Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1984

Vol. 348 No. 3

Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1984: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Copyright Act, 1963 to increase the penalties for breach of copyright provided for in that Act.

Copyright protects all kinds of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, including sound recordings, cinematograph films and broadcasting against unauthorised copying or pirating. The Copyright Act, 1963 provides that owners of copyright protect their rights by civil actions. There is, however, provision for certain penalties in the criminal law. Section 27 creates offences in respect of the making, sale, hire, public exhibition, importation, except for private and domestic use, and the distribution of infringing copies of a work. Offences are also created in respect of the making of, or possessing, a plate for making infringing copies and in respect of causing an infringing performance of a work to be given in public.

In the case of the offences relating to the first category which I have mentioned, the penalties provided are, on first conviction, a £5 fine for each infringing article and, on subsequent convictions, the same fine or six months imprisonment, subject to a maximum fine of £100 in respect of articles comprised in the same transaction. For offences relating to the making of, or possessing, a plate for making infringing copies, or the causing of an infringing performance of a work to be given in public, the penalties are, on first conviction, a fine of £100 and, on subsequent convictions, the same fine or six months imprisonment.

The Act provides for prosecution by summary proceedings only and the Bill before the House does not alter this position. The Bill, however, substantially increases the amount of the fines to which I have just adverted by the substitution of £50 and £800 for the £5 and £100 fines.

The Bill also provides for the imposition, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, of a six months term of imprisonment as an alternative to or in addition to the new fine. This is an added deterrent as the existing legislation only permits of a fine or a term of imprisonment. The objective of these increased penalties for which the Bill provides is to combat piracy of copyright works, particularly — this is most relevant in these times — through the medium of video tapes.

As the House is aware, section 27 of the Act contains provisions about seizure and search for infringing copies of copyright works. If the District Court is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence is being committed on any premises, the Court may grant a search warrant authorising a member of the Garda Síochána to enter the premises, if need be by force, and to seize any copies of any work or any plates in respect of which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence is being committed.

The Act also provides that the District Court, if satisfied by evidence that there is reasonable ground for believing that infringing copies of a copyright work are being hawked, carried about, sold or offered for sale, may by order authorise a member of the Garda Síochána to seize the copies without warrant and to bring them before the court which may order them to be destroyed or delivered up to the owner of the copyright.

I believe that the increased penalties proposed in the Bill, coupled with the existing provisions in the legislation relating to seizure and search for infringing articles, will go a long way to meet the problems being caused particularly for cinemas, film distributors and legitimate video dealers whose businesses are being damaged at present by the operations of video pirates.

The additional provision enabling the courts to impose both fines and imprisonment terms is intended as a strengthened deterrent to counter the more serious copyright infringement activities which deprive the rightful owners of copyright in the works concerned of the royalty payments that are their due. It is apparent that employment in the cinema industry is being eroded by the present upsurge of illegal screenings of video films. The persons who engage in these unlawful activities often obtain pre-recorded cassettes produced by film makers specifically for private use and show them in public without the authority of the producer or copyright owner. Alternatively, these lawbreakers may get illegally copied cassettes at cheap rates. These could be of an inferior quality which do not reflect the full artistry and technical skills put into the original work by the producer which cost him perhaps many millions of pounds to make.

It is claimed by interests in the cinema industry that recent well-known films, such as Gandhi, E.T. and Tootsie, had country-wide distribution in Ireland on illegal video tapes. This is a situation of serious concern both financially for the cinema trade and because of the employment implications for that trade.

Illegal video cassettes are also a matter of concern to legitimate video dealers who can show that pirated copies are circulated before the films from which they are copied are issued for general release to the cinemas in the State. This leads to serious loss of sales of legitimate tapes. It is a matter of concern to the Government that pirate cassettes carry no royalties for legitimate business interests, and VAT or corporation tax are not paid to the Exchequer. I understand from figures made available to me that a pirate cassette can be produced for as little as £8 and sold at up to £29, a profit of £21.

It must not be overlooked that the central concept of our copyright legislation is that enforcement of their rights is a matter for copyright owners themselves to pursue through the courts. This has, in fact, been happening.

The increased penalties contained in this Bill will strengthen the hand of legitimate interests in protecting their rights and accordingly I recommend the Bill for the approval of the Dáil.

I regard this legislation as quite important for the development of legitimate film making. Many of us here in the House will be aware that very considerable costs are involved in making a film and we have been trying here in Ireland, so far with only relatively modest success, to develop a native film industry. Clearly it is very important for the development of a native film industry that people who invest their time and money in making a film would feel that they would be able to achieve an income from that film in the form of royalties from the display in public of the film. Present copyright legislation does not provide an adequate assurance of a return to the film maker for the very substantial expenditure he will have undertaken in making a film.

I regard this legislation not just as undoubtedly necessary to protect existing rights but also as providing a useful foundation for the development of a native film industry here. I regard the possibility of the development of a native film industry in Ireland as quite considerable. The marked success of the Australian film industry from very modest beginnings is clearly an indication of what is possible in this area. All that is necessary is for one to get a reputation for being a source of good films on the basis of a number of good products and one can see quite quickly the development of an industry here and the development of an anxiety by people who have film scripts and ideas to have those films made in the country where success has been marked. Also worth noting in the case of Australia is that many of the films produced there have been based on insights into the Australian way of life and I am sure that we also have much to recommend us in this regard as a base for film making. I hope to give considerable attention to this in the future.

As I mentioned earlier, the present Bill is concerned, inter alia, with the pirating of films for which increased fines are being provided. When I was considering this matter during the preparation of the Bill it occurred to me that it would be desirable to have a national repository where copies of all films of Irish interest could be kept. Shortly I will be having discussions with the Irish Film Board about the details of such a film deposit arrangement. The Irish Film Board Act, 1980, has a provision enabling the board to engage in such an activity.

Before concluding, I should inform the House that I am considering a few other legislative provisions which I hope to finalise shortly and to deal with by way of amendment on Committee Stage of this Bill. I have still to settle the terms in consultation with the Attorney General, but I will arrange that the necessary amendments will be circulated well in advance of Committee Stage, if they are to be circulated, to give other Deputies in the House an adequate opportunity of considering them.

I regard this Copyright (Amendment) Bill as a totally inadequate response to a well-documented problem that exists in Ireland today. It is extraordinary considering the penultimate remarks of the Minister, that he did not take the opportunity afforded him of doing something entirely more detailed as far as the original Bill of 1963 is concerned. Not only is it inadequate, but the amendments as outlined by the Minister in the Bill will not deal in any substantial way with what is now a national problem, that is, piracy. The easiest way to put that to the Minister is to tell him that an illegal operator can duplicate 100 tapes a day — that I understand from the trade, is easy going — and he can sell them at about £25 each. Consequently that indicates in easy figures that the illegal operator can make tapes to the tune of 2,000 per day and his outlay would be no more than £500 for the blank tapes. Therefore, it is possible to make £2,000 profit per day and this can be accommodated with the use of no more than 10 machines which can take up an area which I understand is no bigger than a room ten feet by eight feet. That is the basic problem that should be considered.

Enormous profits are to be made in the piracy business. The response of the Minister in this amending Bill of increasing the fines is certainly not a deterrent to those in the business. It rules out the old axiom of making the punishment fit the crime. The legitimate business is going bust and cannot compete with the pirates, and the Bill does not offer them any consolation.

I would have thought that the original legislation which was introduced in 1963 was in need of updating when one considers the technological advances that have taken place since then in that area. This is an appropriate time to deal in a comprehensive manner with the copyright issue. I regret the Minister did not avail of this opportunity to deal with that. Video piracy now accounts for more than 50 per cent of the total video market. I am not just concerned about the effect it is having on the film industry or the video making industry because we must also bear in mind the huge loss of revenue to the State as a result of the operations of video pirates. When one takes that into consideration, and the fact that a 35 per cent VAT rate applies to videos, one can see the huge loss of revenue to the Exchequer because of the inefficient and ineffective measures outlined in the original legislation and the amendment before us.

It may be said that video piracy does not operate to a great extent in the reputable stores and retail outlets but the Minister can take it from me that a large proportion of the total throughput in stock of the small outfits is pirated. That is well documented and I understand that a submission on that has been sent to the Minister by interested parties. Most of the stock held by small operators is pirated. The worst form of piracy, as indicated by the Minister, is the pirating of major feature films. That piracy is forcing major film companies to release on screen and video simultaneously. There is no doubt that this dual release is affecting cinema receipts. There has been a fall off in cinema receipts and it is well recognised that one of the reasons for that is that pirates are bringing forward for sale and hire copies of the original film long before the distributors or makers of the film consider it economically advisable to have the videos released.

It is possible for publichouses, and such places, to show videos that have not been released for general video release. The Bill before us will not deter such people from continuing to operate in this way. It has long been recognised that the law should be brought up to date to deal with video piracy. It was expected that the penalties in the Bill would go some way towards dealing with that problem and that the offences being committed by the pirates would be dealt with by the imposition of penalties that would equate to the offence. Large sums of money are being made by video pirates here. A lot of it is underhand but I should like to tell the House the amount of money we are talking about. The legitimate market here for video sales and hire is about £5 million per annum in the hiring business and the remainder in the retail. We must bear in mind that 95 per cent of the traffic in videos is in the hiring area with only 5 per cent in the retail area. It is easy to recognise from that that considerable sums of money are lost to the Exchequer because we do not have adequate deterrents to deal with video piracy. It is well known that the illegal market, particularly in the hire of videos, is as large as the legitimate side of the business.

The distributors have complained relentlessly against the operation of piracy. To date about 50 cases have been brought against illegal operators and it is estimated that those cases meant £100,000 in costs on those seeking to redress the rampant piracy here. Damages have been granted but they have not been sufficient to put illegal operators out of business. That is why the Bill is so disappointing. It is estimated that the provisions of the Bill will not be a sufficient deterrent to put these people out of business once and for all.

I am sure the Minister is aware that £1,000 per week is not regarded as an enormous amount of profit to be made by a single operator in the piracy business. It only takes 1,000 customers at £1 each in the distribution ring to give that type of profit. I am not referring to the manufacturing side of piracy but the distribution side. Therefore, huge profits are being made in the manufacture and distribution of these videos. When one considers that a distribution ring of 1,000 is very small one can imagine the huge loss of revenue in that area as well as in the manufacturing side. I can bet that tax is not being paid on the purchase of such pirated videos. I have no doubt that neither VAT nor income tax is paid by the perpetrators of this devilment. Certainly, royalties are not being paid to the film producers who make the original film. The penalties would have been the short-term solution to this problem. Unfortunately, the limits in the Bill will not deal with it. In the long term the Minister should indicate that he is prepared to review the legislation dealing with copyright because it is out of date in this and many other areas such as international literary, artistic and musical arrangements.

As the law stands — this may interest the Minister — the making of home copies by ordinary individuals could be deemed illegal under the 1963 Act. Section 18 (4) (a) should be looked at in regard to this. All legitimate owners of videos could be held to be acting illegally if they use their machine to make a copy of anything. The Minister said he would support a film industry growing up similar to the one that has proved successful in Australia and I am sure there are some incidents that would form the basis for some good films here if we took note of all the happenings in the political arena in recent days.

The Deputy should have said in the last couple of years. He would have a leading role to play himself.

The Minister, if he was serious, could have availed of the opportunity to make changes in the Act dealing with copyright and that might have made money available to help out that flagging industry. It would not be too difficult to suggest one means whereby quite a bit of money could be generated. If there was a small levy on some of the blank tapes sold that money could be channelled back into the film industry by way of grant. This would mean we could create many new products and there might not be such a great need for Exchequer funding for a filming industry which is all the time looking for Government support.

We are not just talking about videos which are being shown on video machines at home and in other places; there are also audio tapes. A substantial Irish industry is being ripped off by up to about 50 per cent of the total market. This can be easily established when one considers that the blank tape sales in this country exceed the recorded music tape sales. You can bet your life that those who are using a substantial number of blank tapes in the cassette area are not paying recording rights. There is a question to be answered — home taping as against commercial use — and I do not think the Minister's response will deal satisfactorily with that.

What would the Deputy suggest?

The penalty limits outlined by the Minister bear no relation to the extent of illegal profits being made by illegal operators. It could be said that piracy of all kinds dealt with by the Copyright Act 1963 is a growth industry, with no Exchequer revenue take. I would have thought the Minister would be conscious of the money that could have been made available to the Exchequer if he had gone about his business in a more determined way.

Let me give the figures. A recent raid by those trying to suppress the continuing escalation of piracy produced 700 tapes. The original fines outlined in section 27 referred to £5 per tape to a maximum of 20 tapes, making £100. Does this mean that the £50 fine for each tape can be multiplied by 700? That would be a substantial penalty, or does it mean that the maximum for any one transaction in any one take, irrespective of the number of tapes taken, would be £800 in fines? If it does, this is a reduction in the pro rata scaling of the original fines, or does the £800 cover one raid and all tapes scooped in that raid can be classed as one transaction under section 27 of the Original Act? This would mean that the thousands of pounds that could have been taken could be quantified as £800. If the Minister thinks an £800 fine is a deterrent to illegal operators who can make £2,000 profit a day making these tapes and £1,000 a week from hiring them, he has another think coming.

There is no problem as far as I am concerned in marketing pirated merchandise in this country. Most of it is done by way of under-the-counter operations. I would like to enlighten the Minister as to the current way of disposal and hiring of videos both in this city and in many of the larger towns throughout the country. They are being hired out of the backs of cars in a systematic way in local authority and bigger housing estates. This is well organised and well funded, whether internally or externally. The fines proposed today are a joke as far as those people are concerned. The biggest loser is the Government. No income tax is being paid by any of the people operating this illegal business, and there is no VAT on returns or purchases. The other big loser is the Irish public. In the first instance they have to endure a second-rate product because the quality of many of these pirated tapes is appalling. Firstly, these tapes are illegally procured and good copies are not being made because they do not have the proper originals. The extent of this problem has to be highlighted, and in his speech the Minister did not give it the prominence it warranted.

It is reckoned that duplication of videos is going on at a very high level north of the Border. This is evident from a series of raids which took place not so long ago. In one day 35,000 copies of illegal pirated tapes were scooped by the authorities. Let us come a little closer home: in County Kerry seven premises were raided in one day and 2,500 illegal pirated tapes were taken by the authorities from houses, public houses and some legitimate shops as well.

The Irish National Federation against Copyright Theft have been very active in this area and they expect the support of the Government and the Minister in dealing with what is for them a crisis situation and they have expended enormous sums of money proceeding against illegal operators. But it is very difficult under the existing legislation to take the action necessary to get a quick result. First, they have to prove to the court the infringement of copyright. They get a court order, show it to the proprietor of the place where the illegal viewing is going on, and take back the infringing material but a very substantial burden of proof has to be made before it is possible even to get that permission to move.

Section 27 (4) concerning the application of the owner to the District Court says that the court may authorise the Garda to seize the copies without warrant and bring them before the court. Under subsection (5) the raid has to be conducted by a Garda inspector and accompanied by members of the Garda. Is it not ludicrous that subsection (5) suggests that a premises can only be entered for the purpose of getting these illegal tapes between the hours of 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.? That is somewhat outdated. If the Minister was serious in bringing forward a deterrent whereby the Garda could deal with this speedily and effectively, then there are certain subsections of this Act that warranted attention other than section 27 (1) and (2).

It would appear also that there is very little restriction on movement of goods across the Border in this field of activity. A lot of dealers simply cross the Border bringing back these pirate video tapes with them; they are being made here, they are being made beyond. There is obviously a very lucrative cross-Border business going on as well. One can bet one's life that these are cash operators with no return to the State as far as they are concerned. Whatever the Minister says about Gandhi, E.T. or Tootsie as presenting considerable difficulty in that the original films were copied and pirated — and as the House is aware that can be done even in an existing cinema with the most rudimentary equipment and subsequently recopied; ten machines can yield one a profit of £2,000 a day — there is a much bigger problem being encountered with regard to other types of films. Those to which I refer are those commonly referred to as the nasties. Whether we like it or not there is a substantial market for this kind of rubbish in this country today. I put it to the Minister that if the Government or his office will say to the legitimate distributors what is acceptable in this area and what is not, those distributors will not import matters that will infringe his or their recommendations. Everything barred in the United Kingdom in so far as these nasties or blue films are concerned is not being brought into this country by legitimate distributors. If the Government would only say what titles they do not want imported then the legitimate distributors would be more than happy to accommodate them as far as their importation is concerned. The customs people will not say what are the banned titles because it is obvious that they have not been educated as to what is on or what is not. Have the customs or the people at entry points to this country been informed or have they got a list of the titles not acceptable for distribution here? They have not and they cannot say to the legitimate distributors what is and what is not permitted. They should be told and the legitimate operators should be given the opportunity of coming to terms with what is a very difficult and worsening situation.

The Irish public now have available to them, through the piracy network, the most astonishing range of blue movies. This may be part of the under-counter under-cover operation, but we might as well face the fact that this is now taking place in substantial proportions. It is important that the Minister be on record as discrediting this illegal operation in filth affecting many of our towns and cities today. The unfortunate thing about it is the effect these blue movies are having on individuals and groups. We must take whatever measures are necessary to protect the innocent from their worst ravages. It will have to be said — and I am pleased that the Minister for Justice is present — that there must be and there is some direct relationship between these violent and horrific videos and certain types of crimes being committed in some of our larger urban areas. These blue movies are horrific in the way they depict violence against the person in areas of sexuality, so that young, impressionable people are encouraged to accept the standards being exploited by these blue movies. It is giving a misguided view and encouraging a misguided attitude amongst impressionable people of what proper sexual relationships should be between men and women. They are having a disastrous effect on young people. These blue movies brutalise women and the feminist cause as well. They glamorise a distorted attitude of what should be the proper attitude between the sexes. They glamorise also high living standards that can be attained, according to the substance of these blue movies through burglary, murder and illicit areas. The time is long past for taking the most serious action in dealing with the perpetrators of this filth in our towns and cities. This Bill is not sufficient to meet that demand.

As we know — and the Minister for Justice knows this — the percentage of films censored is very small anyway. I am not trying to take away from the fact that parental control is vital in making available to young people only what they should see. But when films of this nature are being shown in public places, when huge profits are being made, then the traffickers of dirt and filth will take the chances and risks because the profits are so high. We should deal with them in similar fashion and the only way to do so is to break them financially.

There is one matter appertaining to the principal Bill I should like to raise. It does not concern piracy or video nasties but it is one that might very well be of considerable importance before too long. I should like the Minister's advice on this matter, that is about the publication of the Official Reports of these Houses. I take it they would be regarded as a literary work, in most instances anyway. As I understand the definitions section of the original Bill they would come within the scope of what would be regarded as literary work. If that is the case, could it not be established, under the original Act, that their copyright be vested in the Government or in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges? Does permission have to be sought from the Controller of Government Publications or from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to allow reporting of proceedings in these Houses to be written up in newspapers, periodicals and whatever and as well stills of proceedings here to be shown either on television screens or video without acknowledging the fact that permission had been sought to use the copyright?

Would the Deputy envisage any circumstances in which permission might not be granted? I cannot imagine so.

There are a fair number of instances, both in periodicals and some printed books relating specifically to certain excerpts from the Official Report of the proceedings of the House. What I want to establish is are they in breach of the Principal Act, or does that Act give carte blanche as far as the printing, taking out of context or whatever, without seeking permission of the Controller of Government Publications or the CPP?

Apart from seeking my legal advice on whether or not the copyright legislation——

I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking concerning the original Act.

Could the Deputy indicate what exactly he has in mind, what type of problem he thinks he would solve if it were established that there was copyright of the Official Report of the Dáil? The answer to his question would possibly be influenced by the type of problem he had in mind solving.

The problems will readily come to the Minister's own imagination.

Because of the definition under section 2 of what is a literary work, it would appear——

A short definition.

Anyway, when I am finished I am sure that the Minister can give that information.

It is not actually a definition.

The Deputy could give way to the Minister. He might prefer the orthodox way of conducting a debate on this stage

I quite understand the Minister's point of view.

I am trying to be helpful. I was just trying to find out what the Deputy wants.

Finally, I am anxious to know was it intended under the Principal Act that the Copyright Act would apply to the Official Report of Dáil Éireann? It is as simple as that, either yes or no. If it is not, I think that it should be included. It reinforces my argument for a complete review of the original Copyright Act of 1962 to cover these matters.

Finally, I am anxious to put on record that I do not regard the amendment as outlined by the Minister as a sufficient deterrent to deal with what is a great problem, for all the reasons which I have given. Perhaps the Minister, as he has indicated that there might be some amendments which he will be considering in this regard, would consider amending the fines and penalties as outlined in the Bill before the House? I can readily see that it is only a stop-gap measure to deal, as the Minister says, with questions of piracy and perhaps nasties, which have become very prevalent in our society. However, I do not think that this Bill will go anywhere near making the punishment fit the crime. For that reason, although I accept the Bill in principle, it is necessary to update the fine to deal with this very serious problem. I do not think that the Minister has gone far enough. Perhaps he might give me some consolation by saying that he would consider putting in a Government amendment to adjust these penalties?

The Minister to conclude.

Deputy Flynn has made two suggestions as to how the Bill to which he is referring could be improved to provide more effective remedies, in his view, to the problem of video piracy. These two were, firstly, an overall review of the copyright legislation and, secondly, an increase in the penalties. It is all too easy for Deputies to grandiloquently say that there should be an overall review of the legislation. I would have hoped that Deputy Flynn would have been more specific in saying precisely what aspects of the existing legislation he would have liked to see changed. One should not resort to the let-out of talking about an overall review unless one has something rather more specific in mind.

I shall deal now with the one substantial point which he made in this area, that is in regard to the level of fines. The fines in respect of the events described are being increased substantially. In the case of crimes for making, selling, hiring or exhibiting in public, importing or distributing material, the fine is being increased from £5 to £50 — an increase of 900 per cent. The fine for having a plate for making infringing copies or for causing an infringing performance of a work to be given to the public is being increased from £100 to £800, which is an increase of 700 per cent. I can tell the Deputy and the House that I am prepared, between now and Committee Stage, to examine whether or not fines could be further increased.

I must say that we have carefully considered in advance the possibility of having slightly larger fines. However, the scope is not perhaps as great as might be thought, particularly in regard to fines for the making of a plate for making infringing copies or causing an infringing performance of work to be given in public. That is now £800. I am prepared to contemplate going up to £1,000 on Committee Stage, without much difficulty. However, if it were increased beyond £1,000, I am advised by the Attorney General that no longer would it be possible to bring proceedings on a summary basis. One would have to seek conviction by indictment. Because of the substantial delays involved in the courts and in preparing a case for indictment, which is a more comprehensive procedure than that concerning summary proceedings, I am advised that one could, in fact, be waiting for up to a year. The Attorney General has consulted on this matter and his view is that trial on an indictment charge could take over a year to come to court, leaving the pirate free to continue his activities during that time. Meanwhile the offender under our law can be summarily charged from time to time, leaving himself liable on conviction to a maximum fine of £800 on each occasion. In the Attorney General's view this appears to be an adequate deterrent because the pirate could be taken to court more often on summary proceedings. This is an important consideration which Deputy Flynn might like to bear in mind in preparation for Committee Stage debate. However, I would indicate that I am quite willing to look at the level of the fines within that constraint to see if they can be increased somewhat further.

Will the Minister increase the fine under section 9? I can see his point regarding section 10.

I would be prepared to look at an increase there, yes. In fact, I am prepared to look at an increase in both sections so long as we do not run into the difficulties which I have mentioned.

As there are perhaps many thousands of pounds involved, would the Minister consider raising the maximum from £800?

I take that point and would be prepared to do something about it.

That is the major thrust of my argument.

There are provisions under section 27 (5) for the seizure of the goods in question, which provisions are quite important. It should not be ignored that, in addition to the criminal proceedings which I have mentioned, the owners of the copyright have the right to take civil proceedings against these people. That could be quite important, also Deputy Flynn also asked whether the provisions under section 18 (4) (a) prevented ordinary video owners from making a film for their own use. I am advised that the private recording of a film for private use is not an offence under existing legislation.

The Deputy also referred to the very worrying problem of video nasties which contravene the censorship legislation and which can cause serious psychological damage to young people who see them. In reply to a parliamentary question on 30 November 1983 the Minister for Justice told the House he was having the adequacy of the law for the control of such video films examined so that decisions could be taken on new legislation or administrative measures to deal with the problem. He also referred to convictions for the display of uncensored video films in public places and the successful efforts by the customs authorities to prevent the importation into the State of a considerable number of objectionable films.

Subsequently the Minister of State at the Department of Justice dealt more fully with this issue in a debate in the Seanad towards the end of the year. The Deputy can be assured that the Minister for Justice is taking this matter as seriously as it deserves to be taken. I hope that, to the extent that this legislation is helpful, it will also move in the same direction in tandem.

In the meantime could something be done at customs level about the known titles which constitute video nasties?

The Minister for Justice has primary responsibility for that matter. He is here in the House and I am sure he will take note of what the Deputy has said.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 28 February 1984.
Top
Share