Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 1999 [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages 30th June, 2000 An Leas-Chathaoirleach: This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 103, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question, "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, which may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. For Senators' convenience, I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. Senators may speak only once on Report Stage. Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration." Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt): I am pleased to report back to the House on a number of amendments made by the Dáil in the Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 1999, which passed all Stages in the Seanad last year. We have spent a long time working on this Bill and I thank Members for their assistance. We have had 12 meetings on Committee Stage, gone to the Dáil and now we are back where it all began. As Senators anticipated in the course of their debate on the Bill, a large number of amendments were made by the Dáil. However, many of them were minor or technical in nature or were made in the interest of achieving the greatest possible consistency of expression across various parts of this very substantial Bill. In this report to the House I intend to concentrate on those amendments and groups of amendments that effect substantial changes in the Bill or relate to matters raised in the first place in this House. It will be clear that the two categories have a great deal in common. I will first refer to amendment No. 12. Senators contributing to this debate expressed major concerns about regulating relations between copyright and related rights collecting societies and users of protected materials in such a way as to ensure that both groups would be treated fairly under the law. This amendment addresses one major aspect of this concern. It introduces a new system to govern the playing of sound recordings in public and the inclusion of such recordings in broadcasts and cable programme services. Under this system commercial users of sound recordings will be afforded a licence of right. This will allow them to use such recordings in this way provided they agree to make fair payments to the rightsholder and make payments at intervals of not less than three months in arrears. A dispute resolution mechanism involving references to the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks is provided for. Amendments Nos. 73, 130 and 146 also deal with the supervision of rightsholder interests. These will require that all collecting societies operating under my part of the Act must be registered with the controller for the purpose. During debates in this House a number of Senators, including Senators Cox and Coghlan, proposed that collecting society registration be made compulsory. At the time the Office of the Attorney General advised me that compulsory registration would be a formality precedent to the subsistence and enjoyment of copyright. I was also advised that the imposition of formalities of this nature is forbidden by Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works at least as far as authors' rights collecting societies, such as the Irish Music Rights Organisation, are concerned. Following arguments raised by Senators and Deputies to the effect that compulsory registration was necessary to ensure transparency and the proper operation of collecting societies in general, I had the matter reconsidered. Following receipt of legal advice I was able to advance proposals to make registration compulsory by means of these amendments. The question of collecting society supervision was the major theme of the debate on this Bill in both Houses. The Senators were the first to raise this question in this House and I thank them for doing so. Amendments Nos. 9I to 94 provide for certain detailed improvements in the scheme of deposit of books to certain libraries. In particular, amendment No. 91 will allow the National Library of Ireland to seek delivery of any book circulated commercially in the State. This provision, which will effectively replace section 66 of the National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997, will facilitate the National Library in building up its collection of books of Irish interest, irrespective of where such books are first published. Amendment No. 94 will allow all deposit libraries to seek delivery of electronic copies of books in addition to hard copies where their first option is for a hard copy. This change, which was proposed by the Centre for Independent Living, is intended to facilitate deposit libraries in making modified copies of works for persons with disabilities. I should also mention amendment No. 95, which re-enacts section 65 of the National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997, in a slightly updated form. Section 65 has the purpose of allowing the book deposit scheme to be extended to certain other materials, such as compact discs, microfilms and videotapes. This extension applies only to deposits in the National Library. The intention is to facilitate that library in building up its collections of cultural materials of specific national interest. I understand that this section has not yet been commenced, but that my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, is considering commencing it in the near future, in relation to some materials of a cinematic nature. The re-enactment under amendment No. 95 is necessary to ensure that section 65 continues to be operable in relation to the new version of the book deposit scheme contained in section 181 of the present Bill, which is structured a little differently from the corresponding provisions of the Copyright Act, 1963. Senators will recall that their work on Committee Stage in this House persuaded me to withdraw and replace what I now understand to be an inappropriate restructuring of the book deposit scheme, and I am grateful to them for drawing my attention to that problem. My Dáil amendments limited themselves to making modest improvements in the book deposit scheme, including the related provisions in the National Cultural Institutions Act, on the basis of consultations between my Department and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. As I said in previous contributions on the subject both in this House and in the Dáil, I recognise that this scheme has considerable importance, in particular in the national heritage context, even though its association with copyright is now entirely an historical one. However, the scheme has grown in a rather unstructured and unconsidered way over the years. It remains my intention to initiate an interdepartmental review of the scheme that will, in due course, allow the Government to consider proposals for the future of the scheme that will take full account of the views of all interested parties. There are a number of other amendments of cultural and educational importance. Amendment No. 4 extends the definition of "educational establishments" in the Bill to include universities within the meaning of the Universities Act, 1997. I was happy to accept this amendment which, I understand, was suggested by the heads of the universities concerned. Of course, the definition currently appearing in the Bill is still not intended to be comprehensive. The Minister retains the power to designate additional categories of educational establishment where this is appropriate and I will consult my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, about the appropriate scope of such designations prior to the commencement of this legislation. Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 30 and 117 provide for the inclusion of museums and museum curators within the definitions of archives and archivists respectively and provide exceptions for certain types of curatorial copying of copyright works and recordings of performances which are, typically, carried out by museum curators. I am sure the House will agree that these amendments will be of value in the development of our cultural services. A number of amendments are designed to improve the practical operation of various exceptions that were already contained in the Bill when it left the Seanad. For example, amendments Nos. 20 and 21 will allow the non-reprographic copying exception for educational purposes to apply, not only where the copying is carried out by persons giving or receiving instruction themselves, but also where such copying is carried out on their behalf. Amendment No. 22 considerably clarifies the previous text governing the exception in favour of lending by organisations such as public libraries. I accepted amendment No. 31 to ensure that the copyright exception in favour of inter-library loans, already implicit in the Bill, is made clear and explicit. Important in this category of amendments are amendments Nos. 17, 107 and 312, which relax the definition of fair dealing exceptions by replacing the qualification that the copying concerned be "reasonably justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved" with a qualification that it "will not unreasonably prejudice the interests" of rightsowners. This change is more realistic in terms of the legitimate use to which these exceptions are put, and more consistent with international practice in this area. In relation to all amendments aimed at improving the basic exceptions in the Bill, I am very conscious of the role of this House in helping me to focus my concern on the views of the cultural and educational sectors in particular and I am very grateful to Senators for this assistance. A matter of particular concern raised in debates on the Bill in this House was the question of whether exemptions in favour of research should be specifically in favour of "private" research. Senators will recall that I accepted a number of amendments from Senators Henry and Quinn to remove the qualification "private" in a number of instances, and I express my thanks to the Senators for their attention to this point. They may wish to note that Dáil amendments Nos. 36 and 232 make a similar change in the case of the folklore research exceptions in order to bring them into line with the research exceptions modified by amendments in this House. One innovative proposal made in this House, which I did not feel able to accept at the time, was the introduction of a specific offence governing false claims of copyright which was proposed by Senator Brendan Ryan. My legal advice at the time was that the introduction of such a measure would be superfluous and that it could confuse the operation of the other copyright criminal provisions. Following further argument from the Senator's colleague in the other House, Deputy Rabbitte, I had the matter re-examined and, on the basis of further legal advice, I was persuaded to accept this innovation. It is introduced, in a modified form, by Dáil amendment No. 55. Amendment No. 126 introduces a similar offence in relation to false claims of rights in performances. I thank Senator Ryan for what has turned out to be a very useful suggestion. I feel I must mention two groups of amendments which, though technical, have an important role in the overall operation of this legislation. These are amendments Nos. 72 and 74 to 79, inclusive, in Part II of the Bill and Nos. 131, 132 and 133 in Part III, which deal with qualification of works and performances for the protection of Irish copyright and performers' rights law under this legislation. Senators will recall that as a gesture in favour of a more liberal trade in intellectual property materials, the Bill as circulated would have extended Irish copyright and performers' rights protection, in effect, "to the world". It was subsequently represented to me that this was inappropriate in view of the persisting unevenness of protection levels for these rights in some jurisdictions, in particular in the performers' rights area. These groups of amendments will effectively limit qualification for the rights in question under Irish law to materials protected by corresponding laws in countries with which we share obligations under international law, in accordance with the principles of national treatment. This change brings the Bill into line with normal international practice in the area of copyright qualification. Amendments Nos. 80 to 85, inclusive, deal with Government and Oireachtas copyright. In the debates in this House, Senators expressed concern about the abnormally lengthy duration that the Bill as published would have afforded to some Government copyrights and amendments were proposed which would have had such copyrights expire "in the normal way". I could not accept these amendments because, in the absence of a measuring life, Government copyrights are incapable of expiring in a manner similar to normal copyrights. However, Dáil amendment No. 80 responds to the wish of Senators and Deputies for a more reasonable term of Government copyright by setting it a fixed term of 50 years.

As regards Oireachtas copyright, Senators will recall that I accepted amendments in this House transferring the copyright in Bills and Acts from the Government to the Oireachtas. At the time, I indicated that the Government had originally been assigned copyright in these materials on the basis that it could exercise the copyright interests concerned more conveniently than the Houses. Indeed, it has proved difficult to devise a provision through which Oireachtas copyright can be managed effectively, which can be seen to be consistent with the honour, dignity and privileges of the Houses of the Oireachtas and which can, at the same time, allow the citizen the most open access possible to legislative materials. The management of Oireachtas copyright is now governed by the measure introduced by Dáil amendment No. 85, which contains a permission for free copying of materials covered by Oireachtas copyright, subject to conditions laid down by the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, such conditions to be laid before both Houses as soon as may be after they are imposed. This is viewed by some as a restrictive formula, but it is not intended as such. My advice is that this approach is both effective and consistent with the dignity of the Houses and consistent with their need to manage and protect their own documentation. Given the views expressed both in this House and in the other in favour of the most liberal approach possible to the making available of legislative materials to the public, I have no doubt that this provision will be operated in a manner consistent with these views and that the current Government practice of allowing free use of these materials will continue, subject only to such reasonable conditions as the Houses may see fit to impose. I will reserve my final comments until I am summing up. I thank the House for the work it has done since initiating this Bill. When we started out we could not see the end of the process. This Bill was always signalled as the most complex and comprehensive Bill in the history of the Oireachtas. We discussed issues ranging from music and folklore to libraries and software, to name but a few. The Bill was detailed and technical. As Minister of State, my officials and I relied on the experts in this House. That is the purpose of the Seanad - for people to bring their experience to bear to improve legislation. That has happened as a result of our lengthy deliberations and I am pleased to have arrived at this point. I thank the House for its co-operation at all levels. Mr. J. Doyle: I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive address on the amendments made in Dáil Éireann to this extensive Bill. I did not play any part in the Bill's passage through the House but I note it is a Bill of 371 sections. It is a sizeable and complex Bill but it is a wonderful example of how our democracy works. A Bill is initiated in the Seanad, the Minister of State keeps and open mind and listens to the views expressed by Senators, examines the amendments, and takes some on board. He then hears other arguments in the Dáil, seeks legal advice and accepts other amendments. It would be of great interest to Members such as Senator Coghlan who proposed the collection of registration fees being made compulsory. Senator Ryan should be pleased that the Minister of State sought legal advice having heard his argument for a specific offence governing false claims of copyright. The Minister of State listened to his colleague in the other House and made the amendment. It has been a good day for the Oireachtas that this Bill, initiated in the Seanad and amended in Dáil Éireann, has come back for its final report. I have no difficulty in commending the Bill to the House. Dr. Henry: This was a mammoth effort and I congratulate the Minister of State. It has been a philosophical exercise and I congratulate the officials and the Minister of State's secretary, whom I tortured while this Bill was being debated. At times they felt I had too many cultured and educated friends and it would have better if I had been left to my own devices. I am very pleased that the entire section on deposit libraries was altered. That was very important. The changes in relation to the National Library will definitely be to its advantage. I was glad our amendments on fair dealing were taken on board. It could have caused enormous problems if those trying to do private study had difficulties with copyright. The officials explained to me why there is a difference between the number of copies allowed for librarians and the number allowed for fair dealing and it was a reasonable explanation. The Minister of State dealt with the amount of a journal which could be copied. Frequently these journals cease publication. There may be disappointment about the copying of Bills and Acts of the Oireachtas but the Minister of State did his best. It is interesting to see that in two cases he got contradictory legal advice. It is always worth getting a second opinion. When prescribing libraries, I am sure the Minister will consult with professional bodies because they will want to be involved. While lending between libraries is explicitly stated, does that mean borrowing between libraries is implicit in the Bill? In Part III of the Act, there is a lack clarity about the lending of recordings. Will the Minister clarify that matter for me in his concluding remarks. An enormous amount of work went into this Bill and the Minister and his officials are justly proud of it. I am equally happy that the Minister of State's speech is printed on both sides of the paper. I can never understand why ministerial speeches are always only printed on one side of the page when we are supposed to be involved in waste management. This uses half as much paper but the words are just as good. Mr. Moylan: I compliment all those who were involved in this Bill. It is a substantial Bill and is very important in terms of music and culture. Until now the scheme for the collection of copyright was badly structured. The many contributions made and amendments accepted make the Bill very worthwhile. I thank the Minister of State and his staff for the huge amount of work they have put into the Bill. It is one of the largest ever to pass through the Oireachtas and credit is due to all concerned. I look forward to the benefit it will bring to those involved in music. Mr. Cassidy: I was the Fianna Fáil spokesman on the area covered by this Bill for 11 years. This is the most important legislation to come before the Seanad in the last 20 years. It is of enormous importance to employment. Only last week the Tánaiste announced 1,000 new jobs and £2 billion of investment at Intel over the next few years. All of this is a vote of confidence in the regulations and laws governing the economy. The manner in which this legislation deals with intellectual property is highly important. The wealth of our nation depends on how we handle software and intellectual property rights in the future. We can learn from the Berne Convention of 1936 and the 1963 Act. This Act was long overdue and took a long time to put together. Those who have attended the world music publishers conference in Cannes every January for the past 32 or 33 years will know how important intellectual property is in the music, film or computer industries. We all know how investors in intellectual property in America have expanded the market over the years. I accepted the bona fides of certain people from different industries during the passage of this Bill. When the Bill was sent to the Dáil from this House some organisations had concerns and I am glad the Minister of State has addressed them in the Dáil. The registering of the music rights organisations and the works of writers, composers, record company employees and publishers must be protected on the one hand but, on the other, the playing of such music in venues for the enjoyment of the public is equally important. An eminent Member of this House for more than 20 years, former Senator Bernie McGlinchey, who is alive and well and is still a member of Donegal County Council, has done a great deal for the music industry in general by employing young people down the years. I commend him for that. Do music organisations have a right of appeal on decisions when they seek licences or renew licences? Are venue owners charged exorbitant fees, particularly in towns in rural Ireland with populations of less than 5,000? Music rights organisations cannot be permitted to put a gun to the heads of such venue owners who have kept the entire industry going for generations. Acting Chairman, I refer to your part of the country, the north-west, where the music industry has been the a great source of employment for many young people over the years. A member of your family has been employed in the industry similar to family members of mine. The Minister of State stated: The amendment addresses one major aspect of this concern. It introduces a new system to govern the playing of sound recordings in public and the inclusion of such recordings in broadcasts and cable programme services. Under this system, commercial users of sound recordings will be afforded a licence of right allowing them to use such recordings in this way provided that they agree to make fair payment to the rights holder and make payments at intervals of not less than three months in arrears. A dispute resolution mechanism involving references to the collector of patents, designs and trade marks is provided for. Is an appeals system now in place? I understand that up to now some rights organisations took it upon themselves to collect royalties on behalf of publishers and the creators of the original work. They charged prices which the venue owners could not afford, whether it was in Cashel, Letterkenny or Castlepollard. It must be understood that there must be a criterion for a certain level of population so that a blanket criterion could not be adopted. For example, a Dublin venue would have 1.5 million potential customers whereas a venue in a town or village in rural Ireland might only potentially have between 1,000 and 2,000 customers. Common sense must prevail in all legislation. This framework document is the second largest Bill to come before the House in the past 20 years. The Companies Act, 1990, has more sections than this Bill. The House has debated this legislation for 87 hours while the Dáil spent 95 hours considering it. That demonstrates how important is this legislation. In 25 or 30 years countries throughout the world will refer to the Kitt legislation. Ireland is a leader in this field. Since the Minister of State took office he and his officials have invested enormous resources in this legislation. I commend him for that. I have no other reservations regarding the issues raised by the Irish Hotels Federation, the Irish Vintners Federation and others which were affected by this legislation. One section provided that hoteliers would have to pay for the use of televisions in every bedroom. Hotels in rural Ireland might only be busy for three or four months or the year while in Dublin city they might be busy for eight or nine months and the owners have fantastic businesses. However, that is not how business operates. Businesses must be kept open during the quiet months. I would like the Minister of State to respond on the appeals mechanism and to confirm that common sense will be used at the end of the day in regard to the playing of music. Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt): I thank Senators for their contributions. All of us have taken ownership of the Bill in some way and, hopefully, we have copyright on it. I thank Members for welcoming me and their kind words regarding the work that has been undertaken. I also thank my officials. There is an intellectual property unit in the Department which deals not only with copyright but also with patents, trade marks and many other issues. It is a growing area which is socially, economically and educationally important, not just culturally important. There are many important aspects to our work. In response to Senator Henry, borrowing between libraries is implicit in the legislation. If one lends, another borrows. Section 226 provides for lending of copies of performances between prescribed libraries. I thank Senator Cassidy for the work that has been done. There were huge disputes between night club owners and collecting agencies, which was a well documented problem for many years. I was anxious that it should have been addressed. We consulted far and wide with the organisations involved and all the issues referred to by the Leader can be referred to the controller for determination. We have strengthened the controller's hand by time limiting copyright arbitration allowing the controller to seek removal of overly slow arbitrators and to appoint assessors to assist in appeals. There were problems and the Leader correctly stated that there is a new licence of right for people who want to play music. Even if there is an ongoing dispute one has the right to play the music. There is also a dispute resolution mechanism involving the controller. Another important issue that was raised was the registering of all agencies. People wanted more transparency with regard to PPI and IMRO. They will be registered. I have a strong interest in music and it a common characteristic of many Members. One of my sons is pursuing a musical career, so I suppose I had better put that on the record also. I am conscious of the many struggling artists, whether they are working as singers, songwriters, in film or as authors. This country is proud of the many tremendous artists it has produced over the years, and another stream of young artists is now coming to public attention. I have just returned from Expo 2000 in Hanover where Eavan Boland, Donal Lunny and many other artists were present, representing many different artistic sectors. Mr. Lanigan: More people visit Expo Ireland than any other stand at that exhibition.

Mr. T. Kitt: That is correct. In Hanover, 100 of the 153 days of the Expo 2000 have been set aside for cultural activities by the Irish pavilion. That represents much more than any other country and it demonstrates the importance of culture to this country, which is one of my areas of responsibility. It is important to demonstrate the strength of our arts and culture from street theatre to song and literature. We have all sorts of tremendous artists and we must protect their interests and property rights. Whether we are talking about people in the music business, film industry, writers or economic activity linked to the software industry, we needed to update the existing legislation and we have now done that. Thanks to our work, modern legislation will now be in place and that was my ambition in introducing the Bill. When I became Minister of State three years ago and saw the agenda, including labour, trade and consumer affairs - three very active areas - I saw this Bill as one of the greatest challenges of all. I have been to the House already to introduce labour legislation on trade union recognition and I will be brining more Bills before the House, but this Bill was always going to be the most complex. Senators have helped me greatly by bringing their own expertise to the debate. I came to the House originally with a good Bill, but I am convinced that it is now a better one following its passage through the Seanad. On my own behalf and that of the Government, I wish to thank everybody for having helped me in getting the legislation through all Stages. Question put and agreed to. Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass." Dr. Henry: I wish to express my thanks to the Minister of State on behalf of a large number of people, particularly in Trinity College and the Dublin Institute of Technology, in addition to the various other vested interests that I have to take care of. People in the film industry and the sound recording sector will be extremely grateful for the amount of time and effort the Minister of State has put into the Bill. It is far better than the UK legislation, particular from the research point of view, because there is far more clarity. I am most grateful for the effort he has made with regard to the Bill. Mr. J. Doyle: On behalf of my colleagues, who are not in the House today, I also wish to thank the Minister of State. Mr. Moylan: I also wish to thank the Minister of State and his officials who were involved in producing the Bill. We look forward to better days with this new Bill for all involved in the cultural and music sectors. Question put and agreed to. Human Rights in Tibet: Statements. Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell): The contributions of Senators should not exceed ten minutes. Mr. Lanigan: These statements were sought by an Independent Senator this morning and he is not present in the House. I am not too sure what statements we can make on Tibet. It is extraordinary that a Member would seek to have statements in the House, yet he is not here to contribute. I seek the Acting Chairman's guidance on this matter. Should I make a statement on Tibet, or wait for the person who sought the statements this morning to arrive? It is an insult to the House to seek statements yet not be present in the House when they are taken. I am in your hands, Sir. Acting Chairman: The Senator in question may not have envisaged that the business of the House would be dealt with so quickly. Mr. Lanigan: This morning, the Leader of the House went to great lengths to arrange this debate. The matter even went to a vote of the House, yet Senator Norris is not here to contribute. Acting Chairman: I understand that Senator Norris is on his way to the House. Mr. Lanigan: Is it appropriate for us to wait or should we just leave it? Acting Chairman: The Senator can make a contribution. Mr. Lanigan: If I make a second contribution will we leave it there? Acting Chairman: All I can tell you is that the Senator has informed the Seanad Office that he is on his way. Mr. Lanigan: I am not too sure exactly what Senator Norris wanted to say about Tibet this morning. It is an area of the world that I have an interest in, but I feel the Dalai Lama has been deified by various people. The Chinese Government has been totally and utterly condemned because of the situation in Tibet. Before the Chinese went in, however, the situation in Tibet was atrocious. It was a feudal system in which certain members of a particular religious society dictated who would become the leader and they brought in these people at three or four years of age. I would prefer that this debate would not take place because the Senator who called for it was not in the House when it began. Acting Chairman: Senator Norris has arrived. There was a problem because, as the mover of the request for statements, the Senator was not here. We heard that you were on the way. Does Senator Norris wish to speak? Mr. Norris: I apologise to the House. I was in my office and I rang several times. The understanding my secretary was given was that the statements would be at 5.10 p.m. I was watching the monitor and when I saw the matter coming up I ran over as quickly as I could. Mr. Cassidy: There was a shortage of speakers on the Opposition side. We could not do anything about it. Mr. Norris: I am glad that at least we have an opportunity to say something about Tibet. However, this is the second time that reference has been made to the absence of Members of the House, but that is an infringement of the rules of the House. It occurred blatantly yesterday with the Minister who spent quite a long time on it. Acting Chairman: No Member of the House was mentioned by name. Mr. Norris: It does not matter. A reference to the absence of Members is not contemplated under Standing Orders. I am very disappointed that the statements are being taken in this manner. There was confusion about it and to a certain extent it is almost redundant having the matter on the Order Paper in this manner at this time. I was given repeated assurances that No. 23, motions 18 and 19, would be taken, yet they are not being taken. That is a pity because it neutralises what we were trying to do. It is important for us to regard ourselves as a Parliament. We may take decisions here that may advance things slightly beyond what Iveagh House might be comfortable with, but that is the way politics should work and it is certainly the way a parliament should work. I would remind the House that precisely the same situation obtained with regard to East Timor when a similar motion was put through without----- Mr. Lanigan: Could we have the statements on Tibet? Mr. Norris: I am sorry, I do not want to be interrupted. Acting Chairman: Senator Norris without interruption. Mr. Norris: I will say precisely what I want to say without any help from Senator Lanigan. The two motions concerned are very important. The first one was passed by the French Government. It states: That Seanad Éireann notes: Whereas governmental and non-government organisations have reported an increase in political repression and restrictions on religious freedoms in Chinese occupied Tibet in 1999; Recognising that bilateral dialogues on human rights with the Government of the People's Republic of China have failed to produce meaningful improvements in the human rights of the Chinese and Tibetan peoples; Commending the Government of the United States for introducing a resolution on China at the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights; Calls on the European Union to co-sponsor a resolution on China at the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights; Expresses strong support for His Holiness the Dalai Lama's Five Point Peace Plan containing the following components: (1) transformation of the whole of Tibet into a zone of peace; (2) abandonment of China's population transfer policy; (3) respect for the Tibetan people's fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms; (4) restoration and protection of Tibet's natural environment; and (5) commencement of earnest negotiations between the Chinese leadership and the Dalai Lama or his representatives on the future status on Tibet. I took part in the composition of this motion at a meeting in Brussels and it was also a little difficult. However, we managed to get it through unanimously. It was subsequently passed by the European Parliament and the French Parliament. The House should not be too timorous in passing this resolution. We owe it to a figure such as the Dalai Lama who has struggled peacefully over so many years in an appalling situation for his people for whom the only alternative is violence. We often prate in the House about peace, but we sometimes do little to encourage the most prominent campaigners for peace on the world stage. However, there is something we could note and we could send a request that something practical be done for the people of Tibet. Some months ago members of the Sub-committee on Human Rights of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs had an opportunity to meet people from the IMF and the World Bank. We expressed our concerns to them about the developments in Tibet under the Chinese regime and particularly the construction of a large dam project and the resultant movement of substantial sections of the Tibetan and Mongolian populations. A critical point is approaching because a decision will be made shortly. Ireland has a representative, Ms Terrie O'Leary, at the World Bank and I ask the House to recommend to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, that she be instructed to urge the cancellation of the project. The independent World Bank inspection panel in its report accused the bank of flagrant policy violations in Tibet. The report cites a climate of fear that was inspired among local Tibetan and Mongolian populations, the blatant disregard for minority issues and the inadequate environmental assessment that was carried out. The independent inspection panel found that the World Bank violated seven out of ten of its policies in planning the China western poverty reduction project - CWPRP - a controversial proposal which would resettle 58,000 Chinese farmers on Tibetan and Mongol herding lands. The report, which was commissioned by the World Bank in response to international controversy about the project, including the meeting that took place in Kildare House, finds that the bank violated its policies on indigenous peoples, information disclosure, environmental assessment, involuntary resettlement, confidentiality, dam safety and pest management. This means that 70% of the cardinal points underlying the World Bank's policy were violated by itself. It is outrageous to permit this project to continue in light of the assessment by the independent group charged with reviewing it by the bank itself. The report vindicates the claims of Tibetans and activists who have maintained that the CWPRP will have a negative impact on the local populations and that conducting an adequate social assessment in such a repressive area is impossible. According to the report, the bank failed to take into account minority concerns and when conducting social assessment surveys, blatantly ignored the Tibetan and Mongol populations who would be affected by the project the most. The report states: Most striking is the fact that in the entire move-in-area only three Tibetan households were included in the survey. This is in spite of the fact that the project occurs in a Tibetan and Mongolian Autonomous region, and the physical infrastructure for the Project (its supply-canals) passes through Tibetan villages. None of the 2,411 Tibetan nomads, whose seasonal migrations will be disrupted by the project, was consulted. The people who were interviewed were required to give their names, a violation of bank policy on confidentiality. The report also detailed numerous environmental violations, including an inadequate assessment of the ramifications of doubling the local population and forcibly converting the land to agriculture. This would be highly dangerous in that area because it could lead to desertification. The report was delivered to the board of executive directors along with a recommendation from bank staff and a personal letter from bank president, James Wolfensohn. In the letter, Mr. Wolfensohn assured the directors that the project, despite its policy violations, could be fixed. An action plan has been submitted and the board is set to vote on the plan on 6 July 2000. This is why it is so important that the message goes out. Mr. Andrew Bryson, director of the Milarepa fund, a non-profit human rights organisation that has lobbied extensively against this project, said: "The bank has violated nearly every policy it has in planning this project and now they're trying to tell us that it can be fixed." He continued: "But the project itself is fundamentally flawed. Tibetans and Mongols have made it expressly clear that they view this project as a death sentence. The only logical plan of action, with a report such as this, is to cancel the project outright." Attempts to fix up the plan behind the scenes will be a continuing disaster. The second motion that should have been discussed today, in light of the undertaking so clearly and repeatedly given to me by the Government side that has been broken, states: That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs: (1) to seek to persuade his EU colleagues to co-sponsor the US resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission currently under way in Geneva; and (2) to raise with the Chinese authorities the detention of Mr. Zhao Ming: Trinity College (Changchun City, Jilin Province); Ms. Yan Fang: Dun Laoghaire Senior College (Shenyang City, Liaoning Province); and Mr. Liu Feng, Dun Laoghaire College of Further Education (Dalian City, Liaoning Province), all formerly resident in Ireland, who were arrested merely for engaging in Falun Gong meditation practices. It says much if a political authority can be threatened by the practice of Falun Gong whose principles are peace, harmony and meditation. It is a matter of shame for me that, although Trinity College employed one of those persons and was written to, it appears to have done nothing whatsoever about it. A fear of China's economic might is probably the reason. Anybody who takes that line should look at the analysis produced by the London School of Economics and two of its senior professors concerning the current financial situation of China. It is in this respect, as in so many other respects, merely a paper tiger. For example, in Taiwan, it threatened all types of war, murder and bloodshed if the Taiwanese elected a particular person president. However, when he was elected, it entered negotiations immediately. We should stand up on a matter of principle. Ireland in particular should do this because it supported Tibet honourably in its darkest days in the 1950s. It also even handedly sponsored the inclusion of what was then known as Red China in the United Nations. Ireland has a certain moral authority in this area and I hope the House will take a strong line on this issue. I hope we will return to this matter properly and in an orderly manner, not during a maelstrom of business being rushed through the House on the last day. I would have been grateful if the original undertaking to take motions 18 and 19 instead of statements had been honoured. This was done successfully in the past and it helped to push out the borders with regard to East Timor. In the meantime, we should act on the requests from within the funding agencies as well as from Tibet support groups, etc. We should try to insist that the current project regarding Tibet and China is withdrawn and cancelled in its entirety. The board of the bank should not allow management to try to fix the problems with the project but should cancel it outright. No amount of tinkering around the edges will fix the fundamental flaws in the project design, nor can it adequately address the climate of fear that pervades the project region and will continue to undermine the principle of full and informed consultation. If this project were to go forward it would demonstrate to the international community that the bank lacks the commitment to enforce its own policies and standards. It would result in increased public and governmental scrutiny of other bank projects in China and elsewhere, particularly those that involve resettlement, and it would put an international stamp of approval on China's policy of population transfer into occupied Tibet. Mr. Lanigan: I took three words from Senator Norris' remarks, peace, harmony and meditation. We should go away in peace and harmony and meditate on the situation in Tibet. He has a biased view of the situation. I have read a great deal about Tibet and I do not agree with the Dalai Lama being selected at four years of age. Its society is more feudal than the one in China. Mr. Norris: That is rubbish. What about the election of the Pope?

Acting Chairman: Senator Lanigan, without interruption. Mrs. Taylor-Quinn: We are entitled to have a Pope. Mr. Lanigan: People who do not agree with Senator Norris are denigrated. He thinks he is the Dalai Lama of the Seanad, but he is not. He does not have all the powers. Acting Chairman: I ask the Senator to speak to the issue. Mr. Norris: The Senator is the Mikado. Mr. Lanigan: You are my Iolanthe. Acting Chairman: I ask the Senator to direct his remarks through the Chair. Mr. Lanigan: The Committee on Foreign Affairs has decided that a delegation will visit Tibet on 14 September for five days. I am not a member of that delegation but, perhaps, we should wait until after that visit to reassess the situation there. We should ask for meetings with the Dalai Lama. He said four days ago he would begin consultations with the Chinese Government on the situation in Tibet. Perhaps he is doing so because he has two possible successors, although I do not know the politics of that area. Perhaps we can discuss this subject as early as we can once we have the report of the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I have no sympathy for the Dalai Lama or his sponsors. As regards China and its human rights violations, it is not too long since we were involved in human rights violations. It is not too long since Europe, which is criticising the Chinese for what happens in Tibet, was the biggest abuser of human rights in the world. We created the problems in Africa. Mr. Costello: That is not true. Mr. Lanigan: It is true. We should address this matter after the report is given to us by the people who will visit Tibet on 14 September. The delegation will include members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, although I am not sure about the Independents. Mr. Norris: I have been to Tibet and I know what I am talking about. Mr. Lanigan: So have I. Mrs. Taylor-Quinn: This is a serious issue which has been discussed in the House on a previous occasion and in international fora, including the United Nations and the EU. We should not take it lightly. We are talking about a group of people in Tibet who are part of a nation. A nation is made up of people with a similar language, religion, culture and tradition. The question arises as to whether this is a legally recognised state. It was an independent entity until 1949 or 1950. However, it lost that status when the Chinese invaded it and suppressed its people. The recognition of a country as a state should not be based on subjective but on legal criteria. That depends on whether the state has a government which people can recognise and whether it can conduct foreign relations with other international countries. We must examine the situation in Tibet. What has happened in Tibet since the Chinese occupation in 1949 or 1950 has not been pleasant. Religious practice has been suppressed by the Chinese and more than 6,000 monasteries have been destroyed. Strict laws have been implemented in relation to rebuilding those monasteries. Limits have also been set in terms of the number of monks and nuns who can live in them. There is a history of suppression which could be equated with what happened in this country many years ago. As a small nation, we should use our position in the EU and the United Nations to ensure this situation is examined with a view to stopping what is happening there at present. Senator Lanigan said Tibet is a feudal society. It may not be our preferred system but we have no right to impose that on anyone. If it is the wish of the people of Tibet to return to the type of system they had prior to 1950, they should be allowed to do so under international law. There is a case to be answered. Although we are only a small member state of the European Union, we are in a position to raise this issue within the EU and to insist that it brings influence to bear on the international community. The Government should urge the EU to co-sponsor the United Nations resolution with the American Government. I commend the American Government for taking this action. There is an onus on us to ensure the EU follows suit. We should not be quick to jump to conclusions about the Dalai Lama and his system in Tibet. The invasion and suppression to which the people have been subjected by the Chinese over the years should be condemned. We should not support the Chinese Government's policy of settling Chinese people in Tibet with the long-term objective of diluting the influence of the Tibetan culture because it is contrary to international agreements, protocols and United Nations conventions. A delegation from the Committee on Foreign Affairs will shortly visit China at the invitation of the Chinese Ambassador. It should raise this issue with the Chinese authorities. The delegation should also visit Tibet to see at first hand what is happening there. It is a remote and, perhaps, inaccessible area but, as part of an international community we have a moral responsibility towards it. We have as much right and responsibility as anyone else to exercise that moral authority. I hope the Irish Government will take that on board at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Costello: It is appropriate, in finishing the business of the House this session, that we have ranged over such a wide variety of subjects today and that we should travel as far away as Tibet to conclude our proceedings. It indicates the extent of the interest of this House in internal and external matters. The two resolutions proposed by Senators Norris and Ross in relation to China and Tibet are appropriate and necessary in that they are at the cutting edge of fundamental human rights. We must remember that the People's Republic of China does not have a desirable reputation on human rights, either in respect of its own citizens or other nationals. In demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, a large number of students were viciously trampled, killed and injured in the pursuit of liberty and basic rights for the Chinese people, and many other Chinese people have been involved in that pursuit. We have seen the arrest and suppression of members of Falun Gong, which has members here in Ireland, throughout Europe and in China itself. China has used a great degree of suppression against its own citizens. It is a simple fact that Tibet was occupied by the Chinese half a century ago. Those of us in this country have a memory of the reality of occupation by a foreign power, and it behoves us to be particularly sensitive to the suffering of a small nation in very similar circumstances. The proposals made by the Dalai Lama on political and religious reform are excellent in attempting to bring about a resolution to the problem. Tibet would be made a peace zone and the disgraceful population transfer policy would be ended. I was disappointed by Senator Lanigan's remarks to the effect that the authorities in the People's Republic of China are operating in a reasonable fashion, particularly in relation to the shift of population to a much smaller country. It will be only a short time until the Tibetan population has been disproportionately diminished and the Chinese population increased. As a result of that, the Chinese authorities will say that Tibet is largely Chinese. That is an artificial way of dealing with the question of sovereignty. Senator Lanigan would have taken the position of the Palestinians to heart in relation to the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory which was seen, and which he would see, as occupied Palestinian territory. On many occasions in this House he staunchly protested against that very undesirable policy perpetrated by the Israelis in relation to another oppressed people. The whole area of human rights has been to the fore in terms of the operation of the Chinese authorities. When our former President, Mary Robinson, sought the position of United Nations High Commissioner, the Chinese authorities, through their representative on the Security Council of the United Nations, opposed it simply because Mary Robinson had espoused, when she was President and a Senator, the cause of Tibet. They opposed her nomination to that very important human rights position in the United Nations. We need a fresh approach. The Chinese authorities must negotiate directly with the Dalai Lama and establish a situation whereby Tibet could get its own sovereignty. The Chinese authorities should respect both the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people and their sovereignty. Dr. Henry: I will be brief because my colleagues have made all the important points. Some years ago I attended a meeting in Beijing with an interparliamentary union group. As Senators know, the Panchen Lama is a very important person in Tibet. When he was recognised years ago by the Buddhist community in Tibet, he was a small child, only three years old. He and his family were taken by the Chinese authorities to China. Some years later, the Chinese authorities decided that another child was in fact the new Panchen Lama. When I was in Beijing I asked about the whereabouts and the circumstances of both Panchen Lamas, and I did not get a satisfactory answer. I was told that both they and their families were well but when I asked if it would be possible to see them, I was told that was not possible. In concluding these statements today, I hope that this country, whose Constitution cherishes the children of the nation, will cherish the children of the Tibetan nation who need to be cherished too. I ask that we try to discover better particulars on the Chinese Panchen Lama and the original Panchen Lama, who was chosen by his own people, in terms of where they are living and the circumstances under which their families are being enabled to bring them up. Acting Chairman: When is it proposed to sit again? Mr. T. Fitzgerald: Before moving the Adjournment, it is my normal duty at this time of the year to thank everyone including the staff of the Seanad, Deirdre Lane, Jody Blake, the staff of the office, the Cathaoirleach, Senator Brian Mullooly, the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senator Liam Cosgrave, and all the people who acted as vice-chairmen throughout the session. I would like to make one comment on reflection. The Seanad has changed. When I came into this House a long time ago, many Bills were rubber-stamped and went through the House without an amendment or anything else. Dr. Henry: Not now. Mr. T. Fitzgerald: In this session, and especially in the last year, the number of Bills initiated in the Seanad and the amendments that were accepted from the Opposition are an indication that we are going on the right road. I thank the Acting Chairman, Senator Farrell, in his position assisting me as Chief Whip, and Senator Pat Moylan, our partners in Government, and Senator Dardis, the Deputy Leader. There is one person I always forget to thank and that is the secretary in my own office, Ellen Byrne. I sincerely thank Ellen on behalf of all of us here for keeping the show on the road. Guím rath Dé oraibh go léir agus táim chun an Seanad a chur ar athló anois sine die. I propose that at the conclusion of business the Seanad adjourn sine die.

Adjournment Matters. School Accommodation. Mr. Costello: Fáilte romhat a Aire. I want to raise a matter on the Adjournment to which I hope the Minister of State can give me a satisfactory answer. It is the last item before the summer recess and it would be nice to end on a positive and successful note. I raise the matter of the need for the Minister for Education and Science to fast-track procedures in the building section to ensure that the extra classrooms required in St. John Bosco Senior Boys' School are provided. The area adjacent to St. John Bosco Senior Boys' School on the Navan road in my constitutency is a burgeoning residential area whose population is increasing at an inordinate rate, having doubled in the past 20 years. A total of 500 houses have been built in the past four years and there are major plans for expansion in development. A total of 400 units of accommodation are planned for Pelletstown and development is planned for the Phoennix Park Racecourse ----- Mr. T. Fitzgerald: The country is doing well. Mr. Costello: There is always a downside when the country is doing well. We must provide the necessary facilities and the amenities as well as the built environment. While an inordinate amount of residential development in planned for Pelletstown and the Phoenix Park Racecourse area, which are part of the same parish, major developments have taken place in recent years, including the Riverstown development and developments in the surrounding areas. As a result the school is bursting at the seams. It has a changing room that is currently used as a classroom and as a resource room. This school requires three extra classrooms immediately. The number of pupils enrolled will warrant the provision of an extra classroom teacher in September. The existing number of students warrants the provision of an extra classroom. The school requires a classroom for the visiting resource teacher, Mrs. Flynn. It requires a multi-purpose room for parents and various activities. I am sure that even by this time next year a further one or two additional classrooms will be required because of the nature of the expansion of the school. If arrangements for the provision of additional classrooms for that school are not fast-tracked to meet the immediate requirements, the requirements will have doubled by this time next year. The Minister of State's Department is in a position to speed matters up depending on their degree of urgency. Given that there is no shortage of funding available, there should no problem in providing the best educational and classroom facilities for the students concerned. The staff in the school are conscientious and they have requested extra classrooms in the normal fashion, but they are concerned they will not be provided in time to meet the need that exists. That is at the basis of my request. I urge the Minister of State to use his good offices to ensure that all the necessary work will be carried out during the summer to ensure bright and shiny classrooms await the bright new students in September as they enter their next year of education. Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Mr. Treacy): I am glad the Senator has given me the opportunity to outline to the House the current position of the Department of Education and Science regarding the provision of additional accommodation at St. John Bosco Senior Boys' School, Navan Road, Dublin. The current staffing level of the school includes a principal, 15 assistant teachers, a remedial teacher ad a shared resource teacher. The Department of Education and Science has received an application from the management authorities of the school seeking grant assistance towards additional permanent classrooms and ancillary accommodation. This application is being examined in the context of a range of factors, including proposed housing development and the capacity of other schools in the general area. This examination will enable our Department to establish the likely pattern of future enrolments and, in that way, to determine the amount of school accommodation required. If necessary, the school authorities may apply to the Department of Education and Science for the provision of temporary accommodation for the short term. The Senator will appreciate that there are a large number of school building projects on hand within our Department. Because of the priority this Government has given to reversing the neglect of our primary schools evident previously, the spending Estimates show primary school building and renovation funding increasing by an unprecedented 186% from the 1997 budget allocation. In addition, we have reduced significantly the burden of fundraising faced by schools and communities throughout the country. I can assure the Senator that the application by the management authorities of St. John Bosco Senior Boys' National School will be processed as speedily as possible. To the Acting Chairman, the Assistant Clerk of the House, the staff and Members of the House, I wish to say how grateful I and my Government colleagues are for the co-operation that has been afforded to us during this session. Members can be assured that the Government intends to ensure there is peace, economic progress and political sustainability in Oireachtas Éireann for at least another year and we will review the matter this time next year. I wish the House a very good summer recess. The Seanad adjourned sine die.