I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It gives me great pleasure to recommend the Video Recordings Bill, 1987, to the House.
Video Recordings Bill, 1987 [Seanad]: Second Stage.
(Interruptions.)
I am sorry Minister. The noise in the lobby is intruding into the business of the House. The noise in the lobby must cease.
The purpose of the Bill is to regulate the sale, hire and supply generally of video recordings. There are two key elements in the Bill. The first is that a video recording subject to the controls in the Bill may not be supplied unless the Film Censor has issued a certificate in respect of the video work in the recording. The second key element is that nobody may sell or let on hire a video recording subject to the controls in the Bill unless he has a licence to do so.
There is a clear need for this legislation. We already have control of cinema films and of publications. Censorship in these two areas is of long standing and, generally speaking, has proved satisfactory. Having regard to the character of video as a medium, it would be anomalous if we did not introduce appropriate control for video films. The present Bill seeks to introduce such control taking into account the differences between the natures of the respective media in question.
As Deputies are aware video films have grown dramatically in popularity since the start of this decade. An increasing number of homes have video recorders and the number of shops either selling or letting video films on hire continues to grow.
There are thousands of video film titles available and the number is being added to at the rate of about 1,000 new titles each year. The vast bulk of these titles are unobjectionable. There are some video films, however, that are thoroughly objectionable. They depict extreme and graphic violence or uninhibited pornography. The term "video nasties" has been applied to the extremely violent films. They contain scenes of violence that are ghastly and very often stomach turning. The pornographic films depict sex in a totally objectionable manner.
I will not mention the titles of the most violent films. They are well enough known. The problem is that while these films are totally uninhibited in their depiction of violence, they are also realistic. It is clear that they cannot but have an adverse effect on impressionable minds. In talking about impressionable minds I do not confine that term to young people only. These films depict what are ghastly crimes in a manner that can invite imitation by adults as well as by children.
Films of this nature can have an adverse effect on the viewers but, as is now generally accepted, they can also result in crimes against other innocent people. Apart from that, they tend to increase the general tolerance of what ought to be unacceptable. If people frequently see extremely violent films, some of them will come to regard this type of violence as the norm. There is evidence to suggest that this can lead the more impressionable of them to imitate in real life what they see in the video world.
Many pornographic films are also totally objectionable as regards their content. Much of the material could only be described as degrading of human nature generally but all of it is degrading and offensive as far as women are concerned.
There are some controls in place already in relation to the importation and the showing of some video films. These controls, however, which depend on the general law as to obscenity or the powers of customs officers, are peripheral to the general video films scene. The key point is that there is no law at present relating specifically to the supply of video films. The Bill now before the House will change this position and it will put an effective systems of controls in place.
The brief outline of the video film scene which I have outlined gives the general background to the need for the Bill and the provisions included in it. In drafting the Bill the position in relation to censorship of publications and of cinema films has been taken into account. I have referred already to the controls existing in these areas. The two sets of legislation — the Censorship of Films Acts and the Censorship of Publications Acts — have been used as a general guide as to what should be done in the area of video films.
I will now give some detail as regards the control systems proposed in the Bill. Deputies will appreciate, of course, that this description is of a general nature and that I will not be going into the minute detail of all of the sections in the Bill. That will be a matter for the Committee Stage if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.
For the sake of clarity, I should mention one point of language. This is, that the Bill throughout distinguishes between video works and video recordings, as can be seen from the definitions in section 1. The video work is the play or series of pictures et cetera that is produced on the screen. The video recording is the disc or tape et cetera by which the video work is produced on the screen. Therefore, what the Film Censor certifies to be fit for viewing is the video work; and what the Bill controls is the supply by way of sale, hire et cetera of video recordings containing the video works. For shortness I shall refer generally simply to video films, hoping that the context will make it clear whether I am speaking of video works or video recordings.
All new video films that come within the scope of the control will have to be submitted to the Film Censor for certification before they may be supplied. The Film Censor will decide on the basis of criteria set out in the Bill whether or not he should authorise the supply of any particular video film. If he does not give a supply certificate, he will make a prohibition order and the film may not be supplied. Supply is defined in section 1 of the Bill: it includes selling, letting on hire, exchange or loan. Should a person be dissatisfied with the decision of the censor not to grant a supply certificate, he may appeal to the Censorship of Films Appeal Board.
The Film Censor will also have power to decide whether certain video films already on the market should be prohibited. There are certain well known titles of an objectionable nature on the market and when the Bill comes into operation the Film Censor will be able to examine these as a matter of priority. If he decides on the basis of the criteria in the Bill that they should no longer be supplied, he may make a prohibitioin order. Once he makes a prohibition order any further sale, rental, et cetera, of the title will be illegal. Again there will be the possibility of an appeal to the Censorship of Films Appeal Board in relation to prohibition orders.
The criteria on which the Film Censor will make his decisions are set out in sections 3 and 6 of the Bill. In the drafting of these criteria, the criteria in existing Acts has been examined and the conditions of today's world have also been taken into account. The criteria include obscene or indecent matter, categories which appear in existing legislation on cinema films and publications. They also include material that would be likely to cause persons to commit crime. Finally, the criteria refer to material that depicts acts of gross violence or cruelty, including mutilation and torture, towards humans or animals. This type of material can be seen in video films and it is necessary that it be referred to specifically in the Bill.
As I have said already, there are thousands of video films on the market and approximately 1,000 new titles come on the market each year. The intention is that when the Bill becomes law the examination of the various categories of video films by the censor will be phased in. The first part of the Bill to be brought into effect will be that which will enable the Film Censor to make a prohibition order. He will use this power in relation to some objectionable titles that are already on the market. Once a prohibition order is made it will then be illegal to supply this particular title.
The next step would be to set a date after which it would be illegal to supply any new video title unless it has a certificate from the Film Censor. The final stage as regards vetting of films by the censor will relate to the vast bulk of films already on the market, most of which are probably unobjectionable. The intention here is that a later date will be set by which all of these films will have to be submitted to the censor so that he can make decisions in relation to them. Within a number of years all of the video films controlled by the Bill, that are on the market at that time will have had to be submitted to the censor and, of course, all such new films coming on the market will have to be submitted to him before they can be supplied.
A labelling system, as provided for in the Bill, is an integral part of certification of video films. Without a labelling system it would not be possible for the public to be certain that the films they are renting or buying have been passed by the censor. Similarly the job of the gardaí would be difficult were there not such a labelling system.
While the Bill deals mainly with supply, it also contains a prohibition of the exhibition, otherwise than purely in private, of video films that have either been prohibited or not been certificated. Were there not such provision in the Bill objectionable films could be shown in clubs which could be established specifically for that purpose.
Licensing of persons who sell or rent video films is, as I said already, the other key element of the Bill. Licences will be available from the Film Censor on payment of the requisite fee. It is not intended to lay down any standards as regards premises but rather to keep the restrictions on trade at the absolute minimum necessary. There will be registers of persons granted retail and wholesale licences and this will enable the gardaí to check on anybody selling or renting video films. It will be illegal for anybody to rent or sell video films controlled by the Bill without a licence. Anybody convicted of renting or selling without a licence will be subject to heavy penalties and he may have his licence revoked by the court and be barred from getting a licence for five years. The setting up of the licensing system will be done as soon as possible after the enactment of the Bill.
As I said earlier, I am not going into great detail about the provisions in the Bill. However, I should mention that exceptions are provided for in the Bill. Certain types of films will not come within the ambit of the Bill, such as educational films or films dealing with sport et cetera or video games, provided of course that these films do not contain material of the objectionable kinds I have mentioned above. Similarly there is provision for certain kinds of supply being exempted from the controls under the Bill. These are set out in detail in section 2 of the Bill.
Some of the exemption provisions are somewhat technical, and the only one I want to refer to now concerns the case where a video recording is made in the State with a view only to its being exported to another country. Section 2 ensures that supplies of the recording that take place in the course of producing the recording will be exempt from the controls under the Bill. This is clearly right, because there would be no point in requiring the producer to submit the recording to the Irish censor for a certificate that the work is fit for viewing when the recording is not to be supplied in the State at all. If a copy chances to be re-imported here then, of course, the Bill will apply to its supply in the State. I mention the matter only because there was some misunderstanding about it in the Seanad debates — Official Report, 17.2.88 cols. 1463-1474. Some Senators sought to argue that the Government were being hypocritical in that the Bill would be applying one standard for video works to be shown in the State and another, and lower, standard for video works to be shown abroad. There is nothing in that point. It is not a matter of applying different standards. It is simply that the question whether any particular video work should be allowed to be shown in another country is a question of the law of that country and the standards required by Irish law are irrelevant. Moreover, as Deputy Smith, Minister of State at the Department of Energy, pointed out when taking this Bill for me in the Seanad when I was unable to be present, anybody can write a book in this country for publication abroad — column 1472. To say that a video recording made here for export should have to be submitted to the Irish censor would be like saying that a Frenchman living here who wrote a book in French for publication in France should have to submit the manuscript to the Censorship Board in Dublin before sending it to his publishers in Paris.
The implementation of the Bill will give rise to additional work in the Office of the Film Censor. This will lead to extra cost in that office arising from extra staff and extra equipment. The total amount of extra expenditure is estimated at £200,000 per annum. I should stress, however, that this extra cost will not result in any extra net State expenditure as the costs of the new operations will be met in full by charges which will be made by the Film Censor in accordance with regulations made by the Minister for Justice. There is a provision in the Bill which requires that the operation be self-financing, but no more than that.
Three types of charges will be made by the Film Censor's Office. First of all, there will be an annual fee to be paid in respect of a retail or wholesale licence. Secondly, there will be a charge in respect of any film submitted for examination by the censor with a view to the grant of a certificate. Thirdly, there will be a charge for labels issued by the Film Censor's Office.
Deputies will note that the Bill does not provide for a system of classifying video films. A system of classification involves dividing films into groups by reference in particular to the age of the viewer. For example, a film could be passed by the Film Censor as being suitable for supply only to those over the age of 16 years.
The arguments in favour of classification are that the classification system enables an offence to be created in relation to supply of the film to persons below the stated age and so, as it were, preserves the freedom only of persons over that age to view it. It also informs the purchaser or renter of the film of the category of person for whom the film is suitable.
The main arguments against classification systems are as follows. Although it is true that classification provides for an offence in relation to the supply of the film to persons below a given age, it does not achieve the main objective, which is, to prevent the viewing of the film by persons below that age. Having regard to the nature of video films and the relative ease of copying, I am satisifed that classification would not be effective. You may control the age of the person to whom the film is supplied but you will not be able to control the age of the person who views it. An older person may rent or buy the film and show it to younger people, or the film may be in the home and may be seen by children when the parents are not there. This is not to say that I am conceding that there is some justification for allowing persons over a certain age to view the kind of video we have in mind. I should like to return to this point later in the context of pornographic videos.
I should also mention that a classification system would be very expensive compared with the system proposed in the Bill. A classification system is in operation in the UK where they have classification into six categories. That system cost over £1 million to operate in 1986. They have a large staff implementing the system — over 50 people in all. The overall cost of our Film Censorship Office when in full operation is estimated at £300,000 per annum and the number of staff should be of the order of ten to 12. that, of course, includes all operations — not merely video related work.
I should also mention that a classification system would result in delay in achieving control over the video films already on the market. I think it is also relevant that the British system of classification would be inapplicable to our circumstances since it includes a category which allows for supply only in licensed sex shops.
On balance I am satisfied that a classification system should not be provided for and that the only decision which the censor should have to make is whether the film should be approved for supply or not.
I should make it clear that the system proposed in the Bill will deal not only with violent films but also with pornographic films. I mention this point specifically as there may be some misunderstanding about it. The Bill has been referred to as a Bill which will eliminate supply of "video nasties". The term "video nasties" as usually used related solely to extremely violent films. It does not relate to pornographic films. This Bill will deal with pornographic films also.
There may be some people who will argue that pornographic films should be freely available to those over 18. The major argument in favour of this approach is that persons over 18 should be free to decide on what films they wish to obtain either by buying or renting them and that this is their right as adults. Again the argument will be made that whereas extremely violent films can have an adverse effect on people of any age the same cannot be said in relation to pornographic films.
I am totally opposed to the idea of prohibiting the supply of pornographic films only to those under the age of 18. My reasons for this view are as follows. Present day legislation in relation to censorship of publications provides for a total ban on the sale of banned books, including those banned on the grounds of being indecent or obscene. Similarly there is a total ban on the public exhibition of banned films, including those banned on the grounds of being indecent or obscene. Accordingly, should video film legislation not provide for a total ban on supply of pornographic films it would be out of line with existing censorship legislation and, putting it at its lowest, this would provide grounds for demands for extension of the legislation into these other areas. Deputies will appreciate, I am sure, that it would be quite inappropriate to hang, as it were, a fundamental review of all censorship law on the back of this measure and that it is preferable to keep the approach to video films in line with the general approach in this regard.
The main argument, however, in favour of a total ban is the very nature of the video film itself. It seems to me unrealistic to assume that certain videos could be supplied to, say, those over 18 years in this country in circumstances which would ensure that they would not be seen by younger persons. I have already mentioned that the position in the UK is different. There is a category of video which can be supplied only to persons over 18 years and a category that can be supplied only in sex shops. On balance I am satisfied that young persons in our community are likely to be able to view pornographic films unless there is a total ban on their supply. Once a pornographic film was available for supply to people above a certain age it would be naive to expect that it would not fall into the hands of people below that age. Of course, I am not claiming that the Bill will prevent young persons from watching pornographic video films altogether: it will be partly a matter for their parents to prevent this. What the Bill does is to restrict the supply at an earlier stage.
I am satisfied also that many people are not aware of the extremely offensive nature of some of the pornographic films available. These films are totally uninhibited and totally explicit in what they portray. I cannot imagine that any strong arguments can be made in favour of their being made available to any particular age group. The material in them is obscene and they are particularly offensive and degrading to women.
In this regard I would like to refer to the 1986 report of the United States Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. The commission found that pornography is harmful to viewers. It is significant that the findings of the commission in 1986 are different from the findings of a commission in 1970 which did not conclude that any harm ensued from pornography. The 1986 report of the commission is a very impressive document and was based on a widespread programme of research. I consider their findings very significant.
In all the circumstances, I have no hesitation in including pornography in the Bill and in dealing with it by way of a general prohibition on supply. I am satisfied that this is the proper course and it is in accordance with current informed thinking on the topic.
There are two sections in the Bill to which I wish to refer specifically. Section 28 of the Bill proposes an amendment to section 3 of the Censorship of Films Act, 1923. This is to ensure that the Censorship of Films Appeal Board will have both male and female members in future. The current membership of the board comprises seven men and two women but there is no legal requirement at present that both sexes be represented on the board. Accordingly, the new section will mean that both sexes will have to be represented on the board in future.
The second section to which I wish to refer is section 29. This section provides for the official censor and the Appeal Board, in each year beginning with the year 1989, preparing reports on their work in the previous year.
I am satisfied that the proposal to introduce controls for video films will receive general backing in the House. There has been a public demand for such controls and I am satisfied that they should be introduced as quickly as possible.
We are, of course, at this stage having a debate on the general provisions of the Bill and I will listen with interest to the views of Deputies as regards the broad provisions of the Bill. I will also be interested in any matters of detail that they may refer to at this stage so that I can consider them before the Committee Stage. I will give careful consideration to any points made before coming back for the Committee Stage.
I commend the Bill to the House.
The fact that we need this legislation highlights the rapid increase over the last number of years in the availability of "video nasties" which in turn has created massive social problems in our community. The widespread availability of videos depicting unrestrained violence, sexual abuse, mutilation and murder has aroused wide public concern. The basic problem has been the absence of any control on the sale or rental of video recordings and this Bill, which we welcome in principle, provides us with some of these controls.
The Censorship of Films Act, 1923, provides that every film which it is proposed to exhibit in public must first be viewed by the official censor. However, no such controls operate on videos at present. The result is that films which are banned by the censor are very often available on video, thus leaving us with a ridiculous situation.
In recent years there has been a rapid growth in the sale of video equipment and the availability of video recordings. Many outlets rent rather than sell video cassettes and it is easy for young persons to obain, control and play video material. Some of the "video nasties" available in this country are regarded as obscene in England, and indeed the authoriies in England found it necessary to bring legislation into effect in 1986 to control the situation there. The result of the legislation being implemented in Britain could possibly mean many more "video nasties" being made available here, something I am sure none of us want.
As I have said earlier, these videos known as "video nasties" can have a very damaging and disturbing effect on many of the people who see them. Some videos depict dreadful rape scenes and physical abuse which have the effect of dehumanising women. Others deal with unrestricted physical violence. The combination of brutal sex and violence is extremely dangerous and cannot but have a corrupting influence on some viewers, especially young people. In addition, there is no doubt in my mind that the uncontrolled level of violence seen in these videos, and indeed now on our television screens, has led to a massive increase in the level of violence on our streets, and indeed in the types of crime coming before our courts.
There are those who will say that the introduction of these controls is an unwarranted interference with people's freedom to watch what they like in their own homes. However, I am of the opinion that there comes a point when the freedom of individuals must be controlled for the common good, and that there is a need to protect the public from the effects of witnessing scenes such as those portrayed on some of the "video nasties" available in this country. The aim of controls is to remove the really objectionable and revolting material from circulation.
It is also fair to say, however, that legislation of itself cannot provide the complete answer to our problem. After all, the primary duty for the protection of children and young persons rests on the parents and other adults having a responsibility towards such persons. It is just not practical to expect legislation to deal with all our problems and the State cannot be expected to take over the role of parent and guardian every time we have a problem of this nature. It is important, however, that the State assists in any way it can the parents and guardians of children in their difficult task in today's world and I feel that this is what this Bill is trying to do.
On that point, I heard some debates recently about State control. There are those who say people should have complete freedom and others who say standards should be imposed. I was on a radio programme lately and we had a PR representative from one of the satellite stations who made no bones about the fact that they were in the business to make money and that it was up to people to decide what standards they wanted. That is a very dangerous move in any society. In my view, society has to decide for itself what standards it wants to set. We should not be led by the nose; just because something is available in another country does not mean we should have it. All we have to do is to look at what has happened in other countries where, I suggest, lack of controls has led to the type of violence no civilised country would like to have. I am of the opinion that there comes a time when the State must step in, because of the greed of some individuals who leave aside any sense of responsibility in order to make as much money as they can. This is one of the areas.
There is always the danger that legislation of this type can create the environment for a black market for "video nasties" and that is why it is important in dealing with this legislation that we do all in our power to try to prevent such a situation arising. It is really a matter for parents to ensure that their children are kept away from any such black market operators and that the gardaí are informed so that appropriate action can be taken against these "leeches" on society.
When speaking earlier I mentioned the fact that in addition to the video problem we have, of course, to face the likely influence of some satellite television stations. The number of channels now available to our homes is increasing day by day and there is not much point in having a film censor controlling either the film or video business when the same films or videos which may be banned can be readily seen on our television screens. I have mentioned in the past that it is time the Government sought some agreement with our partners in Europe in order to decide how best to tackle this problem. If we can have a European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, which I thoroughly support, surely we can have a European convention on the suppression of violence and pornography? I would ask the Minister seriously to consider this matter and to report back to us at the first available opportunity as to whether there would be any possibility of getting agreement in this area.
This is vitally important before all our laws become farcical. As I said, there is not much point in having a film censor banning a video or film showing obscenities or violence when a person can switch on the television and see the same film. This brings the law into disrepute. If we want to set standards we should do so. As part of the European Community we must decide on the standards we want and implement European controls if necessary to avoid any possibility of loopholes.
The purpose of this Bill is to regulate, subject to certain exceptions, the sale, hire and supply of video recordings otherwise than in accordance with an authorisation in the form of a supply certificate issued by the official censor of films. The Irish Videogram Association have campaigned for a long time for this type of legislation and I know that the same organisation accepts the need to improve the image of the videogram industry. This industry is very important to the Irish economy and could be more beneficial if the problem of piracy was dealt with. The legitimate video industry employes approximately 2,000 people made up of full-time and part-time workers, and has an annual turnover of nearly £30 million. It is estimated that the illegal pirate trade has a turnover of approximately £14 million with no VAT or PRSI coming into the Exchequer. There is an urgent need, therefore, to tackle the problem of piracy which accounts for nearly 50 per cent of the market. This effort is needed not alone to get more revenue for the State but also to deal with the real problems. The reality is that most of the violence and pornography in the video world comes from the illegal pirate trade. Parallel measures must be taken to stop the increasing growth in video piracy through major amendments to existing copyright laws. I am now calling on the Minister for Industry and Commerce to bring forward immediately a new Bill to amend the Copyright Act, 1963. I also appeal to the Minister for Justice to persuade his colleague to bring forward this amending legislation in the area of copyright. Time and time again we pass legislation in this House which on the face of it looks grand but when it comes to its implementation, because something was not done there is a major flaw and the whole thing is practically useless.
Nearly 50 per cent of the video market is in the area of illegal piracy and it is causing most of the problems because people in that trade are not particularly concerned about standards. If these people are allowed to escape with the sort of ridiculous penalties contained in the Copyright Act, 1963 — something like £5 per offence with a maximum of £100 — the problem will never be solved. I know we are not discussing the Copyright Act, 1963, but it is relevant. I congratulate the Irish Videogram Association for producing a very comprehensive document for the benefit of Members of the House, outlining in simple language what is wrong with existing copyright legislation and proposing very reasonable amendments. It would not be a major job for a parliamentary draftsman to get a copy of this document and to draft amendments to the existing law so that when we pass this Bill the Minister for Industry and Commerce should come in here the next week with a copyright amendment Bill, including necessary amendments to the 1963 Act. We must do something specific about the problem to deal with the 50 per cent of the trade who are waltzing around making vast profits for themselves and not paying PRSI or VAT. They give the whole industry a bad name.
I do not want to be nasty to the Minister; I congratulate him on bringing forward this Bill but the only way of solving the problem is to amend the Copyright Act, 1963. If that is not done this side of the House will hound the Government every morning on the Order of Business and at every other opportunity we get to complete the job by bringing in the amendments and imposing proper penalties. The schedule to the 1963 Act should also be amended to include other acts as being offences.
We have a great habit in this House of passing legislation which imposes an extra workload on somebody, in this case the Film Censor, without providing that person with the additional resources necessary to carry out his function. There is no point enacting legislation if we cannot implement it. I am, therefore, seeking an assurance from the Minister for Justice that the required additional resources will be provided in this case at no cost to the ordinary taxpayer. There is provision in the Bill for fees to be charged and I sincerely hope that such fees will cover the cost. There is no good reason for that not being the case.
I am aware that this Bill was debated extensively in the couse of its passage through the Seanad and I am pleased that the Minister was persuaded to include sections dealing with the licensing of persons selling, hiring or supplying videos. These provisions were very badly needed in order to make the legislation worthwhile. It is not clear, however, what the requirements are before a licence is issued by the official censor. It appears that it is possible for a person involved in piracy to get a licence. Surely this cannot be right? Standards must be reached before a licence is issued and we should know what these standards are. I note that the censor can call for your tax number and that is one way of finding out whether a person is legitimate. However, it would be ridiculous if the Film Censor was issuing licences to people involved in piracy. Why was guidance not given to the Film Censor as to who should get a licence? As far as I can see, all you have to do is apply and the Film Censor will then decide whether a licence will be granted. On what basis will he make up his mind? Will he get guidance? Does the person have to be a member of a recognised association? I know what the Department of Industry and Commerce are opposed to restrictions of that nature because they feel that, in many cases, this is a restrictive practice and that it would not be good for the consumer but, when you are talking about standards and people suitably qualified to engage in this business, surely there should be some guidelines?
The Videogram Association have done work for themselves in this regard for which they should be congratulated. They have produced guidelines for their own members. A document — Approved Video Dealership Scheme — has been published which sets out various rules that the IVA will apply. They encourage their members to set high standards for themselves. I laud that effort and again congratulate them. However, there are people who might not want to be members of that association who do not like the standards the association are setting but who could still get a licence to trade. We should know, before we complete the Second Stage of this Bill, what standards, if any, will be imposed before a licence can be issued.
Section 3 of this Bill deals with the certification of video works. I am very surprised that no provision was included to deal with the question of classification. I have heard what the Minister said in his speech. Under the Censorship of Films Act, 1923, there are four categories of certificates issued by the Film Censor, namely: universal, that is, suitable for all; persons under 12 years of age accompanied by an adult; persons over 16 years of age and persons over 18 years of age. I appreciate that there are difficulties in controlling who may see a video once it is supplied but surely some scheme could be devised so that a warning could be given to a parent, for example, that a particular video is, in the opinion of the official censor, only suitable for viewing by, say, over 18 years old.
I have listened to the Minister — in fact I went to the trouble of reading some of the contributions made by his deputy on Committee Stage in the Seanad and the reasons given as to why classification would not be a good idea but I do not accept the arguments. I want to refer to what the videogram association have done on a voluntary basis. My own children have told me that in our local video library there is a big sign showing the various labels that are applied to videos and outlining the suitability aspect of the video. That library has devised a system by which they attach a label to videos — I think it is based on experience in England — advising people as to what is suitable for an over 16 year old or an over 18 year old. That is what I am talking about. I agree that from a practical point of view the Film Censor may say that a video is suitable for viewing and that would be a statutory requirement but he could also have power to indicate that, in his opinion, it was suitable for over 18 years old only.
We all know you cannot stop children viewing films if they are in the form of video but at least we could give some guidance and help to parents in that if the official censor thinks a film is suitable for over 18 year olds only he would say so and somebody would stick a label on the video to that effect. That is what I am asking and I do not think it is a big job. It would be a shame not to have such a provision included in this legislation. It would be a great pity to leave any loophole when we have the opportunity of making changes for which I think there is general agreement. I do not think it is a question of me coming in here trying to play politics with the Government. This is not the sort of legislation on which we can get involved in party politics. We may have our own differences of opinion in relation to standards or what should or should not be done but it is not really a party political issue. Therefore we should work together, particularly on Committee Stage, to cover any loopholes we might see. I would be only too pleased to co-operate in that way if I thought it would make for better legislation.
There are some other minor points I would like to raise but, as the Minister has said, they are probably more appropriate to Committee Stage debate and I intend raising them at that stage. In conclusion, the Fine Gael Party support the passing of the Second Stage of this Bill.
At the outset I would like to say that I and the Progressive Democrats warmly welcome this Bill. It is one that is long overdue. I know it has been debated quite fully in the Seanad. Having read a high proportion of those debates I think there is very little left for us to say in this House that is new. Nevertheless, we can add to certain aspects of the Bill.
It is important to place in context the reason for the Bill and for some kind of control on the supply of video films. We have seen, in the last few years, the mushrooming of the video industry in Ireland. At present the business is worth approximately £36 million. What strikes one travelling through the country is the number of small towns and indeed villages which have their own video libraries, something that would have been unimagined ten years ago. The fact that so many people have video machines and, that there is a huge thriving market in the renting of video films, is a striking mark of the change in Irish society. This market has grown up without any notice being taken of it by the Legislature. By reason of the fact that it has grown up unnoticed, practices and difficulties have arisen. We should have paid attention to the warning signs.
The video films that are being dealt with in this Bill are those that are offensive to society and damaging to individuals in society. I believe, as Deputy Barrett has just said, that there is a real problem in relation to copyright. There is a direct link between the piracy of video films and the growth and supply of video nasties and pornographic video films. It is almost like what we have seen in many other countries where there is a highly developed criminal underworld and any kind of business that will make money will be attempted. Obviously there is a certain risk attached or a certain titillation involved in the viewing of these kinds of films. It has a curiosity factor for many people. It is absolutely essential that we update the laws of copyright in order to stamp out piracy and to bring the supply of video films completely within the legal net. Until we do that, any legislation we pass here will be almost ineffective.
The view taken by the videogram industry is that within the next number of years a higher proportion of video films will be viewed on an illegal basis than on a legal basis. That certainly points to the problems associated with copyright. To put the matter in perspective, having attended a briefing session given by the Irish videogram industry it was brought home to me how far the technical knowledge has outstripped that envisaged in the Copyright Act. Even if we were to confine changes in the Copyright Act to videos we would still find that in 12 months or two years that technology had been outstripped and that the copyright restrictions we had placed on certain videos would not be sufficient to cope with problems that arise in a year or two.
I realise that the issue of piracy is not directly affected by this Bill but it has to be seen in conjunction with it. I support what Deputy Barrett said about immediately bringing in a Bill under the Department of Industry and Commerce with reasonably simple amendments which would add weight to the Bill we are discussing now and ensure its effectiveness.
As legislators we have a duty not to subscribe to the creation of a whole criminal underworld as has been the case over the last number of years in Ireland. I am not saying it is a very large criminal underworld but it is pervasive all over the country and all over the city. In many housing estates in Dublin, for example, that do not have shops, cinemas, playgrounds or anything else, you can be sure the video van will call very regularly to cater for a captive market there far larger than we can even imagine. We have a real duty not to allow such illegal activities to continue willy-nilly. There is an example of the State allowing that to happen in the broadcasting world in the radio stations we have seen proliferating unchecked over the years. The pirate broadcasting syndrome has lent credence to the criminal and illegal extension of the video industry. I am absolutely convinced that the great majority of the videos offered from the vans that visit estates regularly are normal family entertainment or even adult entertainment being viewed by adults, parents and so on, but a certain percentage of them are not so, they are objectionable and are not being trapped. The reason for the fact that so many people have accepted the existence of this and the illegality of it, we have to trace back to the State's unwillingness to tackle the radio pirates and to change the legislation in that regard. I am happy to see that at least we have a Bill here today which has not taken quite as long perhaps as the pirate radio legislation to get on to the floor of this House.
I am well aware of the problems associated with the exposure of children and impressionable and perhaps immature adults to wholly unsuitable vidoes in terms of violence and sexual depravity. There is no doubt that there is incitement in some of these videos to people of that kind to commit crimes, to re-enact the scenes they see and to accept as normal what is seen in a video. Because of our knowledge of television and film we know that a picture, an image of something, is full of impression. It comes into our consciousness far more than, say, the written or even the spoken word. For that reason it is essential that grossly violent videos etc. be removed from the reach of children who are at a particularly impressionable stage of development, and kept from those whom such videos would incite to commit crime. In my innocent past I viewed films in the cinema which portrayed how to create a crime, so to speak. A couple of titles come to my mind of essentially comic films but one could say they depicted how a crime could be committed and how people got away with such activity. One such film was entitled "How to Steal a Million," another was "Topkapi." These are very well known films. I see the Minister is smiling but the point is that the terms of this Bill could be said to include something like that. While the intent of the Bill is right, I am keen and anxious that films generally should not be included in it.
I do not think we need go into the depths of depravity these video films lend themselves to to understand what we are talking about. I have not had the opportunity of viewing video nasties, neither do I wish to. I take people's word for it as to what they are. I would be disgusted by the kind of violence they portray, violence that is perpetrated on people, and on animals, that are inherently degrading to humanity, more so because women are so intimately and intricately involved. Particularly in this day and age when women are beginning to be able to play a fuller part in society this is one area where we must be vigilant. The involvement of the criminal underworld in this extends to innocent women and children who are organised into video film rackets, innocently become involved and then cannot remove themselves from the situation. I do not think it happens so much in Ireland, but in London there is a very high incidence of this in some areas. People who are on their uppers, so to speak, are vulnerable and can be inveigled into doing certain things for money because they are absolutely without means, and then find themselves unable to extricate themselves. We owe some protection to such people, and of course we owe protection to society at large from viewing such indecent and gross acts as I have mentioned.
I agree with Deputy Barrett's argument that we should be liberal and should allow adults to view what they decide to view. It is a strong argument in general, but living in a civilised society demands certain standards and taking certain stands; we must take such a stand on this.
I would not confine my remarks on the violence involved in some of these video nasties simply to videos. There is a tendency in this country to accept depiction of violence in cinema films without question. I have been quite shocked by certain excerpts from some films I have seen and I have wondered what the reasoning behind them was and why they were being shown to us. I subscribe to a director's right to create a work of art, namely a film, a by-product of which is some kind of violence, but if the primary object of making the film is the violence or the depraved nature of the act, or the degradation of women, children or animals, that has to be the criterion, and I would wish it to be extended to the film world. The Film Censor in recent years has obtained approval in general for the kinds of decisions he has been making. There should be greater emphasis on the place of violence in films. There are some cinemas in this city that run no films except those that appeal to people who like to watch violent acts. It is ultimately degrading and damaging to society to allow that to happen, given that we have, officially, a censor who is supposed to be looking out for that kind of behaviour.
The desensitisation that occurs as a result of constantly watching anything, whether it be the kind of morals we see in Dallas and Dynasty or whether it is the violent acts in video nasties or films, must not be underestimated. We have suffered from it ourselves in relation to Northern Ireland where, for the last 20 years, day in and day out we hear about violent acts and it has now got to the stage where unless it is a huge bomb explosion, unless it is remarkable in terms of the numbers of people who have been injured or killed, precious little attention is paid to it, and this is terribly dangerous for a society that wishes to live peacefully and whose standards then of what is peace and what is violence change greatly to the detriment of society at large. It is in that larger picture that I see the impression and the effect of these videos, given that the viewing of these videos is proliferating throughout the country.
The Bill's provisions certainly aim to stem the growth of illegal activities under certain criteria. I would differ slightly from Deputy Barrett on the classification of videos. We have to recognise that we are dealing with a different medium here. One may say it is quite easy for the Film Censor to provide that no one under the age of 16 years should view a particular film. In fact it is not easy, because persons under 16 often look older. Compared to videos, the principle is different. One can actualy stop someone going into a cinema, demand some evidence of their age and actually prevent them going in, and one has a legal right to do that. We even had a decision recently where the Film Censor demanded that everybody should be sitting in their places before a film started. So the Film Censor is able to implement certain rules that he lays down. He will not be able to do so in relation to videos. There is no doubt in my mind that it would be useless to say that a video should be viewed only by persons over the age of 18. We know that we have a problem with under-age drinking and have had for years and it is growing. There is a rule in existence that says nobody under 18 should be drinking but somehow persons under 18 are getting drink. There are problems in cities and rural areas with children who are obtaining drink.
Videos will be in houses where there are children. Parents will not be at home all the time, with the best will in the world; and without the best will in the world, the houses of those parents who do not in fact pay great attention to these problems will be open to the children to invite in their friends and have video parties and it will not matter what is on view. Therefore, there has to be a very different approach to videos. Television is intimate; it comes into one's living room. The video machine is in one's living room. It will be extremely difficult to differentiate between those videos that should be available for adults and those that are for general viewing. Classification of videos would be a very difficult way to go about containing the problem.
On that general view, parents in Ireland will have to take a greater responsibility for what their children are viewing, given the fact that any number of stations will be available to us in the near future from satellites even though there are some new moves afoot for European co-operation on certain standards. One only has to travel to Italy to see Italian television to see how difficult it would be to achieve a medium standard that refects Italian television, say, and Irish television, and it will not be at the Irish standard. The bottom line has to be that parents take on the responsibility for their children's viewing of television, be it videos or television stations.
I am happy to see that there are heavy penalties involved in this Bill and that in fact imprisonment is included in some of the penalties. It is only right.
I also am very glad to see that the licensing of retail or hiring outlets will be necessary. Here again I differ from Deputy Barrett. The aim in licensing outlets should be to include as many as possible in the net and not to exclude those who do not come up to a certain standard simply because if they are excluded they go underground and the same problem starts all over again. In saying that I do not want standards to be imposed on outlets I do not mean that any standard will do. Including these outlets within licensing will mean that they are subject to visiting, that they are subject to the censor viewing what they have on their shelves, whereas if they are not licensed the Garda will not be able to find where they are as easily as if they were licensed. There are difficulties. How does one license a mobile van as an outlet? Some very wide definition of "outlet" is required so as to include as many as possible and keep it above ground so that it is visible to the public eye.
I have a question about the censor's viewing of video films. It is laudable that all films should be submitted to him but I am unclear as to what happens then because I do not honestly see how the censor can view all of the films. Is there to be some mechanism whereby he is notified that there is a problem about a particular film or whereby somebody makes a complaint and he then looks at a film? I know that there is a phasing in of the whole scheme so that certain readily identifiable nasties or whatever will go to him first and he will certify them and that from there on all new video films will be submitted to him. They will be submitted, but will they all be viewed? If not, what is the mechanism for deciding that they should not be viewed or identifying the ones that should be? In passing, I have to say that I do not envy the Film Censor his job under this Bill.
The other question I have is about the labelling of the videos over a number of years. The Minister might indicate when replying how long he thinks it will take until that final stage is reached when all videos have labels on them. With regard to the extra cost to the State, it is only right that those who wish to distribute videos should, like film distributors, pay a fee. We are fortunate that there is a mechanism in place for collecting such a fee and that our hands are not tied as tends to be the position in regard to other legislation.
The profits from the distribution of videos are enormous and more so from the distribution of illegal videos. I have no compunction about asking those who wish to distribute videos to pay a proper fee. I welcome the decision to have the two sexes represented on the censorship appeals board and to insist on an annual report. To whom will that report be forwarded? Will it be published and the subject of a debate in the House? I support the Bill but without a move in regard to copyright we will continue to have a high percentage of illegal trading in videos. The provisions in the Bill will be ineffective if we do not stamp that out. We are moving on a subject that has overtaken the Legislature and, once more, we find ourselves trailing behind the population.
I should like to make some brief comments on the Bill. The issue is not an easy one to tackle. We are being asked to deal with the question of censorship. Members will agree that having regard to the way the video market has developed some measure of control was necessary but we must be careful that we do not go overboard on censorship. We should not go beyond what is reasonably necessary in a modern context. The provisions of the Bill have been accepted in some circles but the Irish Council of Civil Liberties, in the course of a statement, described the Bill as a noxious form of paternalistic censorship which has no place in a liberal democracy. I understand that even within that group there was not universal agreement on how far the issue should go.
I listened to Deputy Colley's point about the classification of videos but I was not convinced by the argument she put forward.
I was convinced by Deputy Colley.
It is nice to know that the Minister can be impressed by the Progressive Democrats on some issues. Classification on grading should be addressed in the Bill. A video or film may be regarded as suitable to be seen by an adult but unsuitable for young people — there are many in that category — but I wonder if the Minister is saying that because it is not suitable to be seen by a young person it should be banned and cannot be seen by an adult. What is the censor to do? I do not think that is a tenable proposition. If the censor comes to the conclusion that a video can be released for adult viewing it may be seen by children and, therefore, he may feel that he is under an obligation to ban it.
We do not live in a perfect society and we will not be able to devise a perfect system but we must do our best. We will have to have classification and grading and hope that parents will show the necessary degree of responsibility and ensure that adult videos are not seen by children. I accept that that will not work in many cases and that some parents will be irresponsible in that regard. Deputy Colley referred to teenage drinking and pointed out that although those under 18 are prohibited from buying alcohol there is widespread abuse of it. The fact that a ban exists has had little or no impact on teenage drinking and it is outrageous that that is the position. When we introduce laws we must be careful to ensure that they are enforceable. I am concerned about that aspect of the Bill but I wonder how effective the authorities will be in enforcing the law. Are we capable of enforcing any legislation we introduce in regard to videos?
I have heard comments and read articles by promoters which indicate that the legislation will not make that much difference. It appears that the monstrosities that are available will not be taken out of circulation. I understand that the question of enforcement will be so difficult that at best we will touch the surface, just as we do in regard to teenage drinking. I hope that will not be the case. It is important that the Government will provide the necessary resources to ensure a reasonable degree of enforcement of the legislation. If that is not done it would be better if we did not introduce the legislation because we would be bringing the whole legal system into disrepute.
The Minister should have another look at grading and classification. There is a sensibly organised division in regard to films which could be used for videos. Films are classified under different headings, universal release, parental guidance, over 15s and 18s. I do not see why that is not applied to videos. I accept that any system introduced will cause problems but we must avoid introducing a blanket censorship. Censorship is necessary but it must be kept to the minimum required by society. A programme on videos indicated that horrific material is in circulation. Nobody in his right mind would permit such material to be circulating in a civilised society and it must be banned. There is a vast array of material between that extreme and other film and video works. The range is too wide to bulk all the material into the categories of being banned for everybody or being available for everybody. The range is far too wide to have the categories as black or white as that. There is a vast area of greyness between the two extremes that require classification into categories.
This aspect of the matter was considered in some detail by the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism in 1986. I was a member of that committee as was the present Minister for Social Welfare. We were very much involved with it. The committee recommended that a separate video censorship authority should be established and that the international coding system, which classifies audience suitability, should be adopted. I certainly agree with that entirely. I think that Deputy Woods, as he then was, was equally keen on that concept at the time. The committee said that videos which were not classified under this coding system should be banned; that all video retail outlets should be licensed — that is being done in the Bill — and that the offer of unclassified videos for hire or sale should be an offence; that the making of any videos or video recordings for the purpose of eventual hire or sale to the public whether in Ireland or abroad should be subject to the Video Censorship Authority.
The committee after due examination and conducting interviews and so on came to the conclusion that the classification system was desirable. The Minister should have a re-think because to say otherwise means in effect that there are only two categories of video film, first, those which are to be licensed and second, those which are not to be licensed on a broad blanket basis for everybody. That offends commonsense. There are many films that are eminently suitable for adults, there is nothing wrong with them and many of them may be of literary value, which would not be suitable perhaps for young children. I do not see how you can avoid that conclusion.
Section 3, the crucial section of the Bill, sets out the terms of reference given to the Censorship Board. The censor is obliged under section 3 (a) to ban the video "if the viewing of it — (i) would be likely to cause persons to commit crimes, whether by inciting or encouraging them to do so or by indicating or suggesting ways of doing so or of avoiding detection." I find the drafting of that subsection totally unacceptable and so vague, indefinite and open in its terms that we should be able to have a much better drafting than that. The mind boggles at the phrase "the viewing of it—
"(i) would be likely to cause persons to commit crimes".
What kind of video would be likely to cause a person to commit a crime? If you put yourself in the censor's position what is he to make of that? Is the censor to be as constrained by that wording as the constituencies commission were on redrawing the constituencies? Any crime film shows the planning of a crime, and we all enjoy it, but is the censor to say that because the film shows a good system of committing a crime the film should be banned? We would be banning a great many films if the censor were to take that section literally. The section leaves a lot to the censor's discretion and I do not think he should be put in that position.
Section 3 (a) (i) states further "whether by inciting or encouraging them" and I think the vagueness of that wording makes it too extensive. The subsection continues "by indicating or suggesting ways of doing so or of avoiding detection", I suppose films involving crime, and they constitute a major part of the video libraries, show ways of avoiding detection but I do not think anybody would suggest that because you may get some idea of how to commit a crime and avoid detection the film should be banned. We ought to be able to draft the section better than having the censor deal with the section as it stands.
The drafting of section 3 (a) (ii):
would tend, by reason of the inclusion in it of any obscene or indecent matter, to deprave or corrupt persons who might view it,"
is somewhat better. The wording of section 3 (b): "depicts acts of gross violence or cruelty (including mutilation and torture) towards humans or animals" is more appropriate as more specifics are laid down for the guidance of the censor. It would be better if there were set out in separate subsections specific categories of types of situations that we wanted banned, such as those mentioned in section 3 (b). That is the way to tackle the situation. There are other categories, perhaps of the type that were envisaged in the broader earlier definitions, but I think we should be more specific rather than having vague generalities such as "would be likely to cause persons to commit crimes or of avoiding detection," I may make some amendments and specific proposals along these lines on Committee Stage.
We had a Private Members' Bill in 1986 which was prepared and presented to the Labour Party. Some suggestions were made which I may offer on Committee Stage for consideration by the House. Broadly speaking, we have to do something about the issue, and there is no doubt about that, but we have to be careful too that we do not get carried away and throw out the baby with the bath water. There is a great temptation to do that. The Bill as it stands at present is not satisfactory as it could go too far. We run the risk of banning a great deal of material which would be suitable for adult viewing. If that were the situation, the Bill could not be acceptable and would require amendment on Committee Stage.
In spite of all that has been said against videos, they are still a great invention and are part of the technological age. They have been on the Irish market only for the past decade but already they are a status symbol and a necessary requirement for the rich and the poor alike. Most homes with a television set have a video, and even a high proportion of the unemployed have acquired one somewhere along the line. There are no social boundaries for videos. They are as common in inner city flats as they are in Foxrock or Castleknock. They are a great source of entertainment and leisure for those who have time to watch them. They can be used as a means of instruction or education but for the greater part they are used for entertainment.
Judging by the number of video clubs and shops that have sprung up around the country in the past few years — and in the cities every street has one, every market or shopping centre has a corner video shop — it must be a very lucrative business. In fact, a great number of new business empires have started up from video hire, which has given the cinema industry a good run for its money and there are a thousand new titles on the market every year.
Unfortuntely, the people involved in the vidoe hire business have shown little or no conscience in one aspect of the business. Because of the popularity and ready availability of videos, the temptation abounds for the sale, hire or loan of the illicit type of video. Soft or hard porn movies or movies with scenes of extreme violence in relation to crime or sexual acts are normally banned by the Film Censor but are readily available on the shelves of the video shop. In fact, there is a steady demand for them. Usually, a section of the retail shop has a large selection of nasties. It is not unusual, in fact, it is quite common for teenagers and even younger children to know about and have viewed such films without the knowledge of an adult or their parents in their own homes or in their friends homes. It is quite common in Dublin for young people to have video parties where these films are shown.
It is possible that some parents who have no interest in videos, and therefore are not aware of the titles of the videos and what they contain, do not know what is going on. I would put the blame on the rise in crimes of violence and crimes of sexual violence against women in recent years on the influx of these videos. These videos have a disturbing and damaging effect on many people who see them. Some videos are very explicit and show violent rape scenes and physically degrading abuses to women, others deal with unrestricted physical violence. The combination of brutal sex and violence is extremely dangerous and cannot but have a corrupting influence on some viewers, especially young people. It could be suggested that the viewer identifies with the person committing the violent act rather than with the victim.
Pornography is essentially about the sexual exploitation of women and increasingly of children. Its effects are experienced by everyone in society where pornography is available. Men, although they are the consumers of pornography, are also its victims. Females who assume they have a caring relationship such as with mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, colleagues and friends are equally targets for hatred and violence which pornography promotes against all women. When pornography becomes freely available in a society the freedom of women and children become correspondingly less and ultimately men will have to live in fear because of the threats which each will pose to the loved ones of the others. It exploits men's fears and fantasies just as much as it sexually exploits the women and children in the videos, and yet pornography is one of the few growth industries in the western world today. Therefore, the introduction of this Bill and the provisions contained in it to regulate the sale, hire and the supply of video recordings, which are not under the supervision of the Film Censor, are most welcome and not before its time.
Under this Bill all vendors will have to apply to the official censor for a certificate of approval for each video. If the censor finds the video unsuitable for viewing, and the Bill sets out the reasons whereby he can find it unfit, they will not receive the certificate. This Bill should have been introduced years ago. The censor will refuse a licence if he finds that the viewing of the video would encourage the person viewing it to cause him to commit crimes of violence, dishonesty, sexual offences or offences related to dangerous drugs, or would deprave or corrupt the person watching it or if the work shows acts of gross violence or cruelty towards animals or humans or acts which include mutilation or torture. This Bill will be welcomed by all the organisations representing women and animals but I doubt if it will be welcomed by the people who make money from the video business. I am sure they will not be too pleased. In all these cases it would be up to the censor to decide whether the films are acceptable for a certificate of approval.
Those who are refused the licence will have the right to appeal to the film board. I am delighted to see in the Bill that the Censorship Appeal Board will have to have one member of each sex.
The Bill is very detailed and covers every aspect of the video business but the most important part is that dealing with the sale or hire of video nasties to the public, and the subsequent fines for people who break the law in this regard is bound to discourage them. I am happy to note that the Bill includes the importation of video nasties. Persons found importing such goods are liable to fines of up to £1,000. This also includes the personal traveller and his baggage. The places of sale are also covered in the Bill and they include not only shops and houses but vehicle stalls, and even boxes on the side of the road will be under scrutiny. They will also have to apply for a licence and specify on the licence from where they are going to sell the so-called videos. This should keep a watertight control on the sale, hire and distribution of videos. It is a welcome development that the licence will carry the seller's tax reference number and that is another plus for the Bill.
It could be argued that the introduction of controls interferes in some way with people's freedom to watch what they feel like watching in their own homes. There comes a time when the freedom of individuals must be controlled for the common good. There is a need to protect the public, particularly young people from the effects of witnessing scenes such as those portrayed on some of the video nasties which are available at present.
The aim of this legislation is to remove the really objectionable and revolting material from circulation in order that its evil influence will be removed also. If in the introduction of controls a black market situation arises it would be difficult for the State to keep a 24-hour watch. Primary responsibility for the protection of children and young people rests with parents and guardians, and the citizens themselves should take stock of what is happening and work with the Garda. There is no doubt that video nasties are a dirty business and the sooner this legislation is enacted the better for everybody. I would ask the Minister to ensure that video nasties are never made in Ireland.
Obviously, to a large extent much of what needs to be said about this Bill may already have been said in the Seanad, where it was debated extensively. It would be a very foolish person who would stand up here and say that there is an easy and simple solution to the problem that we are attempting to deal with. All sorts of statements are made about linking pornography with violence and rape. I suppose it is a truism to say that one person's pornography is another person's art or vice versa. It has always been and presumably always will be difficult to draw a line as to where one ends and the other begins. Clearly that is my dilemma in relation to this Bill.
I abhor, as I am sure everybody in this House does, the video nasties which circulate mainly in the black market. They are not normally sold, lent or rented by the shops operating in the streets of Dublin and elsewhere. The point made by Deputy Barrett in relation to copyright is an important one. I hope the Minister when responding to Second Stage of this Bill will inidcate what is being done in relation to that particular matter. There is a further problem in this regard and that is that much of the hard core pornography and explicitly and gratuitously violent videos that are circulating have no titles whatsoever. It is difficult to see how that particular trade can be controlled other than by extremely severe penalties for dealing in it. There are no simple answers. There must be some form of control over the material we are talking about but we have to guard against a situation where we are regulating unduly the lives of adults in the State. I am concerned about the manner in which the censor will be obliged to ban videos unless as stated in the Bill he is of the opinion that the work is unfit for viewing because—
(a) the viewing of it—
(i) would be likely to cause persons to commit crimes, whether by inciting or encouraging them to do so or by indicating or suggesting ways of doing so or of avoiding detection, or
(ii) would tend, by reason of the inclusion in it of any obscene or indecent matter, to deprave or corrupt persons who might view it,
That is a very sweeping section and it would seem to be extremely difficult for a censor to pass, for instance, the film about which all of the furore was during the past few months —"The Last Temptation of Christ"— which contained elements which the censor took out because he regarded them as obscene. He put an over 18 certificate on the film but under this Bill, if that film had been presented to him as a video in the first instance he would have been obliged to ban the video in toto. The extraordinary thing is that having passed the film with an over 18 certificate and excised certain parts of it, if he is now presented with a video of that film in its unexcised form, then he must pass the video without any classification whatsoever. The video would be available to one and all, whether it is a ten year old or a 98 year old who rents it.
There are serious flaws in the content of the Bill in relation to how the censor may act. There is also the risk that the censor, because he will be obliged to pass a film and subsequently a video, when he looks at a film may be constrained by the fact that in a month's time he will be presented with a video of the same film. He may decide to give a general certificate for the video but will have to consider what attitude to take with regard to the film. There may be an overly restrictive or conservative approach to the censoring of films for showing in cinemas. There are areas I would disagree with but by and large I am happy that we have reached a balance in relation to cinemas and books. As I said, there are exceptions which I would argue about and I think the Bill could have the effect of making censorship more conservative so that we would be back to the days when we banned works of art simply because they contained passages which were considered unsuitable.
The question of censorship and whether, hard core pornography results in crime, rape or violence has yet to be clarified to everybody's satisfaction. The Minister in his speech said that it is clear to him that there is a direct link between pornography and rape and he quoted the report of the Commission of the US Attorney General to that effect. Deputy Mary Mooney made the same statement but I am not certain that that is true. I have a submission from the Rape Crisis Centre and while they support in general the need to control video nasties they are not as adamant as the Minister is in their view as to the effects of videos on men in particular. They believe that in the normal course most reasonable and well balanced men who would view videos of this kind would be angered and sickened by these videos and would not in any way be incited to rape or violence and that it is those who are already predisposed in that direction who could be influenced in that way. I think there is a question which needs to be answered in relation to this. What are we trying to do in relation to video nasties? Are we trying to protect the general public from a small minority of men who are predisposed in any case to rape, assault and violence in a way which will restrict the rights of the vast majority of adults to choose the viewing which they want to watch, given, as I said, the vast majority of men and women would not choose to watch video nasties anyhow? That question needs to be looked at.
I think we are trying to regulate for what we would regard as the ideal moral values which society should have. Spokespersons for various organisations and groups like to classify this State as a Christian State. Some like to classify it as a Roman Catholic State and a State which has various values and moralities which must be protected. I would argue that in many cases the moral values are extremely superficial. I can think of an immediate example in relation to Northern Ireland where there is a significant degree of ambivalence about the horrific violence that is being perpetrated there, perpetrated, let it be said, in our name. That indicates a certain superficiality in regard to moral values. The question of whether video nasties will have an effect on young people or older people depends by and large on the real moral values which we inculcate in our children as they grow up, both in the home and in school. Perhaps we should look in more detail at that area. I do not want to get into a debate about education cuts and so on but the reality is that education is being attacked in terms of its effectiveness and quality as a result of the way in which the budget is being implemented. I believe we are dealing here with the symptoms of the kind of morality we have rather than with the real moral values which we should be trying to inculcate in relation to respect for human beings, whether they be male or female, black, white, orange or green or whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.
That brings me to another point. I deplore the fact that on the Committee Stage debate of this Bill in the Seanad a section of the Bill was dropped. Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) which read "that the viewing of it would be likely to stir up hatred against any group or persons on account of their race, nationality or religion" was dropped from the Bill on Committee Stage in the Seanad. If there is any section in the Bill which I would support, it would have been that one. I know that Senator Norris tried to add a category on to that section, and one which I support. He argued that the words "sexual orientation" should be added to the section and that if we are going to ban videos, then videos which incite hatred on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation should be banned. Under this Bill there is nothing to prevent the circulation of a video which is produced by neo-Nazi groups which could be extremely offensive and an incitement to hatred of Jews, blacks or homosexuals. The Provos could produce videos inciting hatred of the British people, of the Unionists or of Protestants and they could be legally circulated under this Bill. The Minister should address himself to that aspect. If he feels that the Bill as it stands covers that I would welcome an explanation from him as to how it does.
The argument about whether pornography does or does not incite to violence against women will not be resolved here but there are equally strong sociological arguments which indicate that pornography — I am not talking about hardcore pornography — in fact reduces the level of violence against women. That is a debate which will go on until the end of time. At the end of the day we must look at the values that we inculcate and uphold for our people.
This Bill does not provide for the classification of videos on the basis of their being suitable for children of a certain age or suitable for adults only or for the various categories which are used in relation to films. Indeed the videogram associations are attempting to do this on a voluntary basis. The Minister has argued that a classification system will not prevent under 16s, for example, from seeing an unsuitable video. That is true, but the same argument could apply to the licensing laws to which Deputy Colley referred. Recently we passed licensing laws which prevent off-licences from selling alcohol to persons under a certain age because we believed that alcohol being drunk by young people was damaging to them and led to varying social problems. So far as I am aware no one argued that it was foolish to do that because we could not guarantee that an adult would not go into an off-licence, buy drink and hand it out to an under age child. The Minister's argument is not a serious one. The analogy between the off-licence and the video shop is apt because in both cases a person goes to a shop to buy and brings the product home to use at home. There is no basis for the Minister's argument against classification on those grounds.
We also made provision for age cards which have not been produced.
I agree. The other point the Minister made in relation to classification was related to cost. He said that it cost £1 million in the UK to classify video films compared with the £300,000 to run the existing censorship board. I presume that includes the cost of censoring the videos as well, although obviously there would be income from the service. If we are serious about introducing curbs on video nasties and if we are serious about providing for the retention, in so far as it is possible, of the freedom of adults to choose what they want to read and view, then the question of cost should be the deciding factor in deciding for or against classification. It can be easily argued that if classification is to cost more money, then the certifying of the films to be paid for by the distributor should cost more money. The censorship system already provides for classification of films and there is no good reason for the failure of this Bill to provide for classification of videos. This Bill is something of a blunt instrument as it stands and at the very least we should introduce classification.
There are many gaps in the Bill. We should be cautious about making too strong a link between video nasties and crime and violence. The vast majority of people in the State will be sickened by the type of item we are talking about but nonetheless there is a thriving market for it. One wonders why, but this Bill cannot deal with that question. We will not oppose this Bill on Second Stage but we will propose amendments in relation to changes we would like to see in the Bill on Committee Stage.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in support of this Bill to control video nasties. During the terms of the last Dáil I was a member of the committee on crime, lawlessness and vandalism which reported to the Dáil recommending the introduction of controls on video nasties. Some of the speakers here this morning referred to that report in their contributions.
The widespread availability of videos depicting unrestrained violence, sexual abuse, mutilation and murder, on video nasties, as they are commonly called has aroused widespread concern which I share. I am concerned at the absence of controls on the sale or lease of video recordings. The Censorship of Films Act, 1923 provides that every film which it is proposed to exhibit in public must first be viewed by the official censor. The case for controls is at least as great for videos but to date no controls operate with the result that films banned by the censor are available on video. There is provision in the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, for the confiscation of obscene material. While this is used from time to time it is not by any means a comprehensive approach to modern technology.
In recent years there has been a rapid growth in the sale of video equipment and in the availability of video recordings. Many outlets rent rather than sell the cassettes and it is easy for young people to obtain and play video material. Some of the video materials available here are regarded as being obscene in England. Such videos can have a damaging and disturbing effect on many of the people who see them. Some videos depict dreadful rape scenes and physical abuse which have the effect of dehumanising women. Other deal with unrestricted physcial violence. The combination of brute sex and violence is extremely dangerous and cannot but have a corrupting influence on some viewers, especially young viewers.
I am aware that the majority of video recordings do not fall into the category of video nasties but the existence of the trade in video nasties places a question mark over all video recordings. It may be argued that the introduction of controls is an unwarranted interference with people's freedom to watch what they like in their own homes. However, there comes a point when the freedom of the individual must be controlled for the common good. There is a need to protect the public, particularly young people, from the effects of witnessing scenes such as those portrayed on some of the video nasties currently available. We need to remove the objectionable and revolting material from circulation. The general availability of video nasties has a corrupting influence on at least some members of society and it is to combat this evil influence that some controls are required.
Legislation in itself cannot provide the complete answer. The primary duty to protect children and young persons rests with parents and other adults who have a duty towards such persons. It would not be practicable for society to try to take on the 24-hour a day task of safeguarding standards of children and young persons. This is the function of parents and guardians. This State has a part to play, however, in reducing the extent to which corrupting influences are available, but it falls to parents to exercise their responsibility for the welfare of their children within the framework laid down by the State for the benefit of the common good. When controls are introduced on the availability of video recordings there is the possibility of creating a black market for videos which are prohibited. It will be a matter for parents to ensure that their children are kept away from such black market operators. The Garda should be informed so that appropriate action may be taken.
It is argued that the viewing of video nasties in the confines of one's own home is a private matter and should not be the subject of criminal law. This argument arises when discussion takes place on matters of sexual morality. Where does society draw the line in matters of morals between private behaviour and public morality? I have no doubt that the sanction of the criminal law should be used for the protection of society. It should be used in cases like video nasties where it is sought to maintain standards of decency in society.
The introduction of controls on video recordings raises the question of the need to regulate satellite and cable television services. It is essential that this issue be tackled and that controls be introduced as quickly as possible. We must take the lead in this area and demand the establishment of acceptable international standards and codes of practice. We have recently seen television documentaries about the shape of television in the future. It is clear that there is considerable use of soft and hard pornography on some of the existing channels. We face the prospect of programmes being beamed into our homes which are excluded from cinema and video recordings. Perhaps the Minister would examine this issue further and consider raising the matter at European level. The single market has a social as well as an economic dimension and we should use the opportunity to introduce acceptable standards.
There is serious cause for concern at the amount of violence that young people are subjected to either in real life or on video and television and in the cinema. We have experienced a general weakening in the moral fabric of society in the past 20 or 30 years. This is evidenced in the increased use of violence in crimes, even against elderly people. There is no single or simple explanation as to this change but I have no doubt that the increased exposure to violence in the media has a numbing effect on people. It lowers their shock level and accustoms them to accept the greater use of violence. This is not acceptable to me or to a large section of society. We have to take a stand and make this a better place for society. I welcome the Bill.
It is fair to say that this Bill is a response to a fairly widespread demand for the regulation of the video market. I am glad that the Government and we as legislators are dealing with an advance in technology. Who would have thought 20 years ago that material such as video recordings would be available to every household in the State? I hope that in tandem with this Bill the Department of Industry and Commerce will see fit to tackle the twin problem of video piracy. We are not dealing with that aspect today but it is important that somewhat similar legislation should be enacted to combat widespread video piracy. This is a problem which most European countries have experienced and we should tackle it at the earliest opportunity. Two small examples bring home the point. I refer to the widespread bootlegging up and down the country of a very fine video recording of the Late Late Show programme of some time ago which starred, among such entertainers as The Dubliners, the head of the Government. This video is being sold for a very small price and legislation is not in place to tackle the problem. A video recording of the fine performance of the Irish football team at the European Championships is also readily for sale at a small price. Were the legislation in place to prevent video piracy, the coffers of RTE and the FAI could well benefit.
Deputy Taylor spoke of a fear that we were talking about the introduction of some restrictive legislation in the form of censorship. He read from a submission by the Irish Council of Civil Liberties. We are not dealing with censorship by any shift to the right or innate conservatism. We are clearly responding to a demand in the interests of the common good. I do not intend to go into any great detail on the substance of these video nasties. The examples of explicit and depraved violence are such as to demand a change in the law. I would counter the point made by Deputy Taylor by reminding Members of a motion contained in the annual report of the Council for the Status of Women in 1988. Emergency Resolution No. 1 states:
"Video Nasties"
The Council for the Status of Women in seriously alarmed at the widespread availability of "video nasties" in this country. Pornographic, often extremely violent, films seem to be readily accessible, even to young children. The Council believes that this could be a contributory factor in the growing incidence of rape and other forms of violence against women and children.
The Council calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to plan legal control over the importation and distribution of "video nasties" in consultation with women's organisations.
That resolution was proposed by the Rape Crisis Centre and seconded by Women's Aid. We are dealing with conservative groups when we are talking about these organisations. Therefore I would not go along with Deputy Taylor's suggestion that we are reacting in a restrictive manner.
I welcome the fact that the Bill has broadly achieved the support of all parties in the House. That underlines the consensus among legislators that something must be done about this problem. In my view the general public are unaware of what we are talking about when we mention the vicious scenes in many videos which are currently available. People underline their comments by saying children are at risk, but I see no reason children only should be at risk. In my view many adults are at risk by what is readily available in many of these shops. The availability of pornographic material with scenes of extreme violence is such as to give rise to concern at the level of child abuse and crimes of a particularly vicious nature which are committed not alone in this country but on the continent as well. I might mention in passing such appalling acts as the Hungerford massacre, the recent outrage committed in the public house in New York and the mass supermarket murders in Belgium some years ago. This type of scene is readily available on celluloid in video shops and I am sure it is in response to that that the Minister is rightly acting in the interests of the common good.
The question has been asked if this legislation will drive the market underground or if it will lead to a flourishing black market operation where the legislation will be ignored. In this Bill the penalties and powers of confiscation are such as to act as a powerful deterrent but I wonder if we might increase the fines. At present, even without legislation, many of the video retail outlets have an under-the-counter catalogue which is available on demand when one gives the password. This is a practice which I hope the legislation when in force, will eradicate. I believe the legislation is sufficiently strong if it is enforced in all areas.
A couple of points require further comment. I want to refer to something mentioned by a speaker from one of the smaller parties, that is, the manufacture here and immediate export of video materials. The Minister referred to this in his speech when he said:
It is simply that the question whether any particular video should be allowed to be shown in another country is a question for the law of that country and that the standards required by Irish law are irrelevant.
He went on to say that anybody can write a book in this country for publication abroad, but I am not convinced by that argument. Would the Minister consider having a section in the Bill banning the manufacture of such video material in this State? That could go a long way down the road towards solving this problem. This is a problem we will hear a great deal more about in the coming years unless we tackle it now. Under our present laws Ireland could find itself becoming the centre for the publication of racist garbage and other forms of objectionable material unless this particular loophole is closed.
It already is.
That may be the case but it has been brought to my attention that that has been happening in this city. I ask the Minister to reconsider placing a ban on the initial production of such material to solve that problem. It is not good enough to say that once the material is not seen or heard here it is all right to produce it. That is reminiscent of the three monkeys — hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. This area should be covered in the Bill because when dealing with video nasties we are dealing with everything objectionable, much more objectionable than pornography or the violence against humans and animals which was mentioned earlier. Those video nasties can be directed against particular groups in society. This is a problem which should be tackled.
A significant study was undertaken on this matter by the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism, and they produced a report on the control of video nasties. I am glad some of their recommendations have been taken on board by the Minister. May I again appeal to him to consider reactivating what was a very fine committee set up by the last Dáil? They produced a number of excellent reports. It is not true that simply because the Goverment changed in 1987 there was no longer a need for such a committee. I hope the Government will seriously take on board a request to reactivate that committee because there is still a lot of work for them to do.
When discussing control of certain objectionable material that committee dealt with a number of interest groups — the Irish Videogram Association, the Campaign Against Sexual Exploitation, RTE and the Film Censor. The role of the Film Censor in this legislation is very important, and everybody will agree that over the years the censor of the day has given a great service to society and that all censors to date have exercised their functions in a very judicious manner. Long may that continue. When speaking to the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism the Film Censor dealt with the categorisation of certificates for films.
The Minister should look at this before Committee Stage. There is a fundamental flaw in the concept that a video which is issued with a certificate is either "in" or "out". It cannot be black or white as the Bill suggests. I fail to see why there cannot be categories as in the case of films, going up to 18 years, which seems to be the age at which adult films can be seen. Perhaps there could be some form of colour coding along the lines for films, which would mean a certain colour for a video suitable for a child and a different colour for an adult.
In so far as legislation is concerned it is very important that we have a clear idea of the number of people engaged in the video business. It is a very extensive business at present, something in the order of 10,000 film titles are currently on the market and that is expected to be increased by 1,000 films this year. It is very important that retail outlets are registered. I would, however, counsel caution in this regard. I hope it will not turn out the same as the cattle hormone officers who do not seem to be controlled.
The censorship board in particular should be in a position to control videos. In the UK 60 people are employed in the British Censorship Board. I am not asking for that many people to be employed here but if the system is to be effective more resources are needed in this area. I am glad that the Minister established that the legislation will be self-financing. That is very important in an era of financial constraint. I hope it will not suffer from a lack of funding because it is a very important area. Obviously we must look at the whole question of suitable viewing for children and adults. It is very hard to legislate for films on video because a child can be refused entrance to a cinema showing a pornogrpahic film and could then rent a video of the same film with no questions asked. I hope that is something which will be taken on board.
The Bill goes a long way towards addressing the problem and I welcome it. Amendments will be necessary on Committee Stage and I hope the Minister can see his way towards changing his mind in regard to some of the points I made and helping to meet them.
This Bill is very necessary. It is clear that legislation is needed in this area, as the previous speaker said. The Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism in their deliberations indicated that there was a clear, obvious and urgent need to introduce legislation to control the sale, distribution and rental of video material. This is clearly a case where the development of technology has moved ahead of the laws of the land. The committee were unanimous in their conclusion that there was a particular need to prohibit the sale and distribution of video nasties.
The committee also made proposals regarding the extension of the terms of reference of the censor. The Minister has, in the proposals before us, remained faithful to these proposals from the Oireachtas committee. As has been said by several speakers, the inadequacies of our present legal system confront us all the time. The previous speaker made the point about a flourishing under-the-counter trade. Indeed, from video hire shops that I have visited, it is clear that it is not always an under-the-counter trade, it is a back-of-the-shop and fairly visible trade. It is time that that trade was terminated.
I would agree with several speakers when they say that the nature of video nasties is not fully appreciated by most people. I could never understand the merits of this genre of entertainment. When you look at some of the material that is freely available at the moment and when you consider its awfulness it is extremely difficult to understand how these works are conceived, directed or produced and how the unfortunate people who play roles in these films reduce themselves to that point. It is extremely difficult to understand how anybody can see sufficient merit in them to watch them.
The term video nasty is an oddly innocuous sort of cover-all term. It covers a wide range of phenomena, from titillation right across to something which is truly frightening. Video material falls into three broad categories. There is what most of us would term soft pornography, harder pornography and the true video nasty. The true video nasty does not just stop at acts of explicit sex. There is an extraordinary combination of sex, violence and brutality which cannot but maim people who view it, particularly people who view it on a regular basis and young people.
The ultimate depravity that is available in regard to video nasties is the so-called snuff movies, movies which by and large have been made in impoverished countries, particularly in some of the South American states, in which acts of physical violence give way to actual murder on screen. It is amazing that anybody would trade in this sort of film. There can be no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that these products are damaging and corrosive in terms of society. There is an absolute responsibility on society to criminalise these publications and those who trade in them. That is why this legislation is so very timely.
Some of the speakers here and in the Seanad expressed concern on the civil liberty issue. It is absolutely clear that there must be a balance between liberty and control. The ultimate civil liberty that we all have is the right to operate within a code of decency and to establish a code of practice which in a civilised society is acceptable. I cannot understand — I would normally regard myself as a person of liberal views — how there can be any concern from the civil liberty point of view with regard to these videos.
Look at what happened to Michael Dukakis when he put a similar label on himself.
That is a peculiar society. I suppose it happened to some of you people as well. There is a clear and obvious need for a balance between absolute freedom and the control of the distribution of material which is salacious, dangerous and corrosive. The material that is available at present is all of those things. Another speaker, I think it was Deputy Wallace, made the point that of course the State cannot absolutely control people for 24 hours of every day of every year. That is a valid point. We have a responsibility to produce laws which are workable but there are responsibilities on people outside this House too and this bears repetition and emphasis. Two or three of the previous speakers have mentioned parental responsibility. It is clear that the video machine exists in more and more houses and it is clear that the first line of responsibility, particularly as far as young people are concerned, are the parents.
The suggestion has been made that the material which is banned in this Bill, as it is viewed in the privacy of one's own home, is something that need not concern us unduly. Deputy Flanagan made this point and I agree with it. What we are doing here is not trying to interfere with people's activities within the privacy of their own homes. We are trying to control a truly obnoxious and horrendous trade. That is our responsibility and the Minister is carrying it out well in this legislation.
There are outlets operating in every town in the country where there seems to be very little control on the material that is available and where the owners and operators do not seem to care about standards. There is also the menace of sales from vans. Some of the material which is at the bottom of the pile in terms of taste and acceptability is being sold from vans which travel up and down the country. There is a need for very stringent controls in this area. Whether the outlet is on four wheels or is a shop, the full rigour of the law should be visited upon it.
Another problem arises — I do not wish to appear in any way prudish — in that some of the most unacceptable video nasties are now regularly displayed in pubs throughout the country. It is a sad reflection on Irish life that people in a trade — the vast majority of people have nothing to do with this type of thing — operate at this level. That is something that should be condemned and I hope that the full rigour of the law, when we pass this legislation, will be visited on those people. As I have said, I am a very strong supporter of the regulation which is being introduced in this Bill. I hope the Bill has a speedy passage. It has a great deal to commend it. I would like to refer to a couple of specific points which are worthy of comment.
Turning to the Bill, the certification process introduced in section 3 will help, because of the sheer volume of the trade, to achieve one of the objectives of the last speaker, that is that there is a need for some form of screening process. The proposals here are entirely reasonable. They seem to cover many of the concerns that have been expressed by Deputy Flanagan. Section 6 covers prohibition orders in respect of certain works and this is the nub of the issue. This gives power to the censor to oversee the subject matter which is currently available on the shelves. That is right and proper and is welcome. It is important that we do not have a starting date. Otherwise all videos that are on the shelves before that date would not be subject to scrutiny. The prohibition orders which can be issued under section 6 make good sense and are entirely welcome.
Section 14 refers to the register of prohibited video works. It was implicit in what one speaker said that this could well become a sort of hit list of under-the-counter videos. The register of prohibited videos works is clearly welcome because not every parent and not every conscientious shopkeeper will have the time to sit down and view every video. Some of the videos which have particularly nasty elements in them have fairly innocuous titles and you clearly cannot always judge the book by the cover. From the point of view of parents and conscientious video store operators it is clear that a register of prohibited works will be welcome in that at least it will provide ready access to a prohibited list. It is to be hoped the good intentions of this section of the Bill will not be perverted by its becoming a sort of salacious shopping list or an inventory for the criminal operator.
Some of the penalties in the legislation could do with a little stiffening. The effect of the more extreme violence and perversion in videos is unknown. The last speaker read from the Council for the Status of Women's views on this matter, and we should be conscious of that. We should also be conscious of the fact that all the academic material and all the research work that deal with the issue of pornography make it clear that when you come to the more extreme types of behaviour portrayed in some of the videos, the long-term consequences in effect are not understood, but there seems to be a very high correlation between acts of violence, particularly against women, and some of the abnormalities portrayed in these videos. To my mind that is as dangerous as a weapon, and the people who trade in that element of pornography should be subjected to very stringent penalties, including imprisonment.
The display of licence requirements in section 21 are good. We hope that when orders come to be made to put this Bill into operation there will be a requirement for the video distributor to have his or her licence on public display so that the Garda and any other concerned citizen can ensure that all video operators are duly licensed and not operating outside the law. The provisions in section 23 dealing with the forfeiture of licence and disqualification seem to be prudent, dealing not just with video nasties but with one of the points raised by Deputy Flanagan, that is, it allows this Bill to expand into the area of piracy. That is good.
I have dealt with the sections regarding penalty. Section 26 deals with offences committed behind the shroud of corporation, offences by bodies corporate. This is welcome legislation because those who are unscrupulous enough to operate this trade clearly try to establish some sort of patina or veneer of civilisation or at least try to dissociate themselves in some way from the end result of their trade by seeking incorporation. It is right and proper that the law provide those who will operate this legislation with the capacity to get behind incorporation. A criminal is a criminal and when the criminal tries to shroud himself or herself in a cloak of decency by becoming incorporated such persons should not be allowed to avoid the rigours of the law. It is very welcome that we should be able to reach in at the people who try to operate behind the convenience of incorporation. Again I do not know how this will operate in effect but I hope, as we are dealing with the general issue of incorporation and abuses of incorporation in other legislation, that this would operate well to prohibit abuses operating behind the shield of incorporation.
It seems unnecessary to go further into the details of this legislation. It is very good legislation. I commend the Minister on one aspect. During the passage of the legislation through the Seanad the Minister indicated a flexibility, a willingness to listen and to improve the Bill as it went through. That is very wise. Wisdom does not reside always in just one head or just one department. Any piece of drafting can be improved and tidied up, and the legislation as it has been passed through the Seanad has been improved. I am sure the Minister will illustrate the same flexibility here and, as always, will be conscious of constructive criticisms and views which will be put forward.
This legislation is very welcome. It is timely. I wish it a speedy passage and commend the Minister for its introduction.
I would like to extend a welcome to this legislation. The video industry obviously has grown very dramatically in the past five or six — or ten — years and in such instances it is obvious there is a need for controls. A look at the number of video shops that have sprung up seemingly overnight would appear to indicate that it is a very lucrative business. Whenever a business is of so lucrative a nature one has to come to the conclusion that there will be abuses. Having listened to some of the previous speakers, one has to take into account the need for balance, and I accept that.
In the cinema and TV world there are controls, especially on TV, with regard to the type of film available for viewing, and all credit is due to our own TV station here and to those we have access to overseas in that, generally speaking, a very high standard is kept and if a doubtful or insensitive film is for showing there is usually some indication earlier which would warn parents of the likelihood of the film not being suitable for their children's viewing. Therefore, if it applies in that area it must follow that some controls have to be introduced in the area of video recordings.
I do not regard myself as a prude and I am sure most people who have spoken here likewise do not regard themselves as old fashioned or prudish, but during a visit to one of my clinics some time ago I happened to walk into a business premises where a group of young people were viewing a video film. I stopped for a few moments to see what the film was about. I have to say I was absolutely shocked, horrified and nauseated by what was depicted on the screen and the kind of extremely violent and sickening crimes against human beings, women in particular, which showed and glamorised the degradation in the most humiliating, obnoxious and sickening way of the human being and the women in the film. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that that kind of film must have some influence by way of conditioning on the people who take an interest in or seek actively to see such films regularly, and I understand there are such people.
We all know some people are more easily led than others. Some people are quite independent in their own minds as to what they want to do and what they are likely to be encouraged to do and participate in. We all know that the younger generation, children, in particular, of vulnerable age, are more likely to be led or misled as the case may be. There are also, as other speakers have mentioned, people of a much older generation who may well find themselves misled or led astray or conditioned into accepting a code of behaviour of such an objectionable nature that ordinarily — let me put it this way — they would not like their neighbours to know they actively pursued the viewing of such material. The only conclusion I can come to is that since people, by their nature, have a predisposition towards crimes of violence or of a nature which would degrade women or whatever, ready access or uncontrolled access to such films which we know are available must have ill effects on the people to whom they are shown.
If standards are kept to a certain level in the cinema and on television, I do not see it as an erosion of anybody's rights that similar standards should apply to the video industry. Television goes into every living room in the country, or at least that is possible. Therefore, it has a much greater influence on people's behaviour than films or videos shown in a cinema or a public house where people have to take the trouble to go out to some such place to see them. I have no hesitation in saying that there is an obvious need for control in an area which has very lucrative pickings with an inordinate number of video outlets springing up. Incidentally they are disappearing with equal speed which is another peculiarity that should be drawn to the attention of the House. If they are springing up quickly and disappearing quickly I would be suspicious about the methods of business management which apply in them. Having said that I also have to say that there is a very large number of well-organised and well run video shops which do everything possible to give a good service to the public. As is the case everywhere else, there are individuals who abuse the system, but the majority give a great service to the public and I do not think that this legislation will in any way infringe on the running of their premises as they themselves would like to have some controls introduced to encourage higher standards all round.
If there is an industry to service people willing to pay for it and it can be a useful service, we should not allow a situation to develop whereby the lowest common denominator would become the norm. There is a grave danger of that happening in anything to do with publicity or projection of that nature. If these controls are introduced it can only be for the general good of the industry and should not militate against the legitimate video industry or against those proprietors who run their businesses in a strict, organised and responsible fashion, and they should not in any way inhibit people from continuing to support the video industry by hiring and purchasing video recordings to enjoy in their own home or wherever they want to view them. I accept also the points made by previous speakers in regard to just how far controls or censorship can go to protect individuals and society. I accept that there is a limit but, at the same time, some general standards have to be introduced. If there is no standard, the lowest will very soon become the norm, and that is not acceptable.
Let me go back to the question of whether video nasties have an effect on young people or on people who, by their nature, are impressionable. There is absolutely no doubt but that there is an influence. I cannot quote an exact reference but I recall reading in some publication about an experiment which involved simultaneously showing a series of extremely violent films to one group of people and a series of non-violent films to another group of people. On checking the behaviour of both groups of people afterwards, it was clearly found that those shown the violent films showed a disposition in that direction for a period afterwards.
The only problem I see with this legislation is that there is a danger of putting the "blue" industry underground thereby making it more lucrative and more attractive. It is probably covered in the Bill, but the registration of outlets and the issuing of licences will certainly control part of it. I am not sure that it will be possible to control it in its entirety, but this is no different from other laws passing through this House. All are subject to the same limitations. One cannot be absolutely certain of covering all eventualities and we could not be expected to do so.
Deputy Flanagan referred to the making of indecent or violent video recordings of the type we have mentioned, and they are being made here. One way of monitoring that would be to provide that the credits of all video films should give an indication of the origin of the film. If one looks at a film on television, in 99 per cent of cases, unless there is no time for the credits to roll, there is an indication as to what studio the film was made in, by whom, who participated, etc. I am not surprised that the participants in some of the films I have referred to are not too anxious to have their names roll out, but such a procedure would help to stamp out the making of undesirable video material. I am talking of not allowing a licence to issue unless the credits are there for all and sundry to see so that action can be taken if necessary.
In relation to the depiction of violence, there are two ways in which it can be shown. It can be shown dispassionately or it can be glamourised, and that is the nub of the problem. There is no reason violence or violent sex crimes or serious crimes against human beings and animals should be glamourised. A number of speakers said that the censor could find himself in a dilemma as to whether a particular film was suitable for viewing. I do not accept that. The censor has, in the past, generally been able to deal with situations as they arose. We will have to leave it to the discretion of the censor to look after our interests within reason. There will be occasions where people will say afterwards that something more or less should have been done. That will always be the case. But, generally speaking, we will have to leave it to the censors to make up their own minds and I think they will have due regard to the general good.
We all are very preoccupied with protecting the very young but in my view they are very often able to make up their own minds and will not get involved in anything of an undesirable nature. Many groups will readily admit that they are easily conditioned to respond in a certain fashion having been exposed to the glamourising of crimes of extreme violence. I am referring to all types of violence, against humans, animals and society. I have not viewed any of the scenes referred to by Members but I have often heard them discussed. I do not see any reason why society should be subjected to such material which does not serve any useful purpose and is not entertaining. Some people describe such material as art but I do not accept that the depicting of violence is artistic. The glamourising of rape, or multiple rape, accompanied by brutality, could not be described as artistic. It is an abomination and an insult to society. If we allow such films to be circulated freely on the basis that they are artistic or are entertaining we will be criticised by the population.
Low standards can lead to a further lowering of standards and there is evidence of that in the many publications on sale here. Those in control of publications readily admit that they come under pressure from time to time to produce substandard material. Certain material is targeted at a vulnerable section of the community and eventually competitors in the publishing business have to descend to that level in order to hold their share of the market. In regard to newspapers it has been said that there are certain niches to be filled and that is true to a point. Some years ago when a particular newspaper was introduced to the Irish market the argument was that a market existed here for it and that proved to be correct. The newspaper concerned is of a very high standard but I wonder what would happen if we had an influx of substandard publications. Would other publications change to cater for the lower end of the scale rather than continue with their more acceptable standard? In my view the standard would drop after a short time. If two publications are in competition the one that is not maintaining a high standard and does not cost too much will prove more attractive to a section of the public. The less attractive and more mundane publication would suffer and, ultimately, be put at risk.
It has been stated that the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, and other groups, have voiced an opinion on the contents of the Bill. I do not see anything wrong with that because there is always the danger that controls introduced by a government will go too far and become too repressive. However, it could be said that the ready availability of undesirable material will prove repressive. That begs the question, who will determine what material is undesirable? Whether we like it or not we have to resort to a censor, and the Minister for Justice, to determine that as far as possible reasonable standards prevail across the board. They will have to ensure that the industry does not suffer unnecessarily and that the sensibilities of the community are not offended. I do not think that is unreasonable, particularly in this day of advanced technology. I do not think we should apologise for insisting on that.
Deputy Roche raised a valid point about the publication of a list of banned videos. If such a list is circulated, videos will become a hot shopping list in some quarters. I would regard that as an undesirable development. I do not know if we can deal with such a problem but it would be unfortunate if as a result of the introduction of certain controls people had access to a list of banned material. If that list is published the market value of the banned videos will increase. People will spend a lot of time in an effort to get possession of such videos. We should give careful thought to this matter and ensure that a list of 40 or 50 hot property videos banned by the censor is not published in our newspapers. If that happens there will be a rush of people to purchase them, whether they are young people or the old dirty-mac brigade. I have no doubt that some people would pay a price well in excess of the market value of the videos for such material. The publication of the list would defeat the purpose of the legislation and I do not think it would be of any assistance to anybody.
In conclusion, I again commend the Minister for bringing this Bill to the Seanad, where it originated, and to this House. Following the passing of this legislation I hope we will at least have a reasonable standard of film available through the video shops, that the legitimate industry will be protected and that there will not be a growth in the black market area as a result.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is a very important Bill and I wish to put my views on the legislation on record.
A previous speaker said that the Bill was timely, but to my mind it is not timely enough. We have had the problem of video nasties and hard porn movies available on video for the past number of years with the advent of the video recording machine to every household in the country. It is a pity that the legislation did not come earlier, but having said that most speakers in the House welcome it. Deputy Durkan mentioned that he was aware of some incidents in his own area. I, too, had a similar experience. A very big bone of contention in my own parish on two separate occasions in the past year was where hard core videos were available to young children when their parents were away. One thing led to another. The news got out and created a huge furore in the area. In fact, there was a suggestion that the video owners themselves would form an association to try to keep some stricture in this area.
Many speakers have mentioned the fact that videos are an incitement to crime and violence. Despite some liberal examination of the subject, I have no doubt that there is a definite link. The fact that standards have lowered both here and abroad is related to the fact that these type of films are more readily available. Crimes against women and children have increased, and I think they have increased because certain films are readily available. We have had cases even in Ireland, where young people have been found guilty of terrible crimes, and they were so young that one wonders where they got the example that made them commit these crimes; the only place I can think of is ‘the box', and that is mainly through watching videos. As previous speakers have said, the television companies both here and across the water are very responsible, for which they are to be congratulated.
Recently a video shop owner admitted to me that 25 per cent of his business was in the hard porn, or nasty, category. He said that without it he could not do business, because everyone else in the locality had the videos available under the counter. Although this matter is addressed in the Bill, the Bill is only as good as will be the policing of the outlets around the country. The Minister and the Department have to address their minds to the proper policing of the licensed and unlicensed video outlets. In fact, I know of people who get one of these videos in the morning, in the afternoon and at night. Those people have to have depraved minds to watch such videos. Their depravity is being fed by the videos. Therefore, we could not be half hard enough on both the suppliers and makers of this type of video.
The question of satellite TV has not been dealt with in the Bill but perhaps it is a matter for other legislation. There is no doubt that in the years to come we will be bombarded with satellite television, which unfortunately is outside our control. However, we will have to do something about it. I noticed recently that in France there was quite a furore over a station which started to show what could be described as soft porn movies very early in the evening. They were a tremendous success, which perhaps does not say a lot for the French people but there was such a furore that the TV channel were ordered to show them late at night. A number of speakers have mentioned that the Bill may be an infringement on the right of people to view whatever they like, I do not agree and we cannot be half like. I do not agree and we cannot be half
From an examination of the Bill I notice that each new video, whether it be a Walt Disney film or whatever, will have to be certified. This is a good way of ensuring that most videos will be looked at by the censor. If the censor does not feel that they should have a certificate then he will issue a prohibition order. However, I am slightly worried that all videos may not fall into the net as there is a major problem with video piracy, which is not addressed in the Bill. Perhaps the industry has an onus in this regard. The issue of piracy has been raised in a number of submissions relating to this Bill. The whole area of piracy has not been dealt with in the Bill, and this should be looked at again.
I am glad to see there will be certification of videos which are already on the market and which, in the censor's opinion, would be subject to a prohibition order. The prohibition on certain films being shown in video clubs or sessions is a means of dealing with the loophole that people will try to find in the Bill. The criteria for the licensing of retail and wholesale outlets are few and far between, and I wonder if they should be beefed up. As previous speakers have mentioned there is hardly a street in any town or village in Ireland that has not a video shop. In my opinion it would be a huge task to police all these outlets. However, the Minister and his Department will have to address their minds to this in future.
Some speakers have said that we should have a classification system for videos but I totally disagree with that. We are talking about very violent or degrading films and nobody should be allowed to see them. I have full confidence in the censor and in the appeals board who have served us very well down through the years. I am pleased to note that the Minister proposes to have female participation on the appeals board as a statutory obligation. That is to be welcomed because a great deal of the material on video nasties refers to females and it would not be strictly correct to have an all-male appeals board. There should be at least one female on the board.
Alice Glenn.
The Bill deals with corporate responsibility. A company director may be followed if he acts outside the law. That is to be welcomed and it is in line with the recent Companies Bill. This is probably the first legislation other than company legislation where a director can be followed and that is to be welcomed.
There are a number of defects in the Bill which I wish to draw to the Minister's and his officials' attention. Perhaps they will deal with them on Committee or Report Stage. What would happen where we have a video film most of which is suitable but one slight portion of which is totally unacceptable? From the legislation I do not think the censor could cut out a piece of that film and allow the balance of the film to proceed. It may very well be that the film in itself is art or a masterpiece or is suitable for viewing but this small portion of it may lead to a total ban of the film and that may not be correct. There is also the fact that this film may already have been vetted by the censor for distribution throughout the cinemas and there might be a divergence there also. I do not think the Bill does anything to prevent piracy. There is the aspect of licensing of outlets. The Video Alliance of Ireland who made a submission put the video nasties and porn market at somewhere in the region of 30 per cent. That is a huge amount and it is frightening to think that most of the business carried out in video outlets consists of that amount. In their submission the Video Alliance stated that there should be concurrent legislation in the area of copyright. They felt the definition in the Copyright Act, in relation to films, does not go far enough. They said video discs may not be included in the copyright legislation — I know they are included in this legislation — and, perhaps, that is something the Minister could look at.
There is an onus on the industry as a body to ensure that any videos, irrespective of whether they are hard porn or ordinary videos, cannot be pirated. There should be some exhortation of the film and video industries to do more research in this area. In this day and age it should be possible for them to put some more money into it in order to prevent piracy, because ultimately it is harming them.
Let us say a Walt Disney video film was available on a particular label and at the end of that video, as is normally the case, there is a slot which states that other videos or films are available on this label; if one of those clips was highly pornographic — or nasty as they are so called — would it be possible to ban that whole vidoe? If that happened it would be slightly unfair. That might be a problem and perhaps the Minister would address that at a later stage.
Deputy Durkan and others referred to the register of confiscated video works. To a certain extent I agree with the sentiments expressed by them. When the list of banned books come out people normally rush to see where these books can be got. Similarly, if we have a register of video films that does not identify the films to the general public, that will also happen and, perhaps, that is a matter that should be addressed. All in all I welcome this Bill but it could go further down the road in the area of piracy. It is all very well getting the films as they are coming into the country but there is no doubt that videos which come from across the Border and from England will be copied immediately they hit these shores. I do not think there is anything in the legislation that will take care of that. That is something that legislation may never take care of. We should address it in some legislation and we should address the area of piracy with more vigour, as that is where the whole problem originates because it is quite easy to plagiarise a video. Anyone can do it and it must be stopped. An effort by the Houses of the Oireachtas should be made to ensure that that does not happen. I welcome the Bill and I compliment the Minister on bringing it forward.
In commending and congratulating the Minister for the introduction of the necessary controls, I have to say that I view this industry with "grave suspicion". I regret to say that we have seen in recent years a mushrooming of this particular industry and while I have no doubt that there are people in this industry who are responsible, nevertheless, it has given an option, or a foot in the door, to a fairly sizeable section of irresponsible people who will use this industry for the promotion of absolutely depraved pornography and films depicting human degradation in terms of violence. We must have concern for the people who are most vulnerable to this filth and dirt; they are the young people of Ireland who are subjected to many pressures at present. My concern is that while there would be responsible people who want to sell conventional videos this is an opportunity for a whole new back-street industry. Deputy Ahern rightly referred to the dangers of titles coming via the Six Counties and from England. There is no doubt that the sole objective of that industry is to provide pornography for the hot panters brigade and the people in the dirty macintoshes. If God made anything nicer than sex he kept it to himself in the normal fashion. I deplore the appearance of films depicting unnatural sex practices. They are revolting and one does not have to be a member of the Catholic Church to be revolted by the films that are available. There is a sizeable market in this country for this type of filth. This is just another progression on the road to massage parlours and knocking shops. This is being provided in an open fashion in this city. In fact they are already here. It is indeed unfortunate that the proliferation of this industry has afforded perverts an opportunity to peddle their sadistic and perverted themes. That is a tragedy.
While I am happy that the Minister has taken such action as he can, and that the censor will also do what he can, unfortunately the latter will not have access to the smugglers or the pirates who will never really surface and can never be stopped. Of necessity these are back street industries or operators. Our young people very definitely are placed at risk. There will always be unscrupulous people in any industry; there will always be somebody who will sell arms to the Indians. I have no doubt that in all our towns there will be somebody of that ilk who will descend into the gutter, placing many young people at risk.
Many speakers have referred to the dangers emanating from the sale of pornographic material, violent films and so on. Unfortunately there are many impressionable people in our society who will be susceptible to such dangers, particularly those of an impressionable age. The Minister said himself that, in 1986, the United States Attorney General established a commission on pornography which decided conclusively that pornography had a very harmful effect on people. I contend that people are no different in any part of the world and that ours should be protected as much as possible from the most despicable trade imaginable. We must pose the question: how many years will it take before Ireland becomes another Amsterdam, and we all know what that city has to offer to the perverts who converge on it.
I commend the Minister on the measures he has taken. My fear would be that, unless a department or unit of the Garda Síochána are given a strict brief, deploying an officer in every town to check on these people and their wares, to check on such material as is available, not merely that on front shelves but what is kept under them, our youth will be placed at risk. The Customs authorities have a role to play in this regard also, in conjunction with the Garda, in surveying what material is imported and investigating every licence applicant. If a person is found to have contravened our laws his licence should be revoked. Indeed licences should be reviewed regularly. If a person is shown to have had a bad record he should not be allowed to retain a licence. I realise that such surveillance would take up quite an amount of time of the Garda. However, it must be remembered that this is a dirty industry, in the main, and it is those dirty aspects that give rise to concern generally. I would ask the Minister to ensure strict surveillance on the part of the Garda to ensure that our youth are not subjected to such dangers.
This Bill will be welcomed by all who have at heart the safeguarding of public morality as reflected in the wellbeing and welfare of those sections of our society vulnerable to acts of depravity such as child abuse, rape, offences against the person and all the other horrible violations and mutilations of a bestial nature that are the shame of twentieth century mankind.
As the father of a young family and a member of a school board, as a person in touch with the concerns of the public at large, I welcome this Bill with enthusiasm.
It must be acknowledged that modern technology constitutes a double-edged sword carrying great benefits but great dangers also. Censorship of any kind or to whatever degree, is something about which we would all have reservations. It constitutes an emotive concept. Very often it is a catch-all euphemism used by so-called liberals to defend positions the majority of our population would find untenable and, in many cases, even abhorrent.
The provisions of this Bill may be described by some as constituting unwelcome censorship in an area in which adult values and mature free choice effectively would perform the task of filtering the pornographic or other undesirable elements of video production. Alas, that view is too simplistic as it presumes that all who might have access to videos are persons of maturity and discernment. Furthermore, it presupposes that videos coming into the public domain, at all times, will be subject to the control of persons who will shield others in a responsible manner, particularly our children and youth, from their harmful effects.
I might digress for a moment and deal with a particular problem, the nationally held aversion to censorship. The Ireland of 1988 is a far cry from the infant State that, in the contemporary wisdom of the day, banned such works as Joyce's Ulysses and such entertaining works as The Valley of the Squinting Windows. However, our attitude to censorship is coloured by those historical facts.
We must bear in mind that our duty as legislators is not always to a single mass of people equal mentally, emotionally and intellectually in all respects. We must remember that the wise, mature and experienced often have needs and perspectives different from those of the immature adolescent, the school-going child or the weak-minded of any age or sex. In order to cater for them and other categories too numerous to mention, any legislation which prohibits a person's right to hear, see or read material must be especially sensitive. The provisions of this Bill have catered well for such concerns and, in its drafting, have been successful. I suppose it is true and fair to say that our predecessors in Government sat on the fence without heeding the loudly expressed concerns of parents, teachers and others because of the drafting complexities inherent in a Bill of this nature.
The introduction of this Bill constitutes a response to the fears expressed over several years by parents and teachers who were becoming increasingly aware of the threats posed by videos of doubtful content and purpose. Such fears were growing apace as technology developed and video screening and recording apparatus became more easily available. That growth in availability was encouraged by the increasing simplicity of operation of these devices and the ever decreasing retail prices of equipment which was becoming more efficient and trouble-free in operation. In turn this created a climate in which market growth and consumer demand rendered it more attractive for persons to become involved in the video retail trade. The more people consulted in any population sample or trade cohort the greater will be the percentage of irresponsible rogue participants, fast buck merchants ruthlessly pursuing profit without the slightest regard for the moral or psychological welfare of the general population or any thought for the fraudulent evasion of the copyright laws.
The copyright aspect is important but falls into a different category of concern from the essential socio-moral genesis of this Bill. Any attempt to respond to the deficiencies and evasions in the copyright area, by combining them with the provisions of this Bill would merely serve both concerns badly. It would lead to weak legislation that would suit the video pirates and frustrate the core concept of this Bill. I am confident that, in co-operation with his Cabinet colleagues, the Minister will give consideration to a video copyright Bill when the matter has been considered in full.
I might return to the central ethos of the provisions of this Bill and express the fears and concerns conveyed to me by parents, educators and other relevant professionals in my constituency. Children learn from responsible adults, from their peer groups or from sources which, for one reason or another, appear to them to carry the stamp of reasonable authority. In some unexplained way the culture of the twentieth century has come to accept that information conveyed technologically, by way of sound or vision, carries such inherent authority. That cultural acceptance lowers all our guards, rendering us less discerning of cinema, radio, and television. This is particularly true of children and, generally, the less mature.
I should like to address some of my comments to parents because I believe they exercise the best control in shielding minors from the undesirable influence of visual materials. The provisions of this Bill in no way change or lessen the role of parents and their involvement in discriminating between that which is good and wholesome and that which is detrimental to children's wellbeing in moral, general educational or experimental terms. However, these provisions will assist them enormously in that they will prohibit the importation and sale here of the vile, vicious and utterly debasing rubbish that has caused parents, teachers and community leaders so much anxiety.
It is no mere coincidence that the incidence of rape, murder, muggings, mutilations of both animals and humans and violent crimes has risen and peaked at the same time as the availability of video films. However, it has to be faced that families will still have to exercise control over video materials which might be safely viewed by adults and older family members while at the same time being totally unsuitable for children and adolescents. Parents should keep tight control and exercise it with firmness. The proprietors of video rental stores should be the parents' most able allies in this.
It is not unknown for children to have mitched from school to sneak back home, with other children who also conspired with them to mitch, in order to view videos rented by parents who were working or otherwise absent from the home during school hours. While this Bill, which is long overdue and absolutely essential, comes not a minute too soon, I again make the plea to parents to be vigilant at all times.
Role modelling is a powerful influence in the learning process of the young. Children are great imitators. The experts all agree that mimicking or copying are very strong instinctive responses. Video recordings are without doubt a very powerful triggering mechanism for setting young people up to copy the behaviour of others. As we all know too well, the behaviour depicted on some videos is disgustingly reprehensible. It could only serve to introduce the innocent and the immature to the lowest depths of sexual depravity and to bestial barbarism of the most foul kind. They can also reinforce the various anti-social theories relating to crime and its consequences.
There has been an increase in suicide in the western world in general and this country is part of that sad trend. Psychologists and psychiatrists have blamed many of these suicides and many foul murders on what is popularly called the "copy-cat" syndrome. The content of all too many video tapes leans heavily on both suicide and murder as a central theme. Unfortunately some adults, indeed a significant number of adults, do not have the maturity of mind to exercise sound judgment on such matters. One wonders how this group can be protected. The categorisation of video material would need to have this in mind and authorised video dealers would need to be made aware of these matters either through training or by evaluation statements in trade catalogues or magazines.
Section 6 enumerates the grounds on which the official censor might deem a video work unfit for viewing. Section 6 (4) allows for the publication in Iris Oifigiúil of a prohibition order. Where this would apply to a work already in circulation under a supply certificate now being revoked, there could usefully be an immediate notice of prohibition furnished to all legitimate dealers in addition to its publication in Iris Oifigiúil.
Up to this time there has been an awareness of the danger and undesirability of having unsuitable video material freely available. There is always the danger that when this legislation comes on the Statute Book people will assume that all is well and that no further cause for concern exists. I should point out that the need for vigilance will still be there in order to counteract the activities of those who will illicitly breach copyright or procure copies of prohibited or offensive works. In order to allow the general public to exercise a vigilant role in this area it would be helpful if a copy of the Register of Certificated Video Works referred to in section 13 and the Register of Prohibited Video Works referred to in section 14 could be made available in a place of public access for scrutiny by concerned members of the public. The local public library would be an ideal place. As I have already said parents will have to exercise their own family censorship as there is always the danger that videos will have some content unsuitable for general family viewing.
I welcome the provision for ensuring that women are represented on the Censorship Board as it is the rape and violation of women that constitutes the most undesirable aspect of many video works. The more subtle aspects of some productions as they relate to women would be better detected by a broadly represented board.
I conclude by once again complimenting the Minister for bringing the Video Recordings Bill, 1987, before the House. I know that all the parents, teachers and others who have expressed concern over the years will be glad that at last their voices have been heard and heeded.
I will not go over the ground some Deputies have covered with regard to pornographic videos. I want to concentrate my comments on violence on videos and violence on the screen.
During the past 12 months I have heard very distressing reports in my constituency of the treatment of animals, and in one particular case of animals being spiked by children. A lady who lives on her own came to see me to tell me that her only pet and her only company, a dog, had been thrown onto a bonfire. This terrible undercurrent of violence which is in our community, and which seems to be growing, is contributed to by what is available not just on video but on television — on RTE and all of the television stations beaming into the country.
What can we expect of children brought up on a diet of "A Team", with murder as an aside to almost every television programme that goes out? We are a very violent society. Is it any wonder that the IRA and other terrorist groups in this country have little difficulty in recruiting people to carry out their outrageous crimes? Some of these most outrageous violent crimes are normalised on video and television. I do not know what we can expect of children if we constantly feed them a diet of crime, violence and murder on every second television programme that goes out. Certainly one has the right to turn off a television. In my case when the "A Team" comes on I turn off the television and I will not let my children see it but I cannot be there all the time. I do not think that at the time of day when young children watch television this sort of violent viewing should be available. The Bill falls short in that respect. I suppose it is difficult for this matter to be dealt with but the authorities in RTE and the new Independent Broadcasting Authority should take account of this problem in society.
I was chairman of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism which presented their Tenth Report on the Control of Video Nasties in 1986. The Bill came out in 1987. It is now 1988 and the Bill has only now come before the Dáil, having come from the Seanad. We are moving very slowly on this matter. The Bill goes some of the way towards controlling some of the problems we are facing but society has got to the stage where violence is such an accepted thing for public display on television and videos that it is time the Minister gave some thought to setting up a commission on violence to see what effect violence on the screen, whether by way of video, cinema or television, is having on society and what guidelines should exist. There should be loose consultation between the Minister, the RTE authorities and the new broadcasting authority and it should be suggested to them that they regularly review their standards on violence and violent broadcasting on television, particularly at times when children are watching.
There are two sections of the report which I want to refer to. The Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism made suggestions for the licensing of retail outlets. Paragraph 9.5 of the report says:
On the question as to who should be the licensing authority, the Committee recommends that this role should be allocated to the local authorities; that it should be a reserved function of the councillors, and that there should be provision for an appeal to the Courts against a refusal of a licence.
I believe that we should allow local authorities to have the power to review the licences of video outlets annually because if they are acting in an offensive way the local people should have the right of appeal to their elected representatives. I do not think it should be a national function; it should be a local function. This provision of the report of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism should be incorporated in the Bill.
Paragraph 9.13 of the same report says that additional censors should be appointed to deal with this work — that is the work of the Film Censor — and there should be a mix of male and female censors. The report does not say that females should be represented on the censorship board but that there should actually be male and female censors. The committee took a number of submissions on this report. One submission suggested that lady censors would have an attitude to things, particularly violence against women, which men might not be keenly aware of. The Minister suggests that there should be female representation on the appeal board but I believe that a female censor should be employed and that half the number of censors should be female and half should be male. I do not know how one censor is going to be able to deal with this additional work. Provision should be made for male and female censors and not just provision for female representation on the appeal board.
We have had ample opportunity to consider dealing with these provisions. A general election intervened following on the report of the committee. However, the report went into the matter in great detail and many of its recommendations are incorporated in this Bill. I recommend to the Minister that on Committee Stage or on Report Stage he should consider some of the suggestions made about matters which at this stage are omitted from the Bill. The House should not just consider the lusty pornographic videos that are available but should consider seriously the question of violence not just on videos but on screen generally. The Minister might address that question at a later time.
Debate adjourned.