Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jan 1947

Vol. 33 No. 9

Censorship of Publications Act Regulations—Motion to Annul

Professor Johnston

I understand it will facilitate the business of the House if I move the motion standing in the name of Senator Kingsmill Moore. I move:

That the Regulations entitled Censorship of Publications Act, 1946, Regulations, 1946 (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1946, No. 254) made by the Minister for Justice on the 6th day of July, 1946, under Section 20 of the Censorship of Publications Act, 1946 (No. 1 of 1946) and laid upon the Table of the Seanad on 16th August, 1946, be annulled.

Unfortunately, the Senator is unable to be in the House until 5 o'clock. He is a very busy man and did not brief me about this beforehand, so I have not the least idea what all these mysterious figures mean. I gather that this motion, if moved in the House, would enable the Minister to make a statement and would help to bring into operation the machinery for providing the appeals to the Appeal Board, which is a very desirable thing.

Sir John Keane

I can elaborate a little on the motion and I hope I can convey correctly to the House what was in the Senator's mind. He objects to the provision whereby, when a book is brought to the notice of the Appeal Board, it should contain marked passages. He says that is an invitation in effect — and I agree with him; I am not sheltering myself behind the Senator's view — to the Appeal Board not necessarily to read only the marked passages but to weigh mainly those marked passages and, if they are a bit daring, to ignore the main body of the book, which may be innocent or even distinctly beneficial to the reader. It seems only right that the book as a whole should be considered by the Appeal Board and that their attention should not be specially directed to any marked passages.

It is largely a psychological point. Put yourselves in the position of a member of the Appeal Board. You are a busy man and you want to get through the job honestly but as quickly as possible. You see these marked passages and say they are dreadful and lightly—perhaps, in the spirit of a reviewer who says: "Well, I turned every page, but cannot say I read every page"—you hurriedly run through the remainder of the book.

There is another matter which will be obvious to all of us. It is the necessity of providing six copies of every book forming the subject of an appeal. It may be physically impossible to get six copies of a banned book. If I wanted them to-day where would I go? I might get them from the publisher on the other side, but that is not even sure. In fact, I was concerned with a party who was appealing and who said to me: "I do not know that my publisher has got six copies readily available, even if I want them." Would the Minister consider some modification of the requirements? I confess I am not in a position to say what should be done, but presumably there must be more than one copy in the possession of the board. I take it that the board and the Appeal Board do not work in watertight compartments and that copies in the possession of one would be available to the other. It would be a physical impossibility for those appealing to lay their hands on six copies of a book. Those are the grounds on which I understand the Senator has put his motion down.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

That is the information I have, too, that these are the two grounds on which Senator Kingsmill Moore put down the motion. I will deal with the last one first, as I am inclined to give way on the point. There is a case certainly that members of the Oireachtas who propose to appeal should not be required to send six copies. The Department ought to do that themselves, so I am prepared to have that deleted.

I think there is a very good case for retaining the other provision, with all respect to Senator Sir John Keane. If a person told me a thing was objectionable, I would ask what was objectionable about it. A complainant should state on what grounds he considers a book objectionable. That is a reasonable requirement. There is a great number of books sent in and the board should at least be told in what respect the objector thinks the book is objectionable. The usual thing is to mark a particular part, but I am sure that a competent board would not condemn a book unless it was generally indecent. There should be a prima facie case for the objection. I would not be inclined to waive that requirement, as I consider it necessary and desirable.

He is also expected to put down a deposit which, of course, will be refunded if there are grounds for the appeal. If it is a frivolous appeal the board is entitled to keep the money. In the case of Deputies and Senators who are not going to make frivolous appeals they should not be put to the expense and trouble of getting copies of the book and I am prepared to waive that part.

Professor Johnston

I think the Minister's explanation is quite satisfactory.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the Senator concluding?

Professor Johnston

No, perhaps the best thing would be for some one to move the Adjournment.

Mr. Hayes

I did not want to speak on this matter at all, but I think the position is that Senator Kingsmill Moore was left under the impression that he could raise this matter at 5 o'clock to-day. As the Minister happened to be here unexpectedly in connection with another Bill we dealt with this motion and I think that we should leave the matter over and adjourn.

Mr. Hawkins

Yes, leave it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hayes

I move the adjournment of the debate until next sitting day.

Agreed.

Debate adjourned until next sitting day.

Seanad adjourned at 3.34 p.m.,sine die.