Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Jun 1923

Vol. 3 No. 31

CENSORSHIP OF FILMS BILL, 1923 - (FROM THE SEANAD).

On the matter of the Censorship of Films Bill, the Minister for Home Affairs has given notice of an amendment which he intends to move in lieu of the Seanad amendment, and of another amendment consequential on that.

I take it, to put the matter perfectly in order, I would have to move that the Dáil do not agree with the amendment proposed by the Seanad, which reads:

To add at the end of Section 3 the following:—

"Provided that no person having stock or shares, or being financially interested in any Company having for its object the exhibition of pictures by means of cinematograph or similar apparatus, or production of pictures capable of being so exhibited, shall be eligible for membership of this Board."

I move that the Dáil do not agree with that amendment, and I propose an amendment which amply meets the object aimed at in the Seanad amendment, but which from the point of view of drafting is considered an improvement. It is.

"To add to Section 3 a new Sub-section as follows:—

`A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Appeal Board if he has, directly or indirectly, any share or interest in any Company or undertaking having as its object or one of its objects, the exhibition of pictures by means of a cinematograph or similar apparatus, or the production of pictures capable of being so exhibited.

I shall also move the following consequential amendment:—

In Section 3 (4) to insert after the word `death' occurring at page 3, line 43, and page 4, line 3, the words "becoming disqualified.' "

There is a term here which is rather a difficulty to me, "A person shall be disqualified from being a member of the Board if he has, directly or indirectly, any share or interest in any company." Will that not make it difficult in finding out whether a person is indirectly interested? For instance, if a person has his money in a bank and the bank is directly interested in a Film Company, is the man indirectly interested? It seems to be a term which can give rise to a very great difficulty in interpretation.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It was intended rather to cover the case say, of the son of a cinema proprietor, or a person of that kind.

That may be the intention, but what will be the lawyer's interpretation?

Question put: "That the Dáil does not agree with the amendment to the Censorship of Films Bill passed by the Seanad."
Agreed.
New Sub-section and consequential amendment put and agreed to.

A Message will be sent to the Seanad accordingly.

Barr
Roinn