I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is to effect certain changes in the machinery of censorship which experience of the working of the 1929 Act has shown to be desirable. Under the 1929 Act prohibition Orders in respect of books and periodicals are made by the Minister for Justice on the advice of the Censorship of Publications Board. The Act does not provide for any appeal against such Orders, but it does provide that the Minister, after consultation with the Board, may revoke or vary a prohibition Order.
Experience has shown that this procedure is unsatisfactory. The Minister is the person authorised to make prohibition Orders, but it is impossible for him to read all the books, and even when he does read a book, and doubts whether it should be prohibited, he is naturally reluctant to oppose his personal judgment to the considered opinion of a number of persons specially selected for their qualifications for this particular task. Secondly experience has shown that some form of appeal against prohibition Orders is very desirable. Under the 1929 Act it is of course open to the Minister to revoke a prohibition Order but this procedure is not satisfactory, as it makes the Minister a Court of Appeal from his own Orders.
This Bill provides for two important changes in the procedure. It provides that the Censorship of Publications Board will be empowered to make prohibition Orders themselves, and it provides for the establishment of an Appeal Board, to which appeals may be taken against prohibition Orders made by the Censorship Board. The Bill proposes that the Appeal Board should consist of three members, and that the Chairman should be a Judge of the Supreme Court, High Court or Circuit Court, or a barrister or solicitor of seven years' standing.
The Bill provides for some other slight alterations in the law. Most of these are consequential on the two main amendments to which I have referred, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into them in detail at this stage. A large portion of the text of the Bill is merely a re-statement of the existing law. It was thought better to repeal all Part II. of the 1929 Act, and to re-enact it with the desired amendments, rather than to have a shorter amending Bill of a "patchwork" character.
I take the opportunity to express my appreciation of the work done by the board. On one side — periodical publications — there has been, I think, complete success, and no complaints; and it should be remembered that the main reason for setting up the board was to check the import of undesirable newspapers and other periodicals. On the other side — books — there have been some complaints, but very few, when it is remembered that nearly 2,000 books have been prohibited. In one sense, it hardly seems worth while to interfere with a system which has worked so well, but I think that there is a good case for some form of appeal, and that however rarely the right of appeal may be exercised the mere existence of that right will provide an answer to such criticisms as have been made. In any case, a change is necessary as regards the Minister's position. I have long felt that that position was unsatisfactory and unreal, and ought not to be allowed to continue.
