I beg to move the Report Stage of the Censorship of Films Bill. I have endeavoured in two amendments, which Mr. Duggan will move, to meet certain criticisms which rather impressed me on the Committee Stage. It will be necessary under the Bill as amended that at least four members of the Appeal Board shall uphold the decision of the Official Censor.
OIREACHTAS (PAYMENT OF MEMBERS) BILL, 1923. - CENSORSHIP OF FILMS BILL, 1923.—FOURTH STAGE.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I move Amendment No. 1. "In Section 3, to delete the word `five,' page 3, line 34, and to insert in lieu thereof the word `nine.' " The effect of this is to increase the personnel of the Appeal Board from five to nine.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment 2.
In Section 3, to delete Sub-Section (6), page 4, and to insert in lieu thereof the following two new Sub-Sections:—
"Four members of the Appeal Board personally present shall from a quorm for the hearing of appeals, and the decision of the majority of the members present shall be the decision of the Appeal Board, save that whenever such majority is less than four, or the members present are equally divided, the appeal shall be re-heard in the presence of not less than seven members of the Appeal Board, and the decision of the majority of the members present at such re-hearing shall be the decision of the Appeal Board, but if, on such re-hearing, the members present are equally divided, the decision of the Official Censor shall be affirmed."
"(7) The Appeal Board may act for all purposes notwithstanding the existence of not more than two vacancies in its membership."
The object of the Amendment has already been explained by the Minister for Home Affairs.
I acknowledge that this Amendment goes a considerable way to meet the criticism of the Bill as it was first introduced. I would ask the Minister if he would agree to put in the word "not" after "shall" on the last line of sub-section 6. My desire there is to ensure where there is so much doubt as to the legitimacy or correctness of a film, where we cannot get a majority to agree that it is a picture that ought not to be shown, it will be a very good motto for the Appeals Board to take that phrase "in things essential, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; and in all things charity.""In things doubtful, liberty." Here is a case where you have not been able to persuade the majority of the Appeals Board who may be present at the final hearing. Therefore I suggest that where there is an even division, the decision of the Official Censor should not be affirmed. I think the onus of proof that it is not a film that ought to be shown is with the Official Censor. If he is not able to persuade the majority of the Board that is sitting to decide this question, then the applicant ought to have freedom to exhibit his picture. I suggest that that would be a desirable amendment to this amendment, and, perhaps, the Minister would agree to it.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The position is that some person is appointed to inspect all films that are to be exhibited in the country. That person is known as the Official Censor. An appeal from his decision lies with this Honorary Board. It seems to me that the decision of the Official Censor should stand unless it seems good to the Honorary Board to reverse it. In other words, that in the event of a mere even division amongst the Honorary Board that the Official decision should stand. After all the Censor will be appointed for his fitness to fill the office, and, if he is to mean anything, his decision should stand unless reversed by the Honorary Board. A mere equal voting amongst the Appeal Board, if that were to suffice, to enable a particular picture to be exhibited, then in reality, it is a stigma on the Official Censor, and a suggestion that his judgment is so unreliable that, unless he can find an absolute majority to support it, it should go to the wall. I do not agree that that should be the position. If the exhibitor of the picture is so sure of his ground that he feels he can convince a majority of that body of ordinary unpaid laymen of its fitness for exhibition, then he will, no doubt, appeal. I think there is no hardship or no infringement of liberty in saying that he must convince that majority, and that if he is unable to convince that majority the official verdict will stand.
May I say the work of the Official Censor shows itself to me rather that he will be asked to pass and will be expected to pass the great majority of films. All the non-questionable films will pass and it will be more or less perfunctory work. But when there comes to be a question of doubt, knowing that there is an Appeal Board and rather than run the risk of unpopularity and the risk of flouting public opinion, or risking the censure of his superior he will say, "I will throw this out because I know my decision will be appealed against." It is not because he has formed a definite opinion of its unsuitability, but from the existence of doubt in his mind of what the public or the Minister will think, that will decide him to throw it out knowing that there will be an appeal. That will be the normal procedure. Consequently I think the Board ought at least to have a majority before they decide to throw out a film.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It is, of course, a well recognised principle that in a Court of Appeal when there is an even division the original decision stands. It is rather stressing the thing to take the analogy of the law courts, but what applies in the law courts should apply in this case. Unless the Censor is to be a mere automaton for passing pictures that no one could have the slightest doubt about passing I think his verdict ought to count for something, and I contend what it should count for is that it ought to be equivalent to constitute the extra vote that makes a majority when the Appeal Board itself is evenly divided. I put it to the Deputy that a picture about which four men out of eight feel that it is improper ought not to be exhibited at random throughout the country and it ought not to get the benefit of the doubt. Because what are we risking? We are risking something precious, something that all sane and thoughtful men would hold to be a sacred thing, and that is the cleanmindedness and decency of our citizens.
If it is only that, it is all right. New ideas.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I think the Deputy and anyone else will find in practice that there will be no war on new ideas, but rather on old and unsavoury ideas. We have to remember that the great bulk of cinema patronisers are young people of impressionable ages. Come away for the moment from the business man's claim for individual liberty to exhibit his product and take the view of a decent and a healthy mind amongst our young people and ask are they to be imperilled. Does it mean that the Official Censor must get, to support his decision, an absolute majority of the Appeal Board or else his decision goes to the wall? It is something I could not agree with. I realise that as between the Deputy's point and mine there is only a shadow; still I think the shadow ought to go in favour of those who do really need protection.
I think the fears of Deputy Johnson are ill-founded. I have had a good deal to do both in public and private with people whose decisions are appealed against and with people who have sat in appeal on decisions of others, and I never yet came across any judge, from the highest to the lowest, who was at all anxious to have appeals taken against any decision being made, or who was likely to give a decision for the purpose of getting himself reversed. Put yourself in the place of the Censor of whom Deputy Johnson spoke. A string of films comes before him for adjudication. Is he going to turn down all the films about which he has a doubt in his mind in order that they may go before a body who will reverse his decision and he will then be placarded in all the papers, and no doubt here, as a thoroughly incompetent person who gets reversed every time an appeal is taken against his decision? Remember there can only be appeals against a refusal to sanction a film. It does seem to me this Act protects the promoters of films as thoroughly as could be, and as the Minister for Home Affairs has said, the regular practice has always been, so far as I know in any country, that where a Court of Appeal is evenly divided the decision below stands, because you have the even division alone and the weight of the decision as already come to by the Court below, which is quite sufficient to keep the scale down. It appears to me the proposal that has been brought in by the Minister amply fulfils the undertaking he gave us on the last day, and it seems to me both right and just.
I might reinforce the view of the Minister by reference to ordinary rules such as are administered in the Chair. A resolution on which there is equal voting has not been carried. If I propose that A is B and the question come to a vote, and the vote is equal, my resolution is lost unless the Chairman is entitled to vote. In this case the analogy seems to me to be perfect, because the Censor represents the common sense and the mature and skilled judgment of the community exercised on behalf of the community. The Trade appeals against his prohibition, and then further representatives of the community's wisdom and concern for its own safety exercise their judgment in turn. Unless there is a majority vote against the Censor's decision, surely, in accordance with all precedent and common sense, the Censor's judgment ought to stand? I hold strongly with the Minister that it reduces the Censor's position very considerably in prestige and status and, above all, in responsibility. Is he to be regarded as one whose decisions have not a certain measure of finality and authority such as is secured by making it necessary for a clear majority for the Court of Appeal to decide against his view? What Deputy Johnson is afraid of, it is clear, is that the Censor will be a reactionary opposed to new ideas and keenly sensitive about propagandist films and determined to shut out the new light. He fancies in the case of an appeal on a film of that sort that it would be easier to find an opinion in favour of reaction. I quite see the difficulty. I am quite alive to the fact that first of all one Censor is not ideal. Neither is anything but a fairly large number on a Court of Appeal, but in this matter, as in all things of life, we must arrive at compromise, and I do think the Minister's proposal is a reasonable compromise. That proposal is that we invest the Censor with a certain authority to give a decision, and that decision stands unless there is a majority vote against it in the body to which appeal lies.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I move: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I move: "That the Censorship of Films Bill, 1923, do now pass."
I second the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until Tuesday, 29th May, at 3 p.m.