Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jun 1929

Vol. 12 No. 14

Public Business. - Censorship of Publications Bill, 1928—Fourth Stage.

Mr. Douglas

I move:—

Section 6, sub-section (7). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(7) Where a report is proposed to be made by the Board under this section and either one member or two members of the Board has or have not signified any opinion (whether assenting or dissenting) in regard to such proposed report and the circumstances are such that the signification by such member or members of his opinion or their respective opinions (as the case may be) in regard to such proposed report might affect the operation of such proposed report in respect of the power of the Minister to make under this section a prohibition order in consequence thereof, a copy of such proposed report shall be sent by registered post to such member or to each of such two members (as the case may be) and such proposed report shall not be finally made by the Board until after the expiration of seven days from such posting."

This amendment, in the form in which it now stands, has been carefully drafted and will, I trust, receive the formal approval of the House. Perhaps I ought briefly to re-state the reasons for the amendment. When the Bill was introduced to the Dáil, the assent of four members out of five was necessary before a proposed report could be sent to the Minister recommending the prohibition of a book or a newspaper. That was changed in this House, and the assent of three is now required. But the assent of three is not sufficient if the other two members have actually dissented. This introduces a new principle or method and it becomes important, to my mind, that as far as possible every member of the Board should express either his approval or disapproval of each proposed report. This amendment will give every member who has not expressed himself seven days in which to do so, except in a case where his doing so would not affect the powers of the Minister to make a prohibition under the Act. To my mind it is very important that there should be the maximum amount of uniformity in the decisions of the Board, and I think it would be unfortunate that you would have one decision one day and, because through inadvertence or temporary illness, a different decision the next day owing to the absence of one member. What I want to get is that where either the assent or the dissent, as the case may be, of one or two members who were not there would affect the powers of the Minister under the Act, then I want notice to be sent to them, and seven days allowed.

Mr. Brown

I second.

Mr. Kenny

I want to ask the Senator if he thinks the amendment would not require to be altered. The amendment refers to a proposed report being sent to absent members. If you have two out of three present at the meeting who are dissentients, a copy of the proposal is sent to the two absent members, and they may reverse the decision by voting with the minority of one. Then such a proposal would not be a proposal which would be eventually forwarded to the Minister at all.

Mr. Douglas

I think that is a very good point. The words should be "a report."

Mr. Kenny

It would then read: "Shall be sent by registered post to such member or to each of such two members (as the case may be), and a report shall not be finally made by the Board." It is only a technical matter.

Cathaoirleach

I take it that the House agrees to changing the wording of the amendment.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney)

Of course, there is not very much in the difference which I am going to outline between Senator Douglas and myself in this matter, because this amendment only contemplates the holding up of the report for a period of seven days. That is not a very long nor a very serious period, if a book is going to be reported upon adversely. But my view is that when four members have expressed that view that should be sufficient, and that four out of five should be able either to condemn or acquit a book, as the case might be. What I would suggest is that certain words be deleted from this amendment. I have gone through the Bill, and the Senator might agree to delete the words "either one member," the words "has or,""signification by such members of their opinions," and agree to a couple more alterations that would have to be made lower down, that four members would then express their views, and that that would be sent—that the fifth should not of necessity be called upon to express his view. The Senator said that every member should have an opportunity of expressing his view. Of course, every member has an opportunity of expressing his view.

Mr. Douglas

After a report is proposed.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

But before a report is proposed every member has got an opportunity of expressing his view. If through sickness or any other cause he has not expressed his view that is a matter for himself. Every member of the Board will have an equal opportunity of expressing his view. If he is ill, he may well express his views through writing, unless he is seriously ill. I submit to the Senator that that would be sufficient. You would get the real views of the Board if you got the views of four members. It would have to be three out of four in that case to condemn.

Cathaoirleach

You have no amendment to that effect?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I could not bring in an amendment at the present stage under the Standing Orders, but I suggest to Senator Douglas that these words should be left out of his amendment.

Mr. Douglas

The Minister is proposing something quite different from what I propose. He is quite entitled to his view, but what he proposes is different from what I proposed, and if he reads my first speech he will see it is different from what I desire. I appreciate his point of view, but it is not mine.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I agree.

Mr. Douglas

I appreciate that there is a difference. How far that difference is vital is, of course, for the House to decide. My point of view is quite clear—whether I can make it clear or not is another matter—and that is, that having adopted the principle of the dissent of two, it is not unreasonable, where there is a proposed report, to wait seven days if the action of one other member might affect the validity of the report. That might work in different ways. I have never proposed at any time—and I think the Minister will bear me out—more than seven days. But I do not believe that anything else would be workable. I am not suggesting that a man seriously ill in bed should be dragged out of bed and asked to vote, or anything of that kind; I am not proposing that if he is seriously ill the others should not be able to act. What I am proposing is that if he is available an opportunity should be given to enable him to assent or dissent. That would be much more likely to make for uniformity than what the Minister proposes. The Minister proposes that, four being present and one being absent through temporary indisposition, the four of them can there and then act and send in a report to the Minister, without informing the other member who could not be present that that report was going in. The next week or the next month a different four might be adopting the same attitude, and another time a different four again might be doing so. I suggest that that is not desirable, and that my proposal for seven days is reasonable. But to make it operate only when less than four were present would not meet my case.

Mr. Johnson

I would like to support this, because I think that the question of a larger or of a smaller Board is involved. I supported the smaller Board against the larger, but in doing that I presumed that the smaller Board was going to be continuously active, that every member of it would be presumed in a normal case to express his opinion. If it is going to be possible for one of these members to be ineffective on every occasion, then the advantage of the smaller Board is cast completely away, and I think that any influence I might have would be in favour of adverting back to the larger Board unless we have got to assume that the smaller Board is going to be active continuously and in all normal cases, with every member of it expressing his view. Therefore, I think that a provision which requires, as far as it is possible to require, that every member shall express a view on a matter is desirable, and we should not presume the possibility as a matter of frequent occurrence that one member on this occasion, another member on another occasion, and a third on still another should, for one reason or another, neglect or avoid to give an opinion in respect of a report. Therefore, I urge the House to agree to the acceptance of the amendment in the form in which it appears, without the alteration suggested by the Minister.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. Douglas

I move:—

Section 7, sub-section (4). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(4) Where a report is proposed to be made by the Board under this section and either one member or two members of the Board has or have not signified any opinion (whether assenting or dissenting) in regard to such proposed report and the circumstances are such that the signification by such member or members of his opinion or their respective opinions (as the case may be) in regard to such proposed report might affect the operation of such proposed report in respect of the power of the Minister to make under this section a prohibition order in consequence thereof, a copy of such proposed report shall be sent by registered post to such member or to each of such two members (as the case may be) and such proposed report shall not be finally made by the Board until after the expiration of seven days from such posting."

It will be necessary to get the permission of the House to make the same change in this amendment as was suggested by Senator Kenny in connection with the last amendment. I think it will be agreed that the two should go together, if they are going at all.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Johnson

I move:—

Section 16, sub-section (3). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) A book or periodical publication containing an advertisement relating to a book or periodical publication which advocates or might reasonably be supposed to advocate within the meaning of sub-section (1) of this section one or more of the matters mentioned in that sub-section shall not, by reason only of its containing such advertisement, be deemed itself to advocate any of such matters, provided such advertisement is inserted for reward and is not and could not reasonably be supposed to be itself an advocacy of any such matter."

This is the form devised in accordance with the suggestion of the Minister on a proposal which I submitted earlier. The Minister is agreeable to this form, and I do not think it is necessary for me to enlarge upon the proposal.

Mr. O'Farrell

I second.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I have already expressed my views on this. I will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Report Stage concluded.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I think it was stated that the Seanad would take the Final Stage of this Bill to-day.

Cathaoirleach

No motion has been put down.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It was adjourned for a week on that understanding. It was openly expressed.

Mr. Douglas

There was an understanding and as far as I am concerned, I was in favour of it, but I assumed that some member of the Government Party would put down the necessary motion. If we are meeting to-morrow I think we should take this by consent.

Mr. O'Connor

I should like to ask the Minister a question. I have listened with great attention to the debate, to the various points raised about assent and dissent, and about the number of members who should constitute the Board. When is the Board to be appointed, or who are to be members of the Board? I have been informed that this Board has not yet come into existence, and that the members are to be volunteers. I consider that it would be a very good thing if we could be told who the members are to be. They are supposed to be volunteers, and to work for nothing. I believe that it will be very disagreeable work.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Until the Bill is finally disposed of, one cannot even say how many the Board will consist of, and until I know that it would be very premature for me even to consider the appointments.

Cathaoirleach

I suggest that the Final Stage of the Bill be taken at the next meeting of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.