Censorship of Publications Bill, 1928—Third Stage (Resumed).
The Seanad went into Committee.
SECTION 6.
6.—(1) Whenever a complaint is duly made under this Act to the Minister to the effect that a book or a particular edition of a book is indecent or obscene or advocates the unnatural prevention of conception or the procurement of abortion or miscarriage or the use of any method, treatment or appliance for the purpose of such prevention or such procurement, the Minister may refer such complaint to the Board.
(2) The Board shall consider every complaint referred to them by the Minister under this section and for the purpose of such consideration shall examine the book or the particular edition of a book which is the subject of such complaint and on the completion of such consideration the Board shall make to the Minister their report on such complaint.
(3) When considering a complaint referred to them under this section the Board may have regard to all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) the literary, artistic, scientific or historic merit or importance of the book or the particular edition of a book which is the subject of such complaint.
(b) the language in which such book or edition is printed or produced.
(c) the nature and extent of the circulation which, in the opinion of the Board, such book or edition is intended to have.
(d) the class of reader in Saorstát Eireann which, in the opinion of the Board, may reasonably be expected to read such book or edition, and
(e) any other matter relating to such book or edition which appears to the Board to be relevant.
(4) When considering a complaint referred to them under this section the Board may communicate with the author, editor, or publisher of the book or the particular edition of a book which is the subject of such complaint and may take into account any representation made in relation to such book or edition by the author, editor, or publisher thereof.
(5) The Board may at any time make to the Minister a report in respect of any book or any particular edition of a book although no complaint in regard to such book or edition has been referred to them by the Minister, and in considering the making of a report under this sub-section in respect of a book or particular edition of a book the Board may have regard to the like matters and communicate with the like persons in relation to such book or edition as they are by this section authorised to have regard to or to communicate with when considering a complaint referred to them under this section.
(6) Whenever the Board under this section makes a report, assented to and signed by at least seven members of the Board, stating that in the opinion of the Board the book or the particular edition of a book which is the subject of such report is in its general tendency indecent or obscene and should for that reason be prohibited or that in the opinion of the Board such book or edition advocates the unnatural prevention of conception or the procurement of abortion or miscarriage or the use of any method, treatment or appliance for the purpose of such prevention or such miscarriage and should for that reason be prohibited, the Minister may by order (in this Act referred to as a prohibition order) prohibit the sale and distribution in Saorstát Eireann of such book or of such edition of a book.
(7) A prohibition order made under this section in relation to a book shall, unless it is limited to one or more particular editions of such book, apply to every edition of such book whether published before or after the date of such order save such (if any) editions thereof as may be excluded by an amending order from the application of such prohibition order.
I move amendment 14:—
Section 6, sub-section (3). After the word "importance," in line 65, to insert the words, "and the general tenour."
My desire is that these words should be inserted after the word "importance" so that the sub-section would read: "The literary, artistic, scientific or historic merit or importance and the general tenour of the book," and so on. This amendment is intended to meet objections from two sides, the one which takes the view, which is quite a sound view, that a book may have literary merit and even scientific or historic merit, and from some aspects artistic merit, and yet that its general tenour may be unclean. I desire that the Board should have regard to the general tenour notwithstanding or in addition to the literary, artistic, scientific or historic merit. On the other side, I desire that they should have regard to the general tenour rather than to take a selected passage or occasional passages which may, if abstracted from a book, have a greater sense of indelicacy, indecency, obscenity or uncleanness. I think it is wrong and undesirable that objection should be made to a book because of selected passages if the general tenour is acceptable and, shall I say, decent. Therefore I urge that the words, "and the general tenour," should be inserted as one of the factors that the Board should have regard to when considering a complaint.
Is not the point of view that Senator Johnson wishes to meet covered by paragraph (e), which says, "any other matter relating to such book or edition which appears to the Board to be relevant"? Of course it may be that that paragraph does not cover the point that the Senator wishes to meet.
I have no great objection to the insertion of this amendment, but I do not think it is strictly necessary, because what the Board may do is this: they are to consider if a book is indecent or if a book is not indecent. I think the Senator's amendment is really inherent in the section, but if he wishes to have it put more explicitly in the Bill I can see no objection to it.
I am glad that the Minister has taken the view that he has of this amendment. But I would point out to him that the Board would probably not be a board of lawyers; and that particular legal definitions on fine points as to what is allowable and what is not allowable, and legal interpretations, may not be apparent to a non-lawyer. I think it is desirable that the intention of the Oireachtas at least should be conveyed as clearly as possible to the Board.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 15:
Section 6, sub-section (4). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) No book shall be condemned for any reasons other than those forming the subject of the complaint made under sub-section (1) of this section."
This amendment standing in my name is prompted by the same arguments and reasons as those just advanced by Senator Johnson. Previously in this debate the Minister told us that in his opinion as a lawyer the whole of sub-section (3) of Section 6 was implicit in the Bill; that all those considerations are implicit in any examination of a book by the Board of Censors. Nevertheless, if the Seanad considers it desirable to embody those considerations in the Bill, I would ask the Seanad to consider it equally important on the same grounds to direct the attention of the Board to certain considerations which they should ignore. I can conceive a book where, apart from the Bill, the objections of the Censors may be mixed. There may be a book which quite rightly offends the Censors, on the grounds of doctrine or the grounds of politics, and with those objections are also mixed up matters of sex and indecency comprised in the Bill. I ask the Seanad to accept the view that there would be a great temptation to the Censors to allow considerations other than considerations of indecency to influence them. I know that you cannot penetrate into their thoughts and analyse specifically the motives by which they are actuated, but I would ask the House to regard it as a safeguard, not a legal safeguard, but as a practical human safeguard, to direct the Censors to have regard to no other considerations but those of the complaint itself— that a certain book is indecent. I may be unduly apprehensive—perhaps this is not as likely to happen now as later on—that this power of the Censors may be used for purposes other than those comprised within the Bill. I know one book by Aldous Huxley where sex and atheism are mixed up, and although I do not wish the Censors to condone or to accept atheism or views on free thought, I do say it would be wrong to condemn a book on those grounds. Further, I say it is against the intentions of the Oireachtas that considerations of that kind should influence the Censors. I ask the Seanad to place that definite fact on record by the amendment which I have moved.
I ask the House to reject this amendment. Senator Sir John Keane gave the key to his whole attitude towards this Bill in the few remarks which he has just made—that is that it is one of complete apprehension, that the Censors will not be honest men, that they will not be honourable men and that they will not carry out the work which this Bill imposes upon their shoulders. I cannot accept that view. To begin with, Senator Sir John Keane has completely ousted himself, since he is so fond of calling me a lawyer, out of court. He states first of all that you will have a corrupt censorship. Otherwise his amendment has no meaning. Then he says that this corrupt Board of Censors will if bound by his formula be converted from being corrupt men into being honourable men under the Bill. That is a form of argument that I cannot follow. The Senator's amendment is entirely generated in a want of confidence in the Board. It is instigated by the belief that there will be Censors who will act corruptly. That is almost an insult to the Board of Censors to be appointed. Their duties are clearly laid down for them in the Bill. They are to censor one class of book and one class of book only. That is their duty as laid down clearly in the Bill for them and I suggest to the House that they want nothing more.
I must say that I do not understand the attitude of the Minister towards this amendment. As far as I can see it is not a question of corruptness that is involved in the matter at all. We all know how people are influenced out of their direct line by various strong feelings that they may have. A man may consider himself perfectly justified in taking certain action, but when his ideas are weighed carefully in the balance, it may be found that he has private views of his own that force him to take a certain line. We are not all logical machines working logically about everything. There are certain people who take certain views and who shut their eyes to other peoples' views instinctively without meaning it at all. A man may be the honestest man in the world, and yet he may shut his eyes to certain views put forward in support of a particular proposition. I do not feel very strongly about this matter, but I think it would be a good thing if some such amendment as the one proposed were inserted.
I propose to vote against the amendment. I do not think there was a great deal in what Senator Sir John Keane said, to the effect that he was unduly apprehensive about this Bill. He said he was afraid that a book, for instance, dealing with questions of doctrine might be condemned on that ground and that alone. If he has any such fears then that is a matter that could be easily settled on the Report Stage by the Senator putting down an amendment. I think it would be a very dangerous thing if we allowed an amendment to be inserted to the effect that the Censorship Board would have no power to prohibit a book because it dealt with doctrinal questions and also with sex matters in such a way as in the opinion of the Censors contravened the spirit and letter of the Act. Unfortunately there are many writers whose books make an appeal because of their veiled indecency. If a loophole were to be left for such writers by an amendment of this kind they would seek to get their books through by introducing into them some doctrinal questions. I think it would be extremely dangerous to adopt the view put forward by Senator Sir John Keane, because possibly it would nullify to a large extent the intentions of the Bill.
I rather agree with the views expressed by Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Moore, and for two reasons. My first reason is that the Minister might have adopted exactly the same attitude when we were altering the Bill under amendment 13 by changing the word "may" into "shall." There is another reason for my supporting the amendment. I do not think that Senator Sir John Keane thinks that these Censors are to be in any way dishonest men. I think that the Senator's amendment would be a definite protection for the Censors against undue influence which may be brought to bear on them in the future. For that reason I agree with his amendment.
Surely one is allowed to be unduly apprehensive of a Bill which, even in its present state, is rather sinister. There is no harm, I suggest, in focussing the attention of the Censors on the avowed purpose of the Bill. The only reflection I can see arising from it is that it shows the spirit from which this Bill sprung. I think that is enough to make anyone apprehensive. As I pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill, there is not a word in it about faith and morals, and now because that is supposed to be introduced we are to take alarm. As a matter of fact I do not think that there should be a Bill of this kind at all. It is simply super-imposing a worthy attempt to get rid of certain practices that are coming in here from England. We have had all this hullabaloo about sex. I think it is high time that the people of this country found some other way of loving God than by hating women.
It seems to me that this amendment is quite unnecessary to secure the end even that Senator Sir John Keane seeks for. Sub-section (1) provides that whenever a complaint is made under the Act the Minister may refer such complaint to the Board. The complaint has to deal with certain things, a certain character of writing. Sub-section (2) provides that the Board shall consider every complaint referred to them by the Minister, and the Board are to make through the Minister their report on such complaint. The complaint is confined to a certain class of writing. It seems to me that in every way the Board is bound only to consider the complaint. I think that the amendment is unnecessarily apprehensive of the scope of the Board's vision, and I do not think it is necessary at all.
I still repeat that I think it is a necessary precaution, if only as a precaution. It is really not a safeguard. I rather resent the epithets the Minister applies to my action, or rather, to the suggested action of the Board. Because a man feels very strongly on anything, doctrinal or other matters, he unconsciously allows that fact to influence him. I think it is straining language to call that corruption. I do not think it is corruption. I might impute, perhaps, excessive zeal or even prejudice. Corruption is a very strong word, and I would not for a moment impute it to any man acting in this way.
I would like to say in answer to Senator Colonel Moore and others that if person's minds are warped by prejudice so that they will condemn a book, then their minds will not be strengthened by this amendment.
Amendment put and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
I move amendment 16:—
Section 6, sub-section (4). After the word "may" in line 7, to insert in brackets the words "(and before reporting unfavourably shall)".
I hope that this amendment on the grounds of abstract justice will appeal both to the Minister and to the House. It is simply based on the unanswerable element in all law that no man shall be condemned without being heard. As the Bill stands a book can be condemned without giving the author, the publisher or the parties interested an opportunity of stating their case and of giving the reasons as to why it should not be condemned. I need hardly tell the House that a very considerable sum of money may have been spent by the author or publisher in producing this work with a perfectly honest intent. It may not perhaps be an altogether delectable work. It may have been written honestly and with no desire to pander to what is indecnt. It may be a work of great literary merit which perhaps one would not give to read to youth or to young, innocent persons. My amendment simply seeks to secure that before any book is condemned it shall be the duty of the Censors to hear the author and the publisher, who will be the parties principally affected, as to what they have to say. That is all it seeks. I do not suggest that the amendment is drafted in perhaps the best legal form, but if the principle of it is accepted the draftsman no doubt will look into that and put it into whatever form it requires.
This amendment touches on a subject with which I deal in a later amendment. I considered the possibility of putting down an amendment similar to that of Senator Sir John Keane, but I came to the conclusion it might prove impracticable as far as persons who are not citizens of the Saorstát are concerned. Further, it does not seem to me that an author resident in England or the United States, for instance, would suffer any material or financial damage by the fact of his book being censored in the Saorstát—I think in certain circumstances he may gain by the fact of his being censored—but I think that an Irish author who writes a book for the population of this country, and who is resident in the Saorstát, ought to have the right, if he asks it, to be heard before the Board of Censors, or, at any rate, that his representations should be taken into consideration when he makes them. I would suggest to the Minister that this matter should be very carefully considered and that he should not hastily reject Senator Sir John Keane's amendment, or my amendment which comes on later. I think these amendments ought to be considered, and that the rights of an Irish author should be protected. May I repeat that my main argument is, it does not matter much financially to an author resident outside the Saorstát if his book is censored, but it might be a serious matter for an Irish author, and for that reason he should have the chance of being heard?
There are two amendments before the House.
Cathaoirleach
We are dealing with only one of them now.
They are practically together and they can hardly be dealt with separately. Senator Douglas in his speech pointed out an obvious difficulty, which would make Senator Sir John Keane's amendment impossible, because suppose a book is published in America it will be practically impossible for a Board of Censors here to write to America to give an author or publisher the opportunity of coming over here. I do not think that would be a practicable thing. I am opposed to the principle of the amendment, because after all it is not what an author meant by a book, it is not what an author put into a book, it was not the intention which actuated the author when he was writing the book that counts. It is not the author who is put, so to speak, on trial, but it is the book which is put on trial.
It is not what the author meant to convey but what he did in fact convey, and the question for the Board of Censors will be, no matter what the intentions of the author are: Is that a book which ought or ought not to be circulated in this country? That is the one question, and the number of cases in which an author will come before the Board and give any assistance must be infinitesimal. The author might come before the Board and convey his views, but the author will not come before every reader of the book and explain to every reader what he meant to say and what his intentions were. What we want is to prevent books with an injurious tendency from circulating, and we are to judge whether they are injurious or not by the effect they will have on the reader, who will not get the benefit of the author's society or explanation while he is reading the book. The Board of Censors should look to it that the book shall not do moral injury to the reader.
There is an aspect of this question which the Minister has not touched upon. He has concentrated his attention on the author, presumably a living author. I can imagine a question arising of the editor or publisher of a book of a doubtful nature, written one hundred years ago, or any time in the past. The editor or publisher in this country might have doubts as to whether such a book should be published because of a precedent the Board may have formed in regard to books which may be condemned. It seems to be reasonable enough to provide that the publisher or editor of such a book may make a submission to the Board. Take a book that is already in circulation in other countries; an editor or publisher should be placed in the position to be able to submit that book to the Board, or to arrange for its submission to the Minister, to find out exactly the attitude towards that book rather than letting him go to the expense of putting it on the market and then finding out that it is condemned.
That is an aspect of the question which, as I have said, I think ought to be considered, that the editors and publishers of books in this country should have some safeguard of that kind, so that they would know if they did publish a book in its form as circulated in another country it would be condemned, but if what seemed to them certain immaterial chapters were cut out, then the book would be free to circulate. The Minister may answer that this is a matter of ordinary trade risk. In my opinion, it is an additional trade risk and it would militate against the publishing industry and against enterprise in this country. Certainly for a considerable time until publishers become aware of the kind of book that is going to be brought under condemnation they will be doubtful and hesitant about publishing even classical works which to some minds are obscene and indecent. I think, therefore, that something in the nature of the right of appearance in respect of a projected publication might be provided in the Bill.
Cathaoirleach
We are only dealing with published works.
In the case of a published work the publisher has already gone to the expense of printing and publishing the work. A work published in New York, Paris, or London, and which is in circulation in this country, may come under the condemnation of the Board, but in the mind of an Irish publisher that book, after certain excisions, will be a valuable one, and might well be published, but a publisher would not publish it without some assurance that the book would not be condemned after it has been excised.
Cathaoirleach
I submit that the Bill does not propose to deal with editing at all.
I am not under any illusions about the Bill and the question of editing. It proposes to condemn certain books. I want to prevent the condemning, if possible, of books that ought not to be condemned. The word "editing" is brought in because it is in the Bill. The Bill proposes when considering a complaint referred to them that the Board may communicate with the author, editor or publisher of the book under certain circumstances. I want the Board to be required to communicate with the editor of a certain book in certain circumstances. Surely that is in order. The case I make is that a publisher may have access to the Board in regard to a revised publication of a book which has been the subject of condemnation as published in another country. It may be a classical work, or a work of good repute in other countries, but it would be allowed to be published if undesirable passages or chapters were deleted. I think there should be some means of finding out what the mind of the Board would be in such a case provided for in the Bill.
If the Minister holds that view why is it in the section at all? Why give permissive power to call an editor or an author if what the author or editor has to say has nothing to do with the case, and the Board are the sole and only competent judges of the book? Surely, there are arguments that an author might make that would influence the Board? An author might say there is strict censorship in Canada and the Board there had allowed the book to circulate; that there is a very strict censorship in Boston and the book is allowed to circulate in Boston. It is unlikely that the Board would have that knowledge unless it was brought to their notice by the editor. I think if you give permissive powers in certain cases you should give an absolute direction in cases where the Board intend to condemn, but I hope the House will consider this on its principle and not on the practical difficulties. I admit that in the case of American publications there may be difficulties, but can you not legislate with regard to books published in England, Ireland or the Continent and limit the difficulties of time and space? I think enough has been said from all quarters of the House to convince the Minister that we ought not to take an absolutely non-possumus attitude on this amendment, and that he should allow of the possibility of some agreed amendment being brought up on the Report Stage. I cannot agree with Senator Douglas that the commercial value of any work in this country would be negligible, although in that view he is in the company of George Bernard Shaw, who places no value on restrictions on literary output in this country.
There should be some means of consulting the Board and ascertaining what their attitude is likely to be in regard to the issue of a certain publication. It may not be generally known that there is a good deal of overflow printing work coming from the English publishers to the Dublin printing trade. I am not sure that the publishing firms will suffer if there is no means of ascertaining the attitude of the Censors, but it is conceivable that the printing trade here will suffer so far as over-seas work is affected.
I think Senator Johnson's or Senator Gogarty's speeches are not quite relevant to the Bill. We are now dealing with the section where the Board shall have access to and communication with certain people. I think the point of Senator Johnson and of Senator Gogarty is that certain people shall have access to the Board. I think that is quite a different matter, and it does not arise. With regard to the point raised by Senator Sir John Keane, I think so far as the necessity for communication is concerned it is fully provided for in the section as it stands, but to make it mandatory to so communicate will, I think, place upon the Board tasks which on occasions are utterly unnecessary. If the words suggested by Senator Sir John Keane are included, then no matter how flagrant the offence of a book may be under the section the author or other persons responsible would have to be communicated with. As the Bill stands, if the publication is such as to warrant a communication, there is a provision for that, but according to the amendment it would be the duty of the Board to communicate under all circumstances, even no matter how flagrant or objectionable a book may be.
I did not follow Senator Johnson at all. Usually he is logical, but he seems to have become illogical on this amendment. What Senator Johnson wants is that the author or editor of a book not yet published should have the right to communicate with the Board regarding the book. That is a different proposition to the amendment which is before the House. Suppose you change the word "may" into "shall" it would not deal with future books any more than at present. I apprehend that if an advance copy of the book was sent to the Board of Censors by an author or publisher the Board would probably glance through it to see if there was anything in it to which objection might be taken. I do not think it should be made obligatory upon them to do so. If a man was doubtful regarding a book which he intended to publish he could send it to the Board of Censors. A book must be judged objectively. The views of the author have nothing to do with the book. There may be occasions, but I do not think there will be a very large number, in which the Board might think they could get some assistance from the author. I would leave them the power to get that, but to say that in every case they should have a long correspondence with authors would be, I think, completely wrong.
As there are certain difficulties, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I intend to bring it up in a revised form on the Report Stage.
Amendment 17, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
Section 6, sub-section (5). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) If the author, editor or publisher of a book which is the subject of a complaint under this section is ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann the Board shall, if so requested by him, permit him to appear before the Board in person."
I ask the House to pass the amendment. I would like to point out that it is quite different in effect to that which has been withdrawn. Dealing with the other amendment, I pointed out some difficulties. I suggest the difficulties in this case are not the same. In the first place, my amendment only provides that if an author who is resident in Saorstát Eireann so requests he shall be heard. I am not putting an obligation on the Board in every single case to send to the author. I suggest to the Minister that it is not the object of the amendment to in any way thwart the Board in their action, or to suggest that the author could influence them unduly in their decision with regard to a book, but I feel that if this Board are to function satisfactorily there will have to be general confidence. I seriously suggest an Irish author should be allowed to have his say if he requests, and there would be much less discontent, and confidence would be created and no harm would be done. I press the House to accept this amendment, unless the Minister is prepared to consider it and let it come up again on Report. I agree absolutely with the Minister when he says the author's intentions make no difference, and that it is the book itself that will influence the Board, and it is the only thing which can be finally considered. There may be cases where the Board might send for the author, editor or publisher to give him the opportunity of expressing his views. All I ask is that that always shall be the case if the author is a citizen of the Free State and he asks for it.
It seems to me that this is a reasonable amendment. There are many things besides the actual moral tone of a book that the Board is asked to take into consideration. They are asked to take into consideration, among other things, the language in which a book is printed, the nature and extent of the circulation which in the opinion of the Board such book is intended to have, the class of reader in Saorstát Eireann which in the opinion of the Board may reasonably be expected to read such book or books, and any other matter relating to such book or edition which appears to the Board to be relevant. On these matters the Board might consider they require no evidence or information whilst the author, editor or publisher might have in his possession information which would help the Board to a decision, and perhaps to a different decision to that at which they might otherwise arrive. In these circumstances I think it is only reasonable if an application is made for an interview that it should be granted.
Circumstances may arise under which neither the editor, publisher nor author may know the fact that a book is before the Board, and he may not be able to avail of the opportunity of looking for an interview, but where he does know and asks for a hearing it must be assumed he has some reasons to advance in support of his point of view. In the majority of cases that might have little influence with the Board. I think that an author, editor or publisher resident in the Saorstát should have the right to a hearing by the Board. The charge is of a criminal character. The charge that a person has circulated literature detrimental to public morals is as serious a charge as can be made against him, either morally or socially, and I think that in order to meet that charge he should have the right to appear before the Board.
I support the amendment. The Censors according to the Bill would sit in camera and their views would be expressed in camera. The only way to bring them into the light is through the challenge of the author. I do not agree with Senator Douglas that authors would not come over from England or America if their works were challenged, as with the modern means of travel we are not so far away from these countries. I am in favour of the amendment because I think it would help to break the secrecy of the Board.
As the matter stands an author, editor or publisher brought before the Board of Censors would be in the position of an accused person brought into court and having his case tried without witnesses and without counsel. The position is that the Censors would be allowed to decide merely on what they see without argument. I think the amendment ought to be supported.
According to the section as it stands, the Censors may, if they so desire, call before them for the purpose of information an author or editor of a work, but there are other circumstances in which you are going to compel the Board of Censors to call before them the author, editor or publisher concerned. The works of some of the Irish authors are in some instances the most filthy things ever published. If the works of James Joyce were challenged, should he have the right to demand to go before the Board of Censors? I am not going by my vote to say that any person, no matter how filthy his works may be, shall have the right to say to the Board of Censors: "You must hear me"; for some of these publications condemn themselves, and there is no necessity to give the authors the right to demand an audience. The section is liberal. It says the Board of Censors may bring before them for certain purposes an author or editor of certain publications. If we leave the section as it is it meets the requirements fairly well.
It seems to me the amendment is quite unnecessary. There is nothing to prevent any author whose book is under consideration writing to the Board and making representations to them and asking to be heard. As far as I see the section as it stands gives the Board that power.
If the Board having received a request from an author to hear him decided not to hear him, and take up that line of hostility, I do not think if he forced his way into the room that he would be likely to talk them over. For that reason I do think necessary power is given to the Board by this section, and that the right an author might well claim is also given.
I am sorry to have to differ with Senator Colonel Moore on this amendment. I ask the Seanad to consider how the amendment proposed by Senator Douglas would work. A complaint in reference to a book is sent into the Board of Censors and if the amendment is adopted a notification of that complaint must be sent in.
Cathaoirleach
If the author requests a hearing.
"If the author, editor or publisher of a book which is the subject of a complaint under this section is ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann the Board shall, if so requested by him, permit him to appear before the Board in person." That means a State trial in the case of every adjudication by the Board upon a book which is of a doubtful description, and what is likely to follow is this, that the Board will expose themselves to a campaign of calumny by an author who thinks that his book ought not to be suppressed. I think it would place the Board in a most difficult position, and would seriously hamper them in arriving at a fair and courageous decision in reference to the book. For that reason I think it should be left discretionary with the Board whether or not they should send for the author or publisher.
Mention was made of a living author, one of whose books is taboo. If we allow the section to stand as it is, if some of the writers of the ancient classics were alive today their books would be condemned, and they could not be heard in their own defence. I think that by allowing the author, publisher or editor the right to appear before this body you will make it careful of the action it will take, and for that reason I am in favour of the amendment.
I totally disagree with what Senator Comyn has said. He thinks that for the Board to sit in secret, without giving the right to an Irish author to be heard, you will get a better and a fairer judgment on a book. I think it is very doubtful if that ever occurs in any matter, and I do not believe for a moment that it will be the case here. He thinks that the Board will be subject to calumny by the author because they heard him and rejected him.
Because he has heard them.
I do not think there is anything whatever in my amendment to suggest that they should give him their opinions, nor do I think that any board would allow an author to sit in their presence when they were discussing his book. There is nothing whatever of the kind in the amendment. I suggest that there would be far more danger of calumny in the case of an author who feels that he cannot be heard than in the case of one who has been heard. My principal reason for urging this on the House is that there are, I think wrongly, I think with undue apprehension, quite genuinely a number of Irish authors who are afraid of this Bill. I think you will help to remove that fear in the case of the author who is resident here—I do not think the author mentioned by Senator Farren is— and I think this is a resonable thing for an Irish legislature to give to Irish authors.
What is proposed here is to put a resident of the Free State who is an editor, a publisher or an author in a privileged position. Now, wrong is wrong, whether the wrong is done by a resident of the Irish Free State, or by a resident of any other country. A resident of the Free State is not a better man than a resident in any other country, and a book which is pornographic in its nature is equally pornographic whether it is written, published or edited by a resident in the Free State or by a resident in any other country. If there are penalties to be imposed they should be imposed upon a citizen of the Free State equally with a citizen of any other country. I do not see any point, good, bad or indifferent, in putting residents of the Free State in a privileged position. In regard to the working of this matter. Senator Comyn made reference to the fact that in case of complaint the Board should necessarily advise publishers or authors that there was a complaint lodged in respect of their work. If the scheme of things enunciated in Senator Douglas's amendment is to work out fairly, of course there must be notification to all Irish authors or publishers of books that are the subject of any complaint. Otherwise, what would you have? You would have an appeal made by a resident in the Free State, whether he was an author or a publisher, in respect of work in regard to which he happened to learn that a complaint was lodged, and those who were not aware that any complaint was lodged could make no such application as that suggested. If the thing were to work out equally and fairly the natural thing to do would be that immediately a complaint is lodged in respect of any production by an author or publisher it should be notified to the author or publisher. That would be taking on a work which should not be taken on by the Board, and it is a thing that we should not ask the Board to do. Wrong is wrong, and there should be no privilege for a citizen of the Free State any more than for others. In fact, I think it should be the other way—that if we impose penalties we should possibly be more inclined to impose penalties on our own people than on others.
As far as Senator Colonel Moore's point is concerned, the book itself is counsel for the prosecution, counsel for the defence, witness for the prosecution, and witness for the defence. It is what is within the two covers of the book that has to get it condemned.
Might I ask the Minister whether he considers the book a witness under Section 6 (3) (a)?
That is a matter of opinion.
"The literary, artistic, scientific or historic merit." Is not all that contained in the book?
That is a matter of opinion.
Yes, but everything is a matter of opinion when considering whether a book is decent or indecent. Whether the author thinks it decent or indecent is a matter of opinion. You judge the book as it is. Senator O'Farrell says that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3 are matters upon which the author could give help—
—as to the nature and extent of the circulation, and "the class of reader in Saorstát Eireann which, in the opinion of the Board, may reasonably be expected to read such book or edition." It might be possible that on certain occasions the publisher, if he has had experience in the selling of books, might be able to say what class of persons do in fact buy these books, what class booksellers will sell them to, etc. There may be just a few cases like that. These are the cases in which the Board would ask the views of an ordinary bookseller. The author or editor would not know that. I suppose as a rule most literary men are not very humble; they have a good opinion of themselves and a very high opinion of their literary children, and if an author were to go before the Board and explain what magnificent literary, artistic or historic merit his book has, or things of that nature, and if the Board had to sit down for an hour or two or three while he gesticulated, expostulated and told them about the magnificent merits of his book, they would have a very unpleasant time.
Surely there would be some right to limit his time.
I do not know that they would have any power to do so. I know, and I dare say Senator Colonel Moore knows, authors who can expound at great length on the merits of their works. In fact, I think everybody in the House knows authors who can tell of the great literary merits of their works, and I think the Board would be very unhappy people if authors had the right to go before them.
Arising out of Senator O'Hanlon's remarks, there is a very important point involved which I do not think that either House has yet fully regarded, that is, whether the publisher or the publishing trade should not be immediately informed when a complaint is lodged. The bookseller goes on in perfect innocence importing books and increasing his stock while the complaint is pending. He probably will not have any indication of the Minister's attitude. I intend to put down an amendment for the Report Stage to ensure that the publishing trade will be informed when a complaint is made so that they can take precautions and save themselves the heavy losses that would be involved by getting in supplies of a book which might be prohibited.
That is one of the matters which I had intended putting in the rules. I thought it was a matter rather more suited to the rules than to the Bill itself. There will have to be a code of rules drawn up, but if the Senator would like to see it in the Bill I would accept an amendment to that effect.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 14. Níl, 24.
Tá
- John Bagwell.
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- The Countess of Desart.
- James G. Douglas.
- Thomas Foran.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Colonel Moore.
- James Moran.
- John T. O'Farrell.
Níl
- William Barrington.
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Joseph Connolly.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- James Dillon.
- J.C. Dowdall.
- Michael Fanning.
- Thomas Farren.
- P.J. Hooper.
- Patrick W. Kenny.
- Thomas Linehan.
- Seán E. MacEllin.
- The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
- James MacKean.
- Seán Milroy.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- M.F. O'Hanlon.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Séumas Robinson.
- Thomas Toal.
- Richard Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.
My amendment reads: "Section 6, sub-section (6). To delete line 23 and to substitute therefor the words ‘not dissented from by more than two members of the Board.'"
Before moving it I must ask permission to make an alteration in it consequent on the decision of the House to reduce the Censorship Board from nine to five.
Cathaoirleach
I am sure the House will not gainsay that. It is consequential.
As Senators are aware, when the Bill was introduced into the Dáil the Censorship Board was intended to consist of five members. The Dáil raised it to nine, but the Seanad has now reduced it to five. It was on the assumption that the Board would remain of nine members that I put down the amendment. With the Board consisting of five members it was provided in the Bill originally that in order that a recommendation to have a book prohibited should be effective, four of the five members should favour the recommendation. There is an amendment in the name of Senator O'Hanlon which would have the same effect, another in the name of Senator Dowdall which would make three an effective majority, and Senator MacKean has down an amendment that a bare majority would be sufficient, his amendment really having the same effect as Senator Dowdall's. Now the position is that if there is a full Board of five, one of whom is against prohibition, it will suffice if the other four are for prohibition. But if only four members of the Board are present it is essential that the four should be unanimous. I wish to change that. The effect of my amendment would be that if five are present, four should still be an effective majority. I also wish to have it so that when only four are present three should be an effective majority, that unanimity amongst the four should not be required. In a sense my amendment really comes somewhere between Senator O'Hanlon's majority of four and Senator MacKean's bare majority. I do not think there is any necessity for me to elaborate it.
There is one objection that may be raised, and it would be well perhaps if I dealt with it now. According to my amendment, there must be more than one member of the Board dissenting from a recommendation to prohibit a book before that recommendation is nullified.
It is conceivable that if only three members of the Board were present two might vote for prohibition and one against. I can see that there would be a serious objection to that, because two would be a minority of the whole Board, and it might well be complained that any book should not be prohibited on the vote of a minority of the whole Board. In such circumstances, it would appear to me that the Minister would not accept any such recommendation. I have another amendment down which would give the Minister power to refer back the report or recommendation for further consideration. I think that would be sufficient to meet the objection which I can anticipate, but if not it would be possible to add to my amendment other words which would make the minimum number in favour of a recommendation three.
Cathaoirleach
Your amendment is to delete in lines 58-59 the words "assented to and signed by at least seven members of the Board" and to substitute therefor the words "not dissented from by more than one member of the Board."
Of the Board—that is, whether present or not. Some of the amendments use the word "present."
Is there a quorum stated at all, now that we have reduced the number to five?
In view of Senator Hooper's amendment, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment, if I have the permission of the House. It seems to me that some Senators are thinking in terms of a quorum being present. I do not think that we should in any way limit the machinery or procedure of this Board. I take it that each member of the Board that adjudicates on a book must read it. In certain cases there may be absolute unanimity expressed either in favour or in condemnation of the book, or in case of divergence of view it would probably be necessary for the Board to come together and discuss the points at issue between them. But, when reference is made to two out of three being present, I think there is rather confusion of thought with regard to the proper functions of this body. The words in the section seem admirably to meet the situation. "Whenever the Board under this section makes a report, assented to and signed by," that can simply be signified by post. I am prepared to accept Senator Hooper's amendment, but I do not think we should consider a quorum, as we consider a quorum here—that persons must be present. It may be, and probably will be necessary in some cases, but I am quite certain that the books that will be condemned will be of such a nature as to leave no doubt in the minds of reasonable persons. I presume that this Board will be a body of reasonable men, and that their decisions will be to all intents and purposes practically unanimous. Of course they may not be from time to time, but I do not think it will be the case, and it may not be necessary to consider the question of a quorum and sitting together.
Cathaoirleach
The section as it stands must be amended, because it is obviously wrong now. Perhaps we could arrive at some form agreeable to the House, as that would obviate taking the amendments separately. We might get something agreed to in general to put before the House.
Perhaps I might make a suggestion. I would be willing to meet Senator Hooper and Senator Dowdall to this extent: if the amendment was to this effect —"not dissented from by more than one member of the Board, and assented to by at least three members of the Board."
I disagree with this amendment, and I also disagree with the suggestion made by the Minister. This amendment, and the suggestion made by the Minister, seem to confer, in fact, upon a minority of the Board power to override and overrule the well-thought-out opinion of the majority. It is, therefore, objectionable on that ground. When the Minister is forming this Board I am sure he will get people competent to judge the matters which they will have to deal with, people who are engaged in various occupations in the Saorstát, persons of balance and calm temperament, who will decide each issue according to its merits, who will not take such a stringent view of their duties as censors as will in any way injure an author or publisher by condemning a book which ought not to be condemned. On this Board also will be people who can realise the evil and suggestive effect that bad literature has on young minds. Supposing you had such a Board, the personnel of which would command respect, I do not see how such a fantastic arrangement as is suggested in Senator Hooper's amendment could be reasonably carried out. In the first place, if majority opinion does not prevail on the Board it will create a want of harmony; it will hold up the work and delay decisions. It would be contrary to majority rule, and majority rule obtains in every well-ordered and constitutionally formed body. In the Seanad majority opinion carries the day. It is the same in the Dáil, and the same amongst judges and with every similarly constituted assembly. If the persons to act on the Board are selected haphazard, and if they have not the proper qualifications, then the precautions which Senator Hooper and the Minister desire to include might be desirable. This amendment also panders sedulously to the idea that majorities cannot do wrong. For these reasons I intend to vote against the suggested amendment.
There is a great deal in what Senator MacKean said. Majorities do decide the most vital questions in the State. I suppose soon we will have majorities deciding questions of life and death. I am in favour of the amendment proposed by Senator Hooper, with the change suggested by the Minister, for this reason: This is a new type of legislation, and I think it is desirable that we should be as gentle—I will not say as tender—as possible with authors until we see how they will behave. When you pass this Bill you have not deprived yourself of all power to amend it. If the section, as proposed by Senator Hooper, does not work it is quite competent for the Seanad and the Dáil to pass a short Bill to provide for a bare majority. Therefore, I think that when we are beginning with a particular kind of legislation we should be particularly careful, and for that reason I think Senator Hooper's amendment is preferable.
The fact that the Board is to consist of five now and not nine as was in the original Bill which came from the Dáil, is of considerable importance when discussing this question. I am one who voted for the smaller Board, because I believed, taking perhaps the advice of the Minister in the matter, that it would be easier to obtain a Board capable of giving close attention to business and with the temperament required of five rather than of nine. I can conceive it as almost certain that a Board of five would be regularly present at the meetings, and would be active members of the Board, giving full and careful consideration to any complaints that might be referred to them. I am quite sure that the intention is that the Board should be of that character, each member of which, as referred to by Senator MacKean, will have a well balanced, calm temperament, and judicial mind, with full regard to all the consequences of the prohibition of a book. But all these factors seem to me to tend even to the point of requiring unanimity before condemnation takes place. Certainly the logic of the case seems to me, from my point of view, to point to this, that if one out of five specially chosen men, chosen because of their capacity for judging this kind of matter is not satisfied that the book is obscene, that is sufficient warrant for the book having freedom of circulation. Otherwise the selection of men of this particular character seems to me to be unnecessary. If you are going to have a jury of ordinary citizens, then you might talk about majorities on such a matter of opinion as this, because after all, this is a matter of opinion; they are forming their judgments as to what is the character of a book and its effect on the mind of a reader.
When you have made a careful selection it would seem to me to be reasonable to say that the Board should be unanimous in its judgment. But as is pointed out, you may have one of the Board inclined to be cranky in particular things. I recognise that possibility, and therefore I would concede the point that a minority of one ought not to annul the decision of a Board of four or five.
But I think when one speaks of a Board of four acting, one formally dissenting, not taking any notice at all, not expressing an opinion, you are nullifying the whole project. To my mind, if anything of that nature occurs, when the Report Stage comes I shall vote in favour of a larger Board. Coming down to five deliberately conceived as a method of making a practical working, hard thinking Board, constantly on the job, and in the way contemplated, the possibility of one of the five not going to say yea or nay is quite unreasonable, to my mind, and I hope the Seanad will not agree with this amendment.
I think the effect of this amendment has not been grasped by the House judging by the speeches of Senator Comyn and Senator MacKean. I think it is only fair that the House should understand what the effect is. It is now "not dissented from by more than one.""More than one" means two. There would have to be at least two dissenting. Three would have to assent. If there was a meeting consisting of three, and if only three expressed their views, they would have to be unanimous. If four expressed their views, three would still carry the day. If five expressed their views, three would not carry the day. I hope that is clear—that if the whole five met three would not be sufficient, but if four met three would be sufficient.
Would the Minister tell us what the effect of the amendment would be?
Well, your suggested alteration.
The original scheme of the Bill was that there should be four out of five before a book was condemned. That was how the Bill was introduced to the Dáil. As this amendment stands, it would mean that if there were five persons present, and if three voted for condenmation, two are more than one, so that if two voted against it the book would not be condemned.
Is this on the basis of meetings with persons present?
No, sending in their views. Whether they are present or not I do not think affects it in the slightest. Supposing only four expressed their views, there would have to be three out of the four for condemnation. If only three expressed their views they would have to be unanimous. That is the effect of the amendment.
This amendment raises what I consider to be the most important matter in this Bill. I am utterly against any amendment which would have the effect of condemning a book unless four out of five members of the Board, whether present or not, sign the report condemning the book. Senator MacKean suggested that very important questions are settled by majorities. That is true. But what sort of questions are settled by majorities, and how are they settled? The majority in a court of justice decides how a case is to be determined. Majorities in the Houses of Parliament do the same, but it is after open debate in both cases, where reasons are given in public which are reported to the public. The proceedings of this Board of Censors are not open to the public. As it stands the Board is not even open to the arguments of the author, the publisher or the editor. It is done behind backs, and therefore no majority as small as three out of five ought to decide a question of the kind.
I wish to speak against the amendment in the form in which it is on the Order Paper, and also against any amendment of it. The position has become a rather difficult one to speak to in spite of the explanations that we have heard, because the ground has changed so often. I wish to associate myself with the views expressed by Senator Brown. I am against any amendment which will render it possible for any book to be condemned by less than four people. When this Bill left the other House it required seven out of nine to condemn a book. That has now become four out of five, and now it is proposed that it should be three out of five.
Cathaoirleach
No, that is not proposed.
It may be three out of five.
Three out of four and four out of five.
Cathaoirleach
It seems to me that the only difference between this amendment and the Bill as originally introduced is that the Bill insisted on four out of five, but my amendment also provides for three out of four, that when four express their view on a book a majority of three would be sufficient.
I was opposed to the amendment which brought down the number, and I am opposed to any further reduction which would permit of a smaller number of people condemning a book, because I think we are more and more lessening the chance of what is very desirable—that is, a reasonable measure of public opinion on the Board that will prevent books from being unnecessarily condemned. I know quite well that one liberal-minded censor, from the point of view of meeting my fears, would be much better than, shall I say, nine illiberal and narrow-minded censors, I think in this case there is safety in numbers and I am against any reduction. I frankly anticipate cranks on a Board of this kind, for the reason that I think any man who would volunteer to lay down what his fellow-man shall not read tends to be, if not a crank, at all events a very superior person which, to my mind, is almost worse. I am against an amendment which seeks to reduce the number of censors required for condemnation of a book.
It seems to me that the amendment goes a little further than the explanation given by the Minister, because it somewhat changes the method. The Bill provides that the report shall be assented to by a specified number and be signed by that number. As introduced, I think the number was four.
The position was that it should be assented to by four out of five. When it came to us it was to be assented to by seven. Now it provides for dissenting—that if not more than one shall dissent. I do not think the way to get a report is by saying so many dissented, but by a definite number of persons stating bluntly, "This is pornographic." I do not believe that in the majority of cases there would be any difference of opinion between members of the Board as to what is indecent, but it is in the few cases which might be called border line ones that the difficulty may arise and that the question of numbers will matter. In that case I do not think a book should be censored unless four members are prepared to say to the Minister, "We are of opinion that this book is indecent." Apart from the number, it seems to me that the principle in the amendment is wrong. It should be so many assenting when they had examined the book and believed it to be indecent within the meaning of the Act.
There is one point I am not clear on. Senator Johnson spoke about someone not dissenting —offering no opinion—thereby proclaiming himself more or less unfitted for the task entrusted to him as a censor.
What I want to know is: are we to assume that every one of the five will read every publication, or that in some cases there might be a certain publication assigned to a certain number of the Board—say four—to read, the other member of the Board being engaged on some other work. If that is the arrangement naturally the person who has not undertaken a scrutiny of the publication could not express an opinion. I suggest that that might be a possible explanation of the non-dissenter on the Board. I think it would help us in arriving at an intelligent decision in this matter if we had some indication as to what would be the operation of the judgment of the Board, whether it would have to be an operation of the judgment of every single member of the Board, whether they might act in certain cases with a lesser number—I do not speak in the sense of a quorum but that a judgment on a publication might be registered by a lesser number—or whether the full Board would have to sit in judgment. I cannot conceive a censor who had read any publication refraining from offering an opinion one way or another. But I think if it is to be assumed that in certain circumstances that no opinion shall emanate from a censor, then the Board could act in the way I suggest. I should like to have that point cleared up. It has a very important bearing on the question of the number to constitute a conclusive judgement.
The matter Senator Milroy has spoken about has been troubling me. Anybody who reads Section 5 would consider that the members of the Board had to attend meetings and give their views after having read the book. From what we learned from the discussion it is apparent that the book might be read at home by the members, who would write decisions without debating at all. I heard no definite statement as to whether the meetings of the Board described in Section 5 are to be meetings which must be held to arrive at a decision. If a meeting is to be held it is quite possible to conceive an occasion on which a member of the Board would not be present. Then all the discussion we have heard as to four and three would be relevant. But if a decision can be given by a member who has read a book, who is not present at a meeting but gives his decision in writing and signs the report, it is impossible to think that the Minister would sanction the act of the Board, one of whom did not take the trouble to attend the meeting and give his decision. I think the Minister would insist on the whole five giving a decision. As long as they keep their appointments as censors they must be prepared to do their duty as censors and give decisions. I cannot see that anyone in the Minister's place would allow members of the Board not to give an opinion about a book that was sent to them for censorship.
I submit that all the discussion we have had in regard to the two principles involved is quite relevant. I hold that if any censor were to take that line of action that he would be unfit for the position. We have had no definite statement in regard to Section 5 as to whether these decisions are to be arrived at at meetings at which the members of the Board must be present or whether they are to be arrived at by different members of the Board sending in their opinions in writing and having rulings upon these. I think we ought to have a definite statement as to whether decisions are to be given in writing without requiring the personal attendance of members of the Board at meetings. If meetings of members of the Board are to be held, then I think it will be necessary to alter Section 5, sub-section (3), which states that: "The Board may act notwithstanding one or two (but not more than two) vacancies in their membership." I have not heard that that section has so far been altered.
I think it has been agreed that it will be altered.
Senators can see for themselves that it does make a great difference unless it is altered. Until we have a ruling in regard to the alteration of that section I think that we are talking rather widely as to the number of decisions that should be sent in, whether it should be one or two. Until the House has come to a decision on the two points that have been raised, the first as to whether the members of the Board are to be present at meetings, and secondly, as to how Section 5 is to be altered, I do not think it will be possible for us to come to a decision on this amendment.
Perhaps I may be able to explain the position to Senator Jameson. As regards Section 5, sub-section (3), that the Board may act notwithstanding one or two vacancies in their membership—owing to the reduced number —I take it that the Senator would agree to what was originally in the Bill. With regard to the other part of the section—that is, as to the decision of the Board, Senator Jameson suggests that a member would be perfectly unsuited to his position if being sent a book he refused to express any opinion on it. I completely agree with the Senator in that. If a person gets a book and does not act as a Censor then I take it that it will be the duty of whoever is Minister for Justice to remove him from his position. But a man, through no fault of his own, because of incapacity of one kind or another, or of illness may not be able to act for some time. A man may be ill for two or three months. That is the only reason that I see which appears to me—that a man may not be able to act because of illness or incapacity of some other kind. I think that, if anything, this suggested amendment is slightly better than our own original proposal, though one is always wedded to one's original views. My own original view was in favour of four out of five. Taking into consideration that there might be two members ill at the time, I think that possibly this may work out in practice better, and that is my sole reason for supporting it. It is not because members of the Board may refuse to act, or anything of that kind, but solely because I think they may be prevented from acting through illness or incapacity of some kind—two or three members of the Board, for instance, might be down together with a severe attack of influenza, and might be unable to act for a considerable time—that I prefer this method. Otherwise, I would prefer the method of four out of five. As far as I can see, Senators may take it that there will be meetings of the Board, and I take it that at these meetings of the Board decisions must be come to. But I do not see any reason on earth why a member of the Board should not send in his views upon a book if he has read it through, and if all the other members of the Board agree with him why he should not send in his views to the Board, and why the Board should not take that into consideration. I think that he might even sign the report afterwards if it were sent to him. I think he might sign it, as it were, by way of proxy vote. That is what that method of voting is called at company meetings. Votes are given in that way at business meetings. I think that a member of the Board might give expression to his views in that way, though not actually and physically present at whatever discussions may have taken place at a meeting of the Board. But I do not think that that is a procedure which should be very much encouraged. It is a procedure that, I think, should not be used at all in the case of a difficult book—in what one might call a doubtful case. I think that if there is a doubtful case all the members of the Board should be there for the purpose of having it fully thrashed out. That is how I apprehend the Bill will work.
Might I ask that the addition suggested by the Minister to Senator Hooper's amendment should be read out.
What I suggested adding to what Senator Hooper and Senator O'Hanlon had to say was the following: "Not dissented from by more than one but assented to by at least three members of the Board."
Cathaoirleach
I would like to know from Senator Hooper if he would be agreeable to accept the amendment to his amendment suggested by the Minister.
That does not remove my objection at all.
Might I point out that in certain cases the effect of that would be a bare majority.
What it will mean is this, that if five members of the Board act there must be four in favour of prohibition and that if four act three must be in favour of prohibition and that there can never be less than three.
I want to try and get clear what is intended by this amendment. I suggest that a lot depends on what is meant by the word "acting." A person may be ill and yet quite well enough to be able to read a book through. He may dissent from a prohibition order. Everything, I suggest, depends on what exactly is meant by the word "acting." It might mean a bare majority, because two of the members might be quite well able to read the book in their own homes, but they may not be well enough to attend the meeting of the Board.
As the Bill stands at present there is no necessity for a meeting of the Board at all and therefore no necessity for the members being present.
I think that Section 5 makes it clear that there must be a meeting of the Board.
But a decision need not be given at a meeting of the Board. A member who was not present at the meeting might sign the report on the Bill as it stands. I think that the majority ought to be four out of five.
Cathaoirleach
There is nothing in the amendment about members being present.
I take it that we are discussing all the amendments that appear on the Order Paper in regard to this question. Senator Jameson raised the point as to how a decision should be given on books about which a complaint had been made. The Senator seemed to think that all the members of the Board should be present at the Board meeting and that the opportunity given to members of the Board to send in privately their opinions on a book should be struck out of the Bill altogether. I think that the method of deciding and recording a decision of the Board ought to be the ordinary method used in every assembly, and that is, by a bare majority of the Board. I prefer the amendment that has been tabled by Senator MacKean to any of the other amendments that I have seen up to the present. It is a much simpler amendment than any of the others and I do not see that it is likely to cause any injustice either to the author of a book or to anybody else concerned. Senator Brown alluded to the fact that the Board did not hear evidence in these cases.
I hold that an obscene or an indecent book does not require any evidence to prove that it is so. If one reads a book which is found to be indecent and obscene then no amount of evidence would contradict that fact and could have no weight with the Board. The book itself is the evidence. In view of the fact that all assemblies come to their decisions as the result of a bare majority I think that that principle ought to be adopted in this case also.
There is one point which seems to me to arise in view of what the Minister has just stated. The Minister is not in the House at the moment and I would have preferred to deal with this if he were present. The Minister referred to the possibility of a couple of members of the Board not being able to attend through illness or incapacity of some other kind and that therefore they would not be in a position to attend meetings of the Board when a question arose in regard to giving a decision on a book. Whilst we must assume the honesty and integrity of the members appointed on the Board, in legislation I think it is not wise to leave any possibility of anything in the nature of a corrupt act taking place. In view of the Minister's statement and of the amendment we are discussing as to whether the majority should be four out of five or three out of four in regard to a decision condemning a book, I think it is only right to point members of the Board deliberately abstaining themselves from attendance at the meetings or being ill sufficiently long to hold up a decision on a book, as to whether it should be banned or not. Assuming that such a position did arise, I am anxious to know what the position would be with regard to the circulation of a book that is before the Board awaiting a decision. Is such a book to continue in circulation until it is actually stopped by a decision of the Board? Supposing that two members of the Board were ill for a period of two years, is the book to continue in circulation during all that time? That is a point, I think, that we must get cleared up before we vote on this. I am not clear about it and I do not know what the Minister intends.
It is distinctly stated that three members of the Board will have the power to censor a book where they are unanimous. That, I think, answers the case put up by Senator Connolly. I do not think that such a case as the Senator mentions could arise at all. If two members of the Board are ill or are prevented by some other legitimate cause from attending, then the three remaining members, if they come to a unanimous decision, can censor a book.
If that is the position I am satisfied.
That is a point on which I am not satisfied. The fact that a person was ill would not prevent him from writing and indicating his dissent.
Cathaoirleach
It is now for the House to say whether they will accept the amendment or not.
This amendment strikes me as outlining a sensible course to pursue as between two extreme points of view—the one put forward by Senator MacKean who said in regard to the censorship of a book that he would be satisfied if such a proposal were carried by a bare majority. The Senator would also be satisfied if with five at a meeting, three were in favour of censoring a periodical or other publication. and two against. I think that is going a bit too far. After all, the censorship of a book, periodical or other publication may be a very important matter to a certain individual whether he be an author, publisher or anybody else. His reputation may be at stake and the decision of the Board may reflect on his life and his means of earning a living. I do not think that we should enter too lightly upon that. A majority of three out of five is not sufficient in my opinion. That was one extreme point of view put forward. The other extreme point of view was put forward by Senator Brown. His view is that there should always be four members of the Board present who are agreed on the censoring of a book. He says that they should signify their intention in the form to be prescribed later and that they should be agreed as to the censorship of a book, a publication or periodical before it is censored. As has been pointed out, if there happens to be a vacancy on the Board the Board may continue to function although there is that vacancy there. Therefore, what is required is absolute unanimity amongst the four members who are acting. I think that is an extreme point of view to put forward. I think that provision should be made to meet a case where there might be a vacancy on the Board.
If such a provision is not made, and if you have a vacancy on the Board, then some member may be unable to attend through illness, and the effect of what Senator Brown suggests would be that the decisions of the Board would be nugatory altogether. The amendment before the House meets, I submit, every position. I think that this amendment, if it is fairly analysed, meets the whole position. I submit that the amendment has not been fairly analysed, but that it has been misinterpreted. It meets, I suggest, the views put forward by Senator Brown, that in regard to the censorship of a book there must be a majority of four out of five, in whatever particular form the Board is to give its decision. It meets the particular case where five vote in whatever form is prescribed, or in whatever form they are to signify their willingness in regard to a decision that a book should be censored. In cases where only four vote, due to the fact that a member may be absent through illness, incapacity or some other cause, or because there happens to be a vacancy on the Board, surely no one expects that it is fair and just to ask for unanimity. It should be sufficient if you have a majority of three out of four. In the other case that has been put: if a position arises where because of a vacancy on the Board, or because members are unable to attend through illness or incapacity, and where you have only three members of the Board actually functioning, if these three members are unanimous in their decision in regard to the censorship of a book that, I think, should be sufficient too. The amendment that is before the House meets these three particular cases. I think it is a fair compromise between the two extreme points of view that have been put forward, the one which wants to censor too lightly, and the other which wants to make censorship almost impossible.
I would like to know if it is intended under the amendment that was read out some time ago that the quorum must be four.
Cathaoirleach
There is nothing about a quorum in the amendment.
If the membership of the Board is to be five, and if four members must be present to condemn a book, therefore if one of the four is absent the decision of the Board must be unanimous before a book can be condemned.
Cathaoirleach
I am now going to put to the House the amendment as amended. It is as follows:—
"To delete line 23 and to substitute therefor the words ‘not dissented from by more than one and assented to by at least three members of the Board.'"
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 14.
Tá
- William Barrington.
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Joseph Connolly.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- William Cummins.
- James Dillon.
- J.C. Dowdall.
- Michael Fanning.
- Thomas Farren.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- P.J. Hooper.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- Patrick W. Kenny.
- Thomas Linehan.
- Seán E. MacEllin.
- Seán Milroy.
- Colonel Moore.
- James Moran.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- John T. O'Farrell.
- M.F. O'Hanlon.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- James J. Parkinson.
- Séumas Robinson.
- Thomas Toal.
- Richard Wilson.
Níl
- John Bagwell.
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- The Countess of Desart.
- James G. Douglas.
- Thomas Foran.
- Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Sir John Keane.
- The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
- James MacKean.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments 20, 21, 22 and 23 not moved.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7. (1) and (3).
(1) Whenever a complaint is duly made under this Act to the Minister to the effect that the several issues of a periodical publication recently theretofore published have usually or frequently been indecent or obscene or have advocated the unnatural prevention of conception or the procurement of abortion or miscarriage or the use of any method, treatment or appliance for the purpose of such prevention or such procurement or have devoted an unduly large proportion of space to the publication of sensational matter relating to crime, the Minister may refer such complaint to the Board.
(3) Whenever the Board under this section makes in reference to a complaint a report, assented to and signed by at least seven memberes of the Board, stating that in the opinion of the Board the issues recently theretofore published of the periodical publication which is the subject of such complaint have usually or frequently been indecent or obscene and should for that reason be prohibited or that in the opinion of the Board such issues have advocated the unnatural prevention of conception or the procurement of abortion or miscarriage or the use of any method, treatment or appliance for the purpose of such prevention or such procurement and should for that reason be prohibited or have devoted an unduly large proportion of space to the publication of sensational matter relating to crime, and should for that reason be prohibited, the Minister may by order (in this Act referred to as a prohibition order) prohibit the sale and the distribution in Saorstát Eireann of any issue of such periodical publication published after the day on which such order comes into operation.
I move amendment 24:—
Section 7, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 47-49 the words "or have devoted an unduly large proportion of space to the publication of sensational matter relating to crime."
I ask the House to take the view that the insertion of these words in the Bill is altogether ridiculous. It is treating people really as if they were children to assume that the degree of criminal matter appearing in a paper is likely to have any effect on their tendencies as regards their morals or anything else. You could get enough of detailed crime stacked into one paragraph that would corrupt anyone so minded, and if they have got the criminal tendency the degree to which they are likely to be influenced will surely not count at all. These words were not in the Bill as it was drafted originally. It is utterly absurd to put into a Bill of this kind such words as "have devoted an unduly large proportion of space to the publication of sensational matter relating to crime." That is entirely vague. I suggest it is acting on the principle that because a thing is out of sight it is out of mind. It is typical of the altogether crude and unintelligible principle that is behind the whole of this measure. You see a thing which is indecent and criminal. You wipe it out and you assume that all is well. There are tendencies implanted in the mind and disposition of the individual, and if people are evilly or criminally or immorally disposed what you are going to give them in the form of books would have nothing whatever to do with that. When we come to this extreme and absurd over-statement of the case where you ration the amount of crime I think it is time that we really took a sane and a reasonable view of the functions of the legislature.
I would be in favour of the abolition of the lines as suggested by Senator Sir John Keane, but not for his reasons. I do not agree with him that the publication of crime reports has no effect. I think if it were left to my choice I would prefer a press censorship rather than a book censorship. I believe a great deal of the viciousness that exists in Ireland, as everywhere else, is entirely due to the awful stuff that is published in our daily and weekly press. It is a recognised psychological fact that when a peculiar type of crime is committed and is sensationally reported in the American press inevitably a similar type of crime happens in various districts throughout the country within a few months of the publication of the details of the crime, thus showing that there is a tremendous power of suggestion to the weaker and feebler minded throughout the country. A most outstanding instance of that was a terrible crime that took place in Chicago a few years ago. The press as usual made the most capital they could out of it, and gave sensational reports, photographs, and all sorts of things. The fact was that within a few weeks there were four or five other instances in which this rather extraordinary type of crime took place.
I would suggest to the Minister the advisability of the deletion of reports of crime altogether from the daily and weekly press. That would have a most salutary effect in the country. I am as keen in my defence of things Irish as most people, but we are not immune from this sensational thing within our own shores. We find in some of our weekly and daily papers denunciations of all sorts of reports and of the filthy press coming from England, and so forth, but, ironically enough, you will find in other columns of these same papers things that are equally as objectionable as those they are condemning in the other papers. I am all out for prohibition of pernicious matter, and I think we ought to deal drastically with our own people over whom we have control.
I am in agreement with the last Senator with regard to the banning of sensationalism, and the excitement and thrills provided by the Press. There is a certain attitude generated in the minds of the readers that everything published in the press represents a normal state of things. It presents the world each day to the public in a manner which produces a panicky and injurious effect on the readers. It displays the tragic and appalling in leaded type, and it makes these happenings to appear as more or less ordinary daily occurrences. As the last speaker said, a panicky effect is produced. One notices as regards suicide how one case produces others. Anyone acquainted with the pathological and psychological science finds that these things are epidemic. I think it is time we took our own papers into account in this respect. The manner in which the sensational is presented in the daily Press produces a most injurious effect. I was laughed at when I suggested that there ought to be a limitation in the newspaper headings, inasmuch as you can get a form of expression beyond the ordinary form of opinion in a caption. That is done to make the matter attractive, and accordingly one is tempted to read about criminality. The criminal gets a certain amount of spurious notoriety, and as criminals are very much subject to vanity this publicity really acts as an incitement to crime.
Senator Gogarty has referred to one peculiarity of criminals, and that is they are extremely vain. They delight in publicity, perhaps like politicians. Another peculiarity they possess is that they are imitative, and when a crime is published with sensational details men disposed to crime are tempted to perpetrate crime of the same character. Last week the American and European Press published an account of a murder trial where oil was thrown on a woman and she was set on fire. The publication of that one crime led to three or four other crimes of the same description in the United States. There are journals, particularly Sunday papers, owned by very rich men. They for some time made a feature of publishing the details of divorce cases. That has been prohibited in England, and now they have turned their attention to a more intensive cultivation of the police courts and the publication of the details of various crimes. That has a tremendously bad effect, and I was glad to hear the views expressed by Senator Gogarty, because they are also the views of people experienced in legal matters, as, I think, the Minister will agree with me. For this reason I am opposed to the amendment.
I was astonished to hear from Senator Sir John Keane that he thinks reading does not affect the mind of the reader, because that is what his argument amounts to. I wonder has he ever had experience of the kind of newspaper that is read by men and women, and boys and girls, throughout the country, on Sundays particularly, not only in this country, but in England, Scotland and Wales and the North of Ireland. The class of newspapers to which I refer pride themselves on having a circulation of three millions, one and a half millions, and so on. These papers do not go out of their way, for it is their way, to publish details to an extraordinary extent of criminal and sex cases. I formed a general impression, and to find out whether I was merely prejudiced, a couple of weeks ago I bought a few of these Sunday papers and I analysed them. These papers devoted a great deal of their space to information on theatrical matters, sports, horse-racing, athletics, and so on. That class of information occupied the greater part of the space. Leaving out advertisements, 37 per cent. of the space was devoted to crime and sex cases—that is, 37 per cent. of the reading matter, apart from advertisements, was devoted to that class of news. Three of the other papers had something like 25 per cent. each. The "Empire News" is the greatest sinner, and the Senator may take pride, if he wishes, in the kind of news of the Empire that is handed to the boys and girls, as well as the men and women, of this country by the thousands every Sunday.
The amount of space, therefore, that could be devoted to politics, literature, science, art, travel, social conditions and economic problems can be imagined. It is surely fallacious to say that that kind of stuff that is being poured in week after week and is being devoured by men, women and children can have no effect on the mentality of the people who read it. I have said before, and I am still of the opinion, that the portion of this Bill I approve of most heartily is this particular section, which will, I hope, have some deterrent effect, and will lessen or destroy the circulation of this class of newspaper. It is undoubtedly an evil, and it is not only in this country that it is deplored. We know, as a matter of fact, that if some such measure could be adopted in England, it would be welcomed by 75 per cent. of the best minds of that country. I am very glad it is possible to insert in this Bill a provision which will remove this evil from the country.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to a certain class of literature that is freely circulated. You will see it displayed in the drapery shops. They have piles of what are known as film editions in these shops, and they are simply glorifications of immorality and vice. I know one particular city where there is a very large and increasing sale for those books. These books describe the inner history and workings of the seamy side of life. They take out the sensational parts of a particular story and dress them in an attractive form. As can be understood, they are very demoralising. These film editions are bought freely in certain localities, and you will see them advertised in the windows of business premises as you are passing along the streets. I think it is well the attention of the Minister should be called to that class of publication.
I do not think these publications have any bearing on the case.
Cathaoirleach
No, I do not think this is quite relevant.
I was going to assume that this is a Bill to deal with current crime, or fictitious crime, and not, for instance, applying to periodical publications of the Edgar Wallace type, which deal with crime of a fictitious character. I cannot convince the Seanad unless we have a common understanding as to what the disposition and the character of the people is. Senator Johnson and I are poles apart on this question of personality and character. He assumes that because a paper publishes 37 per cent. of criminal matter, or 25 per cent. or 20 per cent., or whatever it may be, that it will all equally corrupt. I disagree with him. I say that the only possible cure for an evil disposition is protection within the person. I probably think that education, religious or secular, has not yet exerted its full weight. We are passing through a period of evolution, or we are passing away from automatism and demoralisation and proceeding to intelligence, as Mr. Yeats said. What Deputy Johnson said amounts to this: that we should have positive prohibition. I disagree with him.
Whether you give three paragraphs or one it does not make any difference. It only makes us ridiculous in legislation. I see his point of view. There are two fundamental and divergent points of view. I know he has a large following for his point of view, but I also claim a large following for mine. We represent two schools of psychology or mental training, but there it is. I think the Senator's argument is that human nature is naturally disposed to depravity. As I said on the Second Reading, that is a cry of despair, for if people are not able to resist temptation by their own self-control we may as well throw up our hands in despair.
Senator Sir John Keane has the particular point of view that human nature is prone to good, and that there should be a free choice with no limitation and no restriction of one's reading. We have Biblical authority for the fact that human nature is prone to evil. Youth has no experience of a practical character, and has nothing to guide it except the teaching of adults and those whose particular business it is to look after their morals. Senator Sir John Keane stated what I considered to be a most heterodox view on the Second Reading of the Bill, when he let it be known that in his opinion there should be no restriction on reading, that there should be free choice in the matter, and that by the exercise of that free choice we would develop from automatism through demoralisation to a sort of perfection of intelligence. I do not know exactly how the Senator put it, but I think that was the way, and that through demoralisation we became a sort of super man. Take that statement. What is to happen all the victims of this particular individual who acts under this licence Senator Sir John Keane would give to him as the only way of arriving at intelligence? What is to happen whilst he is going through all these stages? What is to happen his victims while he is going through the demoralisation which will enable him by his experience to emerge as a man of super intelligence with a halo round his head?
We are concerned with protecting youth from the action of the roué who is going through a period of demoralisation, and cutting away from the minds of the youth all these things which would dispose them to become victims of a gentleman of this character. I would much like to ask Senator Sir John Keane at what particular stage he has reached now in arriving at the type of intelligence he has indicated, and in acting on the free-choice principle which he has laid down for the guidance of human nature, that we are all to work out our own salvation in our own way? If he is following that in his own person at what stage has he reached? Has he reached the sublime state where he is going to give us the benefit of his experience, or is he going through demoralisation or is he still in the state of automatism? That is a dangerous principle to enunciate, and it is not tenable. I would say that no man professing Christianity should enunciate it in that dogmatic way. It is certainly a dangerous principle to inculcate in the minds of youth. Senator Sir John Keane holds that particular view, but I discount any argument he puts forward having that underlying principle.
I think it is fundamentally wrong in a Christian era for any man to enunciate and broadcast those views. This Bill is not a Bill that has to do with the reclamation of a gentleman following out the course the Senator has advocated for the purpose of reaching this state of super intelligence. This is a Bill for the purpose of safeguarding youth who have no experience. Youth is prone to evil and not prone to good, as the Senator Sir John Keane enunciates. We have Biblical authority for the fact that human nature is prone to evil. This Bill is not a hygienic measure proposing to cleanse the minds of gentlemen going through a demoralisation period, or anything of that sort. It is concerned with the preservation of youth, of keeping away from the innocent youth those temptations that would undermine their morals and lead them into a life of crime and immorality.
In reference to the remarks of Senator Sir John Keane, I am in favour, as I think the House is, of the prohibition of free trade in noxious drugs. I would not allow any free access to, or allow any advertising or forcing on the taste or fancy of the public of such drugs. Access to such drugs is prohibited by law, and with general approval. We have newspapers proposing to give world or Empire news, and at the same time specialising in the way I have indicated to create in the mind of the reader, especially the young reader, the impression that the world is made up of villains, roués, and criminals, and of actresses, divorcees, and people who are film stars. That is the world as exemplified in these newspapers, and if the Senator is oblivious to or denies the influence of surroundings upon the minds of men, women and children, then we are utterly opposed. I do believe in the influence of environment upon the formation of character, and I want to prevent that environment becoming soiled and ugly and dirty and obscene.
There is one advantage about Senator Sir John Keane: he does not leave you in any philosophic doubt as to what his position is. In reference to what he said I would seriously put it to him that the chemist labels some of his bottles "poison," and the psychologist must be allowed to do the same with regard to other things.
I really think that we are getting away from the sense of Senator Sir John Keane's amendment in talking about psychology and in the high moral tone we are taking. To my mind, this is the most commonsense part of the Bill. If I had had the drafting of the Bill I would have altered the words to make this simpler and plainer and I would have said: "a considerable proportion of space to the publication of matter relating to crime." I would have left out the word "unduly large" and "sensational." I would agree with Senator Johnson. I would put something in the Bill that would enable a complaint to be made to the Minister on the subject of the huge amount of space which is devoted at the present time to crime and descriptions of crime, not only from the point of view of the young but from that of the ordinary mortal who reads his evening or morning paper. If you take up a paper nowadays you see the whole of the front page devoted to crime, misery and wretchedness, and if the Minister can alter that I hold that the House ought to agree to it at once.
I cannot agree with the Senator that all our papers are placarded with crime. I know the paper he has got in his mind—"The News of the World." Senator Johnson practically mentioned it. He is thinking of the illuminating "News of the World," but is it going to make one rap of difference? We will be ridiculous——
"The News of the World" is the cleanest of them all.
There may be worse. I do not know. But I do rather resent Senator Kenny's statement when he said that my remarks strike almost at the foundation of Christian morality. I think he said that he would view with considerably more suspicion anything that came from me in future, as if I was really at variance with Christian morality. I am as strong as he is for the proper influences to protect youth and morals—the Church and the family—and these are the right people, and I say that they are the only people who will ever do it effectively.
And let the people read what they like.
What I do object to is the State stepping in between the individual and his free will, and attempting to do—and I submit that it will fail to do—what should be done by the home and the Church. That is the whole point. But I believe that once you deprive the people of their power of free will and put on them coercive shackles, as this Bill does, you will only drive them to explore forbidden things; you will only give crime and all these forbidden matters a certain glamour that otherwise they would not possess. I do not want the House or the Senator to think for one moment that I am at variance with Christian morality. I am only at variance with the State trying to act as a moral guardian.
Does the Minister intend to have any provision in the Bill about the control of advertisements, because it stands to reason that if there is no control over advertisements this question of contraceptive literature falls to the ground?
Cathaoirleach
You are going outside the amendment.
Does he intend to take measures against deleterious advertisements?
That will all come up on an amendment which Senator Johnson has tabled. I do not wish to say anything on what Senator Sir John Keane has said except to ask the House to reject his amendment. He did pick out the "News of the World" as being the worst Sunday newspaper. From statistics I have before me, kindly furnished to me a moment ago by a Senator, that is the least objectionable of them all, so that it is rather unfair to bring a charge against that particular paper. I am sure he was only using it as an instance.
I am very sorry that, from my position of privilege, I have done so, but Senator Johnson mentioned——
Cathaoirleach
—— matters which so closely resembled it that I thought that was what he meant.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
In Section 7, sub-section (1). To delete in line 2 the word "sensational."
I do not think that this will require a great deal of advocacy. It would appear to me that this word is unnecessary and that it rather weakens the effect of the provision, inasmuch as a new judgment will have to be entered upon, that is to say, whether the portrayal of crime news is presented in a sensational manner or not. Now if a newspaper happens to change its form of type and instead of putting crime news with big headings it adopts a new type, it may be a disputed point as to whether it is sensational or not. The fact that the paper is overburdened with criminal news is to me sufficient, no matter what the manner of the presentation is. I do not think that the word "sensational" helps the provision at all and I think it should be deleted.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have no very strong views upon the matter. The word "sensational" was put in by means of an amendment in the Dáil which I accepted as being more likely to accord. If things were put in a small form and kept in the background they would not have the same effect upon the mind as if they were always in the foreground, that if they were simply details to the effect that so and so was tried at such and such an assizes, followed by a short summary of the evidence, and that he was hanged, it would not have the same effect as if all the details were gone into—details like cutting up dead bodies and all that sort of thing. That is what is likely to do harm. While I have no very strong views upon the matter I would like to have the word "sensational" in. I think that it is the really sensational presentation of crime, not a statement that a crime has been committed, that does the harm.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move:—
Section 7, sub-section (3). To delete in lines 58-9 the words "assented to and signed by at least seven members of the Board," and to substitute therefor the words "not dissented from by more than two members of the Board."
This amendment raises exactly the same point as was decided earlier in the proceedings in connection with my amendment to Section 6, and it will again be necessary for me to ask permission to alter the wording so as to conform with the amendment which was carried. The amendment will then read as follows:—"Section 7, sub-section (3). To delete in lines 58-9 the words ‘assented to and signed by at least seven members of the Board,' and to substitute therefor the words ‘not dissented from by more than one and assented to by at least three members of the Board.'" I am sure I need not explain the matter any further.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
Section 7, sub-section (3). To delete in line 2 the word "sensational."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, put and agreed to.
I move:—
New section. Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—
"8. The Minister may at any time after the receipt of a report by the Board in respect of any book or periodical publication return such report to the Board for further consideration."
It is possible that this power is inherent in the Bill now, but at any rate I think it would be well to give the Minister that power expressly. I can imagine circumstances arising when such an action would be most desirable and even necessary. Let me refer to a case in which only three members of the Board would report upon a book. The book might be of such a character that the Minister might say: "I do not think that three ought to sway me in this case. I would like to have the opinion of the other two members of the Board, and I will refer the book back to the full Board to get the opinion of five or of four"—at any rate, the opinion of more than three. Again, we gave the Board authority in Section 5 to consider representations made by authors, editors, publishers, and so forth, as to why a book should not be prohibited. It seems to me that a case might arise where an author would be away when his book came up for consideration—he might be in America —and he might not get an opportunity in time to make his representations to the Board. The Board might have made its recommendation and the Minister might have taken his decision when representations might arrive from the author or publisher, and, in that case, I think the Minister ought to have the right to refer the book back to the Board.
It seems to me that this is rather likely to do an injustice. I am not sure that I am right, but I have an impression that there is a rule in law that a prisoner cannot be tried a second time for the same offence, being once discharged by the court.
The report would only be in favour of prohibition, so that this would give the author full protection.
But in any case the position will be one of doubt for the publisher, the bookseller, and all concerned in the trade. It seems to me that there had better be decisions, and that those decisions should be maintained until the Minister, of his own volition, as he may in the case of periodicals, declares that a limit should be placed to the period when he is satisfied that something has happened to make the publication a clean one. But if a book has been declared innocent or guilty the publisher or the bookseller, as the case may be, is to be in doubt as to whether it is ready for free sale, it seems to me that harm is likely to be done and that nobody will know exactly where he stands. Therefore, I would suggest that the amendment ought not to be inserted.
I think that this amendment is really in a way superfluous, because the powers naturally are inherent in the Minister to consult with, so to speak, the court below. But it seems to me that it would be no harm to have it inserted in the Bill, and as far as I am concerned I am willing to accept it. Senator Johnson said that it might be the case of a person being tried twice for the same offence. It is not. Before the Minister can appeal there must be, to follow up Senator Johnson's metaphor, a verdict of guilty first, and the question is as to whether the Minister will or will not ratify the decision of guilt. If he has got any reasonable doubt I think he might write to the Board and ask them to reconsider their decision in view of certain things that he might put before them. I would point out to Senator Johnson that this would be in relief of a book more than anything else.
Will the Minister point out exactly how that arises? I am not able to see it. The section says that the Minister "may at any time on receipt of a report." The report may be quite favourable or quite unfavourable.
Oh, no, there is no such thing as a favourable report. They will only send on a condemnation. I think that when the Senator understands that his case falls to the ground.
It does, but it raises another question. The Minister has referred a book to the Board, and somebody concerned in the book learns that it has been referred to the Board. No report comes to the Minister that the book is innocent, and for five months, six months, seven months, twelve months or five years the person concerned in the book may be waiting for a verdict. What is, then, to be the position of such people? I would think that surely when the Board is asked to report on a book it should give a verdict to the Minister.
How does this amendment alter that?
It does not alter it, I agree, but the fact that the Minister has now divulged opens up a new question which seems to involve the necessity for getting a report whenever a reference to the Board has been made.
Cathaoirleach
Would not that have to be the subject of another amendment?
Section 6 (2) says: "The Board shall consider every complaint referred to them by the Minister under this section and for the purpose of such consideration shall examine the book or the particular edition of a book which is the subject of such complaint, and on the completion of such consideration the Board shall make to the Minister their report on such complaint." I take it from that that whether the report is favourable or unfavourable it must be sent to the Minister. It does not say "shall report unfavourably"; it says that they shall report on each complaint.
Cathaoirleach
Senator Johnson's point is that there is no time limit.
The point that I made was that the report will be made only if the book is found guilty.
The Minister can act only if the book is found guilty.
The Minister could get back a favourable report as well as an unfavourable one.
Perhaps the Minister would consider the point between now and the Report Stage.
Then I would ask leave to withdraw it now.
I think it could be put in this fashion—by inserting the words "The receipt of a report condemning a book."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 8 and 9 put, and agreed to.
SECTION 10 (1) and (3).
10.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person, otherwise than under and in accordance with a permit in writing granted to him under this section—
(a) to import into Saorstát Eireann for sale or distribution, or
(b) to sell, or expose, offer, advertise or keep for sale, or
(c) to distribute or offer or keep for distribution,
any book or any particular edition of a book or any issue of a periodical publication the sale and distribution of which in Saorstát Eireann is for the time being prohibited by a prohibition order.
(3) The Minister may if he thinks fit for reasons which appear to him sufficient grant to any person a permit in writing to sell and keep for sale or to distribute and keep for distribution and (where appropriate) to import into Saorstát Eireann any specified book or any specified edition of a book or all or any particular issues of a specified periodical publication the sale and distribution of which in Saorstát Eireann is for the time being prohibited by a prohibition order, and the Minister may grant any such permit subject to such (if any) conditions and limitations as he may think fit to impose and shall specify in such permit.
I move:—
Section 10, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 32-3 the words "or (c) to distribute or offer or keep for distribution."
I put down this amendment to get information. I am puzzled as to what the operation of this prohibition will be. For instance, there is some very crude stuff in Dean Swift's works, and supposing some part of it is prohibited, am I then not allowed to have that in my library? Must I proceed to get rid of that book or to burn it——
—or can I keep it but not lend it to my brother? Am I allowed to distribute it within my house, but not to lend it to my next door neighbour? I would like the Minister to explain exactly what the effect of that sub-section is. I have no doubt that a good deal of this thing will be a dead letter, but in so far as the strict law goes, I would like to know what the Minister thinks will be the effect.
There is no prohibition on the keeping of any particular book; the prohibition is on the sale or distribution of a book. I would like to answer Senator Sir John Keane out of his own mouth as to what this means.
On the Second Reading debate Senator Sir John Keane gave us this interesting information—I am quoting from Volume 12, No. 1, column 65 of the Official Reports: "I have also read, and I can give the reference to the Minister if he wishes, where one person made an income of £20 by hiring out ‘The Well of Loneliness' to be read at half-a-crown by each person." Now, if you strike out the word "distribution" that effect would be achieved. You can keep a book in your own house—there is nothing to prevent you—but you must not distribute it, you must not lend it round, and it is to prohibit that lending round or hiring out of a book, as in the particular instance that Senator Sir John Keane brought before the House, that the word "distribute" is inserted. It also applies to lending libraries that would be able to lend out the most indecent books.
I take it that that would apply only to a book that had been prohibited.
Because the book referred to by Senator Sir John Keane just now is hardly a book that would be prohibited or that would come within the purview of the Censorship Board.
I have not read this other book that Senator Sir John Keane referred to but as it was condemned as being indecent by two courts in England I can imagine that the Censors here would condemn it.
So that it comes to this, that it is an offence to lend a book to your brother, cousin, or anyone else.
It may be, in certain circumstances.
I do not think that that would be distribution.
As a layman, I am very much troubled as to what "distribution" is. I would like to hear Senator Brown's view.
You do not distribute a book by lending it and getting it back.
I think that something should be left to the lawyers to decide on this Bill. My impression is that the word "distribution" in that connection simply means distributing for reward, and that lending it to a friend is not included in the term.
Would the Minister consider putting down a definition of "distribution" for the Report Stage?
I do not think there is any real difficulty about "distribution.""Distribution" means handing around. If you lend a book indiscriminately, in my view you are most undoubtedly distributing it for reading purposes.
I hope the Minister will not be tempted into a definition of the word "distribution."
I think it would be rather undesirable to have the opinion of two legal authorities in doubt as it will be if we let the Bill go as it is. Senator Brown says that the Minister should not be tempted to define. We are practically allowing this matter to go vaguely for the courts some day to decide it. I do not think that that is a right position for a legislative assembly to take up. If there is any doubt about it, I suggest that it should be settled now, and I suggest that it is the duty of the Government to make clear what this word means.
I think Senator Sir John Keane should not press this amendment, because as the Bill stands it is in favour of his point of view. I still insist that the word "distribute" there is used in connection with the word "sell." and means to distribute for reward, and that the lending of a book to a friend is not distribution within the meaning of that section.
I will withdraw the amendment. I have got all the information I want.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—Section 10, sub-section (3). After the word "Eireann" in line 49 to insert the words "or receive by post." The intention here is to fill a space which I think it was not intended to leave. I am not sure whether to receive by post from a bookseller across the water would be included in the term "importing." I think that is very doubtful. In Section 13 there may be certain regulations made by the Customs and by the Post Office preventing sending or delivering by post, and so on. But it appeared to me to be necessary to give the Minister authority to permit a person to receive by post a book if he were satisfied that such permission should be given. As the clause stands it does not seem to me to include such a provision, unless one could think of importing as including the receiving by post of an article which, shall I say, has been exported from another country. I doubt very much whether that would be the case because the individual receives a parcel by post, and I doubt very much whether the section as it stands will ensure that liberty. If it is said that it is all clear and straight I have no objection.
I do not think there could be any doubt about it.
But the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may, by Order, make regulations which may not permit the Minister——
They would be overridden by this.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—Section 10. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) It shall not be an offence against this section to sell or keep for sale or import into Saorstát Eireann a book or periodical publication solely because it contains an advertisement of a book the sale of which is prohibited under this section."
I am not wedded to the phrasing of this amendment, but I want the idea embodied in the Bill. I think the form is satisfactory. Books are published which are entirely innocuous and desirable, and they are published by booksellers who publish other classes of literature which they deem to be perfectly innocuous and satisfactory, but such a book becomes the subject of a prohibition order. If a publication contains, as a matter of ordinary business procedure, an advertisement of a book which has been prohibited in this country, as the section stands the selling of that publication is an offence. It says that it shall not be lawful for any person otherwise than in accordance with a permit to advertise a book which has been prohibited.
Section 10 (1), says:—
It shall not be lawful for any person, otherwise than under and in accordance with a permit in writing granted to him under this section—
(b) to sell, or expose, offer, advertise or keep for sale...
Any bookseller who sells a book which incidentally contains an advertisement of a prohibited book is an offender under this section by virtue of the fact that he sells such a book. I do not think that was intended, and surely there should be some protection. In regard to periodical publications the case is still stronger. I have here from the Dáil Library copies of weekly journals, two issues of "The New Statesman" and one of "The Spectator.""The Spectator" of April 20th contains a bookseller's advertisement headed "Sane Sex Books." I do not know what these books are or what they contain, but one is advertised as "Wise Wedlock: Birth Control." Under this provision "The Spectator" will be prohibited from coming into this country. "The New Statesman," of May 4th, contains an advertisement of a number of books, one of which is dealing with Credit Control, another with Plato and the New Psychology, Deafness, Obesity and one with Contraception, which clearly advocates birth control, but no one will say that such journals are going to contaminate or to bring evil influences to bear upon the community at large. I submit there is going to be harm done to the general character of this community by preventing the circulation of journals of this type. The "Manchester Guardian,""The Times," and almost any other journal will at one time or other contain advertisements of books which, in the present state of this section are prohibited, and the sale of which would be an offence for which the bookseller or news-agent would be liable to a penalty. That is the case I put to the House with a view to making it possible for such a journal as "The Spectator" to be distributed here. It has a reputation for centuries for the high quality of its contents, and it ought to be allowed to be distributed, certainly to be received by post, and there should be no offence in selling it, because it contains incidentally an advertisement of a book which is prohibited, or because it advertises books which in the main purport of the Bill are prohibited. The Bill at present, I submit, is faulty in that respect, and such a proviso as my amendment contains, is necessary. I think the amendment might require to be extended somewhat to meet the case that the Minister has made. I thought of these words: "provided that such advertisement contains no reference to the fact of such prohibition." I think it would be very undesirable to advertise the fact that a book was prohibited. But quite incidentally, and not as a scheme of propaganda, which a journal like this ought to be deemed to have specialised in before it can be brought under the prohibition, I think there should be no offence in selling a publication of this character.
In view of the fact that Senator Johnson admits that the section requires some alteration would he be prepared to postpone it until the Report Stage?
I am glad that Senator Johnson called attention to this matter. Either the amendment must be accepted or we must become utterly ridiculous. What will happen? If this amendment is not accepted the Irish edition of these journals will come over with the advertisements blacked out. Everyone will say then: "What is all this?" Can you not see that you will only stimulate inquiry and interest? It is absurd to think that you will keep by this means knowledge of contraceptives from the people. The only way you will ever do it is through moral influences. If we do not accept the amendment we will be made utterly ridiculous by the blacking out of paragraphs which will advertise the fact that there is something to be got at which people will get at.
The Cathaoirleach
I think the difference that exists between Senator Johnson and myself is due to the fact that we take a different view of what the word "advertise" means. Taking this section as it stands I do not think a bookseller who sold "The Spectator" could reasonably be said to be advertising books which themselves were advertised in "The Spectator." Take "The Spectator" itself. We will assume it has some birth control book advertised in it. I think that is a most difficult question to deal with. An advertisement contained in "The Spectator" might not be sufficient to lead to the condemnation of "The Spectator." The wording is "advocating birth control." These are the crucial words. Journals are condemned because they advocate birth control. An advertisement might or might not be an advocacy of birth control. If you take such and such a book then there might be half a column of birth control propaganda by way of advertisement. I think the paper that publishes an advertisement of that nature would be taken as advocating birth control. On the other hand, I do not think that anybody would reasonably say that you are advocating birth control because without any puff of it, without any expression of your own opinion, you produce a catalogue of books. That would not be, in my judgment, and I think it is the view the Board of Censors would have to take, advocacy of birth control. That would appear to me to be the crucial test. If a paper could always accept advertisements of birth control it would defeat one of the main objects of the Bill.
There is a very powerful body of persons, seemingly with a very considerable amount of money, advocating birth control in England. They might take up a whole page of some periodical, pay for it and publish their views as an advertisement, and that paper would have to be allowed in under Senator Johnson's amendment. It appears to me that the whole tone and character of the advertisement would have to be looked at before you could decide whether it was or was not advocacy of birth control. A mere statement of the names of books would not appear to me to be such an advocacy of birth control. That is on the question of the paper itself being condemned. Now I come to the other point which is on Section 10. I will take the two together... "To sell, or expose, offer, advertise or keep for sale." That would be for a person who issued the original advertisement. I think if a man is selling a newspaper which says that such and such a book is published by such a bookseller that is not an advertisement for sale by him.
If he was a man who sold newspapers and books?
If he advertises that he was willing to sell such a book he would be prosecuted. Supposing an Irish bookseller had that book in his shop he would be prosecuted. If he had not got it in stock and if there was an advertisement in "The Spectator" that such and such a book could be bought from another bookseller, in my view he would not be advertising that book under the section. This advertisement question is a very difficult one, and to draw the line at advertisements will, I am sure, give the Board of Censors as much trouble as any other question.
I agree with the Minister that a person in this country selling a paper which happened to have an advertisement of a prohibited book in it would not himself be advertising the prohibited book within the meaning of the sub-section. That, I think, is quite clear, but when you are dealing with a subject of this kind—and with the kind of Board you are going to set up—it might be well to make it quite clear. I do not see any harm in Senator Johnson's amendment, although I think it is strictly unnecessary, but it would be a very wise thing to tell this Board that this is not advertising within the meaning of the section.
In view of part of the Minister's statement when he connects up the appearance of an advertisement in a journal with an article in that journal, "The New Statesman," for the current week had an article on the Radiation of Cancer. In a paragraph of that article there is what might be stated to be definite advocacy of birth control, giving advice which would undoubtedly be said to be advocacy of birth control. To my mind unless this safeguard is inserted in the Bill there is every likelihood of journals of this kind being prohibited from circulating in this country.
But the amendment would not protect them.
I agree, but as I said at the beginning, I am not sure that my amendment in this form is going to do what I would like to have done, but I certainly think it is essential that something of the kind should be inserted so that the public which reads decent books should be protected as well as the public which reads indecent books.
I am afraid I am at fault as I wandered into the whole question of advertisements generally. This is an amendment to Section 10. The Board of Censors has nothing to do with Section 10, which is a court section. If a book is to be prohibited, the question as to whether it is being advertised or not is a matter for the court to decide, and not for the Board of Censors. I am afraid that by wandering into another section I created some confusion.
I think there is danger that a District Court might take the view that Senator Brown does, and that some harm would be done.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
I move:—
Section 11, sub-section (5). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) It shall be the duty of every Customs official examining the baggage of incoming travellers to exhibit on demand a list of all books which are at the time being the subject of a prohibition order."
I imagine that this will have to be done, but probably the Minister will say it will be done under the Rules. I think it had better be done in the Bill, but it is for the House to say. Obviously you would have to give every incoming traveller a list of prohibited books. Otherwise he would not know if he is breaking the law.
I am willing to accept the amendment. Obviously the official must have it in his possession, so that whether he shows it or not does not matter.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16 (1) AND (4).
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person, otherwise than under and in accordance with a permit in writing granted to him under this section—
(a) to print or publish or cause or procure to be printed or published, or
(b) to sell or expose, offer, or keep for sale, or
(c) to distribute, offer or keep for distribution
any book or periodical publication (whether appearing on the register of prohibited publications or not) which advocates or which might reasonably be supposed to advocate the unnatural prevention of conception or the procurement of abortion or miscarriage or any method, treatment, or appliance to be used for the purpose of such prevention or such procurement.
(4) The Minister may if he thinks fit for reasons which appear to him sufficient grant to any person a permit in writing to do all or any of the following things, that is to say, to print, publish, sell, keep for sale, distribute, or keep for distribution any book or periodical publication the printing, publishing, selling, or distributing of which without such permit would be a contravention of this section and the Minister may grant any such permit subject to such (if any) conditions and limitations as he may think fit to impose and shall specify in such permit.
I move:—Section 16, sub-section (1). After the word "publish" in line 23 to insert the words "or import."
This amendment is really introduced to bring this part of the Bill into conformity with other parts of it. These books referred to in Section 16 which deal with birth control are not produced in this country at all. I do not believe they were ever produced here. There is no mention in the section of the importing of these books. Therefore I think it is necessary that these words should be inserted.
I will consider the amendment, but I think it will be necessary to let it stand over for Report.
Amendment allowed to stand over for Report Stage.
Amendment 38 was also allowed to stand over for Report.
Amendment 39.—Section 16, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "Provided that no book or periodical publication shall be deemed to offend against this sub-section solely by reason of the fact that it contains an advertisement relating to a book or periodical publication the sale of which is unlawful under this section."— (Senator Johnson.)
I am not moving this amendment because I do not want to deprive myself of the right, if I think it necessary, to move it on Report.
Cathaoirleach
Is the amendment then withdrawn?
Cathaoirleach
The position is that this amendment is on the Order Paper, and I would like to know what the Senator proposes to do about it?
I am not sure what the rules of the Seanad are, but there is a rule in the other House, and I take it a reasonable interpretation of the rules of the Seanad would be that a motion is not before the House until it is moved.
Cathaoirleach
The amendment is on the Order Paper, and the Senator, if he desires it, can ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
I did not ask for the leave of the House to withdraw it. I simply did not move it. If I moved the amendment and it were defeated, then it would not be in order for me to bring it forward on the Report Stage.
Amendment not moved.
Amendment 40 not moved.
I move Amendment 41:—
Section 16.—To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5). The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may by order under this section make regulations for the purpose of preventing the sending or delivery by post (otherwise than under and in accordance with a permit in writing granted under this Act) of any book or periodical publication the distribution of which is prohibited by this section."
This amendment is moved for the purpose of bringing this part of the Bill into conformity with the part of the Bill dealing with publications in respect of which prohibition orders are issued by the Minister. In Section 13 (2) the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has this power in respect of these publications which this amendment proposes to give him in respect to books dealing with birth control.
There is no objection to this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 16, 17, 18 and 19 agreed to.
I move Amendment 42:—
Section 20. To add at the end of the section the words:—
"Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such House has sat after such regulation is laid before it annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation."
This amendment introduces a provision quite common in Bills of this kind, namely, that regulations made by the Minister under the Act shall be laid before the two Houses of the Oireachtas. I think that this Bill is eminently suitable for the introduction of such a regulation here. A great deal of the effectiveness of the Bill will depend on the regulations which the Minister will make. He will make regulations governing the procedure of the Board and the method by which complaints will be made, the number of books that will have to be forwarded, and so forth. I think it would be well that the two Houses of the Oireachtas should have an opportunity of scrutinising these regulations, and if necessary, making suggestions or objections in connection with them.
I suggest that the Seanad ought not to accept this amendment. The laying of rules, which are merely rules of procedure, before the Dáil and the Seanad sometimes leads to a great deal of trouble and difficulty. Sometimes, as occurred on one occasion recently, they led to a complete impasse. I refer to the Rules of Court. I suggest that the proper procedure would be that the rules would be made. The Minister who makes the rules is responsible. If anybody objects to any particular rule, then a motion of censure can be put down, and the rule objected to can be discussed in that way. It appears to me that, except in very rare cases, the whole method of laying rules of procedure on the Table of the Dáil or Seanad, or both together, is not a desirable form of procedure. It is troublesome, slow and quite unnecessary.
I desire to support Senator Hooper's amendment. I do not think that the Minister really appreciates how much we feel that this particular kind of legislation is legislation that we do not pass without some reluctance. It is a new kind of legislation. We desire to make it as moderate as possible to begin with, reserving to ourselves, of course, the power to make it more stringent or less stringent as the occasion will require. A great deal will depend on the rules and regulations to be made under this measure. I think that Parliament ought to keep these regulations within its own control. I am sure that the members of both Houses will examine the working of this Bill most carefully. For that reason they would like to see the regulations before they come into force, and for that reason I support the amendment.
I hope that the House will pass this amendment. From all sides we hear alarm expressed at the encroachment of the Administration on the Legislature. This laying of orders is one of the safeguards that we have. The question has been much discussed in certain countries, and from the bench judges have frequently commented adversely against the growing power of the Administration almost to enact legislation by order.
I suggest that the argument is quite germane to the amendment before the House. If the Minister wants more details in regard to what I say I would refer him to a statement by the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart.
Yes, but we are talking of this country.
Am I not to be allowed to illustrate my argument?
Cathaoirleach
Yes, the Senator may continue.
Surely this is not a question of national politics. It is a question of commonsense. The bureaucracy of Administration here is not any more likely to evade or resist the temptation to enact by order than it is in every other country, and inasmuch as this is a safeguard which Parliament has over the Administration, I submit it is a safeguard which should be jealously guarded, and I therefore ask the House to pass the amendment.
Would the amendment be extended to include any regulations made under any other sections? Under Section 13 the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may make regulations, and under the amendment that has been inserted the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may by order make regulations. I think what should apply to one should apply to the other.
At the present moment the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has power to make regulations which are not laid on the Table of the Houses. It is, I think, very unfortunate to have a certain number of regulations in one way and others in another way.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Question: "That Section 20, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put, and agreed to.
Section 21 put, and agreed to.
The Title agreed to.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported, with amendments.
I think it would be better if this Bill were re-committed to the Seanad sitting in Committee. We have made a number of amendments, and it is quite obvious other sections will now have to be amended, particularly Section 5. As our powers of discussion are limited upon the Report Stage, I suggest that it would be better to recommit this Bill.
I suggest that the Bill, as amended, should be printed and circulated. I do not know who is the responsible authority in this matter, but there are occasions on which such a privilege should be granted, and it seems to me this is one of them. I think the Bill, as amended, ought to be printed for the purpose of reconsideration.
I think it would be better to have the printing of the Bill deferred until the recommittal stage is disposed of.
Cathaoirleach
There are nine amendments, and they could be typed and circulated. That would avoid the expense of having the whole Bill printed.
I think the better course would be to have the sections, as amended, typed and circulated.
Cathaoirleach
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, June 5th.
