Censorship of Films (Amendment) Bill, 1970: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Moran)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The object of the Bill is to permit the re-submission for censorship of any film which had been the subject of a censorship decision before 1965 and also to permit the re-submission for censorship of any film at any time seven years or more after the date of a censorship decision on it.

The position under the Censorship of Films Act, 1923, as amended, is that no film may be exhibited in public unless a certificate authorising such exhibition has been granted by the film censor. The censor must issue a certificate unless he is of opinion that the film, or some part of it, is unfit for general exhibition in public by reason of its being indecent, obscene or blasphemous, or because the exhibition of the film in public would tend to inculcate principles contrary to public morality or would be otherwise subversive of public morality. The censor may grant a full certificate allowing the general exhibition of the film, or he may grant a limited certificate allowing the exhibition of the film subject to conditions such as the exclusion of persons under a certain age. He may also require that cuts be made in a film as a condition of the grant by him of a full or limited certificate. Any person aggrieved by the censor's decision to refuse a certificate or to impose conditions may appeal against it to the appeal board. The decision of the appeal board is final.

Under the law as it stands, the film censor has no jurisdiction to re-consider a film on which a censorship decision has already been given.

Although the law contained a provision authorising the grant of limited certificates, the granting of such certificates was contrary to practice before the beginning of 1965. For some time before that, the film producers had been moving away from the traditional type of film designed for family viewing to so-called adult films, many of which would not be at all suitable for children and could not be made so by a cut here or there but which on the other hand could be free from any reasonable objection if restricted to adult audiences. It was in the context of this change in the type of film that was coming on the market that the practice of issuing limited certificates was introduced.

The granting of limited certificates has meant that since January, 1965, a number of films have been passed for adult viewing which up to then would have been refused certificates or would have been severely cut. Conversely, a number of films that were refused certificates before January, 1965, would have qualified for a limited certificate had such a system been in operation at the time they were submitted and there is, therefore, a very good case, in principle, for altering the present law so that a film that was cut or rejected in, say, 1964, and that might have been given a limited certificate had it been the practice at that time to grant such certificates should now be eligible to be reconsidered. The Bill provides accordingly.

The question of films which were rejected or cut before January, 1965, is a specific, non-recurring problem but the broader and more permanent question of gradually changing standards must also be considered, just as it had to be considered a couple of years ago in relation to books. On this aspect I think that the best solution is to allow a fresh application to be made to the film censor in respect of any particular film after some specified period. The period specified in the Bill is seven years. I think that that is a reasonable period to select in this particular context. The House will be aware that, under the Censorship of Publications Act, 1967, a prohibition order made in respect of a book ceases to have effect after 12 years. There are, however, important differences to be borne in mind in deciding on any comparable relaxation in the case of films. A book which has been prohibited on the grounds that it is indecent or obscene may be placed on sale to the public once the ban expires without being re-submitted for censorship—though, of course, it may be prohibited again if the board examines it and thinks it ought to be prohibited. The position is otherwise with films because no film may be exhibited in public without a certificate from the censor and accordingly the relaxation now proposed in relation to films would mean only that a film could be re-submitted for censorship after the lapse of a specified number of years. The film, to be allowed to be shown, must be positively cleared by the censor or the appeal board and there is no possibility of its being let through by default so to speak. Because of this important difference, we can safely adopt a shorter period without any risk that films unacceptable by the current standards of the censor or the appeal board can be put in circulation. Moreover, because of social and fashion changes, and because of technical advances in photography and associated techniques, films become out of date quickly and, once we accept the principle of re-submitting films, the re-submitting should be allowed within a reasonably short period of years as the passage of time could make them commercially useless, or nearly so. Because of these factors, I believe that the time-limit for films should be shorter than the 12-year period prescribed for books and, as I have said, I propose that it should be seven years.

Deputies will notice that the proposal in the Bill is that the application for re-consideration of a film should be made to the censor in the first instance and not the appeal board and this is so even if the earlier decision was made or endorsed by the appeal board. This is the right procedure, in my view, because the application will be based, even if only implicitly, on changes in prevailing attitudes that have occurred in the meantime so that there is no question of asking for an overruling of the earlier decision on the basis that that decision was unjustified at the time it was made but only of asking for a fresh look at the case in the light of current standards or, in the case of films censored before 1965, in the light of the fact that limited certificates were not then being issued. There is also an important practical reason for dealing with the matter in this way, namely, that the film censor is a whole-time salaried officer whereas the appeal board is a part-time voluntary board which ought not to be expected to undertake work that can appropriately be done otherwise. If, in any particular case, the censor gives a decision unfavourable to the renter, the renter may, of course, appeal.

So much for the content of the Bill. In recommending it to the House I would like to emphasise that it is designed to deal with practical issues, taking account first of all of the fact that we have had this change of practice about limited certificates and, secondly, of the fact that standards of what is or is not acceptable on the screen change over a period and the system must allow for that. Indeed, if we do not have some kind of flexibility of this kind, we will inevitably find ourselves in the wholly indefensible position that films that are being shown on television cannot be shown in cinemas because the application for a film censor's certificate was made several years earlier and was judged by the standards of the day. It is then, as I say, a matter of dealing with practical issues. The Bill is not and is not meant by me to be looked on as being some kind of signal for easier censorship than what is now prevailing. In particular, I for my part reject absolutely the kind of criticism that is sometimes levelled at the censor and the appeal board and that is based on the proposition that, because a film is restricted to viewers over 18, there can be no justification, ever, for making any cuts in it. Those Deputies who have some knowledge of the content of some films produced in recent times will readily agree that the idea of their being shown in cinemas in this country, even for adult viewing, would be unacceptable to the vast majority of the people here. The censor and the appeal board will themselves be well aware that there is no question of the Bill being meant to promote or encourage a dropping in standards and the House can, therefore, be fully assured that both censor and board will continue to exercise their judgment independently and freely as before.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cosgrave

Because of the technical and other aspects it seems only reasonable to change the period in the way the Minister proposes. The period in relation to books is 12 years. The proposed period in relation to films will be seven years. In the case of a book the book may be placed on sale after a lapse of 12 years, whereas, in the case of a film, the film must be the subject of a certificate granted by the film censor. Changes in fashion and changes in attitudes warrant an alteration in the law, but it should be clearly understood that there must be no lowering of standards. If anything, our standards need to be raised. They must certainly be maintained. I take it from the Minister's speech there will be no lowering of standards.

I have heard criticism that some films passed by the censorship board on appeal were anything but suitable for general viewing. There is no doubt a difference between what may and what may not be suitable viewing for young people. Films which may have a deleterious influence on young people may have little or no effect on older people. Young people are much more susceptible and much more likely to be affected for good or ill by what they see. That is the universal experience.

There is a tremendous increase in the amount of violence portrayed on screens both in the cinema and on television. If such violence were confined to the cinema only, young people would be subjected to it much more infrequently than they are on television. Because of television young people see a great deal more violence portrayed in a completely new medium and the portrayal of so much violence must have an influence and must affect the attitudes of young people—violence in its very worst forms, the use of knives, and so on. I have long been convinced of the need to consider some restriction on the widespread portrayal of violence having regard to the attitude inculcated as a result of constant and frequent repetition and its undoubted influence on younger people. That is a matter that the Minister and the appeal board and the film censor might take into account.

While we cannot restrict the type of films shown by outside television stations, we should exercise some influence on the films shown by RTE. It is important that we should maintain our standards. Indeed, if at all possible, we should try to raise standards. I was glad, therefore, to note from the concluding remarks of the Minister's speech that it is not proposed to show in cinemas in this country films which would be regarded as unacceptable to the vast majority of the people.

There is no doubt that there is a general public reaction against crimes of violence. As Deputy Ryan implied in the course of a supplementary question which he put to the Minister earlier when dealing with another matter, the majority of the public are totally opposed to crimes of violence of any kind and would be prepared to use the full resources of the State to ensure that such crimes are dealt with with the necessary severity in order to discourage people from embarking on criminal activities. In that regard the cinemas and television can have an influence. Therefore, I was glad to note that it is not proposed to lower or to alter our standards in any way. I hope that if anything the tendency will be to raise standards.

So far as the amendment is concerned, it seems reasonable enough to give a power of review after the lapse of a period. I suppose in a matter of this sort the period of time is largely a matter of opinion. The change proposed seems reasonable. Undoubtedly, in the past some books were restricted by the censorship board for reasons that appeared to be ludicrous. I think the board brought on its own head a great deal of criticism that it might have avoided if it had approached matters in a much more reasonable and realistic fashion. That does not mean that everything and anything can be freely printed and circulated. However, many books and, indeed, many fine stories, some of them by Irish authors, have for some extraordinary reasons been put on the index or were not allowed to be sold or offered for sale. That tendency has been changed somewhat. The proposal to amend the law in this regard in respect of films seems reasonable subject to the safeguards and restrictions that I have mentioned.

Mr. Pattison

I also feel that the proposals outlined in the Bill are reasonable. The Minister has explained fully his reasons for putting forward these proposals. Like the previous speaker, I should not like to think that there would be a lowering of standards as a result. From reading the Minister's speech it might be inferred that films or books which today would be regarded as obscene or indecent would by reason of age grow more respectable. I do not think that age puts any respectability on indecency or obscenity. I would prefer that reference to years would not be used as a yard-stick whereby films or books that had been banned as containing gross indecency or gross obscenity could be reconsidered. We hope that standards in these respects will not be lowered.

We know what is happening as regards films being produced in other countries and the very low standard, if one could regard them as having any standard, of these productions. We would not like to think that in this country any encouragement would be given to that type of production.

In the main the vast majority of cinemagoers in this country are satisfied with the censorship that has taken place. The proposals in this Bill will bring the legislation up to date. Any criticism that has come of decisions of the censor has in the main come from a very small vocal minority.

The Minister referred to "so-called adult films." I do not know whether or not he intended that as a derogatory remark. I am pleased to have the Minister's assurance that this amending legislation is not for the purpose of accommodating lower standards in matters of decency or public morality. On that assurance we give this Bill our full support.

Mr. Ryan

For practical reasons this Bill is quite acceptable. I do not feel I should allow the occasion to go by without drawing attention to an abuse which is growing. Some years ago in Belfast and in some English cities I used to see books which were banned here displayed in the shops with a rubber band around them which said, "Banned in Eire". The fact that our censorship laws were stricter was used as an enticement to people to purchase books. It appears now that one way of enticing people into the cinema is to put in large letters in the advertisements in the evening papers and on the boardings outside the cinema the fact that the film is only available to people over the age of 18 years. The fact that films are found to be unsavoury for young people is used by commercial interests to entice people to come and see them. That seems to me to be in conflict with the whole spirit of censorship. Some of the films on exhibition at the moment might be harmless to people under 18 years but could well be harmful to people over 18 years. I know it is difficult to find an answer to this particular problem but the film industry in this country and in other countries, which has maintained in the past proper standards of conduct in relation to many matters, ought to impose a reasonable restriction on itself and discontinue the practice of using as a special attraction the fact that the film is not permitted to be exhibited to people under 18 years or 16 years.

The prohibition against the exhibition of films to people under 18 years is reasonably enforced in the larger urban areas, but it is not uncommon to find that films which were not on exhibition to people under 18 years of age in first-run cinemas in urban areas are on exhibition without any age restriction whatsoever in the more remote cinemas. I have drawn this fact to the attention of the Minister's predecessor on a couple of occasions but I note with considerable disappointment that the number of prosecutions in relation to this offence appears to be minimal compared with the number of occasions on which films of this kind are exhibited to people who are under the permitted age. One can argue that censorship restrictions are sometimes unreasonable or too lax but the point I am trying to make is that if the law permits the issue of a licence to exhibit a film to people over a particular age we should ensure that the restrictions imposed are not abused as they are being abused at present.

I want to endorse the remarks made by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Pattison regarding the amount of violence shown on the screen. The fundamental reason for the foundation of a State was to gather men together in a society in order to protect them from violence outside, and it would be ironic if man having come together for his own protection against violence were then in his sophisticated society to permit the means of communication to be used to promote the very thing within his own society which his society was first created to avoid. A number of films have been exhibited recently showing violence and unsavoury behaviour and this cannot but be damaging to our community. This country has a well-deserved reputation for being one of the few remaining reasonably moral societies. People abroad send their children to Irish schools because they realise that this country has been saved from some of the worst excesses of the permissive society in which other parts of the world are wallowing. It is not desirable for us to depart from the standards of behaviour which have so far saved us from the worst excesses of the permissive society; but if there is to be a relaxation of restrictions one can only hope that these regulations will not be abused and that sensible standards in relation to the censorship of films and other matters of general communication will apply in the future.

Mr. Briscoe

I welcome this Bill because I think some very good films have been censored in the past which, by today's standards, cannot be considered to be immoral. I think Cardinal Heenan's definition of "permissive" as being another word for "immoral" is a proper definition, but I do not want to discuss immoral films here. There has been a spate of violent films recently and I have had to leave the cinema before the end of some of these films because of the amount of violence in them. There seems to be a tendency for the makers of films to pander to the basest instincts of man. There is no point in giving the names of these films because by doing that I would only be advertising them, but I shall certainly tell the Minister privately about the films I have in mind. He may even have seen them himself, but he is a busy man and he may not have had time.

One of the films which horrified me, because of the amount of violence in it, was about a man who escapes from jail and goes to find the person who informed on him. He discovers that the man who had informed on him had, with the reward money, got married and was the father of an 18 months old child—the age of this child corresponds with the time when he was informed upon. As revenge on the informer he took out the man's wife and child and shot them dead. I was absolutely revolted by this because nowadays it is not enough to leave it to one's imagination; one is now shown every detail. I got up to leave the cinema and on the way out I said to the usher that the film-makers were now pandering to the basest instincts of man. He told me that I would be amazed at the number of people who come back to see that film over and over again.

One of the things which worry me about pandering to these base instincts is that one's senses become blunted. One sees so much violence that one becomes insensitive to it. This is a bad thing. If we lose our sensitivity and our awareness of horror we will degenerate into a very poor society. Unfortunately this has happened in this generation. Scenes of war no longer horrify. We see young children, innocent victims of war, being destroyed and after a while it just does not mean anything. This is what I am afraid of; that more and more film makers are going in for depicting violence too literally. They do not show the horror of war, as people say, and turn people away from it. All they do to most people is to blunt their sensitivity. I should like the censorship board to keep in mind that unnecessary scenes of violence in films should be cut out. I am thinking of one film where a man's eye is gouged out by a bullet. This is just unnecessary. Young people and indeed older people should be protected from this kind of thing. There are all sorts of immorality. We are inclined to think of immoral films as those which show nudity or something like that but it goes further.

Nudity can be very moral sometimes and violence can very often be highly immoral, much more immoral in many ways. I am delighted to have had an opportunity of getting that off my chest because it has obsessed me for quite a long time with the increasing depiction of violence in films today.

Mr. Moran

I am grateful to the House for the way they have received this measure and to those who have contributed to this debate. This is a practical measure and I feel it is justified. There was what I considered a reasonable case made to me for this Bill by those concerned in the trade. I was particularly impressed by the case made on behalf of the men in the small cinemas throughout the country who have to try to provide a change of programme two or three times a week. They informed me that it is getting more and more difficult for such people to get a supply of films with the competition from television, that is, the demand for films by television authorities in different parts of the world. The expensively made new large films are also a problem to them because of the cost to the trade of hiring them. They informed me, and I accept the position, that in many cases the small cinemas throughout the country are finding it difficult physically to obtain the number of films that they require to provide for the changes in programme that are necessary in order to carry on their business. In many instances these small cinemas in small towns provide a great social amenity where amenities are few and far between. It is desirable that they should be in a position to carry on their business in a reasonable way.

What we are doing here is allowing the renters to go back with films that were refused over seven years previously, in one instance, and, in the other instance, when there was the practice in the censor's office of not issuing limited certificates. These films can now come in again and have another run before the censor and possibly before the appeal board if the renters are dissatisfied with the censor's decision. It may well be that some of these films with perhaps some condition imposed will now be allowed in by the censor or by the appeal board.

Indeed, in this business it is remarkable the way that tastes have changed. I am not referring solely to the kind of film that is now on common display in the larger cities in England and the kind of film that is emanating from Scandinavian countries. To take the extreme example of what I am getting at, a film that was a cliff-hanger in its day with the heroine being tied to railway tracks and the train coming along and the villain in the background. with the type of dress that was used then, is enough to make one of the greatest pieces of comic viewing that anybody could see in this day and age whereas, no doubt, at the time it was being made and shown it had the people gripping the edges of their seats in absolute alarm at what they were seeing. That is an example of the way that even clothes and production have changed. What was acceptable as being attractive entertainment even ten or 12 years ago would now get laughs rather than interest. There is, of course, a change in attitudes that everybody here appreciates.

I would go a long way with the view expressed by Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy Briscoe and other Deputies about the question of violence. I would imagine, without wanting to go on record as being set in my definition, that the provisions about public morality in the law could be applied in some instances to the type of thing described to the House by Deputy Briscoe and other Deputies for the purpose of making cuts or adjustments. It is true, as Deputy Cosgrave said, that there has been some criticism of decisions of the board of appeal but this will always be so in all questions of censorship. Many of us are inclined to regard ourselves as the perfect censors. We know all the answers. The fact is that the Oireachtas have given the power to this independent board to decide these matters. They are a very representative board presided over by a distinguished judge. I consider that this is a practical way of having a balanced view of these matters. The board, under this judge, consists of some distinguished clergymen, representatives of the trade union movement and others, experienced people whose judgement I am quite sure is to be relied upon. Any board of this kind is bound to give some decisions that possibly would be objected to by some people. However, nobody has suggested to me a better way of trying to deal with this type of business. Some form of censorship is required and it is true to say that in the main, as has been said by Deputy Pattison, the system we have has been accepted.

Again, I wish to emphasise that there is no question of a lowering of standards. The same censor will deal with these matters and I think it is reasonable, in view of the change in the times and the case that has been made, that film renters should be allowed to go back with these films, some of which were rejected before the introduction of the practice of allowing limited certificates to people of more than a specified age.

I do not know how one could meet Deputy Ryan's suggestion, although there is certain validity in it. Where films are restricted to adult viewing, there would be complaints from people if they brought their children along but found they could not get in. The public have a right to know beforehand if a film is open to children so that they will know whether the family can turn out, as they sometimes do, to view together one of those films. How one could achieve Deputy Ryan's objective without giving rise to this kind of complaint is at the moment beyond my ingenuity to say.

I have not got any complaint about the other point Deputy Ryan has raised —that in small country cinemas children have been allowed into films with a restricted certificate. It is entirely a question of enforcement and I will have the matter brought to the notice of the Garda. I have not personally got any complaints on this issue from any source.

I do not think there is any other point from the discussion that I should deal with. The Bill has been accepted by all Deputies who have spoken as being reasonable. In the circumstances I have outlined, a reasonable case was made by people in the trade for a measure of this kind which does not interfere fundamentally with our basic law of censorship. The Bill provides a necessary flexibility and caters for the need, particularly for small cinema owners or renters in the country, to get supplies of films that are now in short supply. I am grateful to the House for the manner in which the Bill has been accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 15th April, 1970.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 8 Apr 1970