Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 19 May 1925

Vol. 11 No. 16

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - DÁIL IN COMMITTEE.

Amendment 7:—In page 3, before section 4, to insert a new section as follows:—

"(1) The number of members constituting the Appeal Board shall be twelve, of whom three personally present together at a review of a film picture shall form a quorum.

(2) Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Principal Act is hereby repealed."

Professor MAGENNIS

The proposal submitted in this amendment has reference to the principal Act. There it is enacted by Section 3, sub-section (1):—

"There shall be established a Censorship of Films Appeal Board consisting of nine Commissioners, of whom one shall be Chairman."

In sub-section (6) of the same section it is set out:—

Four members of the Appeal Board personally present shall form a quorum for the hearing of appeals and the decision of the majority of the members present shall be the decision of the Appeal Board, save that, whenever such a majority is less than four, or the members present are equally divided, the appeal shall be re-heard in the presence of not less than seven members of the Appeal Board and the decision of the majority of the members present at such re-hearing shall be the decision of the Appeal Board, but if, on such re-hearing, the members present are equally divided, the decision of the official censor shall be affirmed.

My amendment is in essence a proposal to increase the number of the Appeal Board from nine to twelve, and then it deals with the quorum—that three shall be personally present together at a re-view of a film picture. By the way, "review" is what is printed on the Order Paper here. By my mistake it was written thus, and not as it was intended, "re-view." In sub-section (2) of the amendment, I propose on the Paper to repeal sub-section (1). What I should have written was sub-section (6), which is a wholly different matter. If you, sir, would allow me to make that correction now, clause 2 of the amendment would read: "Sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the principal Act is hereby repealed."

In his last observations on Friday, the Minister hinted to the Dáil, in unmistakable terms, that he would resist this amendment—or at any rate, part of it. That came as no shock or thunderbolt to me. I was aware of that in an indefinite way since the beginning of January. The House is probably not aware that a year's experience of the working of the Act gave to some of those who were concerned in it practically new lights on certain aspects of it, and prompted them to suggest alterations. Since the discussion on Friday I looked up my correspondence with the Ministry and I find that so early as the 4th November I was making representations as to the necessity for certain changes. For example, here is a letter from the Department of Justice, dated 4th November, 1924. It says, in part:—

As regards your remarks concerning the need for censorship of posters displayed outside cinemas, I am to say that the Censorship of Films Act, 1923, does not make any provision for such censorship.

Of course it did not. That was the reason why the need for new legislation for the purpose was pointed out. Then again, I have a later letter in November, which states:—

I am directed by the Minister for Justice to state that he has carefully considered recent representations made by you regarding the difficulties in connection with the working of the Censorship of Films Act, 1923. He is making arrangements for a draft amending Bill to be prepared for introduction in the near future.

That is the present measure.

The amending Bill will prescribe penalties for any breach of regulations,

And then the letter concludes in this courteous fashion:

The Minister would, however, be glad to receive any further observations you may care to offer on any points that may have occurred to you.

On December 23rd—a most inopportune date—I wrote to the Minister:

In regard to the amendments to be effected in the Censorship of Films Act by your proposed Amending Act, I should be glad to have an opportunity of putting you in possession of various matters that experience of the actual working of the Act has brought under our notice. One thing especially I desire to emphasise—the number of the Board and its composition make it very difficult to comply with Section 3, sub-section (6):

That is the section I propose in this amendment to repeal—

namely—four members of the Appeal Board personally present, shall form a quorum for the hearing of appeals and the decision of the majority of the members present shall be the decision of the Appeal Board save

I would ask the attention of the House to this exception:

that whenever such majority is less than four or the members present are equally divided, the appeal shall be re-heard in the presence of not less than seven members of the Appeal Board."

This was the difficulty with which the Chairman of the Appeal Board was confronted. Members of the Dáil are probably not aware that under the regulations of the Department of Justice, when a renter has failed to receive a certificate for his film-picture from the censor, he is, within the meaning of the principal Act, an aggrieved person, and he notifies the Chairman of the Appeal Board that he proposes to appeal against the decision of the censor, and he thereupon lodges with the Chairman of the Board a fee of £5. The Chairman then notifies the Secretary of the Appeal Board and, with his assistance, proceeds to try to get together a quorum within the requirements of sub-section (6).

That is where the difficulty begins. It is certainly not where the difficulty ends. There are nine members. I do not think that on any occasion the nine were together. They are all very busy people. They have other occupations, and despite the fact that they are all, I presume, persons of public spirit and interested in serving the State, it is very difficult for them to reconcile their own professional obligations and to regulate their time to suit the special requirements of this situation. I say "the special requirements of this situation," because it not infrequently happens—not infrequently in proportion to the total number—that a film renter informs me that he desires to appeal, and begs of me to get the appeal heard at the earliest moment. Believing that his film was irreproachable, spotless, he has already booked it. Possibly the best I can do to get together a meeting of the Appeal Board is to have them to meet on Saturday. That film is advertised to be displayed in a cinema on Monday and in some other place on Friday, let us say. It is of the utmost concern to the renter of the film, and to the exhibitors, to get the appeal heard but how are they to be expedited? The trouble all falls on the one member of the Board, the Chairman of the Board. He is obliged to convene the meeting.

I had better state, perhaps, who the members of the Appeal Board are, and then the House will realise this is a very natural difficulty. First of all, there is a Catholic clergyman who, on the days that most of the others are free, is occupied with his religious duties. He is in a very busy and a very difficult parish, Marlboro' Street. Then the other clergyman, Canon Drury, is a Professor of Theology in the Theological School in Trinity College, and for a large part of the academic year he has lectures on Saturday morning. Then we have two professional men, doctors—Dr. Gogarty, and a member of this House, Dr. Myles Keogh. During the forenoon they are completely occupied. It is out of the question to hear the appeal then. There are two representatives of the feminine judgment in these matters, Senator Mrs. Wyse-Power and Maire Ni Chinnéide. There is also the Chairman. Now, I notified the Minister to the effect that the number of the Board and its composition made it very difficult to comply with Section 3, Sub-Section (6). On one occasion I waited from the hour appointed for the meeting—that is, 10.30 a.m.—to 1.30 p.m., and had to send away the film renter's representative, who was in despair, because he had the picture booked for a few days later. I got each member of the Board to state which day of the week and which hour would suit best. The result proves the impossibility of ever having the nine members together. It simply could not be done. The only remedy is either to increase the number of members of the Board or do away with this requirement.

Observe how Sub-Section (6) works out. We will suppose there are four members present. They must be unanimous if there are only four. If there are five members present, and one will not vote, or, as is sometimes the case, goes out to avoid the responsibility of voting, then the other four must vote the identical opinion. Suppose there are seven present, and one of them will not vote, and that the six others are equally divided. Again there is no decision. The Chairman has no casting vote, naturally enough; he has sufficient responsibility without that. Now, that is really how it works out. I do not want to press the point that the Board is an unpaid Board, because I do not believe that has actually any appreciable effect upon the difficulty of getting a full meeting.

But as I pointed out in dealing with the first amendment, it is a very responsible position. It is worse; it is a thankless position. I do not want to indicate any difference of opinion among the existing members, but we will suppose a case. The principal Act very rightly gives no indication in specific terms as to what sort of film must of necessity be refused a certificate. In other countries there are such regulations. I brought the Film Year Book of the United States several days during the time when the measure was on the Orders of the Day for Second Reading. I had hoped to have an opportunity to show some of the very strict and very rigid requirements of Australia, Canada, Maryland, Virginia, Alabama, Oregon, etc. But we in the Free State have what I believe is a much better method. There are broad indications in the principal Act. If the film, it says, "is indecent, obscene, or blasphemous," and then each film is dealt with on its own merits both by the censor and later, if it comes before the Board of Appeal, by the members of the Board. But the view generally entertained by the Board is that we have nothing whatever to do with vulgarity, as such, or with the artistic or inartistic character, as such, that we are merely to consider the probable effect of the exhibition of this picture to a general audience upon a miscellaneous set of spectators. We conjecture as to what would be the probable effect in regard to morality, whether or not it would lower the standard of moral judgment or exhibit bad example, or whether it would be in any vague way subversive of public morality.

We will suppose I hold the view that there are certain forms of vulgarity in what are known in the trade as the slap-stick type of comedy, and that by debasing the taste these inevitably affect the moral standards as well. Assume I take up that attitude, and another member of the Board says: "No, this is only vulgar fooling; it is clowning, and it will please a very large number of audiences, especially of children; let it go." Or again, another member of the Board says:—"I object to this picture; there is a great deal of suffering exhibited in it, barbarity to animals or to women or children; it is hideous, it is horrible; I will not permit that." Then another member of the Board contests that view, and says that that has nothing to do with morality, it is merely concerned in what is painful to the feelings, and so on. We can well appreciate how long a discussion of that kind could occupy, and how difficult in the end it would be to get a unanimous verdict from four. For the most part, at the end, when the real verdict comes to be pronounced, there are very rarely more than four present. The differences of opinion are almost infinite in certain regards. I could give actual cases of that, but I do not like to delay the House. I feel that if I did give concrete examples, I could make a better case.

I do not really care whether the Minister refuses to increase the number of the Board or not, provided that he will abolish this stricter requirement as regards re-hearing. I purposely introduced new phraseology in the amendment, where I refer to a re-view, because the House will notice that in the principal Act what is spoken of is "hearing an appeal." Hearing an appeal is very easily understood in the case of a contention or dispute, either with regard to law or facts or both. But what is in question here is the seeing of a story, exhibited by means of photography—photographs of actors —and what is to be discussed is: should this picture be given a certificate entitling it to be exhibited in public? So what is absolutely requisite is that the members of the Appeal Board should see the picture and it is also necessary that they should see it at the same time. Although that seems a petty point, in practice I can assure you it is not, because the speed at which the film is exhibited by the operator makes an important difference. For instance, sometimes the censor or the Appeal Board will stipulate that as regards what is called the sub-title—that is the written matter—there is something in it which ought to go out. Yet if much of the scene to which it belongs is not there and is not understood, the whole development of the story is unintelligible. What is agreed upon is that some of that acting situation shall be cut out and the reading matter shall be shown at a rapid speed—as a mere flicker. I will return to that later, with your permission.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I must remind the Deputy that in Committee, speeches must not exceed ten minutes in duration, and three speeches are allowed on each amendment. The Deputy has already spoken for twentytwo minutes.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The effect of the amendment would be to increase the number of the members of the Appeal Board from nine to twelve, and to diminish the quorum to three. When the principal Act was first introduced the Appeal Board consisted of five members. Largely on the representations of the Deputy that number was increased to nine, and we inserted a special provision to secure that in cases of doubt, a Board consisting of at least seven members would re-view the picture. I quite understand that a difficulty has arisen from time to time in getting a sufficient number of members of the Board, but I doubt if the amendment will meet that situation. As a fact, there is this evil about a large Board. Take a Board of twelve with a quorum of three, as suggested, and any kind of continuity of policy on the part of the Appeal Board goes, or can go, because you could have, for instance, in a given month four entirely different Boards, not one member of the entire Appeal Board having been present at more than one sitting in the month. If it is difficult, as the Deputy tells us, to get a sufficient attendance from a board of nine, it is not going to be easier from a board of twelve.

I would be prepared to consider a reduction of the quorum but not an increase in the membership of the Board. I do not think any real solution or improvement lies in that direction. If it would meet the Deputy, say, to adopt half of his suggestion, that is a reduction of the quorum to three, and dispensing with re-hearing when there is a clear majority of three one way or the other, either in favour of or against exhibition of a film, possibly that would meet some of the difficulties experienced by the Board.

The Deputy treated us to some historical matter, and read portions of correspondence which passed between himself, in his capacity as Chairman of the Appeal Board and my Department. He might have completed the history when he saw fit to begin it. The Bill we are at present considering was in course of drafting in December last. Copies of the draft Bill were furnished to the Deputy on the 11th of that month.

Professor MAGENNIS

No, sir, they were not.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

On the 23rd, as he states, he wrote and explained that he had had difficulty in getting seven members of the Appeal Board to be present for the re-hearing of an appeal. On the 2nd January he was written to and asked to make any suggestion he might care to offer either for a reduction of the quorum or to dispense with the necessity of re-hearing, where the majority for or against rejection was less than four. I have no record of any reply to that communication, and really this amendment on the Report Stage of the Bill is the first indication of the Deputy's views that I have, or the first indication of the method by which he considers the administrative difficulties might be got over. However, that is merely a matter of historical accuracy. If the Deputy thinks a reduction of the quorum to three, and dispensing with re-hearing where there is a clear majority of three, would meet the case, that is something I would be prepared to put in, and I will put it in in the Seanad.

Professor MAGENNIS

I am quite satisfied with that result, but I would like to stipulate that the wording of this, with regard to the quorum, should be adopted, because, as I was about to explain, there is special justification for these words: "of whom three personally present together at a re-view of a film picture, shall form a quorum."

Here is one of the difficulties, and they are very many. The Act stipulates that an aggrieved person, on payment of a fee, shall receive from the Censor a written statement of his reasons for rejecting the film. Then it would appear that the aggrieved person is entitled to be present at what is called the hearing of the appeal. What we have never been able to determine satisfactorily is: Is the renter—that is the technical term for the trade representative—who comes along and offers a film picture to those who either own or manage a cinema, and who want to exhibit it for profit—to be present at the deliberations of the Appeal Board? To make the thing as fair as possible, I have always insisted—and was in the beginning a minority, I may add, in holding this—that the renter must be present during the time the picture is being exhibited to the Appeal Board to be able to assure himself that the Board have seen the entire picture, and that it is being done justice to and that the Board are in a proper position to form an estimate of it, but when it came to be a question of debate amongst members themselves as to the reasons why they were in favour of or against the recommendation of a certificate, that he should not be present.

On one occasion a film renter was present, and a humorous account of the cranky views, as they were alleged to be, of different members of the Board was the staple of conversation, I am informed, at the various hotel bars of the city. I introduced the word "re-view" to stipulate that a member of the Appeal Board, along with his colleagues, shall see the entire picture and shall then deliberate with them, and that the verdict shall thus be arrived at. Only in that way can we be in a position to know whether or not the renter's rights under the principal Act extend so far or not so far.

As regards the history, the Minister is evidently not aware that I began making this series of recommendations by telephone. I telephoned on two occasions and found that his secretary was absent, but the official with whom I dealt on the telephone was very good, listened to me very patiently and made a very careful note of what I said, so that the secretary was able to deal with it on his return.

As regards the letter of December 23rd, of course, it was very thoughtless of me to send a letter on what was practically Christmas Eve, but I received a reply to it after the holidays. I do not wish to dwell on the character of the reply. I had a personal interview afterwards with the writer, and explained to him that the dialectic point he was making against me was baseless, and that there was no inconsistency between the letter and the speech I made on the Second Reading of the original Bill, because in both cases I had stood for a large number of members on the Appeal Board in order to secure what is secured in a jury, that diversity of view and that variety of experience without which a verdict of that kind from laymen on matters of fact on decisions in regard to opinion, is not of the highest standard. My lack of reply, of which the Minister complains, is merely that it was not in writing; it was oral.

I would not have dealt with this matter at all but for the fact that the Minister used as a powerful weapon against my amendment, the plea that he had been in consultation with the Censor, and that the Bill had been prepared in consultation with the Censor. I desire to bring out the fact that his Department had been in consultation also with members of the Board of Appeal. However, as he is meeting me on the important point, I do not think it is of any value to indulge in a controversy on things which are more or less impertinent. That out of a membership of twelve there should be a quorum of three would leave a loophole for want of continuity in policy, is, undoubtedly true; but the fact is, in practice, there would not be what the Minister anticipates. Practically, it is the same membership of the Board of Appeal on every occasion, and it is the same people who are doing the work, so that if the Minister retains the membership of nine, but reduces the quorum and abolishes this re-hearing by seven members, I am perfectly satisfied to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I had better make sure that I am at one with the Deputy. My proposal is to reduce the quorum to three and to dispense with the re-hearing where there is a clear majority of three, either for or against the exhibition of a particular film. The principal Act, sub-section (6), of section 3, provides that four members of the Appeal Board personally present, shall form a quorum for the hearing of appeals, and the decision of the majority of the members present shall be the decision of the Appeal Board, save that whenever such majority is less than four when the members present are equally divided, the appeal shall be re-heard in the presence of not less than seven members of the Appeal Board. My proposal is to reduce the quorum to three for the hearing of appeals, and lower down, in line 11, to make this amendment: "Save wherever such majority is less than three or the members present are equally divided, the appeal shall be re-heard in the presence of not less than seven members of the Appeal Board." Does the Deputy agree that the change from four to three, in line 11, is sufficient to meet his point of view, or does he want the total abolition of the re-hearing by seven?

Professor MAGENNIS

Yes. The re-hearing by seven is the most difficult part of the regulation. It is practically impossible.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The total abolition of the re-hearing is rather removing something that was stressed considerably when the principal Act was going through in favour of the renter.

Professor MAGENNIS

The situation occurred only once where it was deemed necessary to get a meeting of seven. What I was obliged to do was this. As Chairman, I saw the film with three others. Then with two, and on another occasion with two others, so that seven had seen it and I was a sort of bond of union between them. We discussed the film and, fortunately, the renter was satisfied with the decision so that no one raised any point as to whether that was strictly the letter of the law. That is one of the requirements of the principal Act with which it is most difficult to comply.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The matter, of course, is not easy, one way or the other. Certain store was set on this re-hearing when discussing the original Act and it would seem rather drastic to abolish it entirely.

Professor MAGENNIS

Reduce the numbers.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Does the Deputy agree that there should be re-hearing?

Professor MAGENNIS

Yes.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Would he agree with the reduction of the number from seven to five?

Professor MAGENNIS

Yes.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

There are then three changes in sub-section (6). The first change is in line 1—the insertion of "three" instead of "four." The next change is in line 12, where "four" becomes "three." Then in line 13, "seven" becomes "five."

Professor MAGENNIS

Very well, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Professor MAGENNIS

I will move the following two amendments together as they deal practically with the same idea:—

In page 3, section 4 (1), to delete from the word "either," line 14, to the word "or," line 15, inclusive, and in line 16, after the word "informed" to insert the words "in writing."

In page 3, section 4 (2), line 18, after the word "sells" to insert the words "or otherwise provides," and in line 22 to delete the word "informed" and substitute the words "notify specifically in writing."

The person who displays a pictorial poster, etc., which has not been authorised will be technically guilty of an offence. He may plead in defence that he was not aware of the fact, and then there would be an inquiry as to whether or not he knew. I propose to put the onus on the film renter who supplies the pictorial advertisement, to make it necessary in letting out the film to the exhibitor, that he notifies the exhibitor in writing of the fact. Consequently, instead of there being a dispute as to whether on a certain occasion notice was given and received, the thing will be decided, and it may be decided in a court of law, as to whether or not a verbal or written notification was given.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Amendments eight and nine would be safeguards to the interests of the exhibitors. If they are adopted, every renter hiring a picture must give to the exhibitor a written guarantee that the official censor has not forbidden the exhibition on any poster of the exploitation sheet, other than those indicated. I would like to have the opportunity, but I have not had the time up to the present, to consult the trade as to the effect of these two provisions, but I will undertake to do so before the Bill is taken in the Seanad, and probably, unless a very substantial case to the contrary is urged, I would have an amendment inserted on the lines of these two.

Professor MAGENNIS

The Minister is quite right in saying that the intention is to protect the hirer or exhibitor. The exhibitor is a local man or company. The renter is making money not only out of the film, but out of the advertising matter he supplies to the exhibitor.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Professor MAGENNIS

I move:—

In page 3, Section 6 (1), after line 54, to insert a new paragraph (c) as follows:—

"Prescribe the method of procedure to be followed in dealing with appeals brought to the Appeal Board."

In Section 6 the Minister is authorised to make regulations to do all or any of certain things. I propose to add to the list as proposed in the amendment. In the principal Act, Section 12, it is laid down, that the Minister may by order make, vary, or revoke regulations carrying into effect the object of this Act, and in particular for regulating the conduct of the office of the official censor, to make all applications to him on the granting of certificates by him, and the bringing of appeals to the Appeal Board. I desire to have regulations made by the Department of Justice, not merely to regulate the bringing of appeals, but the hearing of appeals. I have already dealt with this incidentally. I wish it to be clearly understood what procedure is to be followed. On a re-view or appeal is the renter to be present personally or by representative; is he to hear the reasons discussed; is he to take part in the discussion; or is he to be a silent onlooker, or is he to be called on to withdraw? In other words, we want the situation set out clearly and authoritatively.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I have not quite seen the effect of the Deputy's amendment. I do not understand by it that he wants regulations made actually laying down the procedure of the Board as to its decisions, whom they would admit on the hearing of the appeal, and whether or not the persons so admitted would be entitled to express their views, or to defend the renter or agent, or whether the agent or renter would be permitted to defend a particular picture. If the Deputy considers that is necessary, or if his experience shows him it is necessary, it is something, of course, we would be bound to take notice of, but I would like an opportunity of looking into the Bill to see whether, in fact, the amendment is necessary, and to see whether we have not got the power of making regulations to cover points of that kind. If the draughtsman, or the Attorney-General, considers that, for the giving of such powers, this amendment would be necessary, I will undertake to insert it.

Professor MAGENNIS

I would direct attention particularly to Section 8, of the principal Act, "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Official Censor refusing to grant a certificate"—and so on. (2) "When notice of appeal under this section has been given the Official Censor shall furnish his reasons in writing to the Appeal Board for the decision appealed against."

There is part of the procedure laid out specifically in the original Act—"and shall furnish, on payment of the prescribed fees, copies of such reasons to every person who is entitled to appear and be heard at the hearing of such appeals." Who is entitled to appear and be heard? I have always contended that the hirer, the film renter, who has appealed against the Censor's decision, is entitled to be present at our sitting as an Appeal Board, to discuss the Censor's reasons with us and to discuss our reasons in turn, but, so far as I am aware, I am alone in that interpretation. Yet the words of the section which I have just read would point to that as the intention of the Act—"copies of such reasons to every person who is entitled to appear and be heard at the hearing of such appeal." Section 12 of the original Act deals with the making of regulations, and you have in sub-section

(1) "The Minister for Home Affairs may, by order, from time to time, make, and when made vary and revoke regulations for carrying into effect the objects of this Act, and in particular for regulating the conduct of the office of the Official Censor, the making of applications through him, the granting of certificates by him, and the bringing of appeals to the Appeal Board."

I am willing to admit that possibly the Minister has the power in the first part of that sub-section, namely, "to make regulations for carrying into effect the objects of the Act." But, inasmuch as the sub-section goes on to name the particular steps and stages of a process, it is in the interests of exhaustiveness of enumeration and to prevent discussion that I propose to add to the list prescribing the methods of procedure. That sub-section that I read will make it clear to the Minister why I am returning so frequently to the point that the words used are "hearing an appeal." I submit that it is not hearing an appeal unless the reasons are discussed. Some members of the Board of Appeal do not desire to be aware of the Censor's reason for rejecting a picture, so that they may approach it, as they say, dispassionately. Yet the requirements of the Act would seem to be that they must be aware of the reasons, and they are to keep these reasons in mind when viewing the picture so as to determine the worth or otherwise of these criticisms of the Censor. It will save a great deal of trouble, and remove, perhaps, opportunities of friction—not that friction has occurred—if the Minister were to add to his other regulations not merely that the appellant is to pay a fee of £5, and so on, but that the appellant shall, if he desires it, be entitled to be present, and to canvas the reasons, and so on.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

As I say, if the draftsman, and possibly the Attorney-General, if the point is of sufficient importance to refer it to him, consider that they have not in Section 12 of the principal Act, power to make such regulations as the Deputy indicates, I will ask to have the amendment inserted in the Seanad.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Professor MAGENNIS

I move:—

In page 3 to insert before section 7 a new section as follows:—

"(1) The Censor shall have authority in any case where he deems it advisable in the public interest to impose conditions on the exhibitor as to the circumstances under which the film picture shall be exhibited for which his certificate is sought and where such conditions so imposed are not accepted, or if accepted are not actually observed, the Censor shall be at liberty to withdraw his certificate.

(2) An appeal shall be permitted from the imposition of such conditions, or any of them, on the same terms as an appeal in the ordinary way from a decision of the Censor."

Many of these amendments are dictated by the desire to bring under the notice of the Minister and of the House the flaws, the shortcomings, that experience has revealed in the principal Act, and to try to arrive at some remedy, not necessarily the remedy as indicated in the amendment. Anyone who is superficially acquainted with the original Act would hastily conclude that my proposed new section is unnecessary. It would appear that all the power that it proposes to give to the Censor is already given, either through Section 6 or through Section 7 of the principal Act, so that to make my intention clear I will argue against my own amendment to that effect, bringing out all the powers that are embodied in Sections 6 and 7. There are two types of certificates which, under the Act, the Censor is permitted to issue. One is a general certificate and the other is a limited certificate, and these words are well understood in other countries, particularly in Great Britain. Elsewhere there are theatres for film picture exhibitions which are restricted to adults, to people above a certain age, or are open at certain hours, and a certificate may be granted entitling the exhibitor to show a picture to such an audience under these requirements, while a general certificate is refused for the same films. That is a practice followed in Great Britain: it has not been followed here. There is no cinema, so far as we are aware, which is reserved exclusively for children, though undoubtedly education and the public necessity could very well be served if such a thing were provided. The Censor, I believe,—I hope I do not misrepresent him—and some of my colleagues on the Board of Appeal, believe that if it became known that a restricted certificate had been granted to a film it would advertise it and that the queues waiting for admission to the house would require the whole Gárda to regulate them. That is the opinion; at any rate, so far, this distinction has not been drawn between a limited and a general certificate. In Section 7, sub-section (3), these words occur: "If the Official Censor is of opinion that any picture in respect of which an application is made to him under this section is not fit for general exhibition in public"—there the essential word is "general"—"but is fit for exhibition in public in certain places in Saorstát Eireann or under special conditions"—"or under special conditions," the words which I appear to have echoed in my proposition—"or in the presence of certain classes of persons, he shall grant a certificate that such picture is fit for exhibition in public subject to such restrictions and conditions (which shall be expressed on the certificate) in regard to the places at which or the special conditions under which the picture may be exhibited or the classes of persons who may be admitted to an exhibition of the picture as in the opinion of the Official Censor are necessary to prevent the exhibition of the picture in public being subversive of public morality." That authorises him to lay down conditions and restrictions as conditions precedent to his issuing a certificate, not for general exhibition, but for limited exhibition.

Section 6, sub-section (1) says:—

No picture nor any part of a picture in respect of which the Official Censor has granted a limited certificate shall be exhibited in public by means of a cinematograph or similar apparatus at any place not authorised by such certificate or under any conditions inconsistent with the special conditions specified in such limited certificate or in the presence of any person who is not a member of the class in whose presence such picture is by such certificate authorised to be exhibited.

It might seem that those two sections and their respective sub-sections give all the power to the Censor that I seek to confer on him by the amendment. What is in view in the amendment, however, is this situation, that the Censor will grant a general certificate, that is, one authorising exhibition in the usual places to the usual miscellaneous audiences at the ordinary times of exhibition. But it prescribes as part of the price for this that both the renter and the exhibitor shall give him a written undertaking that requirements that he lays down will be met. I have a specific case before me. A great deal of money has been put into the production of pictures of late which do for audiences to-day with the help of photography what was done in the middle ages by the monks, by way of educating the public in Bible History or in stories of men who figured largely in the history of the Jewish and the Christian religions. These pictures may be fit for exhibition to an audience composed of children, youths, adults, all kinds. But suppose it is felt, either by the Censor, or later by the Board of Appeal, that such a picture is not conducive to reverence and in that way it would be productive of ill-results if it were to be shown and the audience smokes and is treated to light music, or perhaps another part of the programme at the same sitting is one of these slapstick comedies, these vulgar atrocities to which I have already alluded, the Censor should be at liberty to say:—"Yes, I grant you a certificate for this, but you give your undertaking in writing that what I specify you will comply with."

The Censor has no such authority at present; all he can do is to grant a limited certificate, and there is, as I have indicated, this objection in practice to the granting of a limited certificate, that it may be prurient in its suggestion for some unhappily-minded people who will think that there is something in it that will give them a sensation or a thrill, and accordingly the granting of a limited certificate would be rather in the nature of an advertisement, defeating its own purpose.

I hope I have made clear that what is in view is that the Censor should have authority to give a certificate for general exhibition without its being stated either on the front or the back of the certificate that that shall be accompanied with the undertaking that the requirements set out by the Censor will be met, and if they are not met, that the Censor will be at liberty to withdraw his certificate. As I put it before, this is the price of the grant of the concession. A little while ago a renter brought along a sacred picture. When I heard the title, and he approached me about the matter, I said to him, "I am afraid there is a general prejudice not merely amongst the public but amongst ourselves, members of the Board of Appeal, against the exhibition of such a thing." Will you guarantee that during its exhibition there will be no smoking, waltz music, or jazz? I have had the experience of seeing Dante's "Inferno" exhibited in the Camden Street Picture House and followed by the "Merry Widow." It would be possible to have miracle plays and mystery plays followed by some stuff of the same kind, so that the audience would get the impression that they were all modes of entertainment, exactly like the child's idea who, when he is disillusioned about Santa Claus, frequently comes to the conclusion that all he has heard about the good Lord Jesus is exactly of the same kind, that they are stories told to him by his mother in his childhood, and are frauds and delusions. It would be necessary, if the Censor thought it desirable, to have pictures of a sacred character exhibited. It should be possible to exact that this picture should be exhibited by itself, with all due reverence, and that it should be treated not as an amusing thing, a mere entertainment or a pastime, but as something educative, instructive, or even edifying. I suggest that the powers sought for in amendment 11 are not in Section 6 and Section 7, and yet it is desirable that the Censor should have them.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think that the case Deputy Magennis made on this matter might be acceptable, but I can see possibilities in the other direction, and unless one has the view that the Censorship is desirable in itself, in any circumstances not, as it is in my view, rather something which we must utilise because of danger that we realise, unfortunately, is present. Unless one had the former view, that a censorship was good in itself, I think there is a danger in allowing the Censor to use his authority in such a way as is suggested in this amendment. It may be in the principal Act, which the Deputy has read, that the Censor has very great powers, but I surmise in this amendment we are going to give him powers not merely to segregate the religious sacred picture from jazz and the "Merry Widow," but to segregate the "Merry Widow" and such-like, and to make it a condition that nothing else but that kind of thing shall appear.

There are other possibilities that a censor will not have good judgment, will not be a guardian of public liberty, or will not have due regard to certain individual freedoms. If you give him this power to impose conditions as to circumstances under which the film shall be exhibited, etc., general conditions regarding the character of the picture, I am inclined to think it is possible it will be abused, not merely possible, but it is rather suggesting that he may exercise powers which have not yet been enacted in the principal Act as desirable. I think we ought to be careful not to hand over to the Censor too great power in such a matter as this. I would like the Deputy to make a better case for it, than he has done before I can support it.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The amendment is rather too subtle for me, not that I did not try very hard to follow the Deputy's explanation of the way in which it differs, say, from sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the principal Act. I submit that that difference is too fine a hair to split in legislation for the purposes of an Act which, after all, has to be administered and understood by many people who have not Deputy Magennis's capacity for the finer shades. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the principal Act reads:—

"if the Official Censor is of opinion that any picture in respect of which an application is made to him under this section is not fit for general exhibition in public but is fit for exhibition in public in certain places in Saorstát Eireann or under special conditions or in the presence of certain classes of persons he shall grant a certificate that such picture is fit exhibition in public subject to such restrictions and conditions (which shall be expressed in the certificate) in regard to the places at which or the special conditions under which the picture may be exhibited or the classes of persons who may be admitted to an exhibition of the picture as in the opinion of the Official Censor are necessary to prevent the exhibition of the picture in public being subversive of public morality."

I do not think the Deputy stated that he shared the opinion that certain of his colleagues on the Appeal Board held, that is, they considered that a limitation, or restriction, or condition expressed on the face of a certificate would be in effect an advertisement of the picture. That, unfortunately, may be true to some degree and as an alternative the Deputy suggests that the Censor should be allowed, as it were, to impose secret conditions that will not appear on a certificate, conditions known to himself and the exhibitor and unknown to the public and that in the event of a breach of such conditions it shall be open to the Censor to withdraw his certificate. An Act may be very finely drafted but it is the administration of it which matters, and if you insert in legislation fine-spun, subtle distinctions of this kind it is necessary to go a step further and see how they work out in practice and in administration. In practice, I, as a prospective exhibitor, come along to the office of the Official Censor in Molesworth Street and show him a picture.

He says:—"That is a very fine picture, but from the nature of it I would object to its appearing sandwiched between some of those other pictures to which Deputy Magennis has made reference, and if you so treat it, I will cancel my certificate, or, let us say, if you allow smoking in your picture house, I will cancel my certificate, or if there is anything in the behaviour of the audience in the picture house where it is exhibited that may cause me to regret having allowed this picture for public exhibition, I will reconsider my decision." But, who are to be the eyes and ears of the censor? Who is going to administer this Act for the censor in Dungarvan, Cork, Galway, and in all the towns through the country. If it is said that the censor, like other people, must work through the agents of the Government, through the Gárda Síochána, then they must know the conditions, but the conditions will not appear upon the certificate. The condition is something that has been imposed in Molesworth Street, Dublin, as between the censor and the exhibitor, and I submit that the amendment would be impossible of administration, because you cannot have emissaries in every picture house in the country seeing whether the conditions the Censor imposes on the face of the certificate are, or are not, observed. I hope I have done justice to the amendment, and that I have not misunderstood the Deputy's advocacy of it. My objection to the amendment is, that if it were incorporated in the Bill it would be impossible of administration in practice, and that is a serious objection to any amendment.

Professor MAGENNIS

My attitude to the amendment is indicated sufficiently, I think, when I say that like the Minister I, too, regard the distinction between it and Section 7, sub-section (3), and Section 6, sub-section (1) of the principal Act as rather fine. It is open to that objection. The question however, is, is this refinement necessary, and on that plea also there is the further question which I am very grateful to the Minister for raising in connection with this matter, namely, the feasibility of working it. Now, I will give you some instances of what can happen. In the discussion of the proposal to regulate the exhibition of pictures that were in the nature of photographic enlargements from the original negative from which the film picture was printed, we had occasion to take note of what in the trade are called "stills." When a picture is exhibited—I take it for granted, by the way, that members of the Dáil are aware of this—it takes so many feet of the actual film picture to produce one visual impression of a scene. For instance, there is a provision in the Act that the certificate of the Censor should be pre-fixed to every film picture, and its visibility depends on not having less than 15 feet of the film devoted to it. Otherwise it will not be read.

Now, in the case of the Censor or the Appeal Board, they can prescribe that portions of certain pictures shall be cut, that part of the development of the scene is to be eliminated, but that the opening of it may be flashed. What is permitted is what is called a flicker, just enough to suggest to the imagination of the spectators that something is about to happen, but that he is to be given no opportunity of dwelling upon it. The incident is not shown to him actually in detail. Now, it is possible to make a "still" or a photograph from the portion of the negative that is permitted to be shown in the filmed picture, and it is then that the effect of the picture becomes wholly different, because in the picture-house, when it is shown, it is merely observed in the thousandth part of a second, whereas in the other case it is prominently on view in a frame outside the cinema, so that any member of the public can stand and gaze at it so long as he is so disposed.

The Censor may say, "Remember, I am granting you a certificate for this picture, but such and such things are to be cut, and only the flicker is to be shown. I stipulate now that, in the provision of ‘stills,' you act in accordance with the spirit of that reservation." What I have mentioned just now is an actual case. I saw the other day in a beautiful film, a masterpiece of photography and of admirable acting, a "still" outside one of the Dublin houses, and I recognised in it a scene which we had cut out. I went to the Censor's office and made inquiries. I found that it was printed from the first portion of the rejected scene, but there is no power in the present Bill to deal with an exhibitor who, in doing that, was quite within his legal rights.

In another case we stipulated that a certain film, quasi-historical, should be permitted exhibition provided that the introductory original matter was expunged and new matter introduced which we prescribed. The producer and the exhibitor consented to those terms, and the result was a picture the whole spirit and interest of which was completely altered, and the effect of which upon the public was one which we calculated would be wholesome, whereas with the original introductory matter, and without our substituted matter, it would have been objectionable. Now, I discovered a little later that the purpose of these excisions and alterations was defeated by the production in the picture-house of a spoken prologue. There was a man dressed in costume as the chief agent in the story. He explained the picture, and read back into it what had been cut out from it. I draw the attention of the Minister to that. Of course the Minister is quite well aware, as we are all well aware, that there is no censorship over theatres, over the drama, over recitations, or over anything in the nature of dramatic action except it is photographically rendered. Consequently, there is no power to deal with such a case as I have just referred to, but the Censor could very easily prevent it by stipulating that there should be no such thing as spoken prologues.

There is another matter I had in view. It is with respect to printed advertisements as distinct from pictorial advertisements. More than once a picture has been given a new character by the "cuts." It has been reconstructed in fact; it has come before the Censor as a new picture, and has got a certificate although, originally, without its reconstruction and without the alterations prescribed, it was universally rejected.

Now, what happens? The bowdlerised and acceptable version of the film is shown, the advertising paragraphs called technically "teaser" and "punch" paragraphs are provided to the newspapers, and appear in the newspapers. Then the audience is aware, on reading the paragraphs, of the particular point at which it was cut, and, therefore, out of their imagination they are able to reconstruct the original objectionable picture. By the present Bill there is no power to deal with that, and will not be unless this amendment is accepted. The Censor is able to prescribe that if it comes to his knowledge that these practices are indulged in, he will withdraw his certificate. I quite agree with the Minister that the carrying out of this regulation would be very difficult, but the same criticism applies to his own amending Bill with regard to pictorial advertisements, for who is to inform the Censor, in his office in Dublin, that, at Ballymaglunnin, a poster is on exhibition not authorised by him? That would be work for the local Gárda; so would this. I quite admit, however, that in the case of a poster it is easier than it is in this case, but I would like to say, after all this criticism I have been making for two days, the trade in this matter, in Dublin, especially, is really now educated to this method and would not attempt to evade these requirements. What I am stipulating for is what I know the trade would not object to. They would enter into this undertaking and honourably observe it. As a matter of fact, the difference between the picture-houses, since the censorship was set up, is very remarkable. That is one of the reasons I paid tribute to the original Bill the other day. Some members of the Appeal Board only see the type of film that the Censor has rejected, because they are not film frequenters. Others, to keep their eye in, so as not to be prejudiced, do frequent picture-houses when the opportunity presents itself. They go there to see for themselves, and to get a fairer view. I myself have made it a practice to go to picture-houses when leisure allows, and see the general tenor of them, and I am aware that the level of pictures shown in Dublin cinemas is very much better in quality and in character than it used to be formerly. During the Easter holidays I was in Bristol, and I noticed that in three cinemas drawing huge audiences films were exhibited that were rejected in Dublin. The picture-houses are very clean in Dublin, and I am endeavouring to show that the exhibitors here are as keen as the Minister or the Censor in keeping them so, and this amendment that I am stipulating for is to arm the Censor with an opportunity that he has not got now of allowing films to come before the public that otherwise technically he would be obliged to refuse a certificate to.

Mr. JOHNSON

I feel in this matter we have to guard ourselves against the possibility of giving to the Censor powers, by excision, and imposing conditions, to create propaganda of his own.

In this matter, generally, we are thinking of the prevention of indecency, but there are other possibilities such as imposing conditions on renters and exhibitors which would have the effect of giving a propaganda value to certain pictures, on a certain side, and I would urge the Minister to be a little bit careful and have this consideration in mind: that, while it is desirable and necessary to guard against indecency and blasphemy, we do not desire to put into the hands of the Censor or the Board of Appeal power to create its own propaganda through films by imposing conditions so as to change to what is another current of propaganda. I can imagine that if the Censor has the powers that this amendment suggests it might place in his hands an instrument not to be the guardian of public morals but the creator of a current of propaganda in a particular direction. I would also draw the attention of the Minister to a particular fact that has come under my own notice. I cannot explain it, but I notice that the certificate spoken of as being an indication to the public that possible conditions have been imposed on the exhibitor by the Censor have to be exhibited on the film, but the only certificates now shown are flashed away in the thousand part of a second and no one has time to see the certificate or read it. You know it is there but you cannot see it, or read it, and for some reason or other, the certificates are exhibited for a much shorter period than the old ones that used to be signed by T. P. O'Connor. That is a consideration which I hope the Minister will take note of.

Amendment put and negatived.