know the Minister of State appreciates that this is a important area for us. However, I am concerned about the vagueness of the language and the powers being transferred to the courts.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to discuss this important issue which is the subject of considerable confusion. This debate gives him an opportunity to clarify the issues involved and put people's minds at ease. The anti-counterfeiting trade agreement which is seen as an international version of the controversial SOPA legislation in the United States aims to tackle counterfeit goods. However, it is possible that start-up and more established online businesses might suffer as a result of it. Potentially, a broad range of images, videos and tracks could be deemed to infringe copyright. Does the Minister of State have a plan in place to provide assistance for parties that might need help in this regard? Has he considered how such a proposition might hinder this country's information technology industry? We depend on businesses in sectors such as information technology, tourism, sport and social media. Many think we need protection and clarification in this area. The Minister of State has an opportunity to provide it today.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will begin by confirming that this is absolutely not a version of the SOPA legislation. It is a restatement of a position on copyright that the Government has held to be the case. The Charleton judgment in the case of EMI v. UPC held that Ireland was not ad idem with the EU copyright directive. We are implementing a statutory instrument to give voice to that judgment and bring us into line with the directive. The Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 was implemented in the State. Every member state of the European Union has the right to seek an injunction, in line with EU legislation, in the event of a perceived infringement of the copyright of a party. Prior to the Charleton judgment, to which we were not a party, our position was that we were in line with EU legislation.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister of State make a copy of his speech available?

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have one. When Mr. Justice Charleton issued his judgment, we considered it was best to remove any doubt by restating our position, as set out in the 2000 Act. That is what is before us today - an amendment to the Act to ensure we are in line with the judgment. Every member state has the right to seek an injunction in the event of a perceived breach of copyright. Before a judge makes a decision he or she will need to have regard to the e-commerce directive which states there are inherent rights in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to freedom of expression and that the copyright directive provides that an Internet service-provider has the right to conduct a business and to have regard to the right of ordinary users to be able to use the Internet freely and openly. We would not seek to prejudice this right in any way. I am the Minister of State with responsibility for research and innovation. The State funds new technologies, the development of web-based technologies to the tune of millions of euro annually and we very conscious of the need to continue to do so.

I take Deputy Murphy's point about the abdication of responsibility. However, I respectfully suggest to the Deputy that we need to see a dialogue, an engagement, between the Internet service-providers on one hand, the copyright holders on the other side and a space in between for a very highly active Internet web-based community. They all need to sit down together to chart a way forward. Personally, I am not averse to the notion of primary legislation but no matter what action is decided upon, we must have regard to the Charlton judgment. If, prior to this judgment, the State already held that a person could seek infringement proceedings where a breach of copyright is perceived and there have been no sites closed down as a result, we are merely restating what is in the Copyright Act or adding to it, then it is logical to assume there will not be a move to close down further websites.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State should conclude.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise. This is an issue which warrants more time but I will speak again if I may.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue definitely warrants more time. The programme for Government states the intention to introduce primary legislation to deal with EU regulations but this has not happened. A debate is urgently required. There has already been an e-mail storm on this issue and we are about to see a hurricane if people are not satisfied.

There is a contradiction in some of the points made by the Minister of State. On one hand he does not want the courts to enforce unlimited blocking of websites yet on the other hand he wants the court to be able to grant injunctions which would block a site in its entirety. This is my understanding.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not what I said.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not wish to confuse the issue any further but there is a strong need to have complete clarification before any statutory instrument is signed. Because of its vagueness, this has the potential to do damage. If there is sufficient time allowed to have a debate, a question and answer session, much of the questions could be properly teased out. If this topical debate is the beginning and end of the debate, it will be insufficient. A debate on this matter is needed within the next week.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This matter warrants more time for debate. I ask the Minister of State to consider how we could have an extended debate on this issue. In the days and weeks ahead, I ask him to consider how we could avail of the opportunity of informing more people and allaying their fears, particularly those in industry, business, education and those who avail of the services of the social network. There is significant concern and this may be as a result of misinformation but we need to avail of the opportunity to allay people's fears.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State has two minutes.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I reiterate the point that no national authority or court can require an Internet service-provider to carry out general monitoring of the information it transmits on its network. That gives rights to the Internet service-provider and to the individual IP address or the individual user. This means the ISP cannot be asked to monitor all the data of each of its customers in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual property rights. This is clearly stated in EU law.

We are attempting to balance the right of the copyright holder and to transpose that which is already in EU law and then to recognise the rights of the individual user, the individual business and not to limit the freedoms of the Internet. Nobody wants to limit the freedoms of the Internet because this is counter-intuitive. We live in a democracy and we thrive on the businesses we have created in this country, through State intervention and subsidies which support those types of businesses.

The business model pertaining to the music industry is increasingly and arguably - I will not use the word outmoded - an evolving process. So long as it is a case of never the twain shall meet, then no matter how one legislates primarily in this field, as soon as one legislates, the Internet, of its very nature, will evolve in a way to circumnavigate the legislation. In my view, the stakeholders must sit down together in an organic fashion because if they do not reach an agreement then no matter what Government is in power, it will never be able to legislate for this issue. Given the level of activity on the Internet, which is to be welcomed, and the level of innovation, no one member state, no one geographical boundary, can set laws to try to control it. This is a commonly-held view to a certain extent. I think a liberal view is taken, in the main, regarding the power of the Internet and its inherent good. However, as an EU member state, Ireland must have regard to copyright law. Anyone who generates intellectual property has a right but that right is not superior to the right of the Internet service-provider nor superior to the right of the individual user. When governments legislate, they must be very careful.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State should conclude please.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure Deputies that I will give this matter more study. We will be implementing the statutory instrument, I will be very straight about that-----

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When will that be?

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is imminent. I cannot give the Deputy an exact time but a note will be prepared for Cabinet.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the debate be held before the statutory instrument is signed?

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will have to defer to the Chief Whip's office in that regard. The central point is that those people within that community need to start coming together. The ISPs and the music industry people need to sit down with each other. They have been tinkering around the edges of this issue for a long time. Ireland needs to take a strategic view as to how it pitches itself-----

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must conclude on this matter.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----in terms of legislation. I apologise for going over my time.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, this is a complicated issue and I commend the Minister of State's command of his brief which is most impressive-----

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no provision for raising a point of order on the Topical Issue Debate.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State's reply was not made available in written form.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will ensure it is provided to Members.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Chathaoirligh, I did not write a speech.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With regard to the Topical Issue Debate, it is common practice to make a written response available to the House because other Members may not have an input into the debate but they may need the response for further reference. This may not be a requirement but it is good policy.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will be available in the blacks.