asked the Minister for Justice whether any two members of the Censorship of Publications Board can prevent a book or paper from being banned as indecent.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Censorship of Publications.
The relevant provision of the law in relation to the procedure of the censorship board, which is contained in Section 11 of the Censorship of Publications Act, 1946, lays it down that four members shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of the board and that a prohibition Order shall not be made unless at such meeting three at least of the members vote in favour of the making of the Order and not more than one member votes against it.
Would the Minister state whether he has read the report that a number of indecent books are being offered for sale in Dublin and will the Minister take steps to prevent the continued sale of these books?
That is a matter which is entirely in the hands of the Censorship Board.
Is the Minister satisfied that the section he has quoted is giving satisfaction? Is he satisfied that the set—up under that particular section is giving satisfaction and that the board can officially operate?
Yes. As far as I am concerned I am perfectly satisfied that the board is operating as efficiently now as in the past.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will state the number of books banned by the Censorship of Publications Board for each of the years ended 31st October, 1954, 1955, 1956, and 1957.
The figures asked for are 1,045, 537, 323 and 75.
The Minister, in reply to a supplementary question earlier, said he was satisfied that the board was operating as efficiently as ever. In view of the last figure he quoted as representing the number of books condemned, is he satisfied that it is a fair rate of work? Secondly, is he aware that the number of books of an unsavoury character is increasing daily upon the streets of the City of Dublin and elsewhere, and is he satisfied the board can deal with this problem adequately under the present set up?
I am satisfied the Deputy has as much and more responsibility for the situation which he has described as I have by reason of the fact that for six months when he was Minister he, in conjunction with his colleagues, failed to fill two vacancies on the board which were there at the time. For six months, by reason of the fact that there was no quorum the board were unable to meet. It is quite possible that during that time quite large numbers of the type of book to which the Deputy refers may have been circulated.
In addition to that, for a further six months the chairman of the board was in disagreement with two other members of the board and he refused to call a meeting of the board unless I was prepared to remove these two members. That is something I could not have done in the circumstances because of the terms of the Act. That is the situation which the new chairman is trying to overcome and I think we ought at least give the board an opportunity of dealing with the situation to which I have referred.
Is the Minister satisfied that the new board has sufficient powers to deal with the present situation under existing legislation?
They have the same powers——
I know that they have the same powers but does the Minister consider those sufficient?
——that were there since the establishment of the Censorship Board.
Arising out of the very elaborate reply in which the Minister seemed to be washing his hands of some of the responsibility and trying to shift it to his predecessor——
That is an expression which should not be used in respect of a Minister. It has been ruled out already.
What about the expression, side-tracking the issue?
I am not here to——
I withdraw that phrase, but I shall use these words: is the Minister casting responsibility from his own shoulders and trying to put it on the shoulders of his predecessor by saying that his predecessor's failure to appoint two members for six months led to this situation? Is the Minister satisfied that is a positive fact, that it has led to, or assisted in, bringing about this situation? Secondly, is the Minister satisfied that the grounds of the dispute to which he has referred in his reply between the chairman and two members of the board were well established?
We cannot go into the dispute now.
Since the Minister has said this was one of the reasons, it arises out of his reply.
Yes, but whether it was well founded or ill-founded, we may not discuss it now.
Is the Minister satisfied on the representations made to him by the chairman that a case was not made, that a case was not substantially established by the chairman?
We cannot go into that here.
That is a very involved way of putting a simple question. I want to say I am perfectly satisfied with the way the whole situation was dealt with on that occasion.