If this is the proper time, I would like to ask some questions in connection with this Bill. I would like to say at the outset that as far as I know the general opinion of people connected with the cinematograph industry is favourable to the Bill. They think it a proper Bill and one that will be a great help to the industry. Once they have a clear road before them they can get their films censored by a responsible Government official, which is much more satisfactory than the present arrangement. Those connected with the industry think that the Government should not insist on films which have already passed the Dublin Censor being censored a second time. I think that is reasonable, as by the time this Bill is in force such films would be worn out and would not be worth the expense of having them recensored.
SEANAD RESUMES. - CENSORSHIP OF FILMS BILL, 1923. SECOND STAGE.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
What you desire could be accomplished by amendment on the Committee Stage. It does not affect the principle of the Bill. While I do not want to limit discussion, I think as it does not affect the principle, what you are anxious about can be secured by an amendment.
They agree with the principle thoroughly. I thought I would get some expression of opinion from the Government on the matter.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Government may be willing to agree to accept an amendment of that kind.
The Minister for Home affairs is dealing with the Rent Restrictions Bill in the Dáil, and I have been asked to come here and support this Bill. Such a Bill has been asked for by very large and representative bodies, and it is desired by the people engaged in the Film trade, because they have experience of the difficulties that arise by reason of the fact that each local authority is at present the body responsible for censoring in its own area, that there are no fixed standards, and that films that are passed by the Film Censors in Dublin are objected to by the local bodies in other parts of the country. The result is that, as a matter of fact, censoring is not very well done. It is not merely that it is not uniform, but that as it is done on a voluntary basis, it often happens that the films are not censored at all. Quite recently the Minister for Home Affairs had a deputation which included people such as Father John Flanagan and Father Lawrence, of the Priests' Social Guild, Rev. Dr. Denham Osborne, of the Social Reform Committee of the Presbyterian Church, the Rev. J.W. Drury, Professor of Pastoral Theology, Trinity College; Father Tomkins, S.J., Milltown Park, etc., who asked that a Bill might be promoted establishing a National Films Censor. The Bill provides that there shall be an official censor, a single individual, and that there shall be an appeal from him to an honorary Board of nine members. If the honorary Board should chance to be evenly divided the decision of the Censor will stand. The office will be self-supporting. Fees will be charged that will meet the expenses of the office, and pay for the salary of the official censor, and pay the other necessary expenses, so that in reality this Bill will be no charge on the State. Funds will have to be provided in the first instance for the salary, and expenses of his office. As fees come in from the Censorship, that will be recouped, so that, except in the initial stages, the Exchequer will not have to bear any charge for this office. I think that it is one that certainly will be useful. My own experience of films is not that there are very many which are improperly shown. I certainly do not take any too puritanical view. I have not myself ever seen a film that I thought should not have been shown, but I know as a fact that occasionally films are shown which ought not to have been shown, and which are calculated to have a bad effect from a moral or other point of view on those who would see them. It is well we should have a Censor. I believe that we will be able by the device in the Bill to get the censorship done in a broad-minded way, and that it will not be a finicky, restricted, or puritanical censorship, but one in which due care will be taken of public morals, and that there will not be any attempt to carry the thing too far, or deal with it in what would be called a grandmotherly way. It is almost impossible to fix any standard, or lay down anything in the Bill which would fix the standard, or make rules by which censorship should be conducted. The Dublin Corporation, for instance, transmitted to the Minister for Home Affairs, a resolution which stated their belief that having regard to their experience in film censoring for some years, the only way in which this can be successfully done is by appointing a sensible person, of some taste and discretion, and to rely on his discretion, and if that should fail that there should be a carefully selected appeal board which would reverse his decision. I think there is not very much more that it is necessary to say. Other countries have found it necessary to have a censorship of films, and I think that undoubtedly if we were to remove altogether the possibility of films being cut out that we might have a great deal of objectionable matter shown, which could not be prevented by any ordinary prosecution. The need for this office is, I think, generally accepted. One might say that we could, perhaps, carry on for a time without it, and that it was not amongst the most urgent matters, but still representations have been made for over a year, and a promise, I think, was made about a year ago that a Bill would be introduced. Although there has been a great deal of urgent business before us, it was thought wise that this matter should be taken up and dealt with without any further delay.
I desire to congratulate the Minister for Home Affairs on the rapidity with which he has got his Bill through. I have been a film censor for many years, and I know the difficulties appertaining to that office. In Dublin 20 or 25 people make up the Censor Board, and these people, or many of them, have quite different standards as to what ought to be shown and what should not be shown. It was over that that great difficulties arose, and I think the appointing of one person, whose standard will be fixed, will obviate a great deal of trouble in this matter. Another tremendous difficulty was the amount of time spent by Dublin censors upon films. Almost every morning from six to eight people attended for censoring purposes. Appeals were constantly made about the parts turned down, or the whole piece turned down, by people who are called renters, people who are selling these pictures, and the same thing went on all over again. I think that so long as you have 20 or 25 people, all bringing their individual judgments to bear on a film, you never could get any sort of authority in the country. We censored and censored most carefully. One very undesirable film, to me, was shown. I inquired how on earth it could be passed, and I was told it was by the casting vote of a very well-known clergyman. I only state that to point out that a certain standard of right and wrong is what you want, and whether a film censor's standard is right or wrong, at all events it will be universal.
Another thing in connection with the late censoring arrangements was when a film was passed in Dublin and it got as far as Dun Laoghaire, another Committee would take it up there and they said what suited Dublin would not suit Dun Laoghaire, and they cut it out again. That went on all over Ireland. We also found that films that had been turned down eighteen months or a couple of years ago came back again with another name, quite a different name from the one originally borne, so that if the same censors who turned down the original did not see the other it might go through. These were things that showed, to us at all events, the great waste of time on the part of these 25 Dublin people who were trying to do the best they could. I am very sorry that it is necessary that a film censor should be appointed, because I think that the moral courage of the people of Ireland ought to prevent anything disagreeable from being shown on the screen, but our lack of moral courage is, I think, one of our vices. In many countries there are no censors. In Germany I think there are no censors. The police simply prosecute, and I think that is a very good thing. However, we are a people that are very touchy about our morals and everything else, and apparently all these people who waited on the Minister felt that our morals needed to be protected by the appointment of a censor. I hope that they will be as well protected by him, if not better, than in the past, but I do not think that anything would be equal to the moral courage of the people standing up against anything disagreeable shown on the screen. However, I congratulate the Minister, for if it does nothing else, the appointment of a censor will, at all events, stop the clamour in the Press, and the clamour that went on was tremendous.