I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The primary purpose of this Bill is to enable the Minister for Justice to appoint persons to be known as assistant censors to assist the Film Censor in the performance of his duties and functions under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1970, and the Video Recordings Act, 1989 — particularly the latter Act.
Basically, the Video Recordings Act, 1989, aims at three levels of control. First, it contains provisions for the licensing of wholesale and retail video outlets. Second, it provides that the censor may, on grounds specified in the Act, prohibit the supply of video films which he considers unsuitable for viewing. Third, it provides for the classification of video films in terms of their suitability for viewing by different age groups.
The first two levels of control mentioned — licensing and the censor's power to prohibit certain videos—were brought into operation in 1991. However, the third level of control — classification of all video films by reference to their suitability for viewing by younger people — has yet to be brought into operation. This is where the present Bill becomes relevant. The volume of work which will be involved in the examination of all new videos and those already on the market with a view to determining their suitability for viewing cannot be undertaken by the censor alone. He will need considerable assistance, hence the need for assistant censors.
Before I deal with the details of the Bill I would like to remind the House, briefly, of the circumstances which made it necessary to enact the Video Recordings Act, 1989.
Video films came on the scene in the early eighties. They enjoyed an amazingly rapid growth in popularity during that decade. Evidence of this rapid growth was to be found in the proliferation of outlets supplying video films and the fact that video recorders became commonplace in homes.
There were thousands of video film titles available and the number was being added to at the rate of approximately 1,000 new titles each year. Most of these films were unobjectionable in their portrayal of adventure, comedy, romance, sport, education, etc. However, just as the print and film media can be exploited by the unscrupulous to make money at whatever cost to others, so too with videos. Increasing numbers of what came to be termed "video nasties" were put on the market. These were thoroughly objectionable films which depicted extreme and graphic violence or uninhibited pornography. The extremely violent films contained many scenes of the most stomach-turning and ghastly violence, while those of a pornographic nature portrayed sex in a totally objectionable manner. The nature of some of this material was such that responsible parents were very concerned lest their children be exposed to it. Women, in particular, were fearful that these videos, if they were to be widely available, would increase the incidence of sexual attack and assault on them. As a result, there was a widespread demand that controls be introduced to deal with these films. The response to this demand was the Video Recordings Act, 1989. That Act is, as I said, being brought into operation in stages by ministerial order.
The first important step was to ensure that those in the business of selling and supplying videos on hire could be identified and monitored. This was done by introducing a licensing system. In April 1991 regulations were made which require retail and wholesale video dealers to be licensed with effect from 1 May 1991. These licences were issued by the Film Censor and authorise the sale or letting on hire of video recordings at or from a particular premises. A licence remains in force for a period of 12 months. The fees prescribed for licences are: retail, £100; and wholesale, £4,000.
The second step was to ensure that "video nasties" would not be allowed in the marketplace. In July 1991 a further order was made enabling the Film Censor to exercise his powers under the Act to prohibit the supply of video films which he considers to be unfit for viewing in accordance with the criteria contained in the Act. To date, the censor has issued prohibition orders in respect of 221 such video films. A further order and regulations will be required in the coming months to commence the remainder of the Act and enable the Film Censor to examine all new video films intended for supply and also to commence the systematic examination of all video films already on the market. The censor will examine the videos to determine whether they are suitable for viewing and, if suitable, will assign one of the following four classifications to them: (i) fit for viewing by persons generally; (ii) fit for viewing by persons generally but for a child under 12 years only in the company of a responsible adult; (iii) fit for viewing by persons aged 15 years or more; and (iv) fit for viewing by persons aged 18 years or more.
However, because of the volume of work which will be involved, it will be necessary, as I said, to first appoint a number of assistant censors to assist the censor. The classification system, when in operation, will provide parents with the means to monitor what their children are watching. The video which a child or young person may wish to buy or hire will be clearly labelled as to its suitability for viewing by younger age groups. It will be up to parents primarily to control what their children are watching. The law cannot extend into the family home.
While it is not possible to quantify accurately the number of video films involved, information received from trade interests clearly indicates that the task could not be performed by the Film Censor alone. The trade say they will be submitting in the region of 700 new video films each year to the censor for examination. This figure does not take account of those video films already on the market. It is estimated that there could be as many as 12,000 to 15,000 video films already on the market which will also require examination.
With that background in mind I would now like to address in broad terms the provisions of the Bill before the House. As I said, the main purpose of the Bill is to amend existing legislation to enable the Minister for Justice to appoint assistant censors to assist the Film Censor in the performance of his statutory duties and functions. Section 2 of the Bill deals with this. The Bill also provides for the rectification of anomalies in the existing legislation which relate to the fees to be prescribed for appeals to the Censorship of Films Appeal Board. Sections 3, 4 and 5 are the relevant sections of the Bill in this regard.
In section 2 it is proposed to empower the Minister to appoint as many assistant censors as will be required to assist the Film Censor in the performance of his duties. The assistant censors will be given the same statutory powers as the Film Censor to make decisions in relation to the certification and classification or prohibition of cinema and video films with the exception of the following powers which will be reserved to the Film Censor: (i) the power under the Censorship of Films Act, 1970, to review a decision made over seven years previously, (ii) the power under section 4 (3) of the Video Recordings Act, 1989, to give a higher classification, i.e. one indicating unsuitability for younger viewers, in the case of a video film, (iii) the power under section 7 (3) of the Video Recordings Act, 1989, to revoke a prohibition order in respect of a video film and (iv) the making of annual and other reports under section 29 of the Act of 1989 to the Minister for Justice on the censor's activities as to censorship of cinema or video films.
Thought was given to whether a system could be devised whereby the assistant censors could operate in a subordinate role to the censor and where final decisions on certification and classification or prohibition could be left to him. Such a system would have the distinct advantage of guaranteeing uniformity in determining classifications. However, given the sheer volume of work which will be involved and the fact that the video distributors will need speedy decisions on the certification and classification of their product, it would make such a system unworkable. However, under the system proposed in the Bill there are provisions aimed at ensuring a uniform approach to classification.
First, it is proposed that the Film Censor, subject to any directions that may be given to him by the Minister for Justice, may determine which functions an assistant censor may perform and to what extent he or she may perform such functions. Second, there is provision that the assistant censors will perform the functions allocated to them under the general superintendence of the Film Censor and consult with him from time to time about the performance of these functions. These provisions will provide the Film Censor with the means to establish classification standards and maintain a consistency in their application.
As to the appointment of persons to the position of assistant censor, there is a number of factors which will have to be taken into account in determining their conditions of employment. For example, the video business is subject to peaks and valleys. Some of the variations are seasonal while others are related to customer trends and demands. Regardless of such variations, however, distributors of video films will demand a consistently speedy service from the Film Censor's Office in having their product examined, certified and classified in time to meet planned release dates in the market place.
In addition, experience elsewhere has shown that persons employed on the examination and classification of video films maintain consistently better standards of judgement if employed for short periods and given long breaks.
Also, more assistant censors will be required during the first years of examination of video films until such time as the backlog of films already on the market have been dealt with.
It would seem that the appointment of assistant censors on a full-time basis to examine video films may not be the best way to cope with these factors. Other options would be to appoint assistant censors on a contract basis for a definite period or to appoint them on a part-time basis as the need arises or a blend of both such systems. I am having these matters examined at present but it may not be possible to determine all these issues until the examination of videos gets under way and we learn from experience what is the best method of approach.
Assistant censors will be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. The annual cost involved will depend on the volume of new video films released each year and the rate at which those films already on the market can be examined. It is not possible, therefore, to state accurately what the level of cost is likely to be during the first or second year of operation. All costs involved in the operation of the Video Recordings Act, 1989, will be recovered by the charging of fees for services provided. Accordingly, there will not be any nett additional cost to the Exchequer.
I would now like to turn to the other proposals in the Bill before the House which are intended to regularise matters in the existing law covering the prescribing of fees for appeals in respect of cinema films and video films — sections 3, 4 and 5 refer.
The effect of the relevant provisions of the Censorship of Films Act, 1923, in relation to appeals in respect of cinema films is that a fee of not more than £5 may be prescribed in each case and, where that appeal is successful the fee shall be refunded. In the case of appeals under the Video Recordings Act, 1989, in respect of video films, the requirement is that the appellant pay such fee as may be prescribed with no provision for repayment of that fee.
If those provisions of the Acts of 1923 and 1989 are allowed to stand, further anomalies will exist in that the fee for an appeal in the case of a video could reflect modern day values while the corresponding fee for a cinema film will be limited to £5 and, while this fee may be refunded if the appeal is successful, such is not the case in an appeal involving a video.
What I now propose in the Bill is to regularise the matter by leaving the amount of fee in respect of appeals in both cases to be fixed by regulation but to provide that the fee to be paid by the appellant in the case of either a video or a film should be repaid if the appeal is successful. The provisions in this Bill in relation to the appointment of assistant censors are essential to the implementation of the Video Recordings Act, 1989, that is, the examination and classification or prohibition of all new video films intended for supply and the systematic examination of all video films currently on the market. I hope that I will have the support of the House for the measures proposed and I look forward to an open and informative debate on the proposals.
I commend the Bill to the House.