As the Theatre and Cinema Association (Ireland) and the Kinematograph Renters' Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Ltd., have recently endeavoured by a carefully-prepared and extensive publicity campaign to create the impression in the public mind that they have been badly treated in the matter of the arrangements made for the censoring of films under the Censorship of Films Act, 1923, I think it right to give the Dáil and the public the fullest possible information on the matter.
I should first like to recall that the Censorship of Films Act was passed as a social measure in response to a very definite public demand. In view of the financial burdens of the State, it was taken as axiomatic that the cost of censorship should not be borne out of public funds, and that, therefore, any necessary expenses would have to be raised by way of fee charged for the censorship service. On the other hand, it was agreed that no profit to the State should be made out of such fees, and the Act was framed accordingly.
Censorship involved an official censor and necessary staff, an office for the censor with suitable furniture, lighting, heating, etc., premises for projecting apparatus (complying with Statutory regulations), and the usual operators for working such apparatus.
As a preliminary step and before a decision had been taken as to the particular arrangement best suited to meet the requirements of the case, inquiries were made as to the footage of films which would have to be censored each week. It will be understood that this was an important factor in estimating the fees which would have to be charged, the greater the footage the less would be the fee per foot of film censored.
At this stage, before the Bill became law (viz., in June last) both renters and exhibitors sent deputations to the Department to convey their apprehension that the cost of censorship, if to be borne by the trade, would be a prohibitive burden.
The renters, when asked for an estimate of the footage per week, gave estimates varying from 150,000 feet per week to 400,000. The exhibitors, on the other hand, ridiculed this estimate, and expressed the opinion that 50,000 feet per week would be nearer the mark. The renters based their estimate on the footage of films handled by individual firms, the exhibitors based their calculation on the films exhibited in an average week by "first-run" picture theatres in Dublin. The expression "first-run Picture Theatres" is technical to the trade.
In view of the fact that renters and exhibitors could not agree as to the quantity of film which would require censorship, it was a difficult matter to estimate what fee per foot of film censored would be required.
The exhibitors thought that it would be necessary to charge between ½d. and 1d. per foot, and that this would be too great a burden. They added that if the fees could be restricted to ¼d. per foot, their opposition would cease, and when they were informed that it was hoped to pay the expenses of censorship with a fee of one-fifth of a penny per foot, they appeared to be quite satisfied, but still sceptical as to the possibility.
It is to be added that both renters and exhibitors at these interviews, represented that it would be a great facility to the trade if films could be censored in bond, so that import duty would not have to be paid on films rejected by the Censor.
As a result of all this, the Department felt that their headline should be a fee of one-fifth of a penny per foot and facilities for censoring in bond, if that course proved to be practicable.
It was in this atmosphere that the Department met Messrs. McConnell, Hartley, Ltd., in July, to consider an offer made by them to provide facilities for censorship. They explained that they proposed to set up a bonded film store, in premises known as the Dame Street Picture House, and that they were in communication with the Revenue Commissioners. They inquired whether, if they succeeded in obtaining the approval of the Revenue Commissioners, the Department would be prepared to consider utilising the premises for Censorship. The answer they got was that if they secured the approval of the Revenue Commissioners as a bonded store, a concrete proposal from them as to facilities for censorship would be considered.
In giving this answer the Department, mindful of the suggestion of the Kinema trade that censoring in bond would be welcomed, felt that if the Revenue Commissioners passed the premises as bonded stores it was a practical proposition to consider the using of the premises for censorship also, provided agreement could be reached as to terms.
At this stage some Revenue statistics of films imported became available, and after making due allowance for the admittedly low imports in April it was clear that it would not be safe to estimate for a higher weekly footage than 50,000, this being, in fact, the estimate given by the Exhibitors' Association. No grounds could be found for the extravagant estimate of the renters' representatives. This low footage tended to make the Department conclude that a fee of one-fifth of a penny per foot would be satisfactory.
On the 25th July the Revenue Commissioners notified the Department that provisional approval for a bonded film warehouse had been given to the Dame Street premises. On the 30th July Mr. McConnell wrote saying that his firm would grant the use of the theatre in the Bonded Store, Dame Street, for censorship purposes on the following terms:—
Projecting Films, length up to 500 feet, at the rate of 7/6 per reel.
Projecting Films over 500 feet and up to 1,000 feet, at the rate of 12/6 per reel.
3, 5 and 7 reel films and over based at the rate of 12/6 per reel.
The said prices to include all the necessary work entailed in showing the films such as operator's time, light, winding and rewinding, one or two offices for the Censor and his staff on the premises in a suitable position, with all necessary office furniture, fittings, heating, lighting, and lavatory accommodation. This offer was rejected. A fresh offer of 10/- flat per 1,000 feet (lesser lengths to be charged pro rata) was favourably considered and submitted to the Minister for Finance for sanction. Sanction was obtained, and in September Messrs. McConnell, Hartley, Limited, were informed that their terms were accepted for one year, subject to the plans of the proposed premises meeting with the Department's approval.
That ended the matter, and it was only a question of awaiting the completion of the premises for the censorship to begin. The arrangements made ensured that the total cost of censorship could be kept down to one-fifth of a penny per foot of film censored (and even one-tenth of a penny per foot in cases of Topical Travel, Interest and Educational Films).
In view of the sceptical and pessimistic attitude of the trade as to cost and their desire that censorship in bond should be possible, the Department felt that in all the circumstances a businesslike transaction had been made, and as the contract was limited to a year, so that at the end of that time benefit could be taken of experience gained, no apprehension was felt that there could be any serious dissatisfaction amongst the members of the Kinema trade. It was also felt that in view of the structural alterations made by the proprietors of the Dame Street Picture House a year was not an unduly long time for the contract.
It was always intended, and is still intended, to make other arrangements if experience shows that the censorship can be carried out at less expense. No profit for the State can be made under the terms of the Act, and there is no intention to pay outside firms a higher price than is necessary for services rendered. I should like to add that the arrangements made were regarded in the nature of renting premises, and one does not usually seek tenders for services of that kind. Also the pessimistic attitude of the trade about the censorship precluded the Department from thinking that the trade themselves might possibly be prepared to set up a bonded store with censorship facilities at a lower cost than that obtained from the Dame Street Picture House proprietors.
The agitation on the part of the Kinema trade against the arrangements made did not begin until the 21st December. This agitation is directed both against the charges for censoring and the charges for bonding. As regards the latter, I have no responsibility, and I do not propose to enter into that aspect of the case. As regards the censorship, I have outlined the position. I think it will be agreed that the Department's position is a proper one, irrespective of whether other cheaper arrangements could now, with the information gained, be made.
In recent communications the Kinema trade estimate the footage at 100,000 per week, i.e., the renters have considerably reduced their original estimate and the exhibitors have doubled theirs. The revenue statistics for the six months ending 30th September last indicate an average of 62,000 per week, thus vindicating the cautious attitude adopted by the Department and indicating that the exhibitors' original estimate of 50,000 was a better approximation than their present polemic figure of 100,000.
In matters such as the fees for the Censor's certificate for the pictures originally passed by the Dublin Corporation Board of Censors, and for pictures viewed elsewhere than Dame Street before the premises were ready, I have granted concessions to the trade in response to their representations, and I am unable, in the events which have happened, to do any more. I repeat that as regards charges for bonding I have no responsibility, and I think the Revenue Commissioners' duties are confined to seeing that films in bond are properly secured, the charge for services to the trade being a private matter.
I have, however, arranged that no person shall be forced to bond there; in other words, that films will be admitted for censorship though not bonded in the Dame Street store.
If there are any outstanding difficulties in the matter of films bonded elsewhere being admitted in bond to the Dame Street premises for censorship, I presume that the Revenue Commissioners will be prepared to consider the granting of any facilities possible.
From this summary the Dáil will understood that the Kinema trade, by their general attitude, did not give much assistance when the arrangements for censorship were first being made. One can, of course, understand their general reluctance to accept the idea that censorship should pay for itself even though a National censorship was bound to be a benefit to the trade, the Dáil as the medium for criticism of the kind of pictures shown in the country being substituted in effect for numerous local agitations of varying degrees against pictures of a doubtful character. But one thing is perfectly clear, that when arrangements for the censorship were being made, the exhibitors, who ultimately, from the purely trade point of view, feel the charge for censorship, were satisfied that the expenses would amount to at least ½d. per foot and indicated that they would not complain if fees were restricted to ¼d. per foot. The fees are now fixed at one-fifth of a penny per foot for the larger films, and one-tenth of a penny per foot for the smaller topical films. If these charges are unnecessarily high, the Kinema trade have only themselves to blame by leading the Department to believe that ½d. per foot was the minimum practically possible, and that ¼d. per foot would be accepted without complaint.
As I have already said, if experience proves that lower fees will suffice, or cheaper arrangements for censorship can be made, the contract with the Irish Bonded Film Store, Limited, will not be renewed at the end of the year.
As far as I am concerned, nobody will, through the operation of the Censorship of Films Act, be compelled to bond his films in the Bonded Film Store, Dame Street, if he wishes to bond elsewhere. The question of bonding is a matter for arrangement between the Revenue Commissioners and the trade, and it is unfair and misleading to mix up the question of the charges for bonding with those for censorship.
I am convinced that there was a general public demand for censorship, and the public must have censorship. I am equally convinced that the State, in present circumstances, could not be expected to bear the cost of censorship, and, whilst experience may lead to a change in the present arrangements, I think it is clear that the course taken by the Department as an experiment is not deserving of censure. A more helpful attitude on the part of the trade in the beginning would have been better for everybody.