Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 May 1967

Vol. 228 No. 6

Censorship of Publications Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill has two very specific and limited objects. First, it proposes to limit to 20 years the life of any prohibition order made on the ground that a book is indecent or obscene. It preserves, however, the powers of the Censorship of Publications Board to make a fresh prohibition order in respect of any such book. The second object is to remove the time-limit of one year on the right to take an appeal against any prohibition order in respect of a book.

"Indecency", "obscenity" and "censorship" are words that provide a perennial source of controversy, not only in this country but, either in relation to publications or films, in probably every country in the world. Any proposals for the introduction or variation of controls on the media of communications are bound to be criticised from one point of view or another. In general, I think that the censorship of publications system as operated in this country is supported by the vast majority of the people and that no fundamental change in the system would find favour. I am, however, fully aware that the operation of the system has its critics.

Some people may think that the system is not strict enough and that many more books should be prohibited. As to that, I believe that the existence of the censorship system guarantees that persons in the book trade take adequate care in the selection of what they import. I am convinced, on the other hand, that a genuine ground for criticism is that it is possible to produce a sizeable list of books that, as the law stands at present, are prohibited for all time and which have achieved recognition among responsible people here and abroad as being important works of literature. It is no less true that a good proportion of those very books are by Irish authors, some of whom are regarded as being among the finest writers in any language.

The instrument chosen to act as the community's watchdog in relation to publications, the Censorship of Publications Board, has one of the most difficult and unrewarding tasks of any voluntary body performing a public service. Its members have to take decisions on behalf of the community at large on the basis of their own experience and outlook, in a field where subjective opinion rather than objective certainly prevails. Their task, as I see it, is to try to bring to bear on each publication that comes before them what they conceive to be the judgment of the average mature and responsible adult of their time. And that, I think, is the root of the problem, because the views of that character-type, the average man of sound judgment, on the subject of censorship do not necessarily remain the same from generation to generation.

A decision that commanded pretty general approval in the 1930s to prohibit a particular book would not necessarily meet with the same measure of approval now. Standards of what is permissible change. The fantastic and unparalleled social and technological changes that have taken place in the last 40 odd years and, in particular, the changes in the media of communications have in my opinion, led to a quite definite change in the general toleration of outspokenness in literary productions. For example, the fact that television programmes from outside the State can be seen by viewers in many areas has helped to accustom the general public willy-nilly to franker treatment of many themes.

I do not propose to speak on the moral problems associated with the "freedom" generally exercised by writers nowadays, nor am I competent to do so, but I think it is startlingly clear that, under the law as it is, some books stand banned for all time that would not be banned nowadays.

I think it is only fair that something should be done to remedy that situation. Having considered what should be done, I have come to the conclusion that the very simple and pragmatic solution of limiting the life of prohibition orders would be, in practice, the best. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the books that have been banned down the years on the ground that they were indecent or obscene would have been banned by any of the Censorship of Publications Boards we have had, including the present one. Equally I have no doubt that they are of such limited merit as to be most unlikely to be found in circulation 20 years after publication. The remainder, being books that have established themselves as having literary or other merit, deserve, in my opinion, to be given a fresh start after the lapse of a reasonable length of time. The period should, of course, be such as, given the experience of recent years, would be likely to allow of an appreciable change in the general outlook.

Since the Bill was published it has been suggested that 20 years is too long and that a prohibition order should expire after a considerably shorter period so that the new provisions may be of some benefit to authors whose books may be out of print well before 20 years are up. I can see the point of this argument, but I think that it is to a large extent misconceived. If we have a Censorship Board, we must accept that its decisions, subject to those of the Appeal Board, reflect the opinions of its day, and it would be a contradiction of that to have its decisions set aside after a relatively short interval. However, I have already indicated publicly that I could be persuaded to agree to a somewhat shorter period, but unless I am satisfied that there is general support for such a change, I do not propose to recommend it.

The proposal in the Bill does not in any way at all lessen the power of the Censorship Board for the time being in office. They are free to prohibit again at any time any book that ceases to be prohibited after the 20-year interval. This accords with what I have said earlier about the Board's function as reflecting as far as possible the informed public opinion of its day.

The second proposal in the Bill will, I think, prove to be of some practical significance. It must often happen that a book is prohibited and no appeal is taken within the 12 months allowed by the present law, but that after the lapse of a few years, it is, so to speak, discovered and at that stage the publisher or author or some other interested party might, for one reason or another, be glad of the opportunity to submit the book to the statutorily appointed Appeal Board. I think it right that provision should be made enabling an appeal to be taken in such circumstances. I do not consider that it is necessary to go further and allow, for example, a right to re-appeal after an interval of years, though I conceive that that might be desirable if the other proposal in the present Bill was not accepted.

I now turn to the question of an omission from the Bill that may be criticised in some quarters. The time-limit of 20 years is proposed to be limited to books banned on the ground that they are indecent or obscene and a book banned on the other statutory ground, namely, that it advocates the unnatural prevention of conception or the procurement of abortion or miscarriage or the use of any method, treatment or appliance for the purpose of such prevention or procurement, is not to benefit from the operation of the time-limit. There is, of course, an obvious reason for this. The decision that a book is indecent or obscene is very much a subjective matter. On the other hand, the other statutory ground involves, to a greater degree at any rate, the application of objective criteria.

Apart from that, it is important, I think, in this respect for us to bear in mind that the whole subject of contraception is very much a live issue at the moment and that Catholics are awaiting a definitive ruling on the subject. The problem, in any case, is not confined simply to prohibition orders. Section 16 of the Censorship of Publications Act, 1929, contains a general prohibition on the printing, publishing, selling, etc., save under permit from the Minister for Justice, of any book, whether it is prohibited or not, which advocates or might reasonably be supposed to advocate the unnatural prevention of conception or the procurement of abortion or miscarriage or the use of any method, treatment or appliance for the purpose of such prevention or procurement. The permit provision is designed, obviously, to enable scientific works to be imported and sold to scientific specialists and the like, but in fact it has rarely if ever been availed of. Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, prohibits the sale or importation for sale, etc., of contraceptives and that is a provision that might possibly have to be reviewed also in connection with any revision of the provisions I have mentioned in the Censorship Acts. I think it better to leave these matters aside, for the moment at any rate.

The Bill does not propose any change in the law in relation to periodical publications, which include newspapers and magazines. An appeal to the Appeal Board can be taken at any time in respect of any prohibited periodical publication provided three months have elapsed from the date of any previous decision of that Board in respect of that periodical.

The question may be asked whether this Bill betokens the erosion of the censorship system. The answer is, no. That system, reasonably administered, as I believe it is, is effective without being oppressive. Without the censorship system, public opinion would, I feel certain, require that criminal proceedings should be instituted in the case of many of the books and periodicals that are prohibited by the Board. Booksellers would be the persons most directly affected by this and I think that they would prefer to see the censorship system continue rather than face the prospect of being brought into court to answer charges relating to books of the type that are now being prohibited.

I do not expect that this Bill will be received without criticism, but I hope that the House will accept that it represents an honest attempt to deal with a particular and genuine problem.

Before ending, I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to all those who, down the years, have given service to the community on either the Censorship Board or the Appeal Board. Their task has never been a very pleasant one, but they have served the country well.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I imagine the Minister will get the type of consideration of this Bill that he asked for in his concluding remarks. So far as this Party are concerned, Deputies who wish to address themselves to the Bill and to this particular problem will be absolutely free to express their views because we do not regard a Bill of this type as a Bill which should be debated from a purely Party or political point of view.

The Minister has outlined the proposals in this short amending Bill and has quite rightly pointed out that the objectives which he proposes to achieve by it are few and limited. Possibly it is appropriate that the House should now after a lapse of something over 20 years consider again this question of censorship. My view is that the Minister is correct in his judgment that, by and large, the public in this country approve of the idea of a censorship code and, generally, have approved the operation of censorship here.

It is, of course, abundantly clear that the entire code, and certainly the administration of the code, have had their critics, critics who have expressed their views quite frankly and fully on the whole idea of censorship. There are really a number of things involved in a consideration of a Bill of this sort. We have had two Censorship of Publication Acts already, the Act of 1929 and the Act of 1946. It is probably relevant also to point out that in relation to some of the matters dealt with in the Censorship Acts, there is also a constitutional provision. In Article 40 of the Constitution, it is declared that the publication or utterances of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offence punishable in accordance with law. It would seem that if that Article of the Constitution were to be taken as a guideline in this matter, the guideline being thrown out is that the question of indecency or obsenity in publications should be dealt with by a process of law rather than by censorship. But I do not think that was intended by the Constitution.

The Minister is probably right when he adverts to the difficulties that can be encountered if one endeavours to deal with a problem of this sort merely by legal process. I am not an expert on this, but I think I am correct in saying that in some other countries that is the way in which they endeavour to deal with these problems. They bring a prosecution which I assume is a criminal, or quasi-criminal prosecution, and it then becomes a matter for court determination as to whether an offence has been committed. I do not know to what extent that procedure is successful.

From the point of view of censorship, regarding it as censorship simpliciter, obviously it cannot be as effective as a censorship code, as is laid down in the legislation here. The 1929 Act, produced in the comparatively early days of the State, provided for the establishment of a Censorship of Publications Board, which consisted of five persons appointed by the Minister. The powers of that Board did not enable the Board itself to ban any publication. It did not enable the Board to impose a prohibition order but the Board in those days, especially under the 1929 Act, and this continued up to the 1946 Act, was enabled to make a report to the Minister and the Minister then, acting on that report, brought in a prohibition order in respect of a particular book.

The procedure under the 1929 Act was fairly drastically altered in 1946, because under the 1929 Act, as I say, the report was made by the Board to the Minister and the Minister then made the prohibition order but the Minister had the authority under that Act at any time to vary or to end the prohibition order. In other words, a ban imposed under the 1929 Act was not a life sentence. It could be varied at any time by the Minister in consultation with the Board. That particular procedure went under the provisions of the 1946 Act.

When the 1946 Act was enacted, the power of the Minister to make the prohibition order was taken from him. Instead of that, the prohibition order could henceforth be made by the Censorship Board itself. While that position was altered, while that power was taken from the Minister and while the power of reviewing at any time was also taken from the Minister under the 1946 Act, the 1946 Act established also, in addition to the Censorship of Publications Board, which was, so to speak, reconstituted under the 1946 Act, the Censorship of Publications Appeal Board.

Again, the Appeal Board was to have five members and it was provided in the Act that the chairman of the Board should be a judge, a barrister or a solicitor of, I think, at least seven years standing. A further change, which I think on reflection the Minister will agree has possibly been a drastic one, was introduced by the 1946 Act—the vesting in customs and excise officers of authority to detain books and to refer books so detained to the Censorship Board. Under the 1946 Act the new Board established by the Act were given power to make prohibition orders themselves; they were given the power to examine books on their own initiative, to examine books in respect of which a complaint had been made, or to examine books referred to them by the customs and excise officials.

There was also a further rather drastic restriction imposed in the 1946 Act, which had not been there in the 1929 Act. As I mentioned, under the provisions of the 1929 Act, there was no such thing as a prohibition order necessarily continuing for ever because it was open to the Minister, under that Act, in consultation with the Board to review the matter, to modify the decision, to vary the order in any way at any time. But, under the 1946 Act, when the Appeal Board was established, a right of appeal was given. That right of appeal had to be exercised within 12 months and it applied once only: once an appeal was heard, there could be no further appeal from the prohibition order.

We are now, some 21 or 22 years later, coming to consider this procedure under the present Bill. As the Minister has pointed out, the changes now proposed are of limited application. Firstly, the Bill is limited to dealing with the question of publications which heretofore were condemned on the basis of being indecent or obscene. It does not deal with any of the other matters which were or could be prohibited under either the 1929 or 1946 Acts. The second matter which comes within the scope of the Bill is the automatic expiration of a prohibition order after a lapse of 20 years. The third matter is that a right of appeal at any time is being given but, again, that goes less far than one might assume first on reading it, in that the right of one appeal only remains and what is being done in that regard is that the time limit of 12 months for the bringing of an appeal is being removed but the restriction that only one appeal can be taken will remain.

The Minister referred to this question of 20 years and says:

Since the Bill was published it has been suggested that 20 years is too long and that a prohibition order should expire after a considerably shorter period so that the new provisions may be of some benefit to authors whose books may be out of print well before 20 years are up.

The Minister continues:

I can see the point of this argument, but I think that it is to a large extent misconceived. If we have a Censorship Board we must accept that its decisions, subject to those of the Appeal Board reflect the opinion of its day, and it would be a contradiction of that to have its decisions set aside after a relatively short interval. I have already indicated publicly that I could be persuaded to agree to a somewhat shorter period, but unless I am satisfied that there is general support for such a change, I do not propose to recommend it.

I think, subsequently, the Minister went on to deal with the possibility of allowing an appeal more frequently, allowing an appeal to be made, say, after a lapse of a number of years. I would suggest to him he might consider the position because it is not at all clear to me, under this Bill, what is the position of books in respect of which a prohibition order has been made, in respect of which an appeal has been taken and rejected. What is the position there? Does the fact that one appeal has been made and rejected preclude the authors or writers, or others interested in those books, from a further right of appeal under this Bill, because, if it does, I would suggest to the Minister, at least in those cases— if there is this kind of freeing out—he might consider providing in this amending Bill that one appeal could be made. I do not see that that would run in any serious way counter to the argument he was advancing.

I propose to say a few words with regard to the question of the time limit of 20 years. But, first, may I say, regarding appeals generally, that there still may be one appeal only and what the Minister is doing there, in effect, is providing that in places—I am talking about past prohibition orders—where no appeal has been made against the prohibition order, one appeal in respect of those books can now be made——

Mr. B. Lenihan

And in the future as well.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

——and under future prohibition orders, one appeal can be made at any time. Therefore, I take it that so far as past prohibition orders are concerned, provided no appeal has been made already—an appeal can now be made under the provisions of this Bill.

It does seem to be arguable that the value of removing the 12 months time limit is, to some extent anyhow, negatived by continuing the provision that there can be one appeal only. I think I am correct in this and I think the Minister's introductory speech bears out this interpretation. I think the justification for the 20 year life of a prohibition order, which is now being introduced, is the changing community standards. From that point of view also, it would seem there might be some merit in allowing more than one appeal. Indeed, I do appreciate the arguments the Minister made on this point but I think it would be at least worth considering the idea of allowing periodic appeals. A period of 20 years is a long time, practically a quarter of a century. Possibly, when we think in terms of 20 years, we may be under-estimating the rate of change in community standards.

I can appreciate that when a code such as this has been established, when by and large there is general public approval of it, Governments may not desire to bring in amending Bills to chop and change it from time to time. But, assuming that the general framework of the censorship code is to remain, assuming also that the changing community standards of which I speak are present and present to a fairly accelerating degree, it would seem to me that a possible method which at least deserves the consideration of the Minister is the idea, if he is keeping the period of 20 years, of allowing an appeal to be made periodically against a prohibition order possibly once every five years or something of that sort. It is an idea which the Minister might consider.

As the Minister said in his opening statement, and I also heard him say it in the course of a television interview, he seems to have an open mind on the length of the period proposed, as to whether or not the 20 year period is too long. I feel a case could be made even for a period as short as ten years. An argument could be made both on moral and on literary and cultural grounds for a shorter period than the 20 year period proposed. Certainly it seems to me that on literary and cultural grounds, it can be argued that ten years should show whether or not a book is significant and going to be of any significant value as literature and on cultural grounds.

It can be argued that a ten year period would enable the ordinary Irish community to keep sufficiently in touch with contemporary currents of sensibility while at the same time allowing for that margin of difference in our way of life, which, whether we like it or not, does exist and which may need some form of cushioning from the Legislature in legislation of this type. I think the Minister might give serious consideration to the question of whether or not the 20 year period proposed in this Bill is not too long.

With regard to the method of appeal under the 1946 Act and to some extent, possibly to a very large extent, this was a repetition of the provisions of the 1929 Act, the appeal may be made under the 1946 Act by the author or by the editor or by the publisher. An appeal can also be made by any five TDs or Senators. I was not here in 1946 so I do not know the reason for the second provision, why five TDs or Senators should be enabled to make an appeal. It seems to me that a case can be made for some less cumbersome group than five TDs or Senators. I feel also that when we are considering an amendment to the censorship code it would be reasonable to provide that in any appeal the author should always be admitted and be heard in relation to the appeal. I would be interested to know why the present procedure is there, why a particular right should vest in a group consisting of five TDs or Senators. In any event, it would be reasonable to suggest that whatever the method, whatever particular springboard the appeal comes from, whether it be the group of Deputies or Senators, whether it be the publisher or the printer, or whoever it may be, the writer of the book should be heard in connection with the appeal.

When I am talking about the position of the writer, let me say that I heard the Minister in the course of his television interview in relation to this Bill saying something to the effect that his concern was for and his responsibility to the public rather than the writers. I feel that is a correct attitude for the Minister for Justice to adopt in relation to this matter. With a system of a civil censorship code established, the function of the responsible Minister in relation to that code must be one of concern for the author or the publisher of the book. At the same time, it is right that—and I do not intend to pun when I say—the writer should also get a fair hearing and a fair representation.

It may be that in the composition of the successive censorship boards and appeal boards that were established efforts were made to ensure that that representation was given. It would be worth considering that it should be written into the legislation that the writer—I am using the term generically —should be represented on the Board. I do not claim that it would be an easy task to select a representative of writers in general but the effort could be made. It might be possible to ensure that both the Censorship Board and the Appeal Board would always have within their membership, for example, some reputable critic or some publisher or literary journalist.

I have a feeling that if that kind of change could be made statutorily in relation to the composition of the Board much of the criticism that has been voiced might no longer be made.

The Minister has pointed out that the Bill is limited in scope and in application. There is a change which I feel the Minister might consider making. It would be reverting to phraseology in the 1929 Act which was deleted in the 1946 Act. I think it was section 6 of the 1929 Act which enabled the Censorship Board to make a report to the Minister which would be followed by a prohibition order. Subsection (6) of section 6 of the 1929 Act provided that the Board might make a report about a book which in its general tendency was indecent or obscene. The requirement in subsection (6) of the 1929 Act, as I read it, was that one of the matters about which the Board required to be satisfied was not simply that there was something indecent or obscene in the book, but that the book was in its general tendency indecent or obscene.

I suppose it could be said that from the point of view of the publishers and writers, there was a measure of protection for them in that phrase, but whatever measure of protection was there was removed in the 1946 Act, because that phrase was dropped completely from section 7 of the 1946 Act, which allows a prohibition order to be made if the Board are of opinion regarding a book that it is indecent or obscene. That is not qualified in any way. It is not now subject to being indecent or obscene in its general tendency.

I do not propose to go into the detailed question of definition. I imagine that from every point of view it would be extremely difficult to get a satisfactory definition of the word "indecent" or the phrase "indecent or obscene". There has been a certain amount of criticism with regard to the definition contained in the 1929 Act which has been carried forward. It is not one of the portions of the 1929 Act which was amended in the 1946 Act.

The main criticism has been the inclusion in the definition section of the phrase "suggestive of". It is provided in the definition of the word "indecent" that it shall be construed as including suggestive of, or inciting, etc. As I say, I realise the difficulties which the Minister's Department must encounter in endeavouring to get any more precise definition, but when this question of the censorship code is being considered by the House, it seems to me that this is one of the points of criticism that has existed, and that it would be right for Deputies to suggest to the Minister that it is a matter which should concern him and his Department to see if a more precise, more exact, more correct, if you like, definition could be worked out.

As I said earlier, in many ways this subject of censorship is a fairly vexed one. It is one on which people are inclined to take strong views one way or the other. Obviously there are dangers both in what you do and what you do not do in relation to censorship. There is the old argument as to the degree of interference with one's freedom, and one's freedom of expression, which is entailed in a censorship code. On the other hand, there is obviously the question of allowing thrashy undesirable material to be available, particularly to young people. I should imagine that Deputies on all sides of the House, and people outside the House, would be at one in agreeing that whatever protection can reasonably be afforded against that type of material, and in the interests of young people, should be afforded.

I should like, if I might, to refer to what I regard as a very informative and authoritative article on this question which appeared in the journal Christus Rex some years ago. I want to quote from the July, 1959, edition which contains an article by the Reverend Peter R. Connolly on the subject. On page 155 which deals with the “Basis of State Censorship”, this paragraph appears:

In view, then, of her philosophy the Church exerts some legislative control over the reading of Catholics. It might be argued that in a Catholic country a further State control of books is superfluous. But this is to assume that the inner sanction is quite sufficient, that Catholics are not to be corrupted and that public morals may never be affected by a Catholic writer or bookseller. The argument also ignores those contemporary problems of the protection of youth in an age of mass communication and circulation—problems with which the Church law cannot and does not attempt to cope.... At the same time civil control of printed matter cannot be justified on the same basis nor modelled on quite the same lines as Church control. Ideally speaking it should complement it rather than usurp its functions or cover the same ground. As the respective areas are defined today the Church ought not compromise her moral authority with the compulsions of the civil law nor ought the State intrude into the private moral life unless "public morality" or "the public order" is being menaced.

In that passage there is a good guideline as to what the approach should be in the case of State censorship.

There is one other passage I should like to read in the following two pages of the same edition:

In order to be a "reasonable" measure censorship, like any other law, must try to balance the claims of the common good against the claims of individual freedom, and try besides to balance the rival claims of various groups in the community. The State's function is continually to improve the conditions for the natural development of its citizens. Its right to coerce is not unlimited: restriction merely for the sake of restriction is not justified morally or politically. Therefore, in whatever way it protects public morality civil law should define as narrowly as possible the limits placed on individual freedom. On the other hand, the individual must limit his rights at times for the sake of the common good; his rights in society are not absolute. The writer's self-expression, for example, has social implications once it is directed at the reader and becomes communication. Freedom of expression cannot be understood as licence—as an absolute freedom without limits of any kind—but as one more rational freedom with respect to the life of the community. In the abstract the reader's right to get what he wants (since it is less closely related to public order) is wider than the writer's right to spread his ideas; though, of course, the two are mutually dependent in practice. Laws, therefore, about printed matter have always been aimed primarily at authors, publishers, booksellers and editors so that a check be kept on indiscriminate sale or circulation. As a result of any such law, however, the reader's freedom will be indirectly curtailed to some degree. More precisely still the law should combine the maximum amount of freedom for adult individuals with reasonable protection for the young, immature and defective.

Thoughts of that kind on this subject are the types of guidelines we should adopt here. I see the obvious danger. One of the arguments against any censorship code is that one may get the habit of adopting the point of view that once a censorship system exists, anything that gets through must be all right. That, of course, would be very faulty reasoning. The reason I am referring to this is that I think it essential in any discussion of a censorship code for books and publications which might be damaging to young people that we should constantly bear in mind, no matter what censorship code is established and no matter how well enforced it may be, it would be a mistake that censorship should be regarded as entirely protecting young people and young minds. It cannot be regarded as removing the necessity for teachers and parents to impose their own restrictions on the reading of, in the case of parents and those in loco parentis, their children and, in the case of teachers, of those under their control.

As far as it goes, the Bill does go some way towards remedying some of the grievances that have existed. As I pointed out, it is limited in scope. Certainly, there will be those who would like to see the Minister go very much further. In relation to some of the matters proposed by this Bill— in relation to the 20 year period, for example—a reasonable argument can be made that the period proposed in that case is too long. As I suggested in the course of my remarks, the Minister might well be advised also to consider the question of ensuring by legislation that the viewpoint of the writer will always be heard on appeals made to the Appeal Board and, if possible, that he will always be represented both on the Censorship Board and the Appeal Board. The Minister might also consider the suggestion of allowing periodic appeals. These are matters which occur to me, in any event. As I said at the outset, as far as other Deputies of this Party are concerned, they will be absolutely free to express their own views and opinions on this measure and on the general subject under discussion.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am glad to see that censorship has been lifted in the Fine Gael Party at least for this discussion. So far as the Bill is concerned, I want to congratulate the Minister on taking this step. I appreciate very well that the temptation must have been very great for the practising politician to let this dog sleep on. It is an area of political activity and of legislation in which one could easily revel in holier-than-thou exercises. The Minister has tried a modern and progressive attitude to what has been over a long period the subject of much discussion in the public press—albeit a discussion occasioned, I would think, by a small minority of the population —and a subject of some considerable injustice to those who have brought credit to the country by their artistic endeavours in the field of literature.

I am not claiming that all our writers have brought such credit, nor indeed all our artists. I am not going to suggest to the House for one moment that there should be any general subscription to the notion, which was put forward, perhaps, more as an aphorism than as a serious statement by one who might have been described as an erstwhile neighbour of those who resided in this House at one time, one who was from Merrion Square. I refer, of course, to Oscar Wilde when he made what was probably a flippant remark designed to impress a very impressionable London society, that there is no such thing as an immoral book, that a book is either well written or badly written.

That represents the extreme of literary arrogance which is unacceptable to any average person. It is an arrogance which one meets with occasionally. It is commendable on the part of the Minister that he has not made any gesture towards that very unreasonable point of view. There are amongst our literateurs, if that is the group word to describe the people I mean, those who believe there should be complete and untrammelled freedom of expression. I do not hold with that: I do not think any normal person would hold with it. I am often inclined to the belief that the use of what might nowadays be described as "picturesque language", but what those of us of middle age were brought up to regard as dirty words, is prompted not so much by a mistaken desire to be realistic or to use what these literary people might think was the language of the ordinary people—many of them have no contact whatever with the ordinary people—as mainly by the desire to achieve certain publicity. It is a well known fact that one of the best methods of promoting the sale of a book is to procure its banning in the greatest number of countries. The under-the-counter appeal of such books is very considerable.

Having said that, I would like to say that some of the greatest literary giants the world has seen have been banned from these shores and have produced materials which gained more credit for this country than any other material we have known of from the shores of another country. Shaw, Ó Faoláin and O'Connor are known and read in every part of the known world, even amongst people whose first introduction to the name of Ireland would be through the writings of those whom I have mentioned. It is a sad thing that our censorship code, operated in a puritan, rigid and Victorian manner has prevented some of the works of these men being available to our own people.

Censorship is like any other form of law: it is repressive and coercive no matter how slight it may be. All law is based on restraint and, in the final analysis, on restraint by the sanction of force. To try to achieve a fair and reasonable level of censorship, to try to achieve a code of censorship which will be accepted by all, is trying to achieve a Solomon-like solution. It is just not possible to achieve such a situation. There are areas in which I would like to see censorship considerably expanded. A couple of weeks ago there was a gentleman on television and the ideas he was putting across should have been dumped in the ocean before ever they reached this country. His whole philosophy, in its content and expression, was adoration of the almighty dollar and his whole expression of this philosophy we have to accept them.

Take these words, "indecent and obscene." Is it not true that these words since 1929 and 1946 have come more and more to have a broader meaning than they were thought to have a quarter of a century ago? There are many things which might strike many of us as being indecent and obscene which would never have looked in that light to those who brought in the censorship code as we know it today. The words "indecent and obscene", in the sense we know them, have largely been applied to pornography. There are political ideas which are not associated with matters erotic which I would regard as indecent and obscene but the use of the words themselves has become obsolete.

I do not agree that it is good enough that 20 years must elapse before the ban imposed on a book dies. We must be more realistic in this. The previous speaker referred to the fact that we are living in an age of rapidly expanding techniques of all kinds and, more particularly, techniques of communication. When one thinks of books and the skills of writing in these days, one should think of them in connection with an element which was not there ten or 15 years ago. There are matters now discussed on television which, if the censorship laws here could be made to apply to television, would never be seen by viewers. That cannot be prevented because cross-Channel television programmes are seen here. It is nonsense to say that we can stem discussion on any subject or that we can in any way retard the growth of communication.

When we talk of 20 years, we talk, in conditions of present-day life, of half a lifetime, if not of a lifetime. I would urge on the Minister that this term of 20 years should be reduced very considerably, that it should be reduced to ten years. Ten years is a long time. If one looks back over the books and writings of ten years ago, one can see a tremendous difference in the standards which were not accepted then and which are now regarded as commonplace. I do not know whether this is good or bad but I often think it is very bad that the public taste should become, to one like myself who might be regarded as a conservative in these matters, debased. These are facts and we have to accept them.

The Minister, in pursuance of his duty as guardian of the public good and as one charged with the duty of keeping an eye on these matters, should, I think, take another look at the question of this period of 20 years. I suggest ten. There may be some intermediate period which would be acceptable to the Minister but certainly 20 years is far too long and, indeed, unjust to writers.

Deputy O'Higgins read from a publication which I think he said was Christus Rex. One sentence he quoted struck me as worthy of thought and perhaps comment. The writer suggested that a greater right rested with the reader to get what he wanted than rested with the writer to write what he wanted to write. I cannot see the logic of that. That would seem to suggest that if there is a mass demand for a certain form of publication, the mass demand can be responded to with greater justice. I do not know if I am correctly interpreting the quotation, which was somewhat abstract.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The sentence started with the words "In the abstract".

Mr. S. Dunne

Yes, indeed, That is one of the troubles about censorship, that one can get so easily involved in discussion of it in the abstract that the ordinary day-to-day facts of life become submerged. This is true of nearly every activity in which we are required to take part today.

An interesting point raised by Deputy O'Higgins was that under the Act of 1946 five Deputies or Senators could appeal against the banning of a book or publication. I wonder did it ever happen.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It did happen once anyway.

Mr. S. Dunne

That amazes me.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I am certain of one case.

Mr. S. Dunne

In those years, we did have in other Senators before our time men of great erudition.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not want to mislead Deputy Dunne. I think I am correct in saying that the right of Deputies and Senators is to seek a variation of an order in respect of other editions of a book rather than the initial ban.

Mr. S. Dunne

This has been such a thorny subject for politicians to touch on at all that it surprises me that there were at any time a number of men of sufficient moral courage to take steps in relation to censorship.

Mr. B. Lenihan

At any time in relation to any book.

Mr. S. Dunne

One must recall that Yeats and Gogarty were Members of the Seanad. I think Gogarty came under the whip of the censorship. Both of these men were of great literary talent and I am certain that they would not be behind the door when it came to making a stand for what they considered right. Consider what we have lost by censorship.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am sorry: there are two sections.

Mr. S. Dunne

The question of what is literature and what is not literature will be argued to the end of time. I read quite recently a contemporary critique of Shakespeare's works in which he was described as the greatest writing disaster since somebody who went before him. I shall not quote the other bit. There were various views held in regard to Shakespeare. What then is literature? Many people will tell you that this gentleman, Spillane, whom I referred to but not by name, writes literature. Public taste is a peculiar thing. One reads in a newspaper things that are described as poems but which to me read like gibberish and we are told it is literature.

It is fallacious to suggest that the sole result of censorship is to deprive a culture-hungry nation of great pieces of literature. Indeed, in certain respects, it would be very beneficial if a great deal of the trash and muck and dirt—and I am not talking purely of the stuff which is erotic; I am talking of the sort of semi-literate ravings which we get in bulk form and newspaper form at times—were prevented from coming in and reaching people. It would be a very good thing if the standard of public taste could be raised. If one were to exclude such material, there might be a public outcry from huge numbers of people who find an escape therein from the harsh realities of existence under Fianna Fáil. I suppose to some of them it might very well represent what LSD represents to other gentlemen.

I do not want to delay the House. Generally speaking, we are in favour of this Bill but we would ask the Minister to think about reducing the time. There is no real argument for the arbitrary fixing of 20 years. I am not saying that we should take Britain as an example but there have been revolutionary changes in Britain in the past five years as far as publications are concerned. The thought occurs to me, what will our position be if and when we enter the Common Market?

Mr. B. Lenihan

A big question.

Mr. S. Dunne

Will continental publishers expect free access to our little island in that situation? Will our censorship necessarily be dismantled because of our entry into that situation? Does it not represent a form of tariff or embargo upon stuff coming in from outside? It may be a long time before that matter will have to concern us but it is one of the many thoughts that occur to me. It is a big question and one in which I am very glad the Minister saw fit to interest himself. There are not many who would have the moral courage to tackle this problem at all and for that reason alone, the enlightened of this country must be grateful to him for opening the door and letting some little ray of light into this benighted situation which we have had to endure for the past 20 years.

Mr. Andrews

I welcome, like other Deputies, the liberalising breeze of change which the Minister has introduced with this Bill. In fact, I can assure Deputy O'Higgins that in the Fianna Fáil Party there is no censorship of the views of Deputies on this proposed enactment. We are free to express our views, as I think we should.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It shows the power of good example.

Mr. Andrews

I appreciate such a lead at all times. We have been told over the years that Ireland has been the laughing stock of the world in relation to censorship laws. This may or may not be so, but certainly in the past five years, this criticism cannot be justifiably aimed at us. In the past five years, there has been a tremendous improvement in our attitude to censorship in general. We had become grouped with Australia as having the harshest censorship laws in the world, as is evidenced by the caption produced by the publishers on the cover of Brendan Behan's Borstal Boy—I was in England at the time—“Banned in Eire and Australia”, and of course read everywhere else in the world. I should add at this stage that I think Brendan Behan's Borstal Boy was a good work and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, apart from the fact that Brendan Behan himself was a practising Christian and a charitable and humanitarian man.

Censorship in this country had its flaws and it was bound to have a reaction. In many cases, certainly in a case of recent memory, our censorship laws were used to advertise particular novels. These novelists would come to Dublin Airport with their saucy publications under their arms, and a conveniently-placed photographer would take a snapshot which would appear in the various journals all over the world the following morning. In that way the censorship code in this country rebounded on itself.

However, in this civilised debate, there has been general agreement that we should at all times prohibit what I would describe as hard core pornography, which certainly has no literary merit and does not bear examination in any circumstances. I have before me the register of prohibited publications up to April, 1961. It is the biggest such publication available, I assume—it was the only one I could get of its size. It contains some 7,500 volumes; it has 417 pages with 18 volumes listed per page, which would roughly work out at the figure I have already stated. In my view, 97 or 98 per cent—and that is being fair—of the publications mentioned in this register deserve to be banned, but this lets in the two per cent we have been discussing here.

There are in this register many well-known names, and I pick out the names of some Nobel prize winners: Hemingway, Steinbeck, Laxness, Par Lanquist, who, I believe, is an Icelandic author; I have not read any of his work, so I do not intend to comment on it. I have read Hemingway and Steinbeck and I enjoyed reading them. There is also included in this register the author of And Quiet Flows the Don, Michael Michaelov. I am not sure whether Michaelov won the Nobel prize or not, but certainly I was very much surprised to see his book banned. This is the tragedy, as I would describe it, of the situation, placing these Nobel prizewinners in the same category as the authors of the other books herein which consist of nothing but muck and trash. Take, for instance, the title of one of these books: Hot Dames on Cold Slabs which is by a man by the name of Michael Storme. This is the sort of rubbish that the work of the Censorship Board ensures does not come into the country. Also mentioned in this register are the works of people like Andre Maurois and indeed our own Seán Ó Faoláin, Austin Clarke and O'Flaherty. The last speaker mentioned Shaw and Wilde. I might mention O'Casey and Joyce. These people went through the ignominy of being compared, in effect, with the trash-producing authors in this register, 98 per cent of the contents of which I would consider to be worthless nonsense. This is the situation I believe every Deputy would like to see ended once and for all. We would like to ensure that the work of these people I have mentioned are not taken into the censorship net, that works of known literary merit will not be put in the same category as the muck with titles such as I have just mentioned.

I recognise that the present administrative tribunal set up under the Acts of 1929 and 1946 has worked well to control the flow of so-called literature into our country. I would go further and say it is the only system for assessing this type of work, and that the Boards set up under these Acts are suitable for this purpose. But for our Censorship and Appeal Boards every back alley in every city and town in this country would have pornographic peep shows selling the type of muck about which I am speaking. I cannot over-emphasise, as the Minister has mentioned in his fairminded speech, the worth of the work done by the Censorship Board and the Appeal Board, and particularly within the past five years.

The English system was mentioned. I believe ours is a better system than that which prevails in Britain under the Obscene Publications Act. I do not think we should hesitate to proclaim this and to be proud of it. In England, there is the hearing before the magistrate and the hearing before a judge and jury. A hearing before a judge and jury is, in my opinion, the final absurdity. Witness recent history: literary expert contradicting literary expert, in, for example, the case of Lady Chatterley's Lover. There was a case in this country recently—I am thinking of the late Frank O'Connor's Kings, Lords and Commons—in which an appeal was successful and the present Minister for Justice was one of the chief protagonists in favour of removing the ban on this great author. In this type of legitimate literary case, there should be open to the author, or the publisher or the five Members of the Oireachtas an avenue of appeal to the courts. On Committee Stage I may move an amendment to the effect that there should be an appeal to the High Court from the Appeal Board. I have considered the matter carefully and there are many safeguards in my amendment to ensure that, if an appeal does go from the Appeal Board to the High Court, it will be held in camera; it will be an expensive exercise for the author, or publisher, or the five Members of the Oireachtas to appeal from a decision of the Appeal Board. That will obviate any danger of vexatious or frivolous litigation.

With regard to section 2 of the 1967 Bill, the period of 20 years has been referred to; for the Committee Stage, I have already tabled an amendment reducing the period to ten years. The Minister has stated that he sees the point of this argument, but thinks it is to a large extent misconceived. I do not regard the proposed reduction from 20 years to ten years as misconceived. Great technological changes are taking place and public attitudes and public posturings will change within a period of ten years. In my view, 20 years is too long.

There is also the question of the prohibition of a book in 1967; it will be reviewed in 1977. It is unfair, I think, that the publisher and author should have to wait so long. Books may go out of circulation. That would be another problem. A great deal of the ephemeral muck mentioned by the last speaker and by Deputy O'Higgins will go out of circulation anyway.

There is then the question of the constitution of the Board. The same personnel might not constitute the Board ten years hence. There is that possibility. I would urge the Minister to reduce the period from 20 to ten years. Section 3 of the 1967 Bill is clearly a review section and the prohibition may be re-activated, if that is necessary. It would not even be asking the Minister too much, I think, to reduce the period to five years. However, we must be reasonable and, by reasonable, I mean giving the review at the end of ten years rather than at the end of 20 years.

I believe that, if the amendment on the appeal to the High Court I propose on Committee Stage is accepted, it will once and for all take the controversy out of censorship. Deputy O'Higgins pointed out, quite rightly, that we are the guardians of the common good and, as such, we have an obligation to ensure that the type of publication in this register of prohibited publications I have before me does not in any circumstances get into the hands of our children. That is our primary consideration. Adults should be in a position to make adequate judgments on their own account. It is the children we must protect. I believe the Censorship Board was, from that point of view, a good concept. It is still a good concept and I hope it will always be there to prevent the free dissemination of salacious muck.

Finally, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his very fair approach. He is making an honest attempt to deal with a particular problem, and a very real problem. I should like to take this opportunity of once more paying tribute to the Censorship Board and the Appeal Board, and thanking them for the marvellous work they have been doing, and will, I know, continue to do.

Minister for Justice (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I am very glad we had a constructive discussion on the Second Stage of this Bill. As I said, my intention was that we should have a frank and fair discussion of the merits of our present censorship system and of the practical ways in which we could remove the anomalies which exist and, at the same time, retain the fundamental basis of the system, a system which, judging by the three speeches to which we have just listened, is generally accepted as being reasonable in principle. My concern in this Bill has been to emphasise the validity of the basic principle of censorship and, at the same time, mitigate the obvious anomalies, making our system a reasonable one, which any sensible person could view as something both right and necessary, maintaining at all times a commonsense approach with regard to its functioning.

Deputy O'Higgins made certain points in regard to the definition of indecent, and the necessity, as he thought, of improving the definition. He made another point in regard to the change between the 1929 Act and the 1946 Act in regard to the deletion of "general tendency" as a matter they might consider in assessing a book. These matters are not strictly relevant to the Bill before us, which is limited to a narrow range of practical improvements. Furthermore, I feel that the whole question of what guidelines or definitions should guide the members of the Board is very subsidiary to the main question of the composition of the Board and the carrying out by the Board of their duties in a commonsense way. I do not think all the changes in the world of definitions and all the guidelines in the world that we might incorporate in a statute can really affect this basic matter.

As far as I am concerned, the present Board is one with which I am fully satisfied. I should like to pay a tribute to the Board, to Judge Conroy of the Circuit Court, who has been Chairman for the past ten years or so, and to the other members who have exercised discretion in a very commonsense manner. I have figures which bear that out. The number of books being banned is substantially on the decrease—1963, 442; 1964, 353; 1965, 288 and 1966, 158. That shows that there is no excessive banning of books and that what is being banned is in the main useless trash of a clearly indecent or obscene nature. I want to put this tribute to the Board on record because they are doing this service in a voluntary capacity and are giving much of their time to it.

Basically, the main anomaly in the present code combining the 1929 Act and the 1946 Act is the perpetual nature of the prohibition orders. The banning of books in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and, in fact, any book banned under the code at present and until this Bill becomes law, lasts forever. There is no machinery whereby an order made a large number of years ago can be reviewed and there is no regard, therefore, to the inevitably changing standards of the community.

There is a distinction here between what might be called basic morality and standards and attitudes. While basic morality will always be unchanged, there are changing standards and attitudes on the part of the public, and this is a continuing factor, so that it is wrong to have a situation where a book banned because of a certain attitude or standard in one particular year must remain banned forever, without any machinery for its review or for investigation of its merits in subsequent years, having regard to the standards of later years.

Under this code, as has been said by various Deputies, many works of distinction by authors of distinction have been banned forever. Indeed, Irish authors of world renown such as Seán Ó Faoláin, Frank O'Connor and Kate O'Brien, to name but a few, have suffered in this regard, as also have other noted authors. This, I think, has tended to make us ridiculous, to make our system look ridiculous, when, in fact, this is a very practical commonsense system. The fact that these books, banned long ago when different attitudes and standards prevailed, remain eternally banned under our present code has caused the system to look ridiculous and has brought a certain amount of odium on it. I feel that that can be removed by introducing a definite time limit in regard to the duration of prohibition orders.

The main provision of the Bill is that the life of a prohibition order, once made by the Board, shall be only 20 years but that the publication may be considered again, and may indeed be banned again, if that is thought desirable in the climate of the later period. But, of course, none of the books of the distinguished authors I have mentioned, who suffered in the 1930s and 1940s, would, I am quite confident, in the climate of today's thinking, be prohibited by the Censorship Board of today.

The matter that arises for consideration, in discussing the main aspects of the Bill, is the length of the limitation period. I mentioned in my introductory speech and on television that I have an open mind on the matter. Twenty years is an arbitrary figure but if one went too far in reducing the limitation period, then obviously too great a hole would be made in the censorship code itself. The Board must be regarded as reflecting the current opinions of ordinary reasonable people towards the books and periodicals.

It would obviously make nonsense of the system—I referred to this in my opening speech—to have too short a limitation period. One must acknowledge that a board, considering a matter today, would be likely to have the same opinion in five years' time. If one allows five years, as was suggested here and outside by some people, one would be getting very near the situation where there would be no censorship system at all. A board sitting now would hardly have a different opinion on a particular matter in five years' time. I proposed 20 years in the Bill but I made it quite clear that I was open to suggestions to reduce that period to some degree but not to the radical extent of making the period one of five years.

Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Dunne and Deputy Andrews suggested ten years and Deputy Andrews also mentioned five years. Somewhere between ten and 20 years, I will find a mean. I appreciate the views expressed by the House that 20 years may be too long a period. In a matter of this kind, one likes to get a general consensus of opinion. In a matter of this kind, the opinion of the House reflects the general views of our society at present. As Minister for Justice, I have to protect the public interest in this regard.

In view of what has been said here by various speakers, I think we might find a mean between ten and 20 years which might meet both points of view. I shall consider what should be the mean between ten years and 20 years and, having arrived at a conclusion on it in the light of the views expressed, I shall probably have an amendment for Committee Stage. Certainly, however, I shall not go too far in reducing it for the valid reasons I mentioned.

Deputy O'Higgins also suggested the amendment of the appeal provision in the Bill. This brings me to the other main principle in the Bill which, I think, also mitigates a hardship in the present code. As the code now stands, the author, publisher, editor or any five Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who may decide to bring an appeal are circumscribed to the extent that the appeal must be brought within 12 months of the making of the prohibition order. Now, in many cases a book may become popular long after the 12 month period from the Censorship Board order. Some books come and go; they have valley periods and they have periods of popularity, so that it is important to be reasonably flexible in a matter of this kind. It has come to my notice that hardship has been caused because under the code as it stands if the appeal is not brought within 12 months, it is out. It is proposed in the Bill to allow the people who have the statutory right to appeal to make an appeal at any stage without any time limit after the order has been made. This is reasonable because a book which was banned 20 years ago may suddenly become popular and a publisher may, for example, decide to put it into paperback form and if an appeal has not been brought within 12 months, then there is no chance.

Deputy O'Higgins wanted to change it still further by giving extra rights of appeal. He suggested that if an appeal has been brought, a second appeal should be allowed within a period of time. I have considered this but I am satisfied that provided we reduce the 20 year prohibition period a bit, the argument for a second appeal loses any attractiveness it may have. Deputy O'Higgins was mainly thinking of allowing for the second appeal in the context of the 20 year limitation. He considered that the 20 year limitation was too rigid and that one way of mitigating that would be to allow for a second appeal. If we reduce that limitation period, his argument loses its force.

Both Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Andrews commented—and naturally, I agree with them fully—on our system of censorship which is through a board which decides whether books should be banned. They commented on our system and the system which operates in many countries of control through the courts. Both systems operate in some countries. We are not the only country which has a board. Other countries prefer control by the courts, our neighbour, Britain, being the obvious example. In Britain, they are having difficulty in dealing with publications through the courts. There has been much comment in informed British periodicals and newspapers recently about defects in the controls exercised through the courts. This is causing concern not only in Britain but in other countries. In matters of this kind, there can be so many variations of interpretations, so many opinions as to what is right and what is wrong, what is decent and what is indecent, that you can have a series of contradictory decisions. One could see what would happen if we were to leave it to the various superintendents throughout the country to decide when to bring a prosecution and to the various views that would be held by various district justices as to what was decent and what was indecent. This happens in Britain, in both summary and indictable cases.

On balance, our system works best. Provided you have a board which is a commonsense one, you can expect consistency in the assessment made of the merits of books and in the application of the standards set out in the Act. The Board has the great merit of being consistent in regard to its decisions and this makes for greater certainty. It is better than the court system, which allows great variation in interpretation as to what is obscene or indecent.

Deputy Andrews mentioned the question of providing for a further appeal to the High Court. Deputy O'Higgins had a related point which would amend the existing code by giving the author, publisher or editor the right to attend the Board for a hearing. Of course, the present Board has the right, if the members so wish, to call in the people I have mentioned. Deputy O'Higgins wants to give these persons the right to come in and be heard. I will consider that between now and Committee Stage. One obvious argument against doing what Deputy O'Higgins suggests is that it is not the intention behind the literature that they seek to investigate but rather its effect on ordinary reasonable people. In assessing the effect on ordinary people, they must look at what is in the book and see how it strikes themselves as ordinary people.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

There are a lot of things they are entitled to take into account.

Mr. B. Lenihan

There are a number of criteria which they must take into account. I dealt with this point earlier in regard to certain definitions and variations of definitions between the 1929 Act and the 1946 Act. Broadly speaking, one can take it that this comes down to the commonsense interpretation of the individual members of the Board. The only purpose in bringing in the author would be to enable him to explain his intentions behind a particular sentence or theme. Superficially, this has an attraction, but the obvious thing which occurs to me is that it would bring in a new element which should not necessarily be the concern of the members of the Board. They are not concerned with the intention of the author; they are concerned with how a particular theme or particular wording may be read by commonsense people. However, I will have a look at the matter.

Deputy Andrews mentioned an appeal to the High Court. Again, there are arguments against that in that it brings in what I have just been talking about and objecting to, the whole question of dealing with this matter through the courts. The courts in Britain have not been found to be a very good means of deciding these matters and informed comment in Britain of late is very critical of the way the system has operated because of variations of opinion that inevitably exist as between different judges and prosecutors. Our system has the great merit of consistency. It would add a further degree of inconsistency if the High Court were brought into the picture and it would also bring in another appeal on top of an appeal.

Another point is that the present Chairman of the Appeal Board is Mr. Justice Haugh of the Supreme Court who has been there for a considerable time and so you have a high judicial personage as Chairman of that Board. In addition, as Chairman of that Board itself, there is a high judicial personage, so that between Judge Conroy and Mr. Justice Haugh there is what one might call balanced chairmanship of legal or judicial people on both bodies. However, I shall have a look at Deputy Andrews's suggestion to see if there is anything in it. It is an attractive idea, but I think it all comes back to the point I have made several times, that the important thing in this matter is to ensure that we have a commonsense Board. I think we have achieved that in recent years under Judge Conroy and as long as that is so, along with the changes we are making here to remove the anomalies existing in the present code, I think we shall have a system that will command respect from people here and abroad.

To conclude, the main change which I propose as a result of this debate will be in regard to the matter of reducing the limitation period in respect of prohibition orders. I can assure the House that between now and Committee Stage. I shall have an amendment drafted to reduce the period to somewhere between ten and 20 years. That, I think, represents the broad consensus of opinion. The other matters that have been raised here may be considered in greater detail on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24th May, 1967.