There are three amendments which obviously stand or fall together. One decision will cover them all.
Censorship of Publications Bill, 1945—Report and Final Stage.
On the Committee Stage of this Bill there seemed to be general agreement in the House that the provision under which a number of Senators and Deputies might join in an application to the appeal board should be deleted from the Bill. Accordingly, I move the first of the amendments standing in my name:—
In page 5, Section 8 (1), after the word "publisher" in line 21, to delete all words up to and including the word "jointly" in line 23.
I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension. I said I would consider any case made for the exclusion of this provision from the Bill. I have thought over it, and I think it is quite a desirable thing to have that right vested in members of the Oireachtas. If any five members of the Oireachtas think that a book ought not to have been banned, I think it is quite right that they should have the right to appeal. It may not be a thing that would happen very often; I do not think it would. Generally, I imagine it would be the publisher or the author who would appeal, if there were to be any appeal at all, but we can visualise a case in which a book written or published by people outside the jurisdiction of this State might be banned, and the author or publisher might take no interest in that at all, while there might be a considerable volume of opinion here that the particular book ought not to have been banned. In a case like that—it may not be likely to occur very often, or perhaps it may not occur at all—I can see no reason in the world why representative people, such as members of the Oireachtas, should not have the right to have the question settled by the appeal board. It is really an extra safeguard. There may be a section of the public of opinion that the book had been banned without sufficient cause. I do not think there is any case for withdrawing the provision. Even if there is not a demand for the provision in this House, I am quite satisfied that when the Bill goes to the Seanad I will have a demand for it there. I have thought over the whole matter and am not prepared to accept the amendment.
Is it not a fact that, in the Bill as at present drafted, the author or publisher can appeal to the appeal board and, on payment of £5, can have the appeal heard?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
And that if the appeal is found to be reasonable, if it is found not to be frivolous although the appeal may not be upheld, the £5 will be refunded?
Mr. Boland
That is correct.
I should like to ask the Minister to give us some reason as to why it is necessary to have an easier road to appeal than that?
Mr. Boland
I have given the only case I can think of. I am quite satisfied that if the publisher and the author were in this country they would appeal if they thought there was ground for appeal. The only case I can mention is the one I have given. It might happen that a book by a foreign author might be banned, and there might be a considerable volume of opinion objecting to that, but the publisher and the author might not take sufficient interest in the Irish reading public to appeal. That is the only case I can give. It might never arise, but I think it is a good thing to have such a provision.
I take it the Minister would call an English publishing house a foreign publishing house, or an English author a foreign author?
Mr. Boland
What I really meant was one at a distance—an American or European publisher. The book might be a translation. I imagine that English publishers, being so near here, might taken an interest in it. The Deputy can imagine as clearly as myself that a case such as I have mentioned might arise. There is no compulsion on Deputies or Senators. The reason why it is confined to Deputies and Senators is that they are people of responsibility, who will not lightly make an appeal. They will have to watch what they are doing, and be able to stand over it in public. Consequently, it is not a thing that will be lightly done.
I should like to know if the Minister will make sure that if the publisher or author has to pay the Deputy a fee of £5—and in the case of five Deputies that would be £25—to take up a case, the Deputies will return the £5 if the case is not upheld?
Mr. Boland
The only £5 is in the case of the author, and that would be sufficient for the author or publisher.
The Minister has agreed that when they put down a fee of £5 there can be an appeal, but this is another case in which five Deputies may appeal against something. I think there is some point there, and I should like to know what exactly is in the back of the Minister's mind there.
Mr. Boland
I have nothing in the back of my mind. There is nothing in my mind other than what I have stated.
I wish to say that, for once, I think the Minister is perfectly right in his attitude here, and I should like to say that, if I were in the Minister's position, I would oppose this also and would speak out whatever was in my mind. I think it is a good thing that if five men, who must be deemed to be reasonable people, inasmuch as we have been elected here by many thousands of voters, peruse a book and declare it not to be in its general tendency indecent and say, as five Catholic, Protestant and decent men: "We see nothing indecent in this book and want this thing reviewed because we do not believe that any ordinary five men could find anything indecent in its general tendency" they should be able to do so. If Land of Spices had been condemned under this, I would have been glad to be in a position to put my name down asking for a review of that decision, and there are three or four other books in connection with which I would have welcomed an opportunity to sign a memorial asking for a repeal of such a decision, if it were only to have it go on record that I, as a modest, Catholic individual, could see no justification whatever for the fantastic idea of condemning these books as being in their general tendency indecent. There are lots of books which, in the Latin tongue, are not virginibus puerisque, but to describe certain books as being in their general tendency indecent I believe to be an injustice. Because I believe it is desirable, over and above the safeguards provided in this Bill by way of appeal, to enable five responsible citizens, men or women as they happen to be, members of this Oireachtas, to invite the appeal board to review the original decision, I welcome the Minister's stand on this matter. I know, of course, that anybody who dares to say that there should be any modifications or relaxation of censorship in this country leaves himself open to the charge that he is a freethinker and an atheist, and if anyone wants to describe the Minister as such for his attitude, I, for once, find myself in agreement with him. If anybody wants to describe the pair of us as atheists and freethinkers, we will be together for this occasion at least on that, but for this occasion only.
Mr. McMenamin rose.
I might remind the Deputy that we are not in Committee now and can only hear Deputies once. However I am prepared to give the Deputy an opportunity.
Before Deputy Dillon spoke, I wanted to refer to some of the books mentioned by the Deputy a moment ago, and, in that connection, I want to know whether this will be in any way retrospective. I confess that I have read some of the books that have been condemned already and found nothing indecent or pornographic or anything of that kind in them. I am not now talking about Miss O'Brien's book, but other books which have been banned, and yet sound judges of literature—good and holy Roman Catholics too—found nothing pornographic in them. If the judges have the power to review those books that have been banned I would agree.
Mr. Boland
So far as that is concerned, a book that has been banned under the existing Act will become automatically banned under this Act, and the author will have the same rights under this as under the other. Consequently, it is all open.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Question—"That the Bill he received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On the motion that the Bill do now pass I want to raise a point which I think is of some importance. Now, it is necessary to preface my observations by the platitude that every normal man and woman in this community and every other community wants to prevent the dissemination of pornography. Every normal man and woman wants to prevent any corrupt person from selling pornography to impressionable persons, young or old, for the purpose of corrupting them, and I think that that is the principal purpose of the censorship legislation. But, as a result, I believe, of an amendment to the original Act, proposed by Senator Sir John Keane in the Seanad, power was conferred upon customs officers at ports of entry to this country to search passengers' baggage for books, which were their own private property, and to abstract these books from their baggage, peruse them on the quayside and, in their absolute discretion, submit them to the censors of this country, withholding them from the passenger until such time as a ruling had been given by the censor as to whether the books were fit and proper for perusal or not. Surely, that was never the intention of this Oireachtas. Our intention was to secure that people would not bring pornography into this country for the purpose of corrupting the impressionable elements of our community. It is none of our business what individuals may care to bring into this country in their baggage for their own perusal. I know there is a risk. It is conceivably possible that some diabolically minded person would bring in a pornographic volume with a view to passing it on to impressionable people for their corruption, but the likelihood of that happening is so remote that it seems to me to be grotesque to provide for it by legislation, and the amount of offence which is given to persons entering this country by officious officers of the customs and excise who have availed of this power to harry and annoy passengers coming here is fantastic.
Now, does the House want, or does the Oireachtas mean or desire to enter into the personal activities of every individual in this State, never mind every individual from outside this State who happens to visit Ireland? Does the Oireachtas want to place on the Minister for Justice the obligation not only to supervise the character of literature offered for sale in this country, but to go into every citizen's library in this country, determine whether the books on the individual's shelves are fit and proper books to be there, and abstract them? Because, unless that is our intention: to place on the Minister the right and obligation to go into every individual's library, scan the books on the shelves and abstract books from the shelves, why should an officer have the power to take from a passenger's handbag a book that he would not have the power to take from a shelf in the man's library? Now, suppose it became known to the police that an individual was constantly passing back and forth across the Channel and bringing in packages of undesirable books, it would be quite open to the Gárdaí to prosecute that man for his activities, and, of course, they could do so. Customs officers or Gárda officers ordinarily on duty at ports of entry are there and can identify individuals who are engaged in illegitimate traffic of the kind to deter them from attempting to make a system of it, but that that power should be twisted into a general power directing customs officers to open an individual's baggage containing some books that he had for his entertainment or his instruction, would, I suggest, be a very serious blot on censorship in this country, and ought to be reviewed. Have any legal device by which pornography should be controlled without such a penalty as that. I have no doubt that if the Minister will reflect on the matter he will agree with me, at least, in the spirit of my representation, and I await with interest to hear from him whether, in his judgment, it would be prudent to provide the relief I suggest.
I think the point raised by Deputy Dillon is one to which reference was made on the Second Reading of the Bill, when, as far as I recollect, the Minister said that that particular power was taken to deal with periodicals. It seems to me that it leaves itself open to question when we have to bring in a Bill of this kind. We have to deal with this problem of pornography, because we have people who are not normal in certain respects, and because of their abnormality certain measures have to be taken to try to restrict their activity. When we questioned the Minister on the peculiar power given customs officers, not only to extract prohibited books from the baggage of passengers but to extract a book that had not been examined, and to extract it on the individual view as to whether the book might or might not warrant prohibition, possibly the Minister may answer that the powers given are not going to be used in an arbitrary way, that customs officers will apply their good sense, and deal with the passenger in a courteous and fair-minded way. But if we are to deal with the exceptions, we have to allow for exceptions being made to the rule, not because customs officers may not have any particular interest in extracting these books and making themselves a nuisance, if you like, but where you have the average type of person being given power which may be exercised in a certain manner. Here a customs officer is given power to detain a book and refer to the appeal board, but, at the same time, we are giving him power to go right through the baggage of incoming passengers, to take out a book and to exercise his own interpretation and his own valuation of the book, and on that basis send it for examination and possible prohibition.
When we recollect the manner in which the examination of the ordinary individual is carried out, that it is not carried out in a private place, but within public view, generally at a barrier at which anything that goes on is open to the view of other passengers who are likewise being examined, I can see that a person might be seriously embarrassed by a customs officer extracting a book in a public manner and in such a way that it must of necessity arouse the attention of other passengers. A book is detained to be sent on to the board and whether the customs officer desires to give that impression or not, definitely the passenger will have the feeling that he is being placed in an embarrassing position. In the case of every such book the title or the name of the individual who wrote it might be taken. The book could then be sent on in the ordinary way and examined in chambers, where an order is made and no particular person is open to embarrassment or placed in any objectionable situation. We have to recall that the Bill does not make it illegal for a person to have a prohibited book, except when the book is for distribution and for sale. It is set down in the Bill that it is a perfectly good defence to prove that a book is not being retailed for sale. If there is a case of a passenger coming into this country with a single copy of a book, it is not going to be a commercial proposition to bring in one book at a time, yet, in order to close that minute loophole, we are giving these exceptional powers to customs officers. Surely it would be possible for a customs officer, when going through baggage, to make a note of the name of a book and to communicate with the board and, in the ordinary course, they would acquire a copy for examination, without giving these extraordinary powers to customs officers which, no matter how carefully exercised, must necessarily give rise to embarrassment and interference with the ordinary private rights of individuals.
I feel strongly in regard to the private rights of citizens but, at the same time, I feel there is a problem which the Minister is up against, and that is to deal with books published outside this country which have not been brought to the notice of the Censorship Board. It would appear to me that the most speedy and most effective way of bringing these books to the notice of the Censorship Board would be through a customs officer who would get the books at places of entry. A new point, however, was made by Deputy Larkin, that customs officers could take a note of the title of a book, and the place of publication and send these particulars to the Censorship Board, so that the book could be examined. It would be possible for the Censorship Board to obtain the book afterwards. There is a good deal also in the point that a citizen might be open to serious embarrassment if a book was taken from his possession on entry, while it might afterwards be proved that the Censorship Board decided it was not open to condemnation. But the citizen concerned would have been held up, perhaps, to the odium of fellow passengers, and would have no redress, if informed afterwards that the book was all right. I think the Minister should consider the point raised by Deputy Larkin, that it would be sufficient for customs officers to take note of the title of a book and to send it on to the board.
Mr. Boland
On that point, there is nothing new in this provision. As I pointed out on a previous stage, customs officers had the right, under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, to detain any book they thought was obscene or indecent. That was before there was any censorship legislation such as there now is. That British Act was in operation here during all those years. In other countries, I am told that the same position obtains.
We have a Censorship Act here now.
Mr. Boland
That is so. My information is that the picture drawn by Deputy Dillon of a person's luggage being rummaged for such books is not accurate. If a banned book happens to be discovered in the course of the ordinary examination of a person's luggage, the customs officer will hold it up. That may not be the proper thing to do but it is done. What the position is if a person has a banned book in his own library, I am not sure, but I imagine he would be entitled to keep it. However, a person will not be allowed to retain a banned book when coming into the State if it comes under the notice of a customs officer.
Most of the books sent to the Censorship Board by the customs authorities are stopped in the course of post and form part of parcels sent to booksellers. It is only very rarely that a book which is not banned is detained in the course of the ordinary examination of luggage. If we had had an amendment dealing with this matter on Committee Stage, we could have considered it at greater length but no such amendment was tabled. As this arrangement had been operating for close on 70 years and as it obtained in many other countries, I thought that there was no great objection to it. I do not think that passengers are embarrassed in this connection. If we were to exempt private luggage from this provision, we might find loopholes created which it would be hard to close. We may, I think, leave the matter to the commonsense of the customs officers, who have done their work very well since this Act came into operation. We shall be taking no risk in doing that and I do not think that it will result in damage to anybody.
Would the Minister undertake to communicate with the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners and point out that, while he desires no relaxation whatever of vigilance to restrict the importation of pornography for distribution in this country, he does think that it goes beyond the spirit of existing legislation to be looking for books in the possession of individuals which, it is manifest, are not intended for resale, or transfer to other individuals? If the Minister would do that, I believe the point would be met. It is well that we should be ad idem. My complaint was about Rosslare.
The Deputy is now making a second speech.
I want to put a question to the Minister. The Minister says that his information is that there was no abuse.
Mr. Boland
Very little.
My complaint is about Rosslare and relates to the pre-war period. Imagine a lady of my acquaintance, of most virtuous character, being held up on the pier by a customs officer and sternly rebuked because of the character of the literature she was carrying, which literature was, I understand, given her by a nun. Imagine the customs officers taking the book from her and telling her, coram populo, that he was going to send it to the censor. The fellow must have been daft. He was a plague and a pest but he was acting within his rights. If the Minister would get into consultation with the Revenue Commissioners and ensure that “dafties” of that character would be locked up in Amiens Street and that this duty would be carried out by reasonable men, it would be all that would be required. It is a monstrous thing that a decent girl should be held up to public odium as a purveyor of pornography because she is bearing in her reticule a book given her by a reverend mother.
Question put and agreed to.