Amendment No. 1 an tAire to move.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
Video Recording Bill, 1987: Report Stage.
Amendment No. 1. Amendment Nos. 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 form a composite proposal. I propose, therefore, with the agreement of the House to take those amendments together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Before you proceed let me say I had tabled an amendment. I do not see it on the list here.
I see an amendment figuring on the Order Paper, additional amendment 5a.
So that can be taken?
Does the Deputy propose——
It is a separate issue.
It is not included in the list I gave.
No.
It will appear later.
On a point of order, while I would be very slow and loath to delay the work of this House, I might point out that I called for a quorum a few moments ago but find that within seconds of the quorum being constituted, the House is again vacated. This very important Bill is at a crucial stage with very central and important issues to be debated. I want a quorum in the House to listen to the debate and not simply to walk in and fill some vacant formula that the Standing Orders provide. Consequently, I am calling for a quorum.
If I had to define hell, it would be to have to listen to Deputy McCartan speak for eternity.
I am sure Deputy McCartan would accept that in circumstances where another Deputy might impose on him what he seeks to impose on other Deputies he might not welcome it. The Deputy is entitled to call for a quorum which entitles the Chair to recommence business. If the Deputy thinks that in the best pursuit of the democratic principles he should go on calling all day for quorums he is entitled to do that.
I have made a point and I asking for a quorum in the House.
You are entitled to ask for that and you will have it.
I would ask Deputy McCartan for his co-operation in not disrupting the business of the Government. We know why he is doing this. His problem is with another Opposition party, not with the Government.
This is not a point of order and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows that.
I will interpret what is a point of order and what is not.
I entirely accept your ruling——
Then, resume your seat, please.
I wish to make the point of order that the presentation of a proposition on a point of order in the form of a question to another Deputy clearly could not come within the definition——
I do not know whether what the Minister of State is going to present to me will be a point of order. If it is not, I will be very fast to tell him so and without any assistance from the Deputy.
The point of order I wish to make is that Deputy McCartan's party indicated that they would disrupt the business of the House if they did not get what they were seeking from other Opposition parties. That is very bad on the part of The Workers' Party. I would appeal to Deputy McCartan to allow the business of the House to continue, not to disrupt it.
While I appreciate the Deputy's comment, it is not a point of order and we are now calling for a quorum.
Before the quorum is called I would like to briefly reply to the Minister of State to say that——
We are calling a quorum. We are not having any debate.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"`a classification' means a classification of a video work by the Official Censor under section 4 of this Act;".
All the 14 amendments in this group in the Minister's name relate to or are consequential on the proposals for classification of video works and are interrelated. Therefore it would be convenient to discuss them all together. I would say at the outset that the substance of the proposed changes is in amendment No. 6. All other amendments I mentioned can be regarded as consequential.
We had a full discussion on Committee Stage as to whether the Bill should be amended so as to provide for classification of video works and, if so, in what form. A number of proposals were put forward and discussed. Having listened to the arguments the then Minister undertook to consider the desirability of putting forward proposals on Report Stage for a system of clarification for guidance by way of providing information as to the suitability of video works for viewing by people of particular ages. The matter has been fully considered in the meantime, taking account of what I understand to be the general feeling of the House. This group of amendments is being put forward for consideration to meet the position.
As I said, the main part of the scheme is contained in amendment No. 6. This provides for the inclusion in the Bill of a new section 4 under which the censor, when granting a supply certificate for a video work, will give the work one of four classifications and will indicate in the supply certificate what classification he has given. The four classes will be those set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 4 (1).
The highest classification will be given to video works fit for viewing by persons generally, that is in paragraph (a). The second highest category will be works fit for viewing by persons generally but in the case of children under 12, only in the company of a responsible adult, that is in paragraph (b). This classification will serve as a warning to parents, for example, of the possible need to examine the work in question before allowing young children to view it, especially if a child is particularly sensitive. Depending on the possible effect of the work on the child, the parent or other responsible adult might decide not to allow the child to view the work at all or might think it necessary to stop the playing of the recording or to give reassurance to the child. The next lowest classification will be for viewing by persons aged 15 or over and the lowest will be fit for viewing by persons aged 18 or over. There will of course be video works which will not be given any classification and the supply of these will be prohibited. There is provision for that in the Bill already and the amendments I am proposing now do not make any change in that area.
Subsection (2) of the new section 4 provides that the censor shall not give a lower classification than fit for general viewing without having examined a video recording containing the video work concerned although he will be able to give a higher classification without necessarily having examined the work. This provision is in line with section 3 (1) of the Bill under which the censor will be able to grant a supply certificate for a video work without necessarily having examined it because in many cases he will be able to judge from the title, his knowledge of the producer or otherwise, that the work is not objectionable. On the other hand, the censor's power under section 6 to make a prohibition order will depend on his having examined the work.
Subsection (3) will enable the censor to upgrade the classification of a video work if he decides, as a result of representations or of second thoughts of his own, that the classification is too low. In that event, he will revoke the supply certificate and grant another supply certificate showing the higher classification. The censor will not be able to substitute a lower classification.
Subsection (4) will enable the Minister for Justice to make regulations altering the classes specified in subsection (1) if experience shows that alterations are desirable. Any regulations under subsection (4) will have to be approved by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I should, however, point out that the Minister will not be empowered to make regulations providing for a classification for viewing by persons aged more than 18 years. In addition, the general provision in section 31 under which regulations can be annulled by resolution within 21 days does not apply in the case of regulations changing the classification system. In such cases a positive resolution will be required. All other amendments in this group consist essentially of provisions to supplement the existing provisions of the Bill so as to make them apply to classifications of video works or are consequential to the new section 4. I can refer to them briefly.
Amendment No. 1 defines classification. Amendment No. 10 relates to section 6 (2) of the Bill. In its present form, section 6 (2) provides that if the censor revokes a prohibition order a supply certificate is deemed to be granted in respect of the video work in question. This provision would not enable the censor to give a classification in respect of the work, so the amendment provides instead that the censor shall grant a supply certificate in which he will give the appropriate classification under the new section 4 (1).
Amendments Nos. 11, 12, and 13 adapt the provisions of section 9 of the Bill to appeals to the Censorship of Film Appeals Board against prohibition orders to enable persons to appeal against the classification given by the censor. An appeal will lie only for the purposes of obtaining a higher classification. The appeals board will be able to affirm the censor's classification or to direct that the video work should be given the higher classification sought by the appellant or an intermediate classification. If the appeal is successful, the censor will grant another supply certificate giving the classification specified by the appeals board.
Amendment No. 15 makes a minor addition to section 11 which relates to the labelling of video recordings. That section enables the Minister for Justice to make regulations providing for the labelling of the spool or other thing on which the video recording is kept. The section makes it an offence to supply a recording or a spool, etc. that is not in compliance with requirements in the regulations as to labelling. Under the section as it stands, the Minister will be able to include in the regulations a requirement that the label should show the classification of the video work. Amendment No. 15 ensures that if for some reason the label indicates a lower classification than the correct one, this will not amount to non-compliance of the regulations. For example, if the censor should give a higher classification than the one in force when the label was affixed it will not be necessary to change the label.
Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 relate to section 12 which makes it an offence to supply a video recording containing a video work which has no supply certificate if the recording or the spool contains an indication that a supply certificate is in force in respect of it. Amendment No. 16 extends the offence to supplying a recording with a false indication that the classification of the video work in question is higher than what it is in fact. Amendment No. 17 makes it a defence that the supplier believed on reasonable grounds that the classification indicated was the correct classification or a higher one. Amendment No. 18 is consequential.
Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 relate to the provisions of sections 13, 14 and 22 which enable the terms of a supply certificate, including the classification given in it, a prohibition order or a licence, as the case may be, to be proved in legal proceedings by a certificate of the official censor. The amendments provide for a copy of the supply certificate, prohibition order or licence in question to be attached to the censor's certificate given under the relevant sections mentioned above. Amendment No. 22 is consequential on subsection (4) (b) of the new section 4, to be inserted by amendment No. 6.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present: House counted and 20 Members being present,
May I say in response to the points raised by Deputy McCartan, that it is the Government's job to keep the House? Distasteful as it is to have us sit here——
The Deputy is not in order.
I regret that. To allow the business of the House to be expedited and this legislation to be passed, I appeal to the Government Chief Whip to keep his Deputies here, otherwise he will present opportunities to Deputy McCartan to keep ringing the bell.
Deputy O'Keeffe without interruption.
On the Bill I am absolutely delighted that the Government have had a change of heart——
I beg your pardon, we have no quorum.
We did have a quorum when I called on Deputy O'Keeffe.
We did not. I am as well able to count, as you are.
Will Deputy McCartan behave himself, please? There were 20 Deputies present.
Deputy McCartan was probably excluding me from his count.
We are the ones being excluded.
We will cry a bucket of tears.
I am absolutely delighted that the Government have had a change of heart on the question of a classification system. During the earlier Stages of the Bill in the Seanad and on Second and Committee Stages, the strongest efforts were made by Fine Gael, Labour and The Workers' Party to get the Government to agree to include a provision for classification of video works. It reinforces my belief in the democratic process when I see that the Government are prepared to bring in amendments. They have succumbed to the very logical arguments produced by my colleagues in Fine Gael and in other parties.
I am confident that the approach now adopted by the Government will improve the Bill considerably. Perhaps it is somewhat unfortunate that the new provisions with regard to classification were not introduced on Committee Stage because on Report Stage we do not have the opportunity to tease out the small print of the latest amendments. Having said that, however, my reaction is to welcome the amendments.
I wish to raise a few points which I hope the Minister will deal with in his reply. The former Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, when resisting the arguments in favour of classification on Second Stage went so far as to say that he was satisfied classification would not be effective. I would like the Minister, Deputy Lyons, to confirm that he is satisfied that the approach he has adopted will be effective. Furthermore, the former Minister, Deputy Collins, said on Second Stage that the inclusion of a classification system would be expensive. He quoted a figure of £1 million as being the sum necessary at that time to cover the cost of the classification system in the UK.
I would like an assurance from the Minister here today that the introduction of a classification system will not involve a charge on the taxpayer and that the approach adopted at the beginning that the provisions of the Bill would be self financing will apply now that we have included the classification procedure.
I see from the approach adopted that the classification procedure is very similar to what obtains in the cinema where there are four classifications: universal which means a work is fit for general viewing; parental guidance class; fit for viewing by persons aged 15 years or more, and, lastly, fit for viewing by persons aged 18 years or more. I believe this is the right approach. Indeed we have been pressing the Minister to adopt such an approach and I would ask him to confirm that he accepts our view that this will be an effective approach.
I endorse the Minister's views on the responsibility of parents. Obviously the extent of the control is at the point of sale or at the point of hire and what happens in the household cannot be legislated for. In that instance, we must rely on parents to ensure that younger children in the household will not be able to view material which is unsuitable for them. However, I believe that we have discharged our duty in providing guidance to parents initially. I know from experience with my young family that it will be an enormous help to have a classification system. It will also provide an element of control at the point of sale or of hire.
There is a number of amendments tabled relating to classification. Generally we agree with the new approach adopted by the Government. However, I wish to raise some points before I conclude. I have been pressing for legislation to outlaw video nasties and pornographic films and to provide general control on the sale and hire of videos. This Bill has been before the Oireachtas on many occasions and my main concern is to see it enacted into law without further delay. Having said that, I accept there are still some concerns about the effectiveness of the Bill. The Minister has come a long way towards meeting us on the question of classification. I would like to make a firm suggestion, which is in the interest of all of us who are anxious to ensure that we have effective legislation, that the Minister gives a firm and solid commitment that Government will review the operations of the Bill after a period of two years, so that amending legislation can, if necessary, be introduced after such a review to plug any loophole that may become evident during its operation. The Bill has been before the Dáil and Seanad on many occasions and there is a great desire not only on my part but on the part of my people to let it out of the stable at this stage. However, because of the complex nature of the legislation and also incidentally because of another issue on copyright, which I will deal with later, there is a need for a commitment that the operations of the Bill will be reviewed after a couple of years.
This sequence of amendments tabled by the Minister introduces a classification system, but it is on a voluntary basis. The intent is that the classification system will operate as a basis of guidance for the retail outlets of these videos. This is certainly an improvement on the previous position which pertained under the Bill but in our view it does not go far enough. This was argued at the earlier stages. It is not going to be very effective in keeping video nasties away from young people when the classification is such that it will still be open to a supplier to hand out even to young children a video nasty which has been certified as suitable for adults only. We take the view that there should have been a binding system under which it would not be open to a supplier to hand out an adult video to a ten year old child.
I fully appreciate that there would be difficulties in enforcing rules along these lines and that there could be subterfuge used and so on. That is true, but that is true in every form of human activity, in every form of criminal activity, in civil activity and so on. While we were about it we should at least have made a more definite attempt to control the situation. If the Minister leaves the Bill as it is at present, a ten year old child will be able to hire an adult movie. There would be no basis for refusal as the supplier would be quite anxious to do business.
The effects of classification on a voluntary basis will be limited although useful, I suppose, for parents or guardians going to get a movie for a child. In such circumstances it would be helpful to have guidance from the voluntary classification system and this meets that situation, but that is not the pressing objective of the Bill.
The pressing objective of the Bill is to control, or at least attempt to control in some circumstances, the ready availability of the material to young people. One would hope that the majority of parents and guardians getting videos for their children would take care and make sure it has a classification certificate. That being so, the need really was not to provide for the parent or guardian going to get a video for their child but rather to try to bring in a measure of control against the too free circulation of these video nasties.
I do not know what kind of standards the censor is likely to apply in fixing these classifications. I imagine the lowest classification would be those available for 18 plus. I think there would be some very strong material permitted on the shelves under that classification. With the classification, there might not be any restriction on the rights of the supplier to sell and some very young people may ask to be shown the videos with the lowest classification, and they will be already there identified for them. It is a widespread problem and the matter has been discussed in and out of Dáil committees for a very long time.
A Dáil committee was set up some years back and presented a report — the Tenth Report of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism. They brought in an excellent report on the subject of video nasties. I was a member of that committee and it was chaired by the present Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods. They examined the various alternative classification systems and eventually came down firmly with the recommendation that there should be a mandatory system of classification which would prohibit leasing a certain category of video to anyone other than a person who came within that particular category.
I do not know why we go to the trouble of setting up these special committees, summoning witnesses to appear before them, taking up the time of many Deputies and Senators attending these meetings over many months considering in detail the ins and outs, the pluses and minuses of these recommendations, and eventually coming up with a report only to find it summarily thrown to one side and some new idea concocted, goodness knows in what backroom, but certainly not taking into account the opinion of Deputies on all sides of the House. This was an all-party committee. I cannot recall whether this provision was unanimous, but my recollection is that it was. Surely the input and determination after very long and lengthy consideration by an all-party committee when they come up with a unanimous recommendation should be given more careful and serious consideration than has been done here.
The way the committee recommended the matter be dealt with was excellent. At paragraph 8 they recommended that the controlling authority to deal with censorship and classification should be a special video censorship authority, not the censor. That certainly would have a lot to recommend it. The censor is one person or a group of persons — I am not quite sure how this operates but it is not what one might call any kind of democratic institution. I am sure the censor does his or her best, as do the censorship board, but when one is dealing with videos I would have thought — and I agree with the report of the select committee — it would have been better to have set up an authority which would have consisted, as they say in paragraph 8 (5), of representatives of various organisations, including the video industry itself, both at distribution level and at retail level, community groups and elected representatives. The authority, they said, should have a number of women members with, possibly, representatives from the Council for the Status of Women. As we know, women are very frequently portrayed as the objects of violence and sexual abuse, and it would be essential that there be a strong female presence on the authority. Such an authority would be like a breath of fresh air in the censorship process and would bring everything into the open instead of as is the case now, being behind closed doors, staffed by people who are not in any way answerable to the public and, for all we know, do not have any direct contact with the mores of the day.
That was an excellent suggestion and it is to be deeply regretted that the line of least resistence, as always, has been taken on this occasion and the matter is simply handed over to the film censor to deal with videos in the same way as films. When the select committee recommended that there should be a compulsory method of classification I do not know why that could not have been taken up and accepted by the Minister. I deeply regret that. I take the view that while what we are doing here today is helpful to some small extent, it does not really meet the needs of the situation. There is a great need to protect young people from the effects of witnessing the kinds of scenes that are portrayed on these video nasties.
When bringing in this Bill we should have set up an effective, forceful, legal means of providing better protection for our young people. What have we done? We have brought in a guidance, an indicator, a pointer for them, making it easier for the ten, 12 and 14 year olds to identify from the classifications what they are looking at. All they have to do is go to that section of the shop in which they are interested. I can see what the position is going to be. The video shops will be divided up not according to the categories of film but according to the categories of classification. There will be a section for children and a section for adults. People will go to the section already earmarked for them and that will be perfectly legal, perfectly in order, there will be no problem. The supplier will sell or rent out the videos as he will be perfectly entitled to do notwithstanding the Minister's Bill. It is a great pity if, after all these years we are going to do the job, we do not do it properly and set about providing that degree of protection for young people which the elected representatives in this House would wish them to have.
I agree with Deputy Taylor regarding the failure of the Minister to take on the views he expressed on Committee Stage and here on Report Stage the requests and views expressed on Committee Stage by all sides of the Opposition that the regime at the supply stage would have to be much more coercive than that being suggested in the legislation. The idea that the scheme of classification being introduced would be one of mere advice or guidance is simply not sufficient, if anything it may well have the opposite effect in giving clear headlines to those who want to seek out the more salubrious. The more undesirable of the videos in the classifications will have a ready reference or reckoner in the scale of things suggested by the Minister in the amendment he is now putting forward. I suppose we made some progress by getting a scheme of classification on board. This amendment will not achieve anything that the Minister suggested it might achieve. I welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to the formula that any amendment or regulations to be introduced under this scheme would be a matter for the agreement of this House in advance.
There is no need for me to repeat what has been said by previous speakers on this side of the House about our welcome for the change of mind on the part of the Minister in introducing the classification provision. We regret that he has not gone further by way of penalty. I would ask the Minister if he can assure the House and the people who are very interested in this Bill that these new classifications will be appended to the spool, the case or the container in which these videos are handed across the counter or sold to the general public.
The purpose of classification has an added dimension in that it affords an opportunity to parents and to others who have authority over younger people to at least look at the spool or the container in which these videos come and decide if the video is generally suitable for viewing by the audience which will be looking at it be they children of different age groups or whatever. This puts some responsibility, not simply on the retailer or the person who sells to the trade videos that we would regard as dangerous for young people, but on parents, when videos are brought into their house or whatever. It is an opportunity for them to become responsible for what their children see. In many instances parents will do this but it will be a great help to them to know that the various classifications for which the censor feels the film or video is suitable is shown to them. Then, any doubt they may have as to whether a film is suitable can be readily investigated.
I welcome the response of Members. I should like to say at the beginning that, of course, we are honouring a commitment given during the earlier debate that we were prepared to listen to all suggestions emanating from those debates. During the various discussions on Second Stage and Committee Stage, the Minister indicated that he was willing to listen to all arguments for improving the Bill. This was made abundantly clear when he introduced amendments in the Seanad having listened to arguments there for licensing of suppliers and similarly by amendments which he introduced in this House on Committee Stage. The introduction of classification will not result in any charges to the taxpayer. That question was raised by Deputy O'Keeffe. It will, of course, be more expensive but all the extra cost will be met by charges and levies imposed under the Bill. Deputy O'Keeffe also raised a point about reviewing the legislation. This legislation, like all other legislation emanating from the Oireachtas, is constantly kept under review. If it is found to be defective in any way or if it needs to be altered to take account of situations that might arise, amending legislation will be considered.
Questions were raised by Deputies about adult films and their availability to young people. My view is that this legislation, and Deputies have indicated this by their interest in the debate that has taken place, has brought the whole area of video recordings into focus. We appeal to everybody concerned, from the supplier to the licence holder as well as parents, for their co-operation in the implementation of this legislation. An indication that a responsible attitude is being adopted is that the Irish Videogram Association have already made a start in this area. They are very anxious that high standards should apply in their business and they are asking all suppliers to raise standards by, for instance, not giving adult films to children. A point that would concern all of us is that films not suitable for children should not come into their hands. We should place on record our desire that everybody should co-operate and ensure that the whole thrust of the Bill will be followed through particularly in that respect.
Deputy Kavanagh raised a question about classification. The classification of each video will be clearly identifiable and marked on the outside cover of the video.
Video nasties are causing much concern. They will not get a certificate. They are not the same as adult films. There is a difference and it is up to parents to ensure that their children do not view adult films which are not suitable. The fact that they are suitable for adults only will be clearly marked on the label.
The Minister referred to a point raised by Deputy Kavanagh regarding the exhibition of the classification certificate on the cassette cover. Surely the Minister is aware that the outside case of the cassette when exhibited in the shop is different from the cover supplied to the consumer. The retail outlets have their own blank covers. Is the Minister satisfied that the amendment will cover the blank cassette? One can see on display in a video shop a particular classification but when a consumer leaves the shop it is covered by a blank cassette cover on which there is no classification certificate. Is the Minister satisfied that all eventualities are being covered?
Details of the classification system are set out in section 11 of the Bill. I am happy that this point is covered.
May I raise one other question?
Yes. I want to advise the House that we are now on Report Stage and Members may speak once only.
Would the Minister be somewhat more firm in relation to his commitment to have the legislation reviewed after a two year period? We are moving into uncharted waters. The Minister said that this, like other legislation, would be monitored and kept under review. I would ask for a specific review of the operation of this legislation after a reasonable period so that amending legislation could be introduced to plug any loopholes. We are not sure whether this Bill will be fully effective.
I do not think it would be advisable to put a set time on reviewing legislation. If in six months' or 12 months' time we find it necessary to introduce amending legislation we will do so. It would be better to leave it at that. The operation of the legislation will be monitored and it is more than likely that it may have to be amended within less than two years.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Kavanagh. A number of other amendments are related and I am suggesting that we discuss together amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
On a point of order, I submit that it is not appropriate to take Deputy Kavanagh's group of amendments with Deputy McCartan's group of amendments. I am happy that they be taken separately as a group. They are amendments to the same section but they refer to quite distinct matters and the thrust of both groups is separate. I submit that the proper course is to take each group separately.
That is quite satisfactory.
That is my view.
We are taking the amendments in the names of Deputy Kavanagh and Deputy McCartan separately.
All these amendments deal with criteria in regard to one item and while Deputies want them taken separately they can be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
" `pornographic' means material which—
(i) is sexually explicit,
(ii) depicts women as enjoying or deserving some form of physical abuse, or
(iii) regards women only as objects of man's lust and desire,
but does not include—
(iv) erotica i.e. sexually explicit material premised on equality, or (v) bona fide sex education material or medical or forensic literature.".
This is a last attempt to make some material changes in the Bill and to deal with the problem of video nasties and films which are regarded as unsuitable for young people.
The previous Minister for Justice, speaking in the Seanad on 4 November 1987, tried to give a definition of the video films which would be considered in the Bill. In column 1205 of the Official Report in the Second Stage debate he said:
There are some video films available, however, that are thoroughly objectionable. They depict extreme and graphic violence or uninhibited pornography. The extremely violent films have attracted the name "video nasties". They depict the most stomach-turning and ghastly violence. The pornographic ones depict sex in a totally objectionable manner.
The Minister made an attempt to describe what he intended dealing with in the Bill and he mentioned pornography. He also said in column 1206:
As I have said already, the pornographic films are totally objectionable in what they portray. Anybody who has not seen these films cannot imagine the depths of degradation to which they stoop. 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.
The Minister clearly wanted to deal with pornography as it related to video films. In column 1211 he went on to say:
The major argument in favour of confining the prohibition of pornographic films to those over 18 years is that adults should be free to decide what they wish to see unless it is clearly harmful. Pornography can be distinguished in this regard from extremely violent video films... Accordingly, should video film legislation not provide for a total ban on the supply of pornographic films it would be out of line with existing censorship legislation...
We can see that the Minister intended to ban pornography. He went on to say in column 1212:
In all the circumstances I have no hesitation in including pornography in the Bill and in dealing with it by way of a total prohibition on supply. I am satisfied that that is the proper course and is in accordance with current informed thinking on the topic.
One would have expected in dealing with this Bill that we would first have seen an attempt at defining pornography and that the Bill would deal with pornography as it related to video films.
There is indeed a glaring omission in the Bill in regard to what the former Minister for Justice promised in the Seanad in relation to including the banning of pornographic material as portrayed in video films. I ask the Minister and the House to accept a definition of pornography as set down in my amendment. It is an attempt to explain pornography although I know that other Members will expand on the subject. If the Minister wishes to define it, we will accept a verbal amendment if he feels that my definition is inadequate. I regard material as pornographic if it is sexually explicit, depicts women as enjoying or deserving some form of physical abuse or regards women only as objects of man's lust and desire. However, the definition should not include erotica, that is, sexually explicit material premised on equality. I do not say that that sort of video film should be shown to all categories but we now have classification and this would probably be adult material. Nevertheless, I do not wish to mix pornographic and erotic material. I am prepared to listen to other Members in this regard and maybe they will define it more clearly for the purpose of the Bill.
I am also proposing that bona fide sex education material or medical or forensic literature should not be included in the definition of "pornographic". That should never be defined as pornographic. If the definition in amendment No. 1 is accepted by the Minister then obviously it must be inserted in the relevant part of the Bill. My amendment No. 5 proposes to insert, in page 6, between lines 13 and 14: "or (c) it is pornographic". It would require to be inserted again on page 8, between lines 6 and 7 which deals with the Official Censor.
The vast majority of films about which we are talking are described as pornographic material. We all know that they depict women as being the objects of sexual abuse, harassment and so on. The Members of this House, certainly all of the women to whom I spoke, who were aware that this Bill was to be debated, wanted to see this change made. Indeed in saying that I would include most of the male population as well. This amendment has merit. I believe that the Minister indicated to the Seanad and to the country at large that he would include this definition which has been a glaring omission to date. I hope the Minister and the House will accept it.
May I ask Deputy Kavanagh if it was his intention to speak on his three amendments, Nos. 2,5 and 9?
If the Minister accepts the first, then we can speak on the others. I presume, if he does not agree to the first, he will not agree to the others.
From reading the earlier debates on this Bill it seems clear to me that it was the view of both Houses that there be a prohibition on pornographic videos. I want to compliment Deputy Kavanagh on his gallant attempt to define exactly what is "pornography". It is my belief that it is the view of the vast majority of Members of both Houses and indeed of the people generally that pornographic videos should not be on sale.
It is interesting to note the change in outlook there has been on this issue, not just here but in other countries. For example, I understand that there was a commission in the United States which examined the question of pornography around the year 1970 whose report was to the effect that pornography was not deemed to be harmful. In 1986 the US Attorney General carried out a further investigation. At that stage a different conclusion was reached, which was that pornography was harmful to viewers. That reinforces the case for the inclusion of a prohibition on pornography. Deputy Kavanagh made a gallant attempt to define something which is very difficult.
It is not my field of expertise but I did my best.
I have a perfect definition here.
My colleague, Deputy Barnes, tells me she has an alternative. There are two possible aspects to this amendment. The first is the principle as to whether the Minister will accept — as I understood the former Minister for Justice had agreed to accept — a prohibition on pornographic videos. That would open the door to other views as to how exactly it might be defined. Looking at Deputy Kavanagh's definition I suppose questions could be raised. One could say: is something that is sexually explicit pornographic? I predict there would be some divided views on that. On the other hand, if one had something that was sexually explicit in a perverted way, that clearly would be regarded as pornographic.
On behalf of my party I urge the Minister to accept the principle of the amendment. If that is accepted the House will agree that there should be a ban on pornographic videos. If the Minister has difficulties with the definition, as proposed by Deputy Kavanagh, he can still listen to what our colleagues in the House have to say. We would all be prepared to agree any reasonable amendment that might be produced by the Minister if he can demonstrate that it is a better definition of "pornography" than the one now before the House.
I very much welcome amendment No. 2 and supporting amendments. I do not believe the Minister could not accept the need for this amendment. I particularly welcome the fact that male Members of this House are making this case as strongly as women. It is something that affects women principally but also affects men with regard to their perception of women as being equal or to enabling them, in turn, to establish real, lasting relationships with adult women, which becomes very difficult if males have become addicted to pornography.
The British Campaign Against Pornography and Censorship — whose definition has been accepted here by the Irish campaign against pornography and censorship defines "pornography" as:
"the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words, that also includes one or more of the following: women portrayed as sexual objects, things or commodities, enjoying pain or humiliation or rape, being tied up, cut up, mutilated, bruised or physically hurt, in postures of sexual submission or servility or display, reduced to body parts, penetrated by objects or animals, or presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture, shown as inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in a context which is sexual. Pornography does not include erotica (defined as sexually explicit materials premised on equality) and it does not include bona fide sex education materials, or medical or forensic literature."
The definition of "pornography" as I have read it into the record can be said to be anything that depicts the sexual objectification and/or subordination of women, often including violation and violence. Some people may have been shocked at some of the more graphic detail in my reading of the longer definition of "pornography". But it is important that we spell it out because as many people can now testify these video nasties and pornographic videos are freely available and introduced into this country through customs.
If we allowed this Bill be passed without making this point, without including a specific definition of "pornography" particularly as it affects women and indeed children — which constitutes an extended violation and violence — we would be failing completely in our duty to highlight the most dangerous elements in the whole area of video recording.
People who believe in free speech, free expression wish very definitely to illustrate the difference between healthy sex and erotica, the latter typifying the violation and vilification of women contained in such videos. Not alone has it been proved that there is a link between violence and perversion against women through an addiction to these pornographic videos, but it has also been shown that these videos can be incredibly damaging to men in so far as they get addicted to harder pornography. Some men have given evidence that only the real thing of violating and even killing women, can satisfy them. It has also been proved conclusively that men who view videos which depict women in this degrading way fail to establish any lasting relationship with women.
As Deputy Kavanagh and others have said, men and women outside this House have expressly asked that this provision be included in the Bill. In view of the evidence of the research and the damage which has been done I cannot envisage the Minister not accepting this amendment. The elimination and censorship of such pornography is essential to the creation of genuine equality between men and women, something to which every party in this House are committed.
Deputy Kavanagh's amendment raises the perennial problem of where the dividing line is between erotica and pornography. We all have our views as to where that is. As I said in the earlier part of this debate, one person's erotica can well be another's pornography and there are people in our society who will try to prevent the display of a naked body in any form, whether it be on videos or in photographs.
The difficulty in relation to this item is that we are talking about videos which are for private viewing. Generally videos are not for public display. They are generally viewed by people in the privacy of their homes——
Or in the pub.
I know videos are shown in some public houses but by and large people will generally view videos in the privacy of their homes.
As I understand it, this Bill attempts to ensure that videos do not incite people to commit crime of any kind, for example, robbery and rape. I would have difficulty with Deputy Kavanagh's definition of pornography because it leaves the door open to very wide ranging restrictions of how pornography can be defined. We may well end up with a very narrow and restricted application by the censor.
What about the definition I gave?
The Deputy's definition has not been put down to be debated here. I think one of Deputy Kavanagh's suggestions was that we should simply have a section in the Bill saying that pornography should not be permitted and that the question of defining it should be left perhaps to the courts at a later stage.
That would be the worst thing we could do.
That is one suggestion we might grab with both hands because it gets us off the horn of the dilemma. However, as Deputy Taylor said, it would be a bad precedent. We leave far too much legislation for definition by our courts and we have seen in recent days where the courts are far ahead of us in terms of legislation and defining legislation.
This is a difficult question. Deputy Kavanagh's definition is too wide ranging. Deputy Barnes' definition is more acceptable but we do not have it before us. As we are on Report Stage I do not know what the Minister can do in terms of dealing with this problem. Perhaps he will indicate what his proposal is on the matter.
Deputy Lyons rose.
Can we hear Deputy Mervyn Taylor first?
Yes.
I will be brief because I do not want to repeat what has been said by the previous speakers. The first choice the House has is to do nothing and to have no reference to pornography in the Bill. Our second choice is to adopt the definition submitted by Deputy Kavanagh. If we decide that we want some stab at the definition of what is undoubtedly a complex and difficult issue, we have the choice of Deputy Kavanagh's definition or none at all. It was open to any Member or party if they thought they had a better definition, to submit an amendment incorporating it and to give the House a wide ranging choice as to what might be appropriate, or to have submitted an amendment to Deputy Kavanagh's amendment. However, no Member was of a mind to do that, so if we are to have a definition it has to be Deputy Kavanagh's.
The option mooted with no great enthusiasm by Deputy De Rossa——
I did not moot it.
You mooted it but, as I said, with no great enthusiasm. To leave the matter to the courts would be the worst option of all. We cannot hand over a vital issue like that to the courts. As legislators it is our responsibility to try to give at least broad guidelines as to what exactly we want the courts to enforce. I am not saying Deputy Kavanagh's definition is perfect, and I am sure each of us has our own views as to what should come within the ambit of pornography and what should not.
I want to refer again to the point I made on the previous amendment about the unsatisfactory nature of having the decision rest in the hands of the censor. As I said then — and it is as apt in regard to this section as to the previous section — it would have been much better to have had a larger board who would have determined the admissibility of videos under a particular category. The members of this board would be made up of people representing the industry, community groups, elected representatives and women. Women in particular would be an integral part of any board who would have to look at these videos. I do not know whether any women are involved in the censorship process, but I suspect they are not and it would have been better to be up front and to have given women through such an authority a complete and direct involvement in the issue in which they are primarily concerned.
I should like to refer to the report of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism which dealt with the control of video nasties. They produced an excellent document and it is a pity that more attention was not paid to it. The committee referred to one of the submissions made to them by CASE — Campaign Against Sexual Exploitation — a group affiliated to the Council for the Status of Women. It was their view that the specific reference to pornography in the Bill was essential and they explained at some length why they considered that to be so. They pointed out that pornography was essentially the sexual exploitation of women and, increasingly, of children. It was their view that its effects are experienced by everyone in the society in which it is available and that men, although they are the consumers of pornography, are also its victims.
The committee accepted their recommendation and indicated in paragraph 8.8 of their report that videos which displayed unrestrained sexual abuse should be banned altogether. The Minister has not gone down that road in the Bill but he has an opportunity now, by accepting Deputy Kavanagh's amendment, to remedy it and highlight the need which exists and which was examined in great detail by the select committee to ban such videos. We regard this as a matter of critical importance to the Bill and we hope the Minister will see his way to accept Deputy Kavanagh's amendment.
I support the view that an amendment of this nature should be included in the Bill. The inclusion of the word "and" between subsections (i) and (ii) would sort out the problem. If the section referred to videos that were sexually explicit and depicted women as enjoying physical abuse it would be better because of the danger of a possible misinterpretation. The danger is that it will be taken that the section is against videos that are sexually explicit which clearly is not the case. It is essential, if the Bill is to deal effectively with one of the major areas of concern and abuse, that it should include such a provision. Such videos have a deeply corrosive effect on our society leading to problems of a deep nature. There is increasing evidence of the consequences of such videos in the behaviour of men in particular. Without an amendment of this type the provisions in the Bill would be seriously inadequate. The Minister should include such an amendment.
The effort by Deputy Kavanagh, and the Labour Party, in addressing the issue of some prohibition on pornography is to be welcomed. I do not think Members will be anxious that legislation should endorse or be seen by default to endorse the promulgation of pornographic material. The problem is exemplified when one addresses the difficulty of trying to identify what is pornographic and to define it for the purpose of legislation. Deputies Kavanagh and Taylor have accepted that the definition, which is the only one available to us to adjudicate on, is not 100 per cent workable. In this context one is reminded of an exhibition of paintings in the midlands two or three months ago. One of a number of paintings was removed from the exhibition at the request of some local person of some standing. I will not say, because I am not sure, that it was a cleric.
That is not correct.
I should like to thank the Deputy from the midlands for correcting me. The painting was removed because it showed the genitalia of a figure. The artist, correctly, responded by taking all his paintings out of the exhibition. Indeed, he was outraged at what had happened. That is the problem we encounter when we try to define what is sexually explicit, when we try to establish what is sexuality premised on equality. We would equally have difficulties in the community trying to regulate views one way or another on what is bona fide sex education. I am reminded of a film that was shown for quite a long time at a seedy cinema, as it was, in Dublin. The film, called "Helga," with scenes of childbirth was presented as an education in sex. In fact, every voyeur and raincoated gent who could be found in the city was in the back seats of the cinema taking far more than education out of the content of that movie. That is the difficulty we are left with.
It is virtually impossible to find a definition that will work. We need a balance to try to do down the market of the pornographer and his or her wares on the one hand and, on the other hand, to respect the right to privacy of people to enjoy sex films or other material in their own homes.
It is no criticism of the Labour Party who are attempting in their amendments to define the concept because difficulties will exist no matter what the definition is but we will have difficulty implementing and interpreting such a definition within the community. I am terribly concerned that we do not give opportunities to the Mary Whitehouse syndrome, and those who exist in the midlands and elsewhere who are so quick to come to the fore whenever they get the opportunity to attack what is artistic on some spurious pornographic basis.
It is fairly clear that we have reached an impasse so far as Members on this side are anxious to include a provision outlawing pornographic material but we are not in a position to agree on that definition. That is not surprising because it is difficult to define pornography. I should like to ask the Minister to accept the principle of what has been said in the last 40 minutes. If he does we can go on to stage two and decide on a formula that will be acceptable to everybody.
The Minister must agree that to allow the legislation go through without making a specific reference to pornographic material will be doing an injustice to the Bill. Deputy Kavanagh, in introducing his amendment, said he was open to accept what might be considered a better definition. I suggest that we roll subsections (1) and (2) together and state that "pornographic" means material which is sexually explicit by depicting women as enjoying or deserving some form of physical abuse. If Deputy Kavanagh is not open to that suggestion perhaps the Minister would——
I am open to any suggestion.
——consider a formula where we either adjourn the debate until we can reach consensus under the regulations dealt with in sections 30 and 31 or if, the Minister can accept the principle of outlining pornographic material, then on regulation stage the House might have an opportunity of defining and broadening the word "pornography." I am asking the Minister to accept in principle what is coming from this side of the House, that without making the reference proposed by Deputy Kavanagh or some modification thereto the Bill is somewhat flawed.
Maybe Deputy Kavanagh who has the right of reply will wish to hear the Minister.
Very good.
The criteria set down in sections 3 and 6 of the Bill were debated at considerable length on Committee Stage and careful consideration was given to the points made in the debate. The then Minister indicated he was disposed to remove the word "any" from both sections, and there are amendments listed in this group, Nos. 4-8, to provide for this. There are also other amendments in this group about which I would like to say a few words.
Deputy Kavanagh has proposed amendment No. 2. I would like to couple with that amendments Nos. 5 and 9 because, as he has said, they depend on one another, and these deal with pornographic material. These amendments cannot be accepted. Pornographic material is already covered by the wording of sections 3 and 6. A work would be unfit for viewing because the viewing of it "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 would include pornographic material. As regards exempting the word "erotica", this would lead to unsuitable material getting into the hands of young people.
The censor would still adjudicate.
It is a point that has been considered carefully but has been ruled out on the basis that once material is available it will become available to anybody and it will not be possible to restrict it to adults only.
A final point on Deputy Kavanagh's amendment No. 2 is that he wishes to provide for bona fide sex education material or forensic literature being exempted. Video works of this type are already exempted under this Bill. The types of work exempted are defined under "exempted work" in section 1 of the Bill.
I accept what the Members are saying, that the discussion has broadened. There is nothing wrong with that; that is what we are here for, but neither pornography nor erotica is mentioned in censorship legislation either here or in the UK.
That is no reason we should not include it.
The long established practice has been to refer to material which would tend to deprave or corrupt because it is obscene or indecent. This definition includes material which is objectionable because of the way in which it depicts sexual matters, and it is the definition which our film censor uses at present. By and large our cinema film censorship has been satisfactory. The criteria used in the censorship of cinema films are included in the Bill. The amendment proposed by Deputy Kavanagh in my view would change that. Surely none of us would wish to make that sort of change.
There have been times when erotica have been banned and violence has been allowed and that is what we are trying to have defined.
I think the Minister has missed the point totally. I gave the history of this debate from its time in the Seanad. The Minister and the previous Minister on several occasions used the adjective and the noun "pornographic" and "pornography", respectively.
Has he changed his mind?
The type of films he wanted to bring into the ambit of this Video Recordings Bill is surprising, and it is my clear view from the approaches made to me, particularly by women——
Indeed.
——that they wanted the definition of what the Minister stated he was going to include in the Bill stated in the Bill, an addition to the point. What is given by the Minister in section 3 of the Bill, that the viewing "would tend, by reason of the inclusion in it of any obscene or indecent matter, to deprave or corrupt persons..." is a very narrow definition. We wanted to include the definition of "pornography" because it is what the Minister and the vast majority of the people wanted. I am sorry I was not able to bring forward a proper definition of pornography, but could anybody in the House attempt to do so? At least I attempted to make a version of it that does not appear to have met with general consensus. It is a pity others did not try to improve it. Particularly I would have thought the Minister would have done so. He was the one who dealt with the topic over two years ago and made no attempt to include it in the Bill.
At this stage if the Minister is shooting down the inclusion of this provision not simply because of the definition but because of the definition I have given, and if a verbal amendment cannot be introduced such as Deputy Barnes has suggested then my only course of action is to suggest withdrawing my No. 2. However, I intend to pursue amendments Nos. 5 and 9.
Does Deputy Kavanagh appreciate now that it is a matter just of putting the question? I understand that the Ceann Comhairle, with the agreement of the House, said he would, for discussion purposes take together amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 9. You cannot have separate questions. I take it that Deputy Kavanagh has indicated he is withdrawing amendment No. 2.
No, I said if it would solve the problem.
The Minister indicated he was prepared to agree to a variant of the definition. Is the Minister prepared to consider it?
The Minister, the same as anybody else, is required to operate within the limits of Standing Orders and in so far as this is not his amendment he has no right to reply. He has made his contribution.
I have known it to be done where there was consensus on all sides of the House to improve a measure. The Ceann Comhairle or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle of the day has always facilitated that. If there was no consensus, of course, it could not be done.
I can confirm consensus on this side.
I would like as far as possible to satisfy the requirements of Standing Orders. That does not mean that if the Minister is anxious to interject and say "yes" anybody is going to stop him. Again, where the agreement has already been made I have already indicated what constraints arise from it. Is the Minister anxious to make a monosyllabic interjection?
The answer is no because even now we have not got a consensus in the debate.
We have, on the principles.
No, you have not. You all have different views on it.
There is broad agreement on the principle that pornography should be banned. If there is a concern about how to define it, we are prepared to co-operate in any way.
I am sorry but we must proceed in an orderly fashion. The position now is that we put the question on amendment No. 2, if Deputy Kavanagh so desires. The question is that the amendment be made.
I assume that if this amendment falls, my other amendments will also fall. Is that the position?
No. We will put three separate questions on the three amendments. They were discussed together but separate questions have to be put.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 75.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finnucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
- Timmins, Godfrey.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and Pattison; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
We now proceed to amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy McCartan. I should say in respect of amendment No. 2 that as a result of its defeat amendments Nos. 5 and 9 in the name of Deputy Kavanagh also fall.
On a point of order, I beg leave to take issue with you and to ask that you take a look at that again. That by no means follows. The position is that Deputy Kavanagh, in amendment No. 2, sought to include a specific definition of the word "pornographic". The House has voted against inserting a specific, detailed definition of that word.
They fall, but I shall have a look at it in the meantime and will convey my confirmed view to you on the matter.
It is quite clearly a separate matter. Amendment No. 5 would leave it open to the censor on his own interpretation of the word pornographic to determine whether something should be ruled in or out.
Having regard to the manner in which we took the amendments, I shall have a look at it again, but I repeat that my note states clearly that if amendment No. 2 is negatived, amendments Nos. 5 and 9 cannot be moved.
That does not follow.
We shall have another look at the matter.
We agreed to discuss these amendments together, but I think the Leas-Cheann Comhairle accepted, when the point was raised, that if required separate votes could be taken.
We can have separate decisions on all these matters, if you so desire. Let us proceed with Deputy McCartan's amendment. We shall look carefully at what Deputy Taylor has said in relation to dealing with amendments in the name of Deputy Kavanagh. Deputy McCartan will move amendment No. 3. May I take it that Deputy McCartan will speak on amendment No. 7 also?
A Deputy
I hope he does not call a quorum.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(ii) would be likely to stir up hatred against any group of persons on account of their race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation,".
A Cheann Comhairle, with your permission and with the agreement of the House, I would like to discuss on behalf of The Workers' Party, amendments Nos. 3 and 7 in my own name.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 may be discussed together.
This matter was dealt with on Committee Stage, but the debate was somewhat deflected by the then Minister of State, Deputy Séamus Brennan, on the understanding that the matter would be dealt with properly and fully in the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, 1988, which was running contemporaneously. It is correct to say that the Bill, when it eventually came from the Seanad, addressed the issue of race, nationality, religion and gender satisfactorily but the question of sexual orientation was not addressed and was omitted altogether. We are not satisfied with the way in which this matter was addressed in the related Bill and we are now pressing for the inclusion of our amendments in the appropriate sections of the Bill before us so that a video recording that would be likely to stir up hatred on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, gender or sexual orientation would be provided for in sections 3 and 5 of the Bill.
The purpose of this amendment was addressed at length by Deputy De Rossa on Committee Stage. The reasons and need for it are self-evident. On Committee Stage there was general agreement, including agreement by the Minister of State dealing with the matter, that this was an area that should be addressed in legislation. It was on the understanding that it would be addressed in the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill that we did not pursue the matter then. That is the reason it is now tabled on Report Stage. I commend these amendments to the House on the basis that they are self-evident and reasonable in a modern caring society.
Deputy McCartan has made a reasonable case for the inclusion of this provision. It is very difficult to make a case against its inclusion. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard. Surely, as suggested by Deputy McCartan, it is quite proper that we should be in a position to prohibit videos which would be likely to stir up hatred against the groups referred to by Deputy McCartan. There is a valid case and I support Deputy McCartan's amendments.
The Labour Party also support the amendments tabled by Deputy McCartan. I ask the Minister to consider accepting this amendment. It is a fact that there is an abuse of the medium of video recordings for purposes other than the excessively violent scenes for which they are primarily known. Another category which is no less objectionable glorifies Fascist type activity and uses that medium for the purpose of building up hatred against people of a particular nationality, religion or sexual orientation.
Video is a very powerful medium. It is cheap, accessible, easily copied, widely circulated. The degree of influence which can be exercised through that medium should not or ought not be under-estimated. We are dealing with controls at the point of sale or hire of videos and it behoves us to deal with all aspects of the problem and particularly with the aspect highlighted in Deputy McCartan's amendment.
It will probably be many a long year before this House has the opportunity to deal with this subject in legislation. This is the last opportunity the Minister will have for a very long time to tackle this problem. Videos glorifying Nazism and all that it stood for in all sorts of ways are available. This is the sort of thing that the amendment seeks to address and I appeal to the Minister to accept it. Surely he must know from his inquiries that such videos exist. Do not tell me — if I may address the Minister through the Chair — that the matter will be dealt with by the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill.
I intended to tell you that.
I had thought so. I am asking you not to so tell me because that is an unacceptable and incorrect argument. We are talking about a specific medium, which is so important that it warrants a special Bill of the Oireachtas to deal with it. The Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill will not adequately cover the situation of videos. As I have said, videos are a powerful medium that warrant their own Bill and it is entirely appropriate that the Minister takes on board and accepts the amendment or an agreed variant of it. I am sure Deputy McCartan would be prepared to consider any variant of it, if it would mean that we would make some progress on the issue.
Now is the time to deal with the matter. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. He knows that the problem exists and that it is not covered adequately. I am quite satisfied of that, having read and studied that Bill. If we do not deal with the issue now we will have lost this opportunity.
I dealt with this issue on Second Stage and on Committee Stage and on each occasion I was assured by the Minister and the Minister of State that the matter would be dealt with in the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious and National Hatred Bill and on occasions I deferred the amendments I was seeking to make to see whether that would be dealt with. The Bill on incitement to racial hatred, etc., does include a reference to this area but there is a curious part in it, section 4 (3), which implies that if a person has a video or written material for their own use they may not be prosecuted for that possession. There seems to be a loophole in that with regard to the type of legislation we are proposing here. Section 4 (3) reads:
...and it is reasonable to assume that the material or recording was not intended for the personal use of the person, he shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been in possession of the material or recording in contravention of subsection (1).
In other words, he would be regarded as having committed an offence if it was not for his own personal use. That is the first point I want to make in relation to the need to have this amendment in this Bill.
Incitement to racial, religious or national hatred does not include incitement to hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, the curious part about this is that in the Seanad when the Video Bill was going through, rather than accept an amendment to include sexual orientation as incitement to hatred, the Minister withdrew reference altogether to the question of incitement to hatred on the basis of nationality, religion and so on, again putting forward this reason that it would be in this Bill on national, religious and racial hatred. So sexual orientation has disappeared from the debate in a sense, and I do not think it can be seriously argued that it is not a problem.
Some years ago this House had occasion to have an emergency debate on the murder of a young man in Fairview, a young man who was murdered, it subsequently transpired, because of his sexual orientation. This is a problem we tend not to take too seriously but studies have shown that while, by and large, we are a tolerant society there is an underlying intolerance for a variety of categories of people in our society, and these studies have been done by various reputable bodies.
We would not be doing our job properly if we allowed this Bill through without having a section in it which deals specifically with excluding certificates for the distribution of videos which would incite people to hatred on the basis of nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation and I would strongly urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It will in no way reduce the value of the Bill and in my view will enhance the value of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 in the name of Deputy McCartan would change the existing subsection (1) (a) of sections 3 and 6 and generally I do not accept that the proposed wording is an improvement on the existing wording. As regards the wording in so far as it relates to incitement to hatred, Deputies are aware that a Bill to prohibit incitement on grounds of race, religion and nationality is at present before this House. The purpose of that Bill is to put on the Statute Book one of the measures necessary to enable this country to ratify the UN convention on civil and political rights.
Under the Bill it will be an offence to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds that are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or are likely to stir up hatred on the grounds specified. Thus, the stirring up of racial, religious or national hatred by means of distribution, showing or playing of videos will be covered in the incitement legislation. Incitement to hatred on any other ground or against any particular named group would be outside the scope of what the Minister is trying to achieve in the incitement Bill and I would regard a provision on incitement to hatred on any ground as being totally unnecessary in the context of this Bill.
I have to acknowledge and be impressed by the arguments that have been made on this section and I will ask my colleague to favourably consider an amendment along the lines suggested in the Seanad debate, if that would satisfy Members.
What exactly is the Minister undertaking to do?
I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. That would clearly be welcome. When does the Minister think we may be able to take that opportunity? Will he circulate an amendment before we conclude Report Stage? The Minister will appreciate that we are at the penultimate Stage and the scope for doing anything is extremely limited.
That will be going back to the Seanad. If we drew up an amendment in the Seanad the Bill could be brought back here.
It has already been through the Seanad.
I think it could probably go back to the Seanad.
The procedures of the Seanad have been exhausted in regard to the Bill. It is not likely that we will conclude Report Stage here tonight because our business will be interrupted in ten minutes' time and there are a number of other amendments to be dealt with. If the House was agreeable we could, on resumption of Report Stage, revert to this. I do not think that is something that will cause any difficulty and we can deal with it then, with the agreement of the House. I would certainly welcome that.
Could the Minister clarify exactly what he is proposing?
Taking into account the observations of the Members of the House, accepting the fact that with several more sections to be concluded on Report Stage and that it is unlikely they will be concluded at this time, I will avail of the opportunity to refer the matter to my colleague. I cannot pre-empt what decision he will take on it but if a mechanism can be found to do so I think we could come back before the concluding Stage. We have two more sections and a number of amendments to discuss.
I will not press my amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We now come to amendment No. 4 in the name of the Minister.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, line 8, to delete "any".
This amendment was discussed with amendment No. 2. The two amendments in the Minister's name are Nos. 4 and 8. These two amendments remove the word "any" from the phrase "any obscene or indecent matter" in section 3 (1) (a) (ii) and 6 (1) (a) (ii) relating to the grounds for refusing a supply certificate and the making of a prohibition order respectively. Some anxiety was expressed in the Committee Stage debate whether the inclusion of the word "any" might imply that the inclusion in a video work of even the smallest piece of possibly obscene or indecent matter would be sufficient to cause the whole work to be banned. The previous Minister promised to consider the matter. This has been done and although I do not think that the word "any" would have this effect, especially when the censor will, in any event, have to decide whether the video work is unfit for viewing nevertheless, I accept that the word "any" might convey a misleading impression and, therefore, should be deleted.
I will be very brief. I am prepared to agree to this amendment.
I would like to say, without delaying the House too much, this was an amendment which I and other Deputies sought on Committee Stage. The Minister at the time indicated that he would consider it. Obviously, we are pleased that he has decided to delete the word. It makes it far more likely that the censor can do his job in a more professional way and, indeed, in a broader way. The fear with this Bill had been that the censor would be obliged to take too wide a view of what was excluded and that the net result would be that adults who are entitled, as free individuals, to view in the privacy of their home material which is reasonable would be prevented from doing so. On that basis we welcome the Minister's proposal to delete the word "any".
While we in the Labour Party accept the change which the Minister proposes in his amendment it in no way meets the requirements of the amendments which are in my name in relation to the problem we had earlier in defining "pornographic" or "pornography". The Minister indicated that this section would be adequate to meet that definition but it does not change the Bill sufficiently for me and my colleagues in the Labour Party to accept it as a substitution for the attempt I had made earlier to put in a definition which would have had a totally different and more expanded meaning in this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Kavanagh. This amendment was discussed with his amendment No. 2. It can be moved and a decision arrived thereon if he so desires.
I understand you will not allow me to introduce any additional debate on this amendment.
It was discussed with your amendment No. 2. If you are in any doubt about it I would hear a brief comment from you on it. I recollect there was a little confusion whether we would take these amendments together or not at the time. I will hear a brief comment from the Deputy.
I move amendment No. 5.
In page 6, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"or
(c) it is pornographic.".
I will be very brief, a Cheann Comhairle, and I thank you for allowing me to make a short contribution. In my attempt to introduce this additional category, to the section dealing with pornography, as a separate issue and in taking on the previous Minister's idea that this Bill was going to deal with this topic, I felt it was necessary, in the definitions section, for the Minister to define "pornography". Because he had not done so I attempted, however inadequately, to do it but that did not meet with the favour of the Minister. I am sorry he did not take the opportunity which I offered him to endeavour to use his expertise and that of his Department to define "pornography" and to include it in the Bill. The fact that he has not done so means that in pressing this amendment — which I intend to do — and if it is accepted by the House, it will obviously be within the compass of the censor to define it. If there are objections to the censor it will go to the court for definition. That is unsatisfactory but, nevertheless, it is necessary that we press this amendment. It is a very basic topic that should have been included and I must press the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 77.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Calleary, Seán.
- Calley, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ferris and Howlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
|
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Byrne, Eric.Carey, Donal.Connaughton, Paul.Connor, John.Cosgrave, Michael Joe.Cotter, Bill.Creed, Michael.Crowley, Frank.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.De Rossa, Proinsias.Doyle, Joe.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas W.Farrelly, John V.Fennell, Nuala.Ferris, Michael.Finnucane, Michael.FitzGerald, Garret.Flaherty, Mary.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Eamon.Harte, Paddy.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan. |
Kavanagh, Liam.Kemmy, Jim.Lee, Pat.McCartan, Pat.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.Mac Giolla, Tomás.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Moynihan, Michael.Nealon, Ted.Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Gerry.O'Sullivan, Toddy.Pattison, Séamus.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerry.Ryan, Seán.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick J.Sherlock, Joe.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Taylor, Mervyn.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.Timmins, Godfrey. |
Debate adjourned.