Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Oct 1992

Vol. 424 No. 5

Censorship of Films (Amendment) Bill, 1992 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Flynn)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The primary purpose of this Bill is to enable the Minister for Justice to appoint persons to be known as assistant censors to assist the Film Censor in the performance of his duties and functions under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1970, and the Video Recordings Act, 1989 — particularly the latter Act.

Basically, the Video Recordings Act, 1989, aims at three levels of control. First, it contains provisions for the licensing of wholesale and retail video outlets. Second, it provides that the censor may, on grounds specified in the Act, prohibit the supply of video films which he considers unsuitable for viewing. Third, it provides for the classification of video films in terms of their suitability for viewing by different age groups.

The first two levels of control mentioned — licensing and the censor's power to prohibit certain videos—were brought into operation in 1991. However, the third level of control — classification of all video films by reference to their suitability for viewing by younger people — has yet to be brought into operation. This is where the present Bill becomes relevant. The volume of work which will be involved in the examination of all new videos and those already on the market with a view to determining their suitability for viewing cannot be undertaken by the censor alone. He will need considerable assistance, hence the need for assistant censors.

Before I deal with the details of the Bill I would like to remind the House, briefly, of the circumstances which made it necessary to enact the Video Recordings Act, 1989.

Video films came on the scene in the early eighties. They enjoyed an amazingly rapid growth in popularity during that decade. Evidence of this rapid growth was to be found in the proliferation of outlets supplying video films and the fact that video recorders became commonplace in homes.

There were thousands of video film titles available and the number was being added to at the rate of approximately 1,000 new titles each year. Most of these films were unobjectionable in their portrayal of adventure, comedy, romance, sport, education, etc. However, just as the print and film media can be exploited by the unscrupulous to make money at whatever cost to others, so too with videos. Increasing numbers of what came to be termed "video nasties" were put on the market. These were thoroughly objectionable films which depicted extreme and graphic violence or uninhibited pornography. The extremely violent films contained many scenes of the most stomach-turning and ghastly violence, while those of a pornographic nature portrayed sex in a totally objectionable manner. The nature of some of this material was such that responsible parents were very concerned lest their children be exposed to it. Women, in particular, were fearful that these videos, if they were to be widely available, would increase the incidence of sexual attack and assault on them. As a result, there was a widespread demand that controls be introduced to deal with these films. The response to this demand was the Video Recordings Act, 1989. That Act is, as I said, being brought into operation in stages by ministerial order.

The first important step was to ensure that those in the business of selling and supplying videos on hire could be identified and monitored. This was done by introducing a licensing system. In April 1991 regulations were made which require retail and wholesale video dealers to be licensed with effect from 1 May 1991. These licences were issued by the Film Censor and authorise the sale or letting on hire of video recordings at or from a particular premises. A licence remains in force for a period of 12 months. The fees prescribed for licences are: retail, £100; and wholesale, £4,000.

The second step was to ensure that "video nasties" would not be allowed in the marketplace. In July 1991 a further order was made enabling the Film Censor to exercise his powers under the Act to prohibit the supply of video films which he considers to be unfit for viewing in accordance with the criteria contained in the Act. To date, the censor has issued prohibition orders in respect of 221 such video films. A further order and regulations will be required in the coming months to commence the remainder of the Act and enable the Film Censor to examine all new video films intended for supply and also to commence the systematic examination of all video films already on the market. The censor will examine the videos to determine whether they are suitable for viewing and, if suitable, will assign one of the following four classifications to them: (i) fit for viewing by persons generally; (ii) fit for viewing by persons generally but for a child under 12 years only in the company of a responsible adult; (iii) fit for viewing by persons aged 15 years or more; and (iv) fit for viewing by persons aged 18 years or more.

However, because of the volume of work which will be involved, it will be necessary, as I said, to first appoint a number of assistant censors to assist the censor. The classification system, when in operation, will provide parents with the means to monitor what their children are watching. The video which a child or young person may wish to buy or hire will be clearly labelled as to its suitability for viewing by younger age groups. It will be up to parents primarily to control what their children are watching. The law cannot extend into the family home.

While it is not possible to quantify accurately the number of video films involved, information received from trade interests clearly indicates that the task could not be performed by the Film Censor alone. The trade say they will be submitting in the region of 700 new video films each year to the censor for examination. This figure does not take account of those video films already on the market. It is estimated that there could be as many as 12,000 to 15,000 video films already on the market which will also require examination.

With that background in mind I would now like to address in broad terms the provisions of the Bill before the House. As I said, the main purpose of the Bill is to amend existing legislation to enable the Minister for Justice to appoint assistant censors to assist the Film Censor in the performance of his statutory duties and functions. Section 2 of the Bill deals with this. The Bill also provides for the rectification of anomalies in the existing legislation which relate to the fees to be prescribed for appeals to the Censorship of Films Appeal Board. Sections 3, 4 and 5 are the relevant sections of the Bill in this regard.

In section 2 it is proposed to empower the Minister to appoint as many assistant censors as will be required to assist the Film Censor in the performance of his duties. The assistant censors will be given the same statutory powers as the Film Censor to make decisions in relation to the certification and classification or prohibition of cinema and video films with the exception of the following powers which will be reserved to the Film Censor: (i) the power under the Censorship of Films Act, 1970, to review a decision made over seven years previously, (ii) the power under section 4 (3) of the Video Recordings Act, 1989, to give a higher classification, i.e. one indicating unsuitability for younger viewers, in the case of a video film, (iii) the power under section 7 (3) of the Video Recordings Act, 1989, to revoke a prohibition order in respect of a video film and (iv) the making of annual and other reports under section 29 of the Act of 1989 to the Minister for Justice on the censor's activities as to censorship of cinema or video films.

Thought was given to whether a system could be devised whereby the assistant censors could operate in a subordinate role to the censor and where final decisions on certification and classification or prohibition could be left to him. Such a system would have the distinct advantage of guaranteeing uniformity in determining classifications. However, given the sheer volume of work which will be involved and the fact that the video distributors will need speedy decisions on the certification and classification of their product, it would make such a system unworkable. However, under the system proposed in the Bill there are provisions aimed at ensuring a uniform approach to classification.

First, it is proposed that the Film Censor, subject to any directions that may be given to him by the Minister for Justice, may determine which functions an assistant censor may perform and to what extent he or she may perform such functions. Second, there is provision that the assistant censors will perform the functions allocated to them under the general superintendence of the Film Censor and consult with him from time to time about the performance of these functions. These provisions will provide the Film Censor with the means to establish classification standards and maintain a consistency in their application.

As to the appointment of persons to the position of assistant censor, there is a number of factors which will have to be taken into account in determining their conditions of employment. For example, the video business is subject to peaks and valleys. Some of the variations are seasonal while others are related to customer trends and demands. Regardless of such variations, however, distributors of video films will demand a consistently speedy service from the Film Censor's Office in having their product examined, certified and classified in time to meet planned release dates in the market place.

In addition, experience elsewhere has shown that persons employed on the examination and classification of video films maintain consistently better standards of judgement if employed for short periods and given long breaks.

Also, more assistant censors will be required during the first years of examination of video films until such time as the backlog of films already on the market have been dealt with.

It would seem that the appointment of assistant censors on a full-time basis to examine video films may not be the best way to cope with these factors. Other options would be to appoint assistant censors on a contract basis for a definite period or to appoint them on a part-time basis as the need arises or a blend of both such systems. I am having these matters examined at present but it may not be possible to determine all these issues until the examination of videos gets under way and we learn from experience what is the best method of approach.

Assistant censors will be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. The annual cost involved will depend on the volume of new video films released each year and the rate at which those films already on the market can be examined. It is not possible, therefore, to state accurately what the level of cost is likely to be during the first or second year of operation. All costs involved in the operation of the Video Recordings Act, 1989, will be recovered by the charging of fees for services provided. Accordingly, there will not be any nett additional cost to the Exchequer.

I would now like to turn to the other proposals in the Bill before the House which are intended to regularise matters in the existing law covering the prescribing of fees for appeals in respect of cinema films and video films — sections 3, 4 and 5 refer.

The effect of the relevant provisions of the Censorship of Films Act, 1923, in relation to appeals in respect of cinema films is that a fee of not more than £5 may be prescribed in each case and, where that appeal is successful the fee shall be refunded. In the case of appeals under the Video Recordings Act, 1989, in respect of video films, the requirement is that the appellant pay such fee as may be prescribed with no provision for repayment of that fee.

If those provisions of the Acts of 1923 and 1989 are allowed to stand, further anomalies will exist in that the fee for an appeal in the case of a video could reflect modern day values while the corresponding fee for a cinema film will be limited to £5 and, while this fee may be refunded if the appeal is successful, such is not the case in an appeal involving a video.

What I now propose in the Bill is to regularise the matter by leaving the amount of fee in respect of appeals in both cases to be fixed by regulation but to provide that the fee to be paid by the appellant in the case of either a video or a film should be repaid if the appeal is successful. The provisions in this Bill in relation to the appointment of assistant censors are essential to the implementation of the Video Recordings Act, 1989, that is, the examination and classification or prohibition of all new video films intended for supply and the systematic examination of all video films currently on the market. I hope that I will have the support of the House for the measures proposed and I look forward to an open and informative debate on the proposals.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cotter

The question as to the need for censorship is fraught with argument. Legislation on the subject is difficult to apply, as is obvious to all Members of this House. Any time a ban is applied to any publication it automatically acquires a notoriety which provides it with high powered and free advertising, thereby enhancing demand for it. Even though supplying the publication is against the law, and even though it is prohibited, the black market satisfies demand in all cases and as a result makes huge profits, no percentage of which ever reaches Government coffers. There is, indeed, a thriving black market as we are aware and we see evidence of that regularly.

That black market operates in all contraband materials, drugs, videos, films and publications. The Garda cannot control this market. From time to time they make a big haul of various materials, but the day after the same people or others will move in, if there is a gap in the market, and make a supply of this type of contraband material available. I understand that the black market in videos — and I assume the Minister's figures are fairly accurate in this regard — stands at present at approximately £15 million a year, and neither the Government nor the Garda can stamp it out. Those who want pornographic material will always be able to get it.

The Bill before us is a necessary consequence of the Video Recordings Act, 1989. It is a simple measure which makes provision for the appointment of assistant censors. It outlines their functions and duties, from whence they derive their powers and their method of payment. It proposes to amend the Censorship of Films Act, 1923, and the Video Recordings Act, 1989, in a manner which I find entirely acceptable and necessary.

During the eighties, as the Minister has told us, there was a huge growth in the video film industry. Video recorders have become part of the furniture in many households. Gradually there was a demand for legislation which would apply some control to the industry. The Video Recordings Bill was introduced in this House in 1987, and as is clear today, that legislation has not yet been finalised. One would wonder why there has been such an inordinate delay with that legislation. I suspect that although the problem was perceived as an acute one, there was no sense of conviction about enacting the legislation.

The purpose of the 1989 Act is to protect society from the criminal side effects of viewing videos which often depict extreme violence and uninhibited pornography and may incite people to hatred against minorities. Perusal of the Act is quite revealing. Whom does it purport to protect? Certainly the official censor has power to refuse to certify certain videos, thereby making them illegal, and the power to make it illegal for wholesalers and retailers to stock such videos or to rent or sell them. Everyone in this House knows that people who want to get their hands on this type of material will succeed. That market is well looked after. The banning of such material gives it notoriety and significantly increases the demand for it.

The Garda manage to detect and confiscate hordes of pornographic videos on a regular basis and they will continue to do so. It is a very profitable game for black marketeers to be involved in and there is evidently a substantial market for such material. It is clear that those who want hard pornography will be able to get it. On 1 January 1993 when there will be an open market in Europe and borders will be more open than they are now, it will be much easier for people to bring such material into this country and the black market will thrive.

Prohibition always puts money into the pockets of the unscrupulous dealers. I find it very disappointing that nowhere in the Act is there a section or subsection which specifically protects innocent, immature children. A five year-old or a ten-year old can enter a video retail unit today and purchase or rent an adult video and do so perfectly within the law. The person who sells that product to a child is not penalised under the 1989 Act. While we are all agreed that the State cannot decide what parents and their children may watch in their own homes, if we decide that censorship is necessary surely we should ensure that children should not be able, under the law, to procure pornographic material for themselves. We prevent adults from purchasing hard video pornography by refusing to certify it, thereby making it illegal. Yet we allow five-year-olds to buy or rent an adult video which may contain explicit sex scenes. The logic of that escapes me entirely. It brings to mind an old Irish proverb, "an tslat, nuair a chruann le haois, is deacair í a shníomh ina gad." Loosely translated that means that a branch loses its flexibility as it gets older, and we are all aware that the same applies to the human condition.

It is arguable whether adults are adversely affected by pornography or by video nasties. Some would say that people who have a particular inclination may be incited to commit unlawful acts as a result of viewing such material, etc. Psychologists and sociologists tell us, however, that our emotional make-up and social characteristics are formed in our childhood. In my view, violence and depravity are generally inculcated in one's formative years and in the environment of one's own home. Regular exposure to video nasties and pornographic material at a young age will have a destabilising effect on one's development.

It is incumbent on the State, when it decides to introduce legislation on censorship, to offer as much protection as it possibly can to innocent and vulnerable children. The 1989 Act did not deal with that issue. I am not sure what the motivation for that was, but, although I have not had an opportunity to read the Official Report in detail, it seems that it was excluded deliberately. The thinking probably was that parents are the people who must act as censors and oversee what their children view and read. Obviously, Governments cannot decide what parents and children watch and read in the privacy of their own homes. However, as videos are sold or rented through retail units, the Government do have control to some degree at that stage. The Government should have exercised that control by making it illegal for persons who own or manage those properties to sell or rent adult video nasties to children.

The Government have control at that stage but they do not have control over the material people view or read in their own homes. We should signal to the nation our view that it is unacceptable that children should be allowed to view such material by introducing legislation to make it illegal. The Government have refused to do this and I would ask the Minister now to consider this. Before this Bill passes through the Houses of the Oireachtas I hope we will have an opportunity to put this matter right. It is essential that we do this in order to indicate to parents and to society in general that this is a very serious matter.

That immediately brings to mind the difficulties the Government have with regard to the legislation on the use of alcoholic drink by minors. That legislation was reviewed and amended in 1988 and yet the will to implement it appears to be lacking. We are all aware that youngsters are able to get as much drink as they can consume in various pubs at weekends. Even though this is against the law, it happens and the people who serve them drink are tolerated by society. This kind of tolerance is extremely dangerous. One can imagine the effect watching pornographic videos after consuming too much alcohol can have on immature and vulnerable people and the kind of activities they can get involved in.

Many cases of incest and child sexual abuse result from the irresponsible use of pornographic videos and alcohol. I am sure other Members will agree that a depraved adult who wishes to take advantage of a child can easily set the scene for his evil intentions through the use of what might be called a soft porn or blue video.

Children who are exposed to pornographic material can grow up to believe that sexual behaviour of a particular kind is normal and can easily agree to get involved in undesirable activities.

We are all aware that child sexual abuse does terrible damage to those who are abused and that they can suffer unbelievable consequences. For example, some of them suffer from emotional disturbance and end up on the fringes of society involved in prostitution and substance abuse. As these people are unable to form a relationship they do not have a normal family life. Given the consequences of child sexual abuse and the fact that we are aware that watching pornographic videos and consuming too much alcohol can impact on children in a very negative way and lead to the perpetration of sexual abuse, we should avail of every opportunity to send out signals that certain types of behaviour are not acceptable. We should send out signals to those involved in the retail business and parents that viewing certain films and reading certain material are not acceptable in any circumstances. We did not do this in the 1989 Act, but we still have time to send out these signals to people. That was the only effective thing we could have done in terms of censorship under the 1989 Act. Adults who want to watch pornographic videos will be able to get them irrespective of the laws enacted by this House. Banning certain videos only draws attention to them and makes the black-market much more lucrative for those who operate in it.

In discussing censorship and the application of the censorship laws we should aim at protecting the innocent, people who are unable to protect themselves and those who are not mature enough to make decisions for themselves. I hope the Minister will give some heed to what I have said in this regard. I have very strong views about this issue. I have been studying the issue of child sexual abuse for some time and I am aware of the awful problems it creates. The extent of the problem is still unknown; we can only guess it at this stage. Television programmes, the ISPCC and others who deal with children have told us that the problem is more widespread than the official statistics indicate. In 1984 very few cases of child sexual abuse were reported while thousands of cases will be reported this year.

The Minister said the growth of the video industry during the eighties was remarkable. There is a connection between the growth in the reported cases of child sexual abuse and the growth in that industry. I am not saying there is a direct connection but it is significant that both have grown apace. I hope that sociologists, psychologists and those working in university departments will carry out an investigation in an effort to establish the connection between the increase in the reported cases of child sexual abuse and the growth in the video industry. Anyone who looks at these issues, even in a superficial way, will see the connection.

Children who watch unacceptable videos in their homes tend to accept the norm and are, therefore, much more susceptible to become involved in unacceptable sexual behaviour. This matter needs urgent attention. My information — I am sure the Minister and other Members will agree — is that thousands of victims of child sexual abuse need counselling and therapy but are unable to receive treatment as the State cannot afford to provide it. If all the victims in the reported cases received therapy and counselling they could begin to recover from the awful consequences of child sexual abuse. If they do not receive this therapy many of them will end up on the fringes of society, become abusers, become involved in criminal activities of one kind or another and help to increase this circle by getting other people involved. This enormous problem helps to fill our jails and creates violence. We have read in the papers of people walking along a street at night being attacked for no logical reason by a group of young people. This behaviour by the attackers can be traced back to malformations of some sort during their formative years. This issue is of extreme importance to the Government, society and me and it should be taken seriously.

I am happy with some of the provisions in the Bill. I welcome the provision in relation to the grading of videos, which was not included in the 1989 Act. This provision is good in that it will give parents an indication of the type of videos their children bring home to watch and whether they should be allowed to view them. It is an important provision. Obviously we want parents to take their responsibilities seriously and to insist on vetting videos and television programmes. In this way, children will only be able to watch programmes and videos which are suitable for their age group. It is a difficult thing for parents with a busy lifestyle to do. The satellite television channels cannot be controlled. When parents go out of the house late at night children can watch all sorts of material which is entirely unsuitable for their age group. Of course the Government cannot handle that sort of thing. We cannot be responsible for things which parents do within the confines of their own homes. The best we can do is try to educate people as to the consequences of not being responsible. Most parents try to be responsible but there are homes where there is grave and deliberate irresponsibility with regard to these matters. The majority of parents will try very hard to carry out their duties but some will not. It is these people who will always cause difficulties for society at large. They will raise children who are unfit to take their place in society because they have not been allowed to grow up in the normal way. Pressure on our jails will increase as a result. We need to educate people as to the dangers involved. I am glad the Government have introduced a "Stay Safe" programme in schools which will enable children to learn about the kinds of relationship which are acceptable and to discern those which are not.

It is necessary for us to rethink the terms of the 1989 Act. We have an opportunity to discuss it as we go through this Bill. We have control over what children may buy or rent in a retail outlet. We should give maximum protection to those children by making it an offence for an adult working in such an outlet to sell or rent to children adult videos containing explicit sex scenes. That would be some measure of protection.

The Minister has given an indication of how it is proposed this legislation should operate. He is not in a position to say how many assistant censors he will require but he is able to make an estimate of the number and of the amount of money that will be required to pay them. Who those people will be is an important question. One would hope they would not be party hacks who have done their duty by their party and have to be repaid. That would be entirely unacceptable. It would be necessary for them to have some background in the business and to know something about films in general. They should also be able to exercise good judgement. The enormity of the task will require them to work and make decisions on their own and they must have the necessary expertise. I hope the Minister will consider appointing women to at least 50 per cent of these positions. Women have a caring attitude and would be able to make good decisions.

My party broadly accept this Bill but we hope that certain amendments will be made to it and to the 1989 legislation.

Mr. Pattison

My party also welcome this Bill in so far as it goes. Our criticism is that it is yet another piecemeal attempt to deal with a major problem. We would have preferred the legislation dealing with films, videos and publications to be updated in a consolidation Act which would confront the challenges in this area.

It is important that legislation of this kind should be capable of changing a perception of this area as being exploitable for easy profits to a highly risky commercial activity in which people will be discouraged from investing in undertakings which produce such filth. That is the kernel of any legislation of this kind.

This Bill does not go far enough in updating our legislation. The existing definitions of pornography are outdated and anti-woman. It is time for the Minister to amend existing legislation on pornography to provide a more real approach to the issue. Various statutes which define pornography do not go far enough. They look at pornography from a moral perspective which focuses on defining pornography as an attack on public morality rather than on women. As a result, loose definitions of pornography have been used to ban a wide variety of reputable films and publications which would not be pornographic in their depictions of women. The challenge facing society is to formulate a definition of pornography which avoids this problem.

The existing Censorship of Films Act of 1923 allows a film to be banned if it is indecent, obscene, or blasphemous or because the exhibition thereof in public would tend to inculcate principles contrary to the public morality or would otherwise be subversive of public morality. Books may be banned under the Censorship of Publications Act, 1946 if they are indecent or obscene or if they advocate abortion. The Video Recordings Act, 1989 which this Bill brings further into force has a more extensive definition but, nonetheless, a vague one.

I believe the existing legislation defining pornography fails to address the kernel of the matter. A more positive approach would be centred on the concept of pornography as sex discrimination and as the subordination of women. This definition of pornography would include the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women whether in pictures or in words. The re-definition of pornography would not be a backward step for our society but would ensure that the pornographic films that portray women in a degrading and subordinate way would not be allowed to be distributed in Ireland. This can only have a positive influence on our society and would remove, once and for all, the vagueness that prevails in our existing definitions of pornography.

If the Minister cannot agree with what I am saying here and with what I suggest as a re-definition of pornography, at least he could offer the House a guarantee that on Committee Stage he will introduce an amendment to provide a single uniform and coherent definition of indecency which will remove the arbitrary nature of most of the judgements which have to be currently made. It is hoped that this definition would cover all three pieces of legislation on films, videos and publications.

I believe that the censorship board would be much more productive in its work if it reviewed the horrible depiction of violence in films that often receive PG certificates and would therefore be accessible to children. This Bill before the House provides for the appointment of assistant censors to assist the official censor of films in the performance of his functions in relation to films and videos. According to this Bill the Minister for Justice would have sole power to appoint these assistant censors. I do not believe that this is a safe decision in that the Minister of the day could use appointments to these positions as a payoff or compensation for political favours to the exclusion of appointing suitably qualified persons to the job. It is vitally important that people with suitable qualifications and experience be appointed. There is no mention in the Bill of desirable qualifications for such appointments. There should be a set of minimum requirements; the basic qualifications should be obvious. It is a failure of the Bill that it fails to assert what qualifications, skills and relevant experience are required by these important provisions. Having said that, the best qualified people are parents but, as I said at the outset, if we can have legislation to attack at source the manufacture of video nasties, the copying of video nasties, even the possession of video nasties and horrible pornography, then protection comes a bit more easily. Concentrating on protection and not on the source can be counter-productive. It must be made commercially unattractive to go into such business. Not alone must it be made commercially unattractive but the highest possible penalties should be imposed at that point. If that could be done it would help enormously.

It is also sad when a video nasty or a film depicting all kinds of pornographic behaviour gets front page publicity in other forms of the media that tends to promote rather than to curtail the said videos, films or publications. Here again the responsibility spreads over a wider area to ensure that no comment is made that has the effect of giving free publicity to the promotion of this activity.

In conclusion I would urge the Minister to bring into the House a Consolidation Bill covering this area, updating the definitions that need to be updated and clarifying what qualifications and experience he will be looking for in the people he has in mind to appoint as assistant censors.

Mr. Gilmore

When this Bill was debated in the Seanad there was a lengthy debate on the nature of censorship itself. It was implied, if not directly expressed, by a number of contributors that there should be no censorship and that citizens should be free to view what they want when they want to and to make up their own minds and exercise their own judgement in relation to pieces of film. That may be fine in an ideal world but we do not live in an ideal world and we do know that, since the introduction of the technology of videos, many videos have appeared both on the official market and on the black market which were vulgar, violent and pornographic.

I happen to believe also that there is a link between exposure to violent, pornographic and vulgar videos and the increase in crime, particularly crimes against the person. The increase in some of the more savage crimes perpetrated in recent times, the increasing crimes against women in particular, are I believe linked to exposure to this kind of film.

Society must make some effort to protect the public against exploitation of people, of women or of minorities. Therefore I support the principle of censorship.

The question that arises is where does censorship apply, to whom does it apply and to what does it apply. This question can only be addressed by way of a democratic debate about the nature of censorship and a regular review in this House of the measures that are in place. I agree with the point made by Deputy Pattison. Instead of introducing legislation dealing with two matters which do not merit legislation, the appointment of additional assistant film censors and the question of a refund of fees paid by an appellant incurred in appealing against a film censor's decision, it would have been better if more comprehensive updated legislation dealing not only with the censorship of films but other material also was introduced. I suggest that such legislation should also deal with the question which arises time and again about censorship in the public media, particularly in the broadcasting sector.

I note, for example, that some of the legislation being amended dates back to 1923. The nature of films has changed dramatically since then. In 1923 not only were we in the early days of the State we were also in the early days of film as a medium. I am sure many aspects of Colmcille's prophecy had greater credibility in 1923 than the idea that in every home in the country there would be a box in which one could put a package no larger than a cigarette box and view the modern equivalent of Charlie Chaplin. I am sure this idea was far from people's minds in 1923. Therefore, the legislation dealing with censorship needs to be updated.

The argument has been made that if one censors something one will drive it underground and create an illicit demand and a black market for it. While this is partly true it is not an argument in favour of doing nothing. The problem in relation to censorship is that down through the years it has been abused to censor material which did not deserve to be censored. When one thinks of the works of writers that were censored and of the debates which took place in the Oireachtas on the censoring of such titles as The Tailor and Ansty it is hardly surprising that the idea of censorship got itself a bad name because of the way it had been used to censor material which should not have been censored in the first place.

The focus of concern down the years has weighed heavily on erotic material and morality. At the same time however the issues of senseless violence and acts of cruelty arising from viewing violent films have received little attention. In order to continue a productive discussion on censorship we must initiate a shift in our collective emphasis from the moral nature of erotic material to the relationship between violent films and crime. Gentle and preventive measures used while the problem of violence is in its early stages of growth will make potentially harsher measures at a later date less than necessary.

The main issue surrounding censorship is the inviolability of the human person as laid down explicitly in our Constitution. The protection of this inviolability is a social and collective concern which should seek to prevent acts of cruelty, both common and sexual, against individuals. Yet, Ireland as a whole is witnessing an ongoing increase in violent crimes attested to by the recent savage killing of a Donegal fan following the All-Ireland final. The tragedy is that this came only a week after a similar incident in my constituency where a young man was literally beaten to death while on his way from a disco.

I have no doubt that this kind of violent behaviour is encouraged by the repeated viewing of violent films resulting in a form of desensitisation which permits such crimes. There are many factors which contribute to crime such as alcohol and drug abuse and record high unemployment. They create an atmosphere in which violent crimes are committed. It is necessary to recognise and address the issue of societal violence and violent films.

One need only glance at the relevant statistics to realise the increases in violent crime which we have been witnessing in recent years, especially among juveniles. For instance, the number of convicted or cautioned persons increased by 36 per cent between 1978 and 1990. Furthermore, the number of persons under 17 convicted or cautioned rose by 29 per cent approximately. What is even more frightening is the fact that 50 per cent of all persons convicted in 1991 were under 21 years of age. The number of violent crimes, especially among young people, is rising.

We have to ask ourselves which is the greater scandal: the senseless killing of innocent people or the erotic material portrayed in films. Given that the trend in crime is increasing why have the State and the Church always supported the censorship of erotic material, sometimes at the expense of more violent material? A more definite approach will have to be taken by the State in dealing with the question of exposure to violent crime and, since this Bill deals essentially with videos, exposure to violent crime on videos.

Many people wonder why in recent times we have seen an increase in a senseless form of violent crime. I do not think it takes a great deal of deduction to make a clear connection between exposure to violent videos and the increase in violence on our streets. While I accept the point made by Deputy Cotter that parents should exercise a degree of control over what their children view and are exposed to, it is not just a question of protecting children from material which is not suitable for them having regard to their age and level of development. There is also the question of denying access to violent material to people, either young or old, who may at a later stage be influenced by that material which would lead them to posing a threat to the rest of society.

I am however curious about this legislation in a number of respects. First, I am curious as to why it is necessary to introduce legislation essentially to enable additional film censors to be hired. It would appear that the reason for this legislation, as expressed in the Minister's contribution, is that the volume of videos currently on the market which have not yet been viewed by the censor — the Minister put the figure at 15,000 — is so great that additional resources and staff are required. Second, the number of videos coming on the market — I think the Minister put the figure at something in the region of 700 annually — requires additional staff simply to view their number.

The question which was not addressed by the Minister in his introductory remarks and which I should like to see addressed before the conclusion of this debate, is why is it necessary to introduce legislation to increase the number of film censors. Why was it not possible simply to enable the Official Censor of Films to employ assistants just as would be the case in any State body, agency or other controlling body here? Why did we need legislation to say that additional censors are to be appointed? That is my first question in relation to this Bill.

My second question has to do with the manner in which it is proposed to engage the new assistant film censors. In his introductory remarks the Minister went through a range of options he says were considered in relation to how film censors should be employed, ranging from additional film censors being employed on a full-time basis to censors being employed on some kind of contract basis. I do not see a great distinction between the employment of film censors on a contract basis and the kind of panel system being proposed in this Bill. We are being told that panels of assistant film censors will be appointed on a part-time, temporary, non-pensionable basis. The Minister argues that the reason for employing a panel of assistant film censors is that there are peaks and valleys in the way in which videos come on the market. I accept that that is the case. The Minister also went on to argue that there are 15,000 videos out there that have not yet been viewed by anybody. That negatives the argument for having a panel which can be called on when there is a demand and let go when that demand lessens. It appears to me, from the Minister's remarks, that there is a case made for the employment of additional assistant film censors on a regular, full-time basis. There is nothing to indicate that the numbers of videos coming onto the market will lessen; if anything, the indication would be that the numbers are likely to increase.

The only indication there is as to what might be the rationale behind the Minister's proposal is that it will be he who will appoint the panel. I should like to have this point addressed also. Why is the Minister for Justice, who has so much on his plate, to occupy himself assessing the competence, experience, knowledge of the film industry and so on, of potential assistant film censors? If legislation was necessary at all, why was not some simple enabling measure provided by way of legislation which would have enabled the Official Censor of Films to increase the complement of people available to him if and when the need arose, either by the appointment of people on a full-time basis or by drawing from people on a panel? That would appear to me to have been a much more appropriate way to have dealt with this. It would have put the engagement of assistant film censors in the hands of somebody with knowledge of the film industry, who presumably would know the requirements that should be met, who would know the work involved and the kinds of qualifications necessary. Why is the Minister for Justice reserving to himself the appointment of assistant film censors?

Like other Members, I have to wonder if, in the same way as one could tell a peace commissioner's politics by ascertaining the year in which he was appointed to the position, we are now to have a new designation of film censor — FC — and be able to deduce the political persuasion of certain people in our community from the date they were appointed to the panel of film censors. I must say the only conclusion I can reach in relation to the manner in which the power is being reserved by the Minister for Justice vis-á-vis the panels to be appointed, is that what we are getting here is yet another example of Government wishing to find some way of doling out patronage, by offering people who have done favours in the past, a new chocolate sweet: being able to watch filthy films and being appointed as film censors for that purpose. I hope I am not being too harsh on the Government in this respect but, in the absence of any other explanation of why the Minister for Justice wants to reserve himself the right to appoint panels of assistant film censors, when it could be done in some other way, I do not have any alternative.

Another aspect of the Bill about which I am curious is the provision that the fees to be paid for appeals against a film censor's decision are to be refunded in cases where the Censorship of Films Appeal Board find that the appeal should be upheld. At one level that seems perfectly fair, that if one lodges an appeal and is successful, one should have one's fee refunded. But I cannot think of any other case in legislation — certainly not in any of the legislation introduced by this Government — where fees are to be paid for appeals, where this approach has been taken. If one takes the example of planning appeals, there was a debate in this House not so long ago about the Government increasing the fee to be payable by members of the public for lodging planning appeals, in the course of which Members on this side of the House asked the Government, whether, in cases where somebody had paid a fee to seek an oral hearing on a planning appeal which was not granted, that fee should be refunded. The Government refused that request. Yet here we have a Bill being introduced in the case of the film and video industry stipulating that whenever an appeal is upheld the relevant fee will be refunded. I wonder whether the Government have been subjected to any kind of pressure on the part of the film industry or the video distribution business to relax the measures being taken in relation to the control of videos, whether this refunding of the fee is in some way extending something to the industry in some kind of trade-off, ensuring that all the films will be looked at by the censor, that there will be a new panel of assistant film censors but, on the other hand, if people are successful in their appeal, they will get their money back.

I would be much happier about it had the Government a consistent policy in relation to the refund of fees for appeals, which does not appear to be the case. I am curious why, having refused fees to people in the case of other appeals, it is allowable under the provisions of this Bill.

I look forward to the Minister responding to these questions. In general my party support this legislation. We will be tabling amendments on Committee Stage, in particular to deal with our concern about what appears to be in this Bill a possible politicisation of the censoring of films. I contend the appointment of panels of assistant film censors should be divorced from the political domain.

Mrs. Barnes

I welcome the Second Reading of this Bill this morning. It would be my hope that the remaining Stages will be passed quickly also because there is urgent need for the measures.

When the Video Recordings Act, 1989, and the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989, were before the Dáil, I tabled amendments to both Bills and was supported by Deputies on all sides of the House but particularly by my colleagues on this side. I remember arguing strongly that pornography led to unacceptable violence against women and children. I gave a definition that had been drawn up by other countries in this regard. Unless we legislate for and take strong action against pornography, violence against women and the abuse of children will continue and there will be confusion between hard porn and erotica. For too long we have been afraid to take a strong stand against pornography. I know that the women's movement were aware of invidious attacks on women for many years but fearing that censorship would be considered in an overall way they were reluctant to request that laws be made and action taken against pornography. However, in view of the correlation between pornography and violence against women and abuse of children, it is not a matter of being afraid to speak out; it has become a matter of civil and human rights.

A definition should be written into legislation to distinguish between pornography and the depiction of good, healthy sexual love. Part of the difficulty in this country, with our history and tradition, is that no attempt has been made to distinguish between these two areas and there was a fear that there would be a blanket censorship, denying everybody the opportunity of watching good films filled with loving relationships between men and women. By defining pornography we would assist in education, particularly sex education, in our schools, and we would also assist the censorship board. With the appointment of assistant censors, which all of us applaud, guidelines are necessary in this area. People from various backgrounds may have different perceptions of porn and what should or should not be censored.

In the past some very fine films displaying eroticism or mature sexual, loving relationships were edited, removing a large part of them, while at the same time unacceptably violent films were passed. Violence is now regarded by young people as acceptable, macho and almost heroic. Films containing violence have a great effect on young people and there is a correlation between violent films and the increase in violence on streets and in the home, as referred to by Deputy Gilmore. This problem is a social one which must be dealt with in legislation. However, in doing so we must also provide for freedom of expression.

Much has been written recently, particularly by women and the women's movement about taking a stand against pornography and providing definitions of it. Men have also joined in this call. A man from the United States, John Stoltenberg, wrote a provocative book entitled Refusing to be a Man dealing with pressures on men in terms of their sexual perception of women. He was refusing to be a traditional iron man, recognising that men had been conditioned to having sexual, dominating or even violent perceptions of women.

I welcome very much this debate and the debate on this matter in parliaments around the world. It is only by dealing with the matter at local level that we will be effective in our aim. This is a global problem. Many debates and publications feature the abuse and exploitation of women and children in the developing world. In Ireland, with our tremendous commitment to helping the poor and less developed countries, it is totally unacceptable that these people be exploited and abused. I am sure everybody is aware of the making of films called snuff films using the victims of such abuse, and in which the woman or child is killed in the end. Such films are unacceptable.

For too long pornography has been perceived as an acceptable industry with the freedom to act as do other industries. A book published by the Montreal Council of Women in 1984 entitled Pornography: A Human Rights Issue Which Concerns Both Men and Women states:

No one ever asks why blacks and Jews strongly object to hatefilled images of themselves created by those who want to humiliate, destroy or dominate them. Why, then, are women still being asked why we object to pornography?

The book also states: "Violence against women is an appropriate, even rewarding, social activity". Hopefully through legislation and education as well as rejection of this type of hard porn we will get across to people the anti-social dimensions of pornography. There is tremendous ambivalence in regard to pornography such as in men's magazines, page three photographs, and the objectifying and exploitation of women in advertisements and otherwise. When women object to these matters they are regarded as whingeing, anti-man or narrow-minded.

Only recently has research and studies been carried out in this area. A colleague told me of a recent conversation he had with an Irish judge who presides over many of these cases. He asked the judge to what he attributes the increasing rise — not just in rape and incest — but in perverted rape and incest. The judge said it was caused by video nasties, blue movies. This is the view of a man who has evidence presented to him every day in our courts. The relationship between hard porn, violence against women and abuse of children has been proved over and over again. I do not have time to give examples but a submission was made by the Irish Campaign Against Pornography and Censorship to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights in 1991 which was backed up with a great deal of research, particularly from the United States. It was a tremendous help to the committee and made us realise the enormity of the problem as it affects women and children. I will send a copy of the submission to the Department because I am sure it would be helpful.

When we discussed this matter at some length during the debate on the Act which prohibited incitement to hatred and the Video Recordings Act, 1989, it was generally acknowledged by Members — and by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Burke — that there was a need to initiate legislation to control this type of abuse. Indeed, he had started a process of drafting legislation which would concentrate on pornography; I hope that can be introduced in the near future as a follow-up to this Bill.

I should also like to comment on the Second Stage speech of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Flynn. I reiterate what Deputy Cotter said, that in this area women should be part of the censorship board and assistant censors because research shows that the perception and reaction of women to such pornography may differ from that of men. However, the board should not be composed of men or women solely, there should be a balance of women and men on the board. I am sure we can discuss this matter in more detail on Committee Stage. All Members referred to the availability of this type of video and films and their effect on young, impressionable children. Child care workers have told me that the level of sexual sophistication in very young children with whom they come in contact — and who are looked after in children's homes — is frightening because they do not have a healthy perception of sex, they have a totally perverted and distorted view. If a child in its formative years does not have any other sex education, the terrifying thing is that their perception, as they grow up, is that this is the norm.

We welcome the sex education programme which has been introduced into our primary schools, where children are at their most impressionable. Some of the programme should focus on the total unacceptability of this kind of violent sex and sexual degradation. Children could assimilate that information which would go a long way towards balancing what they are exposed to in other areas. We cannot protect our children all the time but if we build a strong healthy sexual perception within our children they would reject that type of violent, sickening sexual exploitation when they are exposed to it.

We must extend the number of assistant censors in the first few years because there is a huge backlog, to which the Minister referred. Many women write to me — and to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights — complaining that because films have not come before the censor they are still widely available. There are also complaints about unmarked vans in rural areas renting good, healthy videos in the front but which contain unacceptable, violent films in the back. Very often, these films are released in housing estates to people who are totally unprepared for them and who do not realise the enormity of the damage they do. We must keep track of that kind of exploitation. The purveyors of this kind of video must be treated in the same way as drug pushers, because they are exploiting and damaging young people, many of whom may never recover from the experience. We must view it as seriously as that.

I welcome the Minister's promise of an annual report. I know there must be a certain amount of confidentiality but I should like the report to be comprehensive. Perhaps there could be a philosophical statement within the report instead of bald statistics. Perhaps it could even come before the House to be debated. It is very important not to throw the assistant censors in at the deep end and to have some kind of qualifying levels in relation to them. There should also be consistent and comprehensive classification of films, I hope we will pay more attention to that on Committee Stage. I welcome the debate on this Bill.

Mr. Finucane

I am interested in this debate and I am fortunate in following some of the speakers because I know that my colleague, Deputy Cotter, has done a great deal of research in this area. Deputy Barnes is well known for her role in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights in relation to this issue. In recent years many of us have felt despondent in relation to the media and their focus on cases of rape, incest, child abuse, and so on, compared with newspapers in the past. One wonders what has happened in Ireland and whether there has been a tremendous change in attitude. I would say that part of our problem, particularly during and since the eighties, lies with videos. As Deputy Cotter said, videos are now found in many Irish homes and are often in constant use.

Legislation was introduced in 1989 in order to control the videos coming into this country. I have noticed during my time as a Member of the House that, unfortunately, we are rather slow at implementing regulations and ensuring that controls come into operation. There has been a certain amount of tardiness in the implementation of controls on videos.

I welcome the move to appoint assistant film censors. When one considers that since 1989 the film censor has restricted 221 films one has to ask how many films have been released here. Even though I am not a researcher on the subject, I know that videos, pornographic videos in particular, have led to many of the problems manifest in our society in recent times. One recent development of which I am sure the Minister is well aware, has been the installation of satellite dishes, often seen at the gable end of houses, throughout the country. As we all know, anyone with a satellite dish has access to continental television programmes, and it is well-known that some continental stations show pornographic material. I have talked to parents who are extremely concerned about the content of television programmes to which they have access.

They purchased their satellite dish to gain better access to sporting programmes and so on but they did not realise that they would also be gaining access to pornographic material. Now, they say, they are half afraid to go out at night, for fear that their older children or a babysitter looking after their children might be watching pornographic movies. I am not sure whether that aspect can be controlled under this legislation but it is a factor we should be aware of.

There has been a tremendous growth in the availability of video films and pornographic material. Deputy Barnes referred to the nondescript vans operating in the video business, which are a common sight in the countryside. Vans pull up outside various video premises and make accessible to retailers hardcore pornographic videos. There are retailers who are unscrupulous enough to accept those videos, which will subsequently be found on the top shelf in their shops. It is well known that a subversive element is making money from the sale of pirate pornographic videos. In the United States the Mafia have been bankrolled from the business of pornographic movies. That factor has to be taken into account when we consider the operations of the nondescript, unlicensed vans to which reference has been made. In the Dáil we made a great deal of fuss — rightly so — about vans going round to farmers selling various products for animals. We said we would have to ensure to monitor those vans and that the antibiotics or other products they were distributing were properly regulated. We now have a problem with vans distributing videos. Any retailer will say that he or she has been approached by people from nondescript vans who sell pornographic videos.

Recently in my home county of Kerry, a raid on a premises yielded many pornographic videos. That was a welcome seizure. I am sure raids are taking place in other parts of the country also. Pornographic videos are becoming a very big problem and their distribution is something we shall have to try to stamp out.

Earlier I mentioned a delay in implementing regulations on the control of videos. I have a concern relating to the number of assistant film censors who will be required to implement the legislation. There should be no restriction on the number of assistant film censors to be appointed. We will need a big number of them to deal with the estimated 700 videos a year that come into this country as well as the videos already in circulation.

I welcome the introduction of licensing controls on retailers and wholesalers of videos but I have queries about regulations that accompany those licences. For example, if it were discovered that someone was selling pornographic movies from a retail outlet, what would happen to his or her licence? Will a licence have to be renewed each year? Will account be taken of the way a retail outlet is operated at the time an application is considered? There is no point in issuing licences unless there are accompanying regulations to ensure that the licensee follows the rules and runs a professional business.

At the end of the day, there is the element of parental responsibility. We have all seen videos, which may have been recommended as unsuitable for those under 15 years or those under 18 years, the content of which cause concern. Parents do have to take responsibility. We can legislate but ultimately it is a matter for parents.

The future certification and classification of videos is a desirable development. This Bill is a timely response to a problem we have in Ireland.

The production and distribution of videos must be a "mega-buck" business by now. There has been a proliferation of video outlets in the past few years. Every town and village has at least one video outlet. Some shops do a very good business and I have no doubt that some of them are run extremely well. I am concerned that the very desirable regulations in relation to videos be implemented.

I ask the Minister and the Government to do everything possible to stamp out the piratting of pornographic movies, which certainly provides funds for subversive elements. It is my belief — and previous speakers have mentioned this — that many crimes, particularly crimes against women, emanate from the influence of pornographic material. Pornography could certainly influence our younger people and our children in the wrong direction and lead to all kinds of problems. Our parents did not have to contend with either videos or televisions and I often wonder the sense of values of Ireland of the past might not be much better than our present sense of values. Every parent and public representative is very interested in this matter. It is incumbent on all of us to try to do something about these insidious influences.

We have been talking about censorship. I wish to God we could censor some of those who portray themselves as representatives of our country and who are supposed to act as ambassadors for our country. Censorship is needed when such people get carried away with emotional performances — perhaps their objective is to advertise their records and sensationalise their personality. I refer to the recent incident in which Sinéad O'Connor featured. I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone when I say that I was appalled——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Doyle)

Please, Deputy, we should not mention people's names.

Mr. Finucane

The individual I refer to has been talked about by many people outside of the House, as has her recent outburst. I, for one, am appalled that anybody would have the audacity to tear up a photograph of the Pope. I feel I have to comment on that incident, as I respect our sense of values.

The other aspect I should like to speak about is the sensationalism that follows the announcement that something is to be censored. I am amazed at the way in which a great deal of money can be made from such publicity. I speak particularly of Madonna's book; the way its release was packaged, presented and marketed; and the way it was regarded as contradictory to our sense of values. From what I have heard, the book is proving to be a best seller around the country and is becoming a prized possession as so many people want to look at it.

When I consider the number of pornographic movies that have come into this country and the controls that are often sought over "girlie" magazines such as Playboy I question our sense of priorities and values.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.