I would like to refer to amendment 2a which the Minister wishes to move. On Report Stage, the practice is that a Bill is considered page by page and line by line and amendments are considered strictly in sequence to the Bill. In its consideration of the Video Recordings Bill on Report, the House had reached page six, lines 13 and 14, whereas amendment 2a is addressed to earlier lines on page six, that is, lines seven and eight. However, if there is general agreement, the Chair will allow amendment 2a in the name of the Minister to be moved.
Video Recordings Bill, 1987: Report Stage (Resumed).
I agree to that procedure.
The Minister has responded to points raised by the Opposition during the debate and we are very happy to agree to the change proposed.
I now suggest that amendment 2a which we have agreed to debate now, be discussed with amendments Nos. 6a and 7 as they are related. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2a:
In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(ii) would be likely to stir up hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation, or".
Two amendments by Deputy McCartan, Nos. 3 and 7, were debated on 8 November. The purpose of these amendments was to add to the grounds for refusing a supply certificate and making a prohibition order respectively, the fact that the viewing of a video work would be likely to stir up hatred against any group of persons on account of their race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation. During that debate I acknowledged the force of the arguments made in favour of the amendments and undertook to ask the Minister to consider amendments on the lines suggested in the Seanad debate.
The matter has now been fully considered and, having regard to the points of view expressed in both Houses, it has been decided to accept the arguments put forward for including incitement to hatred on certain grounds among the grounds for banning video works. In coming to this conclusion, the Minister has been particularly impressed by the desirability of affording appropriate protection to vulnerable minority groups. In line with this decision an amendment was moved on 15 November to the prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill to include the sexual orientation in the definition of "hatred" so that it would be an offence to use words or behaviour to stir up hatred against groups of persons on account of their sexual orientation. This amendment was passed by the House.
The effect of amendments 2a and 6a will be to make the Video Recordings Bill correspond exactly to the incitement Bill in this respect, that is to say, the amendments will add to the grounds for banning a video work not only that it would be likely to stir up hatred against persons on account of their sexual orientation but also that it would be likely to do so on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins or membership of the travelling community. The only ground mentioned in Deputy McCartan's amendment which does not reappear in my amendments to the present Bill is that of "gender". There does not appear to be a sufficient need to include gender in either Bill, especially not in the Video Recordings Bill now that it does not appear in the amendment which the House has approved in the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill. My amendments also follow the amendments approved in the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill in providing expressly that groups against whom hatred must not be incited are groups either in the State or elsewhere. This provision seems to be clearly desirable. I commend amendment No. 2a to the House.
On a point of order, can you tell me, a Cheann Comhairle, whether in dealing with amendments Nos. 2a and 6a we are also considering amendment No. 7 which obviously brought forward the amendment in the name of the Minister? How will we deal with amendment No. 7 should amendments Nos. 2a and 6a be carried?
I have already asked for and had the approval of the House to discuss amendment No. 6a and amendment No. 7, in the name of Deputy Pat McCartan, with amendment No. 2a. The Deputy may take it that those amendments are being discussed. Deputy McCartan is now free to speak to his amendment, if he so desires.
I am very pleased with the developments which have taken place. The Minister of State has honoured an indication he gave during the earlier debate on Report Stage that he would avail of the slight recess in time in the debate to consider an appropriate amendment. As he said, he has brought in an amendment which brings the definition of "hatred" in the context of this Bill into line with what we have already agreed in the context of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill. This is a sensible development. For this reason I do not propose pursuing my amendment No. 7 and I am only too happy not to do so in the context of what we have now achieved.
It is an important development that we are giving recognition in our legislation to the position of a number of vulnerable communities within our society. I listened to a radio programme this morning which reported on the existence of a neo-Nazi group in Cork whose basic primary plank of philosophy is in agreement with the views and thoughts of the great dictator of this century, Adolf Hitler. It would be naive for any of us to be so complacent as to suggest that certain communities within our society are not open to racial attack on the grounds of hatred. Coincidentally I also received a letter from a young traveller in my constituency who I last met at a pub quiz in a local public house. He lives close to the pub and took part in the night's entertainment. In his letter he said that when he subsequently visited the public house he was told that travellers meant trouble and he would not be welcome there. This is an unfortunate matter which I will have to take up directly with the publican involved. I have no doubt that there has been a gross misunderstanding and miscalculation by the proprietor of the licensed premises and I am sure we will put matters right in time.
It is sad that even today people will avail of and abuse the freedoms available to them in our community to make statements of a racial or ethnic nature. If we had not agreed to this amendment I have no doubt that those who have narrow, neo-Fascist and vicious attitudes towards persons on account of their religion, national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation would have availed of the opportunity to sell, distribute or otherwise pass their views around using the loopholes in this legislation. It was for this reason we put forward our amendment. I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged our argument and brought in a very good addition to the Bill as it now stands. I thank him for doing this.
My faith in parliamentary democracy has been reinforced by the action taken by the Minister. Obviously he has been listening to the arguments from the Opposition side of the House and has responded to them by bringing forward this amendment. I am glad that has been the reaction of the Government.
The points made earlier in favour of the introduction of an amendment of this kind were compelling. Perhaps it is a coincidence that we debated the Video Recording Bill and the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill virtually simultaneously. It ties in neatly that we can include the same provision in the Video Recordings Bill. The effect of the amendment will be that the official censor will have a further ground for declaring a work to be unfit for viewing. It is proper that the provision which gives the censor the ability to refuse a certificate on the basis that the work is capable of stirring up hatred should be included in this Bill. Apart from this we are sending a clear message to those in our community, like the group in Cork, who might be tempted to engage in activities which do not have the support of most people that their activities are not acceptable. This amendment has the support of Members on this side of the House.
The provision now being included in this Bill is contained also in the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill. This will be the lead Act in moving against those persons who endeavour to incite hatred against people on account of their religion, ethnic or national origin, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation. This means that a person who uses videos to convey this type of incitement to hatred can be moved against under two Acts. It was appropriate when the two Bills were before the House at the same time that the Minister take the opportunity to include The Workers' Party amendment in this Bill. It will mean that the censor can prevent this type of material coming on to the market in the first instance. We welcome the fact that the Minister has accepted The Workers' Party amendment and has included it in this Bill. This offence is covered in the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill but it also needed to be underlined in this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5a:
In page 6, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(5) It shall be an offence for a person to apply for a supply certificate or a limited supply certificate unless such person has been authorised to apply by the owner of the copyright in the said video work.".
We will leave a gaping loophole in our efforts to regulate the sale and supply of video nasties if action is not also taken in relation to copyright. We need parallel measures to stop the increasing growth in video piracy through major amendments to existing copyright laws. The present position is that the legitimate video industry employs approximately 2,000 people and has an annual turnover of about £30 million. It is estimated that the illegal video trade has a turnover of approximately half that amount but, of course, there are no VAT or PRSI returns to the Exchequer from that side of the trade. Therefore, pirate productions account for nearly 50 per cent of the market. I am not focusing on the loss to the Exchequer as a result of the activities of pirate operators but I am anxious to highlight the fact that because of the existence of such an enormous pirate trade in videos the Bill before us will be ineffective, it will leave a gaping loophole. It is our job to ensure that that loophole is shut off.
We are proposing to make it an offence for a person to apply for a supply certificate unless such person has been authorised to apply by the owner of the copyright in the said video work. This matter was raised on Second Stage and earlier on Committee Stage. In the course of the Committee Stage debate the then Minister, Deputy Collins, agreed that changes in the copyright legislation were absolutely necessary. In the course of that debate, as reported at column 436 of the Official Report of 15 February 1989 he stated:
If we do not get the copyright legislation through we are left swinging somewhat.
That rather colourful expression is an indication that the Minister agreed with the view of the Opposition that changes in the copyright legislation were absolutely necessary if the Bill before us was to achieve the effect intended. If there is agreement on all sides that changes in the copyright legislation are necessary, I wonder why those changes are not introduced.
The former Minister, during the earlier Stages of the debate on the Bill, indicated that he had been in touch with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and he expected action on that front but no such action has been forthcoming. On Second Stage not alone was the then Minister in agreement about the need for action but he indicated to the House that he had been in touch with the Minister for Industry and Commerce who reported that legislation on copyright was in the final stages of drafting. He said it was hoped to introduce a Bill in December 1988.
My colleague, Deputy Flanagan, and myself are forced to table an amendment to the Bill to highlight the need for changes in the copyright legislation. We want to draw attention to the lack of action by the Government in bringing forward the necessary changes in that legislation. I accept that the approach adopted by way of amending the Bill to cover the question of copyright is not a perfect solution but because we have not had action on that front we do not have any option but to press the issue by way of an amendment. It is clear that breaches of copyright are taking place on a large scale and that there is a lot of money involved in that operation. I understand that videos cost about £80 and that they can be pirated for about a quarter of that price. If we pass the Bill in its present form the Film Censor will not be in a position to examine the question of copyright. A breach of copyright is not fraud. By highlighting this glaring loophole I am pointing out to the Government the need to introduce legislation to close it. If they do not do that all the time we will have spent trying to produce a watertight Bill on video recordings will be wasted. I demand action from the Government to close that loophole.
I contend it is unnecessary to create an offence of applying for a supply certificate for a video work of which somebody else owns the copyright. I accept the point made by Deputy O'Keeffe of using this opportunity to highlight the whole question of copyright. The copyright aspect of legislation is the preserve of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I undertake to convey to him the views expressed by the Deputy. I shall stress to him the importance of having amendments to the copyright legislation introduced. I understand that legislation is at the drafting stage.
If the official censor learned that an applicant was acting in breach of somebody else's copyright he could simply refuse to consider the application just as if he learned that the applicant was acting without authority or that the video recording containing the work had been stolen. That is on the general principle that the statute must not be made the instrument of fraud. A similar situation might arise in theory over a cinema film. In either case the applicant would scarcely venture to challenge the censor's refusal by proceeding in the High Court unless there was a genuine issue over the ownership of the copyright. Indeed, the owner of the copyright might seek an injunction to prevent the censor from considering the application. I am opposing the amendment but the emphasis put by the Deputy on the question of copyright will be conveyed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I am not impressed with the Minister's reply and I believe the points he has made in defence of his stance do not hold water. The legislation has been before both Houses of the Oireachtas for over two years. On various occasions both in the Upper House and in this House the Minister for Justice of the day stated categorically that the question of copyright was under review. We have heard the Minister of State say for the fourth time that he will communicate the urgency of the matter to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. This matter was raised on the Order of Business within the past two weeks and when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was asked to comment, he shrugged his shoulders as if he knew nothing about it. It is unfortunate that two years have elapsed since the then Minister for Justice, Mr. Collins, made a statement in the Seanad that the copyright legislation was at an advanced stage of preparation. It is not good enough for the Minister of State to say he will communicate with the Minister. This is our last opportunity to tackle this issue before enacting the legislation which I believe will be flawed unless we tackle the area of copyright.
The legislation is designed to prohibit the exhibition, distribution and supply of certain videos and to operate a system of licensing. Our efforts to impose these sanctions will be defeated unless we can combat the pirate video industry, which is growing by the week as people can operate out of the back of vans or cars in housing estates. The legislation is fine were it not for the fact that the issue of copyright appears to have been ignored. I believe the extra powers we have given to the official censor will only drive the pirate industry further underground and enhance its operation. We have made no effort to combat the question of piracy.
The Minister of State stated that the official censor could make inquiries whether the video material was stolen, but there is not an onus on the censor to go beyond his primary duty which is to decide whether to grant a certificate to a film. Without making it an offence to apply for a certificate when in breach of copyright, it is quite possible for anybody in the illegal video market to apply to the official censor for a certificate. Can the Minister confirm that there is no onus on the official censor and that it is beyond his duty to inquire whether material is in breach of copyright? I believe there is not a role for the censor in this regard, and if that is the case, then the extra powers available to the censor are irrelevant.
The function of the censor is to certify what is presented to him. If this amendment were to be accepted it would make it an offence for somebody to seek a certificate from the censor without having the bona fides to so do. We will also be doing a disservice to the videogram association, a body which gave certain undertakings prior to the introduction of the legislation as to the manner in which they would police the official video industry, if we allow this loophole in the legislation, and the job of policing will become almost impossible. Their position has been one of the utmost responsibility and we should bear this in mind before passing the legislation today.
Although the Minister has accepted a number of Opposition amendments, it is unfortunate that he has chosen not to accept this amendment. I ask him to reconsider his position before the end of Report Stage or alternatively that he extract a statement from the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the copyright legislation so that the House might know the position regarding this legislation which has been promised on a number of occasions. There is considerable confusion as to whether the legislation is in the course of preparation. I believe that without the accompanying legislation, this Bill is insufficient.
I support the amendment being proposed by the Deputies. As I understand it, the Minister's argument is that while he accepts there is a lacuna in the law, that a loophole exists, that the law with regard to copyright is not all it should be and that we are still swinging, to borrow the words of a former Minister for Justice, because of the absence of the amending legislation, this is not the appropriate vehicle to address the copyright law. If that is the Minister's position, he might agree to this amendment and when the new copyright Bill is before the House it could include a provision that allows for the deletion of this amendment.
The movers of the amendment have made a very cogent argument in attempting to address the problem of video piracy. Video piracy is a major industry and is very prevalent particularly in urban areas. It represents a serious intrusion on the legitimate video recording industry. If we can do anything to try to address the problem in the interim, we should do so. The amendment is very straightforward and simple and makes it obligatory on the censor when considering an application for certification that he require the person applying to provide a letter of authorisation from the copyright owner. This is a good amendment for an interim period.
When the Minister for Industry and Commerce was asked about the impending copyright legislation, he first indicated that he did not believe such a Bill was promised, but then he had to admit that if it was promised he did not know a great deal about it but that he would communicate the information in due course. This would seem to suggest that if the Bill is at the drafting stage, it is not hovering close to the Minister's desk. This would lead us to believe that the interim period will be for a considerable length of time.
When the legislation comes into force later this week, having passed all Stages in both Houses of the Oireachtas, there is the problem that it does not seriously address the problem of video piracy through which most of the offending material will be circulated. The amendment merely puts an onus on the censor to be vigilant in this regard. I think we should support it. As I have said, when the legislation dealing with copyright is before the House it can contain a simple provision to withdraw this amendment if it has a better solution. I ask the Minister to consider accepting this amendment. I do not think it is going to take from or add to any major issue of principle nor does it in any way ask the Minister of State to shift his ground or approach to the Bill. I urge him to consider the amendment.
I could cite many examples where a Bill, introduced in this House for a specific purpose, has been used as a vehicle to plug a loophole in another Act when a weakness was highlighted in a particular area. I recall during my time in the Department of the Environment where, when we noted a deficiency in legislation, we used a Bill going through the House as a vehicle to make amends for it. On this occasion a different Minister has responsibility for patent law, but it is appropriate that this opportunity be taken to include this amendment in the Bill. As Deputy McCartan has said, when the Bill covering patents is introduced in the House the opportunity could be taken to exclude it, but in the meantime it is appropriate that this amendment should be included in this far reaching legislation on videos. If action has to be taken at a later stage, so be it. I support the amendment.
The major point I want to make is that nearly 50 per cent of the video market is controlled by pirates. Many of the problems we face today arise directly from that sector. Many of those involved in the piracy end of the market are not concerned about standards. It is my view that we must make a stand against video piracy, otherwise we will not control video nasties. That is the basic point which needs to be made. This is good legislation, but it has one glaring loophole. Effectively, it will not apply to the 50 per cent of the market controlled by the pirates. That is the reason I am pushing the question of copyright.
The pirates will not conform to the terms of this legislation. Legitimate operators will end up with a more difficult job as they will have to conform in full with the legislation while at the same time compete with the pirates who will gaily ignore the provisions and continue to peddle video nasties all over the country. Therefore we could end up far worse off, with a proliferation of horrific pirate videos all over the country.
I accept that what is needed is new legislation on copyright. The provisions of the 1963 Copyright Act are not sufficiently wide enough to deal with this problem while, more importantly, the penalties contained in that Act, I think a maximum of £100, are peanuts in circumstances where huge money can change hands and where huge profits can be made by bringing in video nasties from outside and copying them.
The suggestion made by Deputy McCartan should be considered. He made the point which I myself raised, that the solution I propose is not the perfect one but that the good is not necessarily the enemy of the best. What I am looking for is the introduction of new legislation on copyright, but to be honest, and here I must be careful of my choice of words, I have considerable doubts about the commitment of the Government to introduce such legislation. As I mentioned, the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, indicated last year that he hoped such legislation would be circulated by December 1988. As Deputy Flanagan has said, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was asked about this matter last week he knew nothing about it. Therefore, what are we to believe?
It will be some considerable time before we see copyright legislation. In the meantime we need to plug this gap. The amendment we propose will not plug it totally nor is it the perfect answer, but at least it will provide a temporary plaster until legislation on copyright is passed by the House. If this amendment is included in the Bill, and the Government are very strongly of the view that it is not a totally satisfactory answer to the problem, it might provide some spur or impetus for the Government to bring forward legislation on copyright which all sides of the House agree is necessary. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the assurance of the Minister of State and I intend to press my amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bruton, John.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finnucane, Michael.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Ta, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
We now come to deal with the amendment No. 6 in the name of the Minister. I observe that this amendment was discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
4.—(1) When granting a supply certificate the Official Censor shall determine, and shall include in the certificate a statement indicating, to which of the following classes the video work concerned belongs:
(a) fit for viewing by persons generally,
(b) fit for viewing by persons generally but, in the case of a child under the age of 12 years, only in the company of a responsible adult,
(c) fit for viewing by persons aged 15 years or more,
(d) fit for viewing by persons aged 18 years or more,
and for the purposes of this Act the class specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection is the highest classification and that specified in paragraph (d) of this subsection is the lowest classification and that specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection is higher than that specified in paragraph (c) of this subsection and references in this Act to classification or higher classification or lower classification shall be construed accordingly.
(2) A statement indicating a classification other than the highest classification shall not be given in a supply certificate unless the Official Censor has examined a video recording containing the video work to which the certificate relates.
(3) Where the classification of a video work is not the highest classification, the Official Censor may withdraw the classification and give the work a higher classification and, if he does so, he shall revoke the supply certificate concerned and grant another supply certificate in respect of the work in which is included a statement indicating the higher classification.
(4) (a) The Minister may be regulations amend (whether by the addition, deletion or alteration of classes) the classes specified in subsection (1) of this section:
Provided however that an amendment under this paragraph shall not have the effect of providing a classification indicating that a video work is fit for viewing only by persons aged more than 18 years.
(b) Where it is proposed to make regulations under this subsection, a draft of the regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft shall have been passed by each such House.
Amendment agreed to.
We then come to amendment No. 6a in the name of the Minister which was discussed earlier this morning with amendment No. 2a.
I move amendment No. 6a.
In page 7, after line 44, to insert the following:
"(ii) would be likely to stir up hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation, or".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Amendment No. 8 in the name of the Minister was discussed with amendment No. 4 earlier.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 8, line 1, to delete "any".
Amendment agreed to.
We then come to amendment No. 9, Deputy Liam Kavanagh's amendment which was discussed earlier with amendment No. 2.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"or
(c) it is pornographic."
I am aware that my attempt to introduce what I thought should be part of this Bill — an interpretation or a definition of the word "pornographic"— at an earlier stage was necessary, because in dealing with this Bill we are dealing with two specific areas of video recordings that we all want to see being removed from availability to the public and prevented from sale or production in this country. I refer to violent and extremely violent films and pornographic ones which depict sex in a totally objectionable manner, particularly those that are objectionable and degrading for women. I thought the Minister would have accepted that this should have been part of this Bill.
When the Minister, Deputy Collins, brought the Bill into the Seanad in November 1987 he mentioned on at least ten occasions the word "pornographic" to describe the degrading and sexual type of films we are trying to have banned. In the Official Report of the Seanad of 4 November 1987, column 1212, volume 117, in his introduction he said: "I have no hesitation in including pornography in the Bill and in dealing with it by way of a total prohibition of supply". I was disappointed that we did not get a definition from the Minister and I attempted to put the definition of that word into the Bill but we were unsuccessful. It should have appeared in various sections. This is the third section where I believe it should have been introduced to make sense of the Bill. I have failed on the other two occasions and this is the last occasion I can ensure that a definition of the class of a video recording we wish to see banned is included in the Bill. Therefore, I propose my amendment.
I agree with what Deputy Kavanagh said. We had a fairly full and frank discussion on the matter on amendment No. 2 last week. It was unfortunate, if I may say so, that that amendment was defeated. I feel what we are doing now, and what Deputy Kavanagh is attempting to do if this House is not going to define pornography, is to allow the courts to come up with a definition on the merits of a particular offence or case that might be brought at some subsequent stage. I do not believe that is the ideal but it is better than to allow this legislation to go through the House without explicitly outlawing the sale, distribution, supply and viewing of pornographic videos. We are not engaged in the best approach. It is unfortunate that we did not succeed on the last occasion with either Deputy Kavanagh's definition or the one introduced later by my colleague, Deputy Barnes. However. I would be happy to accept the proposed amendment in the name of Deputy Kavanagh now on the basis that it would at least give the legislation sufficient power to tackle a difficulty that might be neglected in the main body of the legislation. I support the amendment.
I too support this proposed amendment to section 6 which empowers the Official Censor, having examined videos, to ban their distribution by refusing a certificate of supply. We give him the powers to form an opinion where the likelihood is that the video would cause persons to commit crime, might incite or encourage them to commit crime or might help them to contrive ways to avoid detection of crime once committed; we allow him to refuse to supply a certificate because the video might tend, by reason of the inclusion of some obscene or indecent matter, to deprave or corrupt persons who might view it, and finally we allow him to form an opinion that he should refuse a supply certificate if the video on his viewing depicts acts of gross violence or cruelty towards humans or animals. Therefore, we give the official censor wide scope in viewing videos to form a vast range of opinion.
What is wrong then in allowing him this one further step in the process of deciding what is or is not pornography? It is not extending the provisions of this Bill a great deal but it is addressing directly what the Minister suggested would be addressing in the Bill once passed, namely tackling video nasties and the proliferation of pornography and degrading films.
Other parties in the House have attempted a comprehensive definition of that word "pornography". At the end of the day we may not have been able to find an agreed definition but the next best step is to allow the person who has a primary duty in this area, namely, the Official Censor to whom we are giving a vast range of powers under section 6 to formulate opinion, to have the opportunity to impose his or her definition on the concept of pornography. It would be a matter then from subsequent practice to decide whether we in the community, either in this House or before the courts, would agree with his or her definitions.
We have not been able to get the support of the Government for a comprehensive definition and what is now being proposed is the next logical stage in that process, namely, the inclusion of the opportunity for the Official Censor where he or she felt it important to refuse a supply certificate because in his or her opinion the video could constitute pornographic material. If we are serious about what we are trying to do, using this Bill to tackle that invidious form of trash that is becoming all too prevalent, we should agree to this amendment. It is not asking much and would indicate a certain earnest from the Government in this regard.
I want to add my voice in support of Deputy Kavanagh's amendment. Like the other speakers I believe that if this amendment is not accepted the Bill will be seriously flawed. The Minister for Justice has given a commitment to process legislation to try to cope with the damage pornography does. However, to bring in a Video Recording Bill without including pornography means that the Bill is not full and comprehensive. One of the most outrageous and damaging areas we must concentrate on is the pornographic material now freely available and being freely circulated in shops and other outlets all over the country. The House has already heard that research in this area has revealed a direct link between violence, particularly against women and children, and pornography. This has been referred to not only in this debate but in the debate on the incitement to hatred legislation. It cannot be emphasised enough that legislation we bring through this House must comprehensively concentrate and integrate into it the areas of most concern and urgency. Therefore, it is quite unacceptable that we would not accept Deputy Kavanagh's amendment.
The Minister for Justice indicated when last we discussed this matter that the drafts people might have some difficulty with definitions already given to the House, and Members on this side of the House are willing to accept that. It must be agreed that the amendment as it stands is totally acceptable and leaves it open to the drafts people in future legislation, and, indeed, to censors — as Deputy McCartan has pointed out — to bring in the interpretation and the definition. I promise that all of them will have the help and the benefit of the research that has been done in this area.
Apart from the direct links with violence, to which Deputy McCartan, Deputy Kavanagh and my colleague, Deputy Flanagan, have referred, we are hoping in this Bill to concentrate on removing material that would lead to incitement to violence. I do not have to emphasise again the direct relationship between the ultimate degradation involved in the violence that occurs to women and children, in particular, but to all women in general because of the fear in which they have to live their lives by reason of the perversions and the violence threatened upon them through the wide circulation of pornographic material.
Not alone would this Bill be flawed but we, as Members of this House, would be failing half the population if we did not seek to have this amendment included in the Bill. To avoid being chauvinist, I would also point out that every Member who spoke on this side and, indeed, the Minister for Justice, took on board the seriousness and the concern being expressed regarding pornography and gave the commitment to do everything in their power to eliminate it. It is within their power to eliminate it in this Bill by means of this amendment. If the wording "it is pornographic" is accepted the way would be open to enable us to work on the elements of that later. It is important and essential to the whole Bill that the amendment be included.
There is no way that this House or society in general can accept the idea of a commitment to equal rights for women, equal freedoms for women or to even citizens' rights for women if we do not take on board the whole area of pornography and address it in legislation as quickly as possible. We cannot allow this opportunity to go by without including it in this Bill. This Bill is seriously flawed. If the amendment is not accepted women will be seriously undermined.
Can we have a response from the Minister?
I think I responded too soon to the previous amendment. I should have waited until more Deputies had spoken because I had some very good information to impart. Since we have gone from that amendment I want to avail of this opportunity to reiterate that I am opposed to this amendment. The matter has already been debated in the context of amendment No. 5 in relation to section 3. That amendment was not accepted. I oppose this amendment for the reasons stated in relation to amendment No. 5. Sections 3 and 6 are clearly in language which is satisfactory, in my view, for this Bill——
It is not.
——when it states "obscene or indecent matter which would corrupt or deprave people who might view it". That is sufficient. Anybody who thinks we have not used in the Bill sufficient words and strength of words to convey to all and sundry — producers, licence holders and the few agents — what this Bill is all about, let me remind them that the underlying element of the Bill relates to obscene and indecent matter which would corrupt or deprave people who might view it. That should, in my view, cover the intentions of the amendment. On that basis I am opposing the amendment.
Having listened to the debate, I have to call a vote on this amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bruton, John.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finnucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and O'Shea; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.