Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 May 1923

Vol. 3 No. 15

CENSORSHIP OF FILMS BILL, 1923. - COMMITTEE STAGE.

(1) There shall be established the Office of Official Censor of Films.
(2) The Official Censor of Films shall be a corporation sole under that name with perpetual succession and an official seal, and may sue and be sued under that name.

I move Section 1 which provides for the establishment of the office of an Official Censor.

Question put: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 2.
(1) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act and thereafter as occasion arises, appoint a fit person to the office of Official Censor, who shall hold office for such time and on such terms as the Minister shall, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, appoint.
(2) Every person appointed to be Official Censor under this Act shall receive such salary or fees as the Minister for Finance shall determine.

I move Amendment No. 1.

After line 24, to add a new Sub-section as follows:—"Whenever the Official Censor is temporarily unable to attend to his duties, or his office is vacant, the Minister may appoint a fit person to perform the duties of the Official Censor under this Act, during such inability or vacancy, and every person so appointed shall during his appointment have all the powers of the Official Censor under this Act, and shall receive such remuneration out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, as the Minister shall, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, direct."

I think the amendment speaks for itself. The object is to provide for the carrying out of the duties of the office during such period as the Censor may be unavoidably absent, or the office might be vacant.

Amendment agreed.
Motion made and question put: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 3.
(1) There shall be established a Censorship of Films Appeal Board consisting of five Commissioners, of whom one shall be chairman.
(2) The members of the Appeal Board shall hold office for five years from the date of their appointment and shall, at the end of any such term of office, be eligible for re-appointment.
(3) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, and thereafter as occasion arises, appoint fit persons to be members of the Appeal Board.
(4) Whenever any vacancy shall occur in the membership of the Appeal Board by reason of the death or resignation of a member before the expiration of his term of office, the Minister shall appoint a fit person to fill such vacancy, but the person so appointed shall hold office only for the residue of the term of office of the member whose death or resignation occasioned such vacancy.
(5) The Minister shall from time to time as occasion arises nominate one of the members of the Appeal Board to be chairman thereof.
(6) The Appeal Board may act by three of its members, and notwithstanding the existence of not more than two vacancies in its membership.
Motion made and question put:—
"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 4.
(1) The Minister shall appoint such persons to be officers of the Official Censor and of the Appeal Board respectively, as subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance as to number, he may consider necessary for the purposes of this Act, and these officers shall hold office upon such terms and be remunerated at such rates and in such manner as the Minister for Finance may sanction.
(2) The salaries or remuneration of the Official Censor and his officers and of the officers of the Appeal Board, and such other expenses of carrying this Act into effect as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Section 4 provides for the appointment of officers of the Official Censor and whatever staff might be found to be necessary for the Board of Appeal.

Motion made and question put: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Agreed.

SECTION 5.

(1) No picture shall be exhibited in public by means of a cinematograph or similar apparatus unless and until the Official Censor has certified that the whole of such picture is fit for exhibition in public.

(2) Every person who exhibits in public by means of a cinematograph or similar apparatus any picture which, or any part of which, has not been certified by the Official Censor to be fit for exhibition in public, and every person who knowingly permits any cinematograph or other apparatus owned or hired by him to be used for the exhibition in public of any such picture as aforesaid, and every person who knowingly permits any building or any land in his possession or occupation to be used for the exhibition in public by any such means as aforesaid of any such picture as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine not exceeding £5 for each day on which the offence continues.

I move Amendment No. 2:—

After line 33, to add a new Sub-section as follows:—"This Section shall come into operation at the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, or at such earlier time as the Minister shall appoint."

This section provides for the payment of penalties for breaches of the provisions of the section, and as it is obvious that some little time will elapse before the office can be created and in full working order, it is to obviate hardship that would arise if persons were made liable for penalties before they had reasonable opportunities for complying with the provisions of the section.

Has the Minister made any inquiry as to the custom in the business with regard to hiring; whether they hire any great distance in advance of the date of exhibition? They may in quite good faith, have hired pictures, say, a year ahead. I do not know. I am only putting this as a suggestion for consideration. They know that such a picture may have been passed by a censor in England, and they have bound themselves to pay the contract price for the rent of that film. They have now to undergo the risk of the banning of that picture in Ireland. Perhaps it is quite out of the question that they are going to pick pictures so far ahead as I have indicated, but the Minister may help us on that matter.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

No representations to that effect have been made to me or to my Department, and I think they would have been made if that consideration existed. I take it that any contract of that kind was made with all the possibilities in mind, for instance, the possibility of an Act of this being being passed here. It would have been a matter, in any case, as between the parties to the contract. I do not think that we could in any way provide for that contingency in the Act.

The only point is whether the period of six months is sufficiently far ahead. If this were passed as it stands, and it were found that any large number of pictures had already been booked for, say, nine months ahead, you will be bound to bring the Act into operation six months ahead, whereas if you say twelve months here, or such earlier period as outside enquiry will help you to decide, whether such limit of nine or twelve months was required. Perhaps the Minister would think of it between now and the next stage.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I will consider it. But the idea underlying Deputy Duggan's Amendment is that if we pass this Act, then as from the date of its passing, it would be impossible to exhibit pictures that had not been passed by the Official Censor. The setting up of his office, the selection of suitable offices and so on, would take some little time, and it is necessary to provide for a period during which pictures might be accepted.

The question is what the length of that period is to be.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Probably six months. The censorship will probably be in operation long before that.

Amendment agreed.
Motion made and question put: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 6.
(1) No picture, nor any part of a picture, in respect of which the Official censor has granted a limited certificate shall be exhibited in public by means of a cinematograph or similar apparatus at any place not authorised by such certificate, or under any conditions inconsistent with the special conditions specified in such limited certificate, or in the presence of any person who is not a member of the class in whose presence such picture is by such certificate authorised to be exhibited.
(2) Every person who exhibits in public by means of a cinematograph or similar apparatus any picture or any part of a picture in respect of which a limited certificate has been granted by the Official Censor under this Act either at any place not authorised by such certificate or under any conditions inconsistent with the special conditions specified in such certificate or in the presence of any person who is not a member of the class in whose presence such picture is by such certificate authorised to be exhibited, and every person who knowingly permits any cinematograph or other apparatus owned or hired by him or any land in his possession or occupation to be used for such exhibition as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine not exceeding £5 for each day during which the offence continues.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Section 6 provides that a censor may pass a picture with restrictions as to the place in which it may be exhibited, or the audience before whom it may be exhibited.

Amendment by

—After line 57, to add a new Sub-section as follows:—"This Section shall come into operation at the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, or at such earlier time as the Minister shall appoint."

Amendment No. 3 is identical with Amendment No. 2, and it is intended to effect the same purpose. I move it.

Amendment agreed.
Motion made and question put:—"That Section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 7.
(1) Every person desiring to exhibit in public by means of a cinematograph or similar apparatus any picture which has not been certified by the Official Censor to be fit for exhibition in public may apply to the Official Censor in the prescribed manner for a certificate that such picture is fit for exhibition in public.
(2) Whenever any such application as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section is made to the Official Censor, he shall certify in the prescribed manner that the picture to which the application relates is fit for exhibition in public, unless he is of opinion that such picture or some part thereof is unfit for general exhibition in public by reason of its being indecent, obscene or blasphemous or because the exhibition thereof in public would tend to inculcate principles contrary to good morals or social order or would be otherwise subversive of good morals or social order.
(3) If the Official Censor is of opinion that any picture in respect of which an application is made to him under this section is not fit for general exhibition in public, but is fit for exhibition in public in certain places in Saorstát Eireann, or under special conditions or in the presence of certain classes of persons, he shall grant a certificate that such picture is fit for exhibition in public subject to such restrictions and conditions (which shall be expressed on the certificate) in regard to the places at which or the special conditions under which the picture may be exhibited or the classes of persons who may be admitted to an exhibition of the picture as, in the opinion of the Official Censor, are necessary to prevent the exhibition of the picture in public, being subversive of good morals or social order.
(4) Whenever the Official Censor is of opinion that part only of any picture in respect of which an application is made to him under this section is unfit for exhibition in public he shall indicate such part to the person making such application, and thereupon such person may either(a) separate such part from the picture and surrender it to the Official Censor, who shall retain it in his possession and grant a certificate for the picture with the omission of such part; or (b) may regard the decision of the Official Censor as a refusal to grant a certificate and may appeal in the prescribed manner to the Appeal Board.
(5) Whenever the Official Censor refuses to grant a certificate under this section he shall record such refusal in the prescribed manner.
Amendment by Mr. T. Johnson:—In Sub-section (2) to delete the words "contrary to good morals or social order, or would be otherwise subversive of good morals or social order;" page 5, lines 6 and 7, and to substitute the words `contrary to public morality."

My amendment is to alter the words "contrary to good morals or social order" and to substitute the words "contrary to public morality." I take that phrase from the Constitution, not that I like it, but it probably meets the requirements better than the phrase in the Bill. I expressed my doubts upon this on the Second Reading. We are all on fairly general agreement as to what constitutes public morals, unless we are asked to define them, but Social order is a much more disputed term, and is not by any means commonly accepted. I have seen it said that the average films should be banned because they are contrary to social order, and because they conduce to the break-up of the social order in as much as they exhibit to the average poor man and woman, boy and girl, scenes of great splendour and luxury, and excite envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness in the minds of the spectators, and consequently these pictures tend to disrupt the social order. I am sure the Minister does not desire to encourage that feeling in the minds of the young, and he may nominate a censor who will say to himself these pictures, these scenes of luxury, ought not to be allowed because they affect the simple minds of the Irish citizens who are acquainted with pastoral life, and know nothing of the wiles and scenes of cities, and these luxurious scenes are very apt to excite feelings of horror at the expense of these habitations of luxury, and consequently they may be banned under this Bill as it stands as being disruptive of the social order. But apart from that, there are other considerations as to whether a development of the cinema industry on educational and propagandist lines— deliberately propagandist, I do not mean accidently—is not likely to be frustrated by a very narrow conception of what is detrimental to the social order. I think it is very likely we shall have a very big development in the direction of propaganda by means of films and educational work of one kind and another through pictures. Now, the Bill as it stands, with the words "social order" do imply something static and generally understood. I suggest that that is not the fact. We do not understand the same thing when we speak of "social order," and you cannot put into the mind of the censor what you mean by the phrase "social order," or what the Bill means by the phrase. I suggest that it is too loose and indefinite, and ought to be altered. The Constitution uses the term "public morality." That is almost as loose, but it is in the Constitution, and I submit that it would be better to confine our use of any such term to that which we have embodied in the constitution.

I think the same result in practice will be arrived at, but the risk of results which we do not foresee will be lessened by using the term at present embodied in the Constitution. I beg to move the amendment.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I, too, like Deputy Johnson, have occasionally patronised picture houses, and I have seen strange things there, not merely films calculated to upset, as he says, social order, but films which absolutely set at naught all physical laws. I have seen people cycling up the front walls of houses and doing many extraordinary things, all calculated to bewilder the average man's mind. I am seriously surprised that Deputy Johnson would take exception to these very innocent words "social order" or expect that any rigid or tyrannical use would be made of them by a future Administration. It is not now as if we were setting up a piece of machinery that would henceforth and for all time act on its own in a mechanical or irresponsible way. We are establishing an office, the holder of which will be responsible to a Minister of the Executive Council, who must answer here to the representative of the people for all phases of the activities of his Department, including the operations of this Official Censor. I do not think it is at all likely, or even possible, that use can be made of those two words in that Section to exclude propaganda of a particular political or economic creed. Social order has, I submit, a definite meaning.

Tell us what it is.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It has a definite meaning. There are certain broad principles upon which civilised communities are agreed. I am not a believer in the theory of a definite social contract, that mankind met in a valley and laid down certain definite rules to order their lives as from that day forth; but we, by experience—sad experience or otherwise— know there are broad principles of order which form the basis of civilised communities. Nothing more than that was intended to be conveyed by those two words. "Public morality" does not mean, to my mind, any more or any less than that. If you ask me what exactly "social order" means, I would suggest it would mean this: that men with a message, whether it be a political message or an economic message, would set out as reasonable beings to convince their fellow men, also as reasonable beings, of the soundness of their particular creed, and that they would rely for that on their success, realising that if they do not convince the minds of men, then they are faced with the alternative of coercing their bodies, which is a bad alternative, and calculated to lead simply to chaos, and calculated further to undo entirely and remove any good that might be contained intrinsically in the particular principle of the creed that is preached or expounded. If the Deputy presses it, if he can show me that there is any considerable volume of opinion in the Dáil or elsewhere in favour of his amendment, I have no objection to accepting the words "public morality" for "social order." But I do want to make it clear, here, that there was no sinister motive in inserting the other phrase.

I had not the slightest thought that the intention of the Minister in framing this clause was for the purpose of preventing what would be reasonable in his mind and mine. This is to be an Act of Parliament, and we cannot define what either the Censor or the Judges would decide as going outside the Act. The clause in the Constitution dealing with something of this kind reads as follows: "The right of free expression of opinion is guaranteed for purposes not opposed to public morality." I take it that that covers everything that is wished for in the Bill, and it is better that we should not extend the range of phrases. It achieves the object that the Minister seeks and yet keeps us in harmony with the intentions of the Constitution. I have no doubt whatever of the bona fides of the Minister in putting these words in, but I say it would be an improvement to retain the phraseology of the Constitution.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I accept the Deputy's suggestion.

Before the amendment is put, there is a little matter of drafting I would like to draw attention to. In the last few lines of Sub-section 2 it is set out that the exhibition of certain films would inculcate principles contrary to whatever we may decide, or be otherwise subversive of good morals and social order. The amendment proposes to strike out the words "good morals or social order" simply to substitute the words "public morality" after the words "contrary to." The Sub-section would then read: "To inculcate principles contrary to public morality." I think the Deputy should substitute the words "public morality" for the words "good morals and social order" in each place. The very next Sub-section, which we have not yet reached, talks of a picture subversive of public morality, or whatever it may be. If the first amendment is carried you strike out the provision about subverting, while later on you retain subverting and not inculcating principles. I think the form of the amendment ought to be "To inculcate principles contrary to public morality or would be otherwise subversive of public morality." It is quite possible, to my mind, that a picture, without inculcating principles at all, might be subversive of public morality, and, therefore, I think the draftsman of the Bill was perfectly right in putting in two alternatives. I do not think the Deputy's amendment is quite correct.

I accept Deputy FitzGibbon's reading. I quite see his point.

The proposed new amendment would therefore be: "To delete in Sub-section 2, lines 6 and 7, the words `good morals or social order' and insert the words `public morality.' " The Sub-section would then read: "or because the exhibition thereof in public would tend to inculcate principles contrary to public morality, or would be otherwise subversive of public morality."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment by Mr. Johnson:—
"In Sub-section (3) to delete the words `good morals or social order,' line 20, and substitute `public morality.' "
Agreed to.
Motion made and question put: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 8.
(1) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Official Censor refusing to grant a certificate under this Act or attaching any restrictions or conditions to such certificate may appeal in the prescribed manner from such decision to the Appeal Board, and on the hearing of such appeal the Appeal Board may affirm, reverse or very the decision of the Official Censor.
(2) When notice of an appeal under this section has been given the Official Censor shall furnish to the Appeal Board his reasons in writing for the decision appealed against, and shall furnish, on payment of the prescribed fees, copies of such reasons to every person who is entitled to appear and be heard at the hearing of such appeal.
(3) The Appeal Board shall not have power to grant any certificate under this Act, but shall as soon as may be after the hearing of an appeal communicate its decision thereon to the Official Censor and thereupon the Official Censor shall grant or withhold a certificate in accordance with such decision.
(4) The decision of the Appeal Board shall be final.

I move the following amendment:—

Before Sub-section (3) to insert a new Sub-section as follows:—

"If the Appeal Board, after examination of the picture in respect of which the appeal is brought and consideration of the reasons furnished by the Official Censor, and of any representations made by persons appearing to the Appeal Board to be interested in the matter, unanimously approves of the decision of the Official Censor, refusing to grant a certificate, or attaching restrictions and conditions to the certificate, then the decision of the Official Censor shall be affirmed; but if any member or members of the Appeal Board is, or are, unable to approve of the decision of the Official Censor, then that decision shall be reversed, provided, however, that the restrictions and conditions attached to the certificate by the Official Censor may be varied, or new restrictions and conditions may be attached to the certificate as may be decided by a majority of the members of the Appeal Board."

The point of this amendment is to ensure that where there is an appeal from the Official Censor to the Board, that the Board shall be unanimous before they refuse to allow the exhibition of a picture, but that if they desire to impose conditions, that a majority will then suffice. If there is to be a prohibition it should be by the unanimous decision of the Board of Appeal. Such a Board may make conditions, or vary conditions suggested by the Censor, by a majority. I think the argument was well stated by Deputy Magennis on the last occasion. I am sorry he is not here to support this now. I do urge it is desirable to remove as far as possible the risks of controversy as between the Censor and the Board and sections of the public. If an appeal to the Board is going to be decided on the merits of a film, it stands to reason that the public is going to be divided upon the rightfulness or otherwise of the action of the Censor. It is distinctly a case for unanimity rather than for majority rule. If there is any doubt as to the effect of a picture, then the "prisoner" should have the benefit of the doubt. We are rather trying to legislate against clear outraging of public opinion and public feeling, and we ought not to leave it open to minorities to say that their views are being outraged at the instance of the majority, or a passing phase of public feeling. Where you have a unanimous vote of a Board there will be little question that the public will accept the decision of such a Board without hesitation. I think the claim is a reasonable one and will appeal to the good sense of the Minister.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

We are not accepting this amendment. The Deputy knows that I am somewhat of a crank on the question of majority rule as a principle of order. I am not convinced that the decision of the Official Censor plus the decision of the majority of the Appeal Board of five, does not constitute a pretty damning case against a particular picture within the broad terms of reference assigned to the Censor and the Appeal Board. The idea in selecting five was with a view to decisions turning on a majority before that Board of Appeal. I think a censorship that would mean that having run the gauntlet of official censoring one would have to have against the Official Censor an unanimous Appeal Board—it would be almost as well to leave things as they are as to have such a broad basis of that unanimous verdict of six people——

Or four people.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The Censor and five members of the Board of Appeal.

Sub-section 6 of Section 3 says that the Appeal Board may act by three of its members.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It may, but normally there will be a membership of five. The probability in eight cases out of ten is that there would be a full attendance of the Board to hear, or, rather, see a particular appeal. There is this further weakness in the Deputy's amendment. He suggests there should be unanimity in upholding the decision of the Censor, but there need not be unanimity in attaching conditions. In fact, that would leave this peculiar situation possible, that having a majority of the Appeal Board disapproving of a picture in cases in which the official Censor refuses to grant a certificate, they are unable to reject it if one member refuses to agree. They may, however, attach such restrictions to the exhibition as would make that exhibition impossible. They may, for instance, attach the condition that the picture should be shown only in the Arran Islands so that it would amount to a veto.

The Arran Islands being incorruptible.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Quite. We are standing, then, for the original Section. I have given a certain amount of consideration to the Deputy's amendment, and I do not see that it improves the Bill. I think, on the contrary, that it would leave such large openings for doubtful or immoral pictures there would be very little real change from the present position.

It seems to me there is very little use in having a Censor at all if, when he, having refused a certificate and when an appeal is taken, four members of the Appeal Board concur with him, the fact of the remaining member of the Board not agreeing, shall have the result of allowing the exhibition of the picture. I do not know whether the Ministry intend that appeals should be limited to a refusal on the part of the Censor, because the effect of this clause appears to me to give no right of appeal to anybody who objects to the picture. It is only the person aggrieved by the decision to refuse to grant a certificate who may go to the Appeal Board. Therefore persons who strongly object to the granting of a certificate by the Censor appear to me to be absolutely bound by his decision and do not appear to have the right of appeal. Therefore, the whole tendency of procedure will be to facilitate the granting of certificates and not to reject the pictures. It seems a rather peculiar position that the Appeal Board are to make rules and regulations providing for the parties who are entitled to appear before them, but I do not find in the Bill provisions for anybody to appear in opposition to a particular appeal. The parties framing the appeal can appear before them and make their case, but there appears to be no provision for the opposition to the film in question, although power is given to the Appeal Board to prescribe who are the persons entitled to appear, and they will have copies of the reason given by the official Censor. The persons entitled to appear seem to be limited to the promoters of the film. There appears to me to be very little case indeed made for the amendment.

My feeling in this matter is, frankly, I am afraid of the person appointed having narrow views of a kind that would cramp and confine picture exhibitions. I suppose I am as puritanical as most men, and rather more so than many, but I do not want to give too much power to a single official, or even three or four out of five. The Minister thinks little of the suggestion that only three out of five may be acting as a Board. I think that after a few appeals, unless the Board consists of men as fond of pictures as Deputy Magennis, they will get tired of sitting on appeals, and in more cases than not the Board will consist of three. We may have an official censor who will have some doubt, and for the purpose of ensuring that the responsibility will be thrown on the Board he can say: "I refuse it." An appeal is then made to the Board; three persons sit, and it becomes, perhaps, a case of two to one in favour of throwing out. That gives too many chances, I think, for injustice being done. The Minister has not yet pledged himself to bring in a Bill applying the Scottish jury system of majority verdict, but he still stands by the unanimity of the jury. I am asking him to embody that principle in this Appeal Board so that it shall be a majority decision. It is frankly because of the risk of injustice being done to the new idea that I would desire to introduce the amendment.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

If I felt that the normal attendance of the Appeal Board would be a bare quorum of three rather than a full membership of five, I would be rather impressed by the Deputy's point. I wonder whether it would not be possible to meet him along the lines of increasing the membership of the Board —after all, it is an honorary Board, and costs the State nothing—thereby increasing the quorum and increasing the number of minds that must endorse the decision of the Film Censor.

That would go some way towards meeting my point.

Why not do what is done in courts of a limited number, and put a provision at the end of Section 3, saying that if there is a difference of opinion among members of the Appeal Board the whole Board will be summoned? It would then be open in the case of a minority of one to insist upon the whole Board acting.

So far as the spirit of Deputy Johnson's amendment is concerned I should like to approve it, because if I am in order in making this point it seems to me that the appointment of one single Censor as the Official Censor creates endless difficulty, and will not secure the purpose for which the Bill was framed. It makes the situation a little better, no doubt, to have a Board of Appeal, but the Board of Appeal is to consist purely of honorary membership, and the Minister has just pointed out it is without remuneration. I do not like to harp too much upon the old string, but I would ask you, sir, and the Deputies to remember with what public spirit the giving of service to public purposes has been met with recent years in Ireland. There are Boards of Education that I could name upon which men have served diligently, sedulously at great inconvenience to themselves incurring odium and unpopularity in the discharge of their duties, and what have they received in return—exactly the odium and ingratitude that public service so frequently meets with in this country? I had recently to plead the case of the Intermediate Board, for example. We are not permitted to exercise a statutory duty of framing a programme, and the educational bodies that depend upon the programme are at a grave disadvantage, and even the Minister for Education utilises the opportunity afforded him in the debates on the Estimates, and in answers to questions, to throw bouquets of disrespect to a Board of that type. Now, the same Ministry proposes to create another Board, made up of men who will give what they know of life and the requirements of life to the service of a Censor who is paid. That is the situation we have to consider now with regard to this amendment. There is an official who is paid. I have no doubt he will be paid a very high salary, because it is an onerous task to be appointed to. To see three films in the one day is more than one man can stand without injury to his eyesight. As regards his morality I will say nothing. This official, at any rate, is to receive a high salary. The members of the Appeal Board are to receive none. Perhaps the Minister imagines that free sittings will be sufficient compensation for them. I remember a story of a small boy who expressed the desire of becoming an editor when he grew up. On being asked why he selected an editorship, he said it was because he would have a free pass to the circus.

I suppose these members having a free pass, so to speak, to a trade show are to feel amply compensated for the risks they run, and for the criticism to which they will, undoubtedly, be subject, not merely by an offended trade and offended exhibitors, but by outraged parents who will disapprove of the things of which they approve. The efficiency or effectiveness of this measure depends upon the Board quite as much as upon the selection of the Censor because it is admitted by the Minister that he creates the Board in order to meet, as far as humanly possible, the defects inherent in the appointment of a single man. The jury system has, undoubtedly, worked very effectively through the centuries in which it has been tried, and that is an exhibition of the wisdom of twelve ordinary men, on a matter of ordinary procedure in life, being better on the whole, in the long run, than the opinion of one man who is wiser and better than the best of the twelve.

So far as my experience of the films goes, hearing criticisms about them from every variety of people, some who are prudish and circumspect, others who are broad-minded, others who are ordinary and normal—as I hope I am—hearing all these varying views, and seeing how differently a thing will strike different observers, it seems to me undoubtedly, that we ought to have a large Board. The Minister has, undoubtedly, made an offer which removes a great deal of my objection, because if you have a larger Board of Appeal then the likelihood of getting a good average common-sense verdict on the film in question is very much increased. The Censor will, I should say, if he is a prudent man, incline to reject what ordinarily he would only regard as doubtful so as to invoke the verdict of this larger appeal body to his aid, and then the more varied the type of member who is nominated to this Board the greater likelihood that public morality will be safe, and, at the same time, that the entertainment of the average man or the average frequenter of the cinema will have been interfered with at a minimum. I do not quite approve of the idea that whereas it requires a majority to affirm the rejection by the Censor it does not require a majority to do other things. I agree with the Minister for Home Affairs on that point. I think that is a weak point in the amendment. On the other hand it should not be left to so small a body as three to deal with the efficient decision of the efficient Censor, because let us not forget what commonly happens, say in the case of testing the addition of figures. If I were called upon to add a long tot rapidly, I should feel myself in a different position altogether from what I am in if someone has already made the addition, and I am merely testing the accuracy of what has been set down. The same thing happens in reviewing verdicts arrived at by other people. There is the presumption that the man who has gone before was accurate, that he was painstaking and careful, that his answer is more likely to be right than the reverse, and that one might accept it. In the case of a Board constituted of three who are giving their services to the public for nothing they may be men who are in a hurry, who are pre-occupied with other affairs, who feel that after all the onus rests properly upon the official paid Censor, and they will simply be inclined— and it is a very natural propensity—to affirm his decision without any more ado. The larger number secures a greater variety of opinion, and it also secures the probability of a larger number of men who are taking their duties seriously. Any of us who have served upon committees and upon Boards are well aware that there is frequently—not always—a minority who are not serving—of course, sometimes there is a majority that are not—and a hard-working minority who are pulling the rest with them. The point I am trying to make is that not all are doing the work, and that being the experience of myself I hold the larger you make the membership the more likely you are to secure your end. I would certainly ask the Minister to introduce into the measure what he has just proposed.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I wonder would it meet the views of Deputies if, as between this and the next Stage, we were to undertake to consider the enlargement of the membership of the Appeal Board to 9, and the insertion in the Bill of a new Sub-section somewhat on these lines:—

"In the event of the attendance at a particular appeal being less than the full membership of the Appeal Board, then unless there is unanimity of view amongst those who attend in affirming, reversing or varying the decision of the Official Censor a full meeting of the Appeal Board shall be summoned to decide the appeal by a majority vote."

What I undertake is to consider increasing the membership of the Appeal Board and the insertion of a Sub-section providing that unless there is unanimity amongst those who attend, if the attendance is less than the full membership, a full meeting shall be summoned to decide by a majority vote.

I think that will go far to meet my desire on this matter, and with the permission of the Dáil, on that understanding, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made and question put: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill." Agreed.
Sections 9 and 10 put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) There shall be charged in respect of applications to the Official Censor, and the granting or refusal by him of certificates, and in respect of other acts done by him in the execution of his duties under this Act, such fees as the Minister, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, shall from time to time fix.
(2) There shall also be charged, in respect of appeals to the Appeal Board, and in respect of acts done by the Appeal Board in the execution of its duties under this Act, such fees as the Minister, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, shall from time to time fix.
(3) All fees charged under this Act shall be collected either in cash or by means of stamps, as the Minister for Finance shall, from time to time direct, and all such fees shall be collected and accounted for by such persons and in such manner and shall be paid to such account, as the Minister for Finance shall, from time to time direct, and shall be applied as an appropriation in aid of moneys provided by the Oireachtas for expenses under this Act, and so far as not so applied shall be paid into the Exchequer.
(4) The fees to be charged under this section shall be arranged from time to time, so as to produce an annual sum sufficient to discharge the salaries and other expenses incidental to the working of this Act and no more.

I move: "To delete Sub-section (3). Since the Bill was printed it has been discovered that this Sub-section is unnecessary as its provisions are already contained in the Public Officers' Fees Act, 1879.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move: "In Sub-section 4, line 33, to insert after the word `produce' the words `as nearly as may be.' " This is rather a drafting amendment as Sub-section 4 as it stands places on the responsible authority the duty of charging such fees as will produce an annual sum which they do not know. It is too definite and I suggest it should be made a little elastic to make an estimate.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I wonder has the Deputy adverted to the reading that would then exist. The fees to be charged under this Section shall be arranged from time to time so as to produce as nearly as may be an annual sum sufficient to discharge the salaries. I have no objection to the amendment but I fail to see that it effects very much.

It is in the nature of a suggested alteration. I feel as it stands you are charged with a duty you cannot perform.

What is the object of the next amendment in the name of Deputy Duggan?

To ensure that the Minister for Finance shall have control of the finances.

It is not the same thing, then.

The point is, you cannot very well beforehand estimate the total cost of this service, and yet according to the letter of this Section the fees should be charged so as to produce an amount that would exhaustively pay for the entire service.

Do the words "In the opinion of the Minister for Finance" affect the issue raised in Deputy Johnson's amendment? The Minister for Finance charges certain fees which in his opinion will produce the sum.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I think I see the point of the amendment—that if the wording of the Bill as drafted were to remain you would be bound so to fix the fees that they will bring in the exact cost of the administration for the financial year, neither more nor less, and possibly some crank might bring an action because the fees brought in more and some legal pedant might uphold such an action.

That is the intention and the amendment is to give the Minister a loop-hole.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move: "In Sub-section (4) to insert after the word "sufficient," line 33, the words "in the opinion of the Minister for Finance."

Is the Amendment really required inasmuch as you provided in Section 11 that fees are to be fixed by the Minister for Finance? Has not the Minister for Finance got quite sufficient grip over the fees in that Section without bringing it into Sub-section 4?

I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

What exactly do the words "and no more" at the end of Sub-section 4 signify? It reads now "The fees to be charged under this Section shall be arranged from time to time so as to produce as nearly as may be an annual sum sufficient to discharge the salaries and other expenses incidental to the working of this Act and no more." Has "no more" any connection with "as nearly as may be"?

I move the deletion of the words "and no more."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move as an Amendment to add at the end of Sub-section (4) the words "but shall not be fixed at a rate so high as to operate to deter applications or appeals to the Official Censor or the Appeal Board."

This Amendment is rather put forward to get an assurance from the Minister that the cost of administration will not be so high as to necessitate charging fees which will deter appeals and applications for appeals. I do not press it, because it is hardly the kind of thing that ought to be in a Bill, but it is essential, I think, that there should be some assurance that the cost of administration of this Act is kept low enough to make it possible for the industry to continue. Otherwise you will have a high cost of administration, and a high charge upon every picture and every appeal so as to meet the cost of administration, and I would ask the Minister to give the Dáil an assurance that the cost of appeals will be kept down to a very low level.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am very glad that the Deputy is not pressing the Amendment, because it is scarcely acceptable, but I would be very willing to give the assurance that the cost it is proposed to put on the industry, that is, that cost of the administration of this censorship, will be kept down to the minimum necessary for efficiency in the carrying out of the censorship. It is not possible now to say what rate would be required to be fixed to produce the necessary sum to provide for the working of the Act, but a guarantee is given that the fees will be as low as possible, consistent with the undertaking to pay, so that it will not be a burden upon the public Exchequer. The fees, I think, will be so low that they will not deter anyone applying for a certificate. They may possibly deter people who have a moral certainty that a picture they propose to exhibit would be rejected. One could quite understand that a low fee would have the effect of turning off a forlorn hope, so to speak.

May I ask if the Minister has contemplated the advertising value of rejection, not perhaps here, but if a picture is censored here and then passes the British Censor when it goes back to Britain, it will be advertised "License refused by the Irish Censor."

"Showing now as rejected by Saorstát Eireann."

Has the Minister contemplated putting a penalty upon such a picture so as to pay for the advertisement?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

They will have to pay for the rejection as well as for the certificate enabling them to exhibit, so that they will be entitled to any advertising value that they receive.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill, " put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
(1) The Minister for Home Affairs may by order, from time to time, make, and when made vary and revoke regulations for carrying into effect the objects of this Act, and in particular for regulating the conduct of the office of the Official Censor, the making of applications to him, the granting of certificates by him, and the bringing of appeals to the Appeal Board.
(2) Every regulation made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by each House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which either House has sat annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.
(3) If any such regulation requires a declaration to be made for any purpose, a person who makes such declaration, knowing the same to be untrue in any material particular, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

I beg to move to add to Section 12 the following new Sub-section:—

"Regulations made under this Section may require any person bringing an appeal to the Appeal Board to deposit a sum not exceeding £5, and that such deposit may be forfeited in the event of the appeal being unsuccessful."

The object of this amendment is to prevent the bringing of frivolous or vexatious appeals.

Is it intended that this sum of £5 should be fixed? Would it not be well to fix a lesser sum at the beginning? I suggest it should be a very small sum, in the beginning at any rate, because while the official censor may be very timid and may refuse many films inviting appeals in the earlier stages, the sum, I think, should be less than £5 so that the film industry—exhibitors, renters, etc., may be all gradually educated as well as the public.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

What the Deputy suggests is that the amount is too high.

That it should be the maximum amount and not enforced at the earlier stages. I want to ensure that when you speak of a sum not exceeding £5 regulation should be made so that the deposits in the first instances might be £2 or £1, unless you find the necessity for increasing it later on.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Yes, that is why £5 is put in as a maximum.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question "That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
In this Act whenever the context so admits or requires the expression—
"Official Censor" means the Official Censor of Films appointed under this Act;
The expression "Appeal Board" means the Censorship of Films Appeal Board appointed under this Act;
The expression "limited certificate" means a certificate granted by the Official Censor under this Act containing a condition or restriction as to the places at which, or the special conditions under which or the persons before whom the picture to which such certificate relates may be exhibited, and the expression "general certificate" means any such certificate not containing any such condition or restriction;
The word "picture" includes any optical effect produced by means of a cinematograph or similar apparatus;
The expression "in public" means at any exhibition, show or entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, and includes any exhibition, show or entertainment to which only a particular class of the public specified in a limited certificate are admitted;
The word "Minister" means the Minister for Home Affairs;
The word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made under this Act.
Question: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
This Act may be cited as the "Censorship of Films Act, 1923."
Agreed to.
Top
Share