National anthem copyright
The Cathaoirleach disallows the proposed same-day debate on the National Anthem Bill because it was not printed, and the Leader explains that copyright protection had already expired.
I wish to clarify in respect of Senator Mark Daly's amendment to the Order of Business that it will not be possible to take Second Stage of the National Anthem (Protection of Copyright and Related Rights) (Amendment) Bill 2016 today as the Bill has not yet been printed. I understand the final proof was not received by the Bills Office in time to meet yesterday's printing deadline. I must, therefore, disallow the amendment.
Comment on this
As the Cathaoirleach mentioned, the National Anthem (Protection of Copyright and Related Rights) (Amendment) Bill 2016 has not yet been printed, but the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, in an answer given a number of years ago in the other House, confirmed that copyright protection for the national anthem had run out in December 2012. The main purpose of ownership by the State of the copyright to the original version of the national anthem was to ensure it would be freely available for general use. The position has not changed on the expiry of copyright protection. On the protection of the integrity of the national anthem, the Minister's Department will look at the possibility of introducing legislation, should it be required, to ensure the anthem will not be used in an inappropriate context or without due deference such as to render it an object of scorn or derision. I know that Senator Mark Daly is interested in this and I am sure he is anxious to bring the Bill before the House. I will put him in contact with the relevant officials in the Department and perhaps they might work together to have the matter rectified in early course.
Regarding No. 79, non-Government motion No. 15 on the availability of two cystic fibrosis drugs, I am surprised that two or three Members have raised this matter, as an all-party motion, signed by practically everyone in the House, was passed last week. Therefore, non-Government motion No. 15 should be removed from the Order Paper.
I wish to inform Senator Ivana Bacik that the debate on the report of the banking inquiry committee is to take place next Tuesday. This is to give Members ample opportunity to read the report which makes for a lot of heavy reading.
The Senator also welcomed the publication of the national maternity strategy and the national skills strategy which were announced yesterday. With Senator Michael Mullins, she wished those involved in the peace talks in Syria well in the hope they can reach a settlement in that war-torn area.
Senator Feargal Quinn asked that No. 14, Registration of Drones Bill 2106, be taken before No. 1. This issue was also commented on by Senator David Norris. I have no problem in accepting that No. 14 be taken before No. 1, the purpose of which is to have the Bill published.
Even though we will have the debate on the report of the banking inquiry committee next week, Senator Aideen Hayden called for a debate on the banking sector and outlined a number of areas we should discuss. One never knows, but I do not believe we will have an opportunity to do so in this session. However, I am sure it is something that the next Seanad will debate.
Senator Paschal Mooney welcomed the increased number of IDA Ireland visits to counties Leitrim and Sligo and hopes there will be success in the provision of jobs in these two counties. The regional action plans for jobs have been working well and we have seen the benefit in more jobs being created in the regions. I am sure all Members of the House will welcome the progress made.
Senator Michael Mullins welcomed the provision of an additional €106 million in funding for local authorities for roads hit by the recent flooding and the provision of emergency assistance for farmers.
I note Senator Sean D. Barrett's comments on the banking inquiry and the need for scrutiny of public spending at all times, an issue also raised by Senator Jim Walsh when he spoke about wasteful public expenditure. Considerable progress has been made in the reform of the public service when one considers the Haddington Road and Lansdowne Road agreements. To suggest, therefore, that little or nothing has been done is not fair. Of course, more could be done in the future, but if the Senator tells anybody working in the public service that there has been little or no reform, he will soon get his answer.
