We are on the Report Stage of the Video Recordings Bill, 1987. This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 82, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question. "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as a report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, that may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. For the convenience of Senators I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of these amendments.
Video Recordings Bill, 1987 [ Seanad Bill Amended by the Dáil ]: Report and Final Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for Final Consideration."
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
As Members are aware, they may speak only once on this question.
The Video Recordings Bill has been passed by Dáil Éireann with 32 amendments. I propose to give some details in relation to each of the amendments. As I go through them it will become clear that some of the amendments are more important than others.
Amendment No. 1 defines "a classification."
Amendment No. 2 is a drafting amendment to take account of the passage, since the Bill was introduced, of the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988.
Amendment No. 3 provides for including incitement to hatred on certain grounds among the grounds for refusing a supply certificate. In deciding to propose the amendment the Minister was particularly impressed by the desirability of affording appropriate protection to vulnerable minority groups.
The effect of amendment No. 3 will be to make the Video Recordings Bill correspond exactly to the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989, in this respect. That is to say the amendment adds to the grounds for prohibiting a video work not only that it would be likely to stir up hatred against groups of 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 amendment also follows the provisions in the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act in providing expressly that the groups against whom hatred must not be incited are groups either in the State or elsewhere.
Amendment No. 4 removes the word "any" from the phrase "any obscene or indecent matter" in section 3 (1) (a) (ii) relating to the grounds for refusing a supply certificate. Some anxiety was expressed as to whether the inclusion in a video work of even the smallest piece of possibly obscene or indecent matter would be sufficient to cause the whole work to be banned. Although I do not think that the word "any" would have this effect, especially when the censor will in any event have to decide whether the video work is "unfit for viewing", I accepted that the word "any" might convey a misleading impression and therefore should be deleted.
Amendment No. 5 inserts a new section 4. The new section 4 provides for the censor, when granting a supply certificate for a video work, giving the work one of four classifications and indicating in the supply certificate what classification he has given. The four classes will be those set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of section 4.
The highest classification will be given to video works fit for viewing by persons generally described in paragraph (a). The second highest category will be works fit for viewing by persons generally but, in the case of children under 12, only in the company of a responsible adult, paragraph (b). This classification will serve as a warning to parents, for example, of the possible need to examine the work in question before allowing younger children to view it, especially if a child is particularly sensitive. Depending on the possible effect of the work on the child, the parent or other responsible adult might decide not to allow the child to view the work at all or might think it necessary to stop the playing of the recording or to give reassurance to the child.
The next lower classification will be fit for viewing by any person aged 15 or more, paragraph (c), and the lowest will be fit for viewing by persons aged 18 or more, paragraph (d). There will, of course, be video works which will not be given any classification. The supply of these will be prohibited. Provision for that is in the Bill already and the amendments I am dealing with now do not make any change in that area.
Subsection (2) of the new section 4 provides that the censor shall not give a lower classification than fit for general viewing without having examined a video recording containing the video work concerned, though he will be able to give a higher classification without necessarily having examined the work. This provision is in section 3 (1) of the Bill, under which the censor will be able to grant a supply certificate for a video work without necessarily having examined it, because in many cases he will be able to judge from the title or his knowledge of the producer or otherwise that the work is unobjectionable; on the other hand the censor's power under section 6 to make a prohibition order will depend on his having examined the work.
Subsection (3) will enable the censor to upgrade the classification of a video work if he decides, as a result of representations or of second thoughts of his own, that the classification is too low. In that event he will revoke the supply certificate and grant another supply certificate showing the higher classification. The censor will not be able to substitute a lower classification.
Subsection (4) will enable the Minister for Justice to make regulations altering the classes specified in subsection (1) if experience shows that alterations are desirable. Any regulations under subsection (4) will have to be approved by resolutions of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I should, however, point out that the Minister will not be empowered to make regulations providing for a classification for viewing by persons aged more than 18 years. In addition, the general provision, section 31, under which regulations can be annulled by resolution within 21 days does not apply in the case of regulations changing the classification system. In such cases a positive resolution will be required.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 provide for amendments to section 6 similar to those brought about in section 3 by amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
Amendment No. 8 relates to section 6 (3) of the Bill. Section 6 (3) provides that, if the censor revokes a prohibition order, a supply certificate should be deemed to be granted in respect of the video work in question. That provision would not enable the censor to give a classification in respect of the work, so the amendment provides instead that the censor shall grant a supply certificate, in which he will give the appropriate classification under the new section 4 (1).
Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 adapt the provisions of section 9 of the Bill as to appeals to the Censorship of Films Appeal Board against prohibition orders so as to enable persons to appeal against a classification given by the censor. An appeal will be only for the purpose of obtaining a higher classification. The Appeal Board will be able to affirm the censor's classification or to direct that the video work should be given the higher classification sought by the appellant or an intermediate classification. If the appeal is successful, the censor will grant another supply certificate giving the classification specified by the Appeal Board.
Amendment No. 12 relates to section 11 of the Bill. It deals with the categories of people who would be entitled to get labels for video recordings from the official censor.
The Bill, as passed by this House, provided that anybody could get labels from the Official Censor on payment of the appropriate fee. An amendment on Committee Stage in the other House provided for a tightening-up as regards who would be entitled to get labels. Following debate on that amendment the Minister undertook to give further thought to the matter.
The current amendment enables the Minister to stipulate by regulation who would be entitled to get labels from the Official Censor. It would be the intention to provide initially, broadly speaking, that only the person who was given a supply certificate or his business successor would be entitled to get labels. Should this prove to be an unsatisfactory arrangement it could be changed by regulation. The Minister is satisfied that this amendment would provide a satisfactory solution.
Amendment No. 13 makes a minor addition to section 11, which relates to labelling of video recordings. That section enables the Minister for Justice to make regulations providing for the labelling of the spool or other thing on which the video recording is kept. The section makes it an offence to supply a recording or a spool, etc., that is not in compliance with the requirements in the regulations as to labelling. Under the section the Minister will be able to include in the regulations a requirement that the label should show the classification of a video work. Amendment No. 13 ensures that, if for some reason the label indicates a lower classification than the correct one, this will not amount to non-compliance with the regulations. For example, if the censor should give a higher classification than the one in force when the label was affixed, it will not be necessary to change the label.
Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 relate to section 12 of the Bill. That section makes it an offence to supply a video recording containing a video work which has no supply certificate if the recording or the spool, etc., contains an indication that a supply certificate is in force in respect of it. Amendment No. 14 extends the offence to supplying a recording with a false indication that the classification of the video work in question is a higher one than it is. Amendment No. 15 makes it a defence that the supplier believed on reasonable grounds that the classification indicated was the correct classification or a higher one. Amendment No. 16 is consequential.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 relate to the provisions of sections 13 and 14 which enable the terms of a supply certificate (including the classification given in it) or a prohibition order, as the case may be, to be proved in legal proceedings by a certificate of the Official Censor. The amendments provide for a copy of the supply certificate or prohibition order in question to be attached to the censor's certificate given under the relevant section mentioned above.
Section 17 provides for the granting of licences by the Official Censor. Under the section as passed by this House a wholesale licence would authorise the holder to sell video recordings by wholesale; a retail licence would authorise him to sell recordings by retail or let them on hire. Amendment No. 19 provides that a wholesale licence will authorise the holder to sell video recordings by wholesale or — like a retail licence — to let them on hire. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are consequential.
Amendment No. 23 is also consequential on amendment No. 19 to section 17 (1). Section 18 (1) and (2) as passed by this House provide separately for prohibiting sales by wholesale, otherwise than in accordance with wholesale licences and sales by retail or lettings, otherwise than in accordance with retail licences. Now that as a result of amendment No. 19 to section 17 (1) a wholesale licence will authorise letting on hire, there is no need to have separate prohibitions in subsections (1) and (2) of section 18, so amendment No. 23 makes the necessary provision in one subsection covering both kinds of licence.
The reason for the amendments is that wholesalers do let video recordings on hire. Accordingly, the previous wording of the section was too restrictive as under it the holders of a wholesale licence were confined to selling video recordings. The amendment will enable them to let recordings on hire and it is in keeping with existing trading practices in the video business.
Amendment No. 24 is also consequential on amendment No. 17. Amendment No. 20 is a drafting amendment to assimilate the language of the provision in section 17 (2) relating to the grant of retail licences to the language of subsection (1) relating to wholesale licences.
Amendment No. 25 to section 19 is a drafting amendment to assimilate the language of section 19 (2) to that of similar provisions of the Bill. All the provisions in question provide that it shall be a defence to a charge of committing a relevant offence to prove that the accused believed on reasonable grounds in the existence of some fact that would prevent the conduct in question, e.g. selling a video recording or possessing it for the purpose of sale contrary to the Act, from being an offence. All the provisions, except section 19 (2), say that it shall be a defence "to prove that the accused believed" etc. Section 19 (2) says that it shall be a defence "for the accused to prove" etc. The amendment brings section 19 (2) into line with the other provisions. There is no difference in substance.
Amendment No. 26 amends section 22 in line with the amendments to sections 13 and 14 brought about by amendments Nos. 17 and 18. Amendment No. 27 substitutes a new subsection (1) in section 23. The main purpose of the new subsection (1) is to relax the strictness of the subsection as regards disqualification for holding a licence to sell or let video recordings. The subsection as passed by this House provides that, if the holder of a wholesale or retail licence is convicted of any of a number of offences, such as selling a video recording containing an uncertificated video work, and he has previously been convicted of any other such offence committed not earlier than five years before the commission of the first mentioned offence, the court shall order that his licence should be forfeited and that he should be disqualified for five years for holding a licence.
One effect of this would be that if the owner of several shops was convicted of selling a recording of an uncertificated video work in one of his shops, and he had a relevant previous conviction, he would be disqualified for five years for holding a licence to sell at any of his shops.
I think this would be too severe and the amendment provides, therefore, that the offender should be disqualified from holding a licence only in relation to the premises where the offences were committed or in relation to any other premises for which he had no licence at the time when the order of disqualification takes effect. Therefore, he would still keep his licence in respect of shops other than those where any of the relevant offences were committed within the five years but he would not be able to get a new licence for any other shop until five years from the date when the disqualification takes effect.
The amendment also makes two smaller changes. First, it adds to the offences giving rise to disqualification an offence referred to in section 15 (2), i.e. an offence of importing a video recording of a prohibited video work. This is also an offence which can give rise under section 27 to forfeiture of the illegally imported video recording. Second, the amendment provides that offences of illegal importation or breach of copyright which will give rise to disqualification for holding a licence will be limited to offences committed after the commencement of section 23.
Amendment No. 28 provides that a member of the Garda Síochána seeking entry to a place in accordance with a search warrant under section 24 must produce the warrant if so requested.
Amendment No. 29 applies to section 27, which relates to forfeitured video recordings. Apart from a small verbal change at the beginning of subsection (1) the only change entailed by amendment No. 29 is to remove the requirement in the subsection — in paragraph (a) — that before the court may order the forfeiture of a video recording the recording must be "produced to the court". The reason for the amendment is that there may be a large stock of video recordings involved in the offence and it would be an unnecessary inconvenience to require their production in court.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 provide that the first calendar year for which the Official Censor of Films and the Censorship of Films Appeal Board are to make reports to the Minister for Justice under section 28 on their activities under the Bill and under the Censorship of Films Acts shall be 1990 instead of 1989. The change is necessary because of the lapse of time since the year 1989 was proposed by the Bill originally.
Amendment No. 32 is consequential on subsection (4) (b) of the new section 4 to be inserted by amendment No. 6.
Before I call Senator Neville I would like to remind Senators that they should confine their contributions to amendments made by the Dáil.
I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue. I concur with the Leader of the House today who said it was an important Bill. We will be happy to facilitate its speedy passage into legislation.
On amendment No. 5, I welcome the classification system. It certainly enhances the Bill and adds to its value. I am glad to see as well, despite the statement in this House previously by a former Minister for Justice, that the inclusion of this amendment does not add to the cost of the Bill. The amendment is a guide to parents. The classification and its use is voluntary, so its effectiveness should be reviewed in future. However, is guidance enough or is there need for a more effective legal means of protecting our young people? It is important that a review of the value and effect of such classification take place after two years and that any loopholes that may arise be plugged by way of amending legislation, especially as, in this area, we are going into uncharted waters.
With regard to amendment No. 3, it is unfortunate that pornographic videos are not included. This is a defect in the Bill and it does the legislation an injustice. It is a glaring omission because it is accepted now that pornographic material causes a reaction in people who are addicted to such material, resulting in violence towards women in particular and the degrading of women and indeed of men who get involved in such activity. Senator Jackman will deal with this in greater detail later.
There is a defect in amendment No. 27 in that the inclusion of the activity of the pirate video is not catered for. It is now accepted that 50 per cent of the market is in the pirate video area. These people do not pay VAT or PRSI and undercut the legitimate video industry and therefore command more of the market. These people do not conform to legislation and it is a pity the Bill does not cater for it.
We will facilitate the passing of the Bill. It will help to bring control into the whole area of video supply and uphold Irish society norms and values in regard to decent behaviour, without unnecessarily restricting freedom of choice in the viewing of such material.
I cannot freely welcome the Bill. I cannot freely welcome the amendments because I know precisely what the amendments are calculated to do. I will address myself directly to one or two of them which people might imagine I would be likely to welcome, but I do not because I recognise their purpose.
Specifically I draw attention to the amendments contained in section 3. What an extraordinary conversion. It would be rather interesting to read into the record the statements of the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, when he went into battle on a very sticky wicket with inadequate understanding of the motivation behind the attempt to insert these amendments, and produced a farrago of nonsense. Now we have the Minister proposing the same amendment.
There seems to be a not quite inexplicable but an explicable contradiction here. This amendment does nothing more than to provide a figleaf for moral respectability for a Bill which everybody knows perfectly well is introduced at the behest of one of the most persistent, the costliest and the widest-ranging lobbies I have ever encountered from a commercial section of the community — the video industry. Let us be quite honest. These apparent little excursions into morality are figleaves, and when they are picked off you will find a kind of naked commercial intent behind the Bill. I just wish that the framers of the Bill had been more realistic and had just catered for this market without pretending that they were dealing with morality. It is astonishing that such a complete somersault could be maintained. Of course I welcome the fact that a sexual orientation clause is included in anything. It is very welcome to me, but it does not mean that I welcome the principle behind the Bill which is one of censorship — and we have had great difficulties in this country with censorship.
The thinking behind this amendment revealed perfectly clearly when the Minister says "that the effect of amendment No. 3 will be to make the Video Recordings Bill correspond exactly to the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989, in this respect" where, I may say, there was also a very strong action mounted against precisely these amendments, that is to say, the amendments as to the grounds for prohibiting a video work not only that it would be likely to stir up hatred against groups of persons on account of their sexual orientation but also that it would be likely to do so on account of their race, colour, nationality etc. How honest is that? I know, having studied the classics, and I have no doubt the Minister and his advisers know precisely the force of "not only" but "also".
There is an attempt here to suggest that, of course, we were going to include sexual orientation all the time but we are now adding in race, nationality, religion, whereas in fact the Minister, I am sure, in this season when we all renew ourselves at the crib and come out with pious assertions of our religion, will feel compelled to be honest and say quite the reverse was the case. To an extent we always had race, colour, nationality, religion, and so on, but they certainly did not want to have sexual orientation in it. Yet we have the Minister now coming in and saying that this amendment is to guarantee not only sexual orientation — as if this was the most natural thing in the world, something I was trying to persuade another Minister to include first a few months ago — but also the other matters.
I am in great difficulties because of the calculated and cynical political dishonesty of this legislation. In addition I am against censorship and I am not at all convinced by the rake of amendments that are here; they are all technical, they all deal with classification and so on. I would like to ask the Minister who is going to classify the censor? If we accept the arguments for grades, classification and so on made by Senator Neville — I understand Senator Jackman will follow up on it — that there is a direct "causal" relationship between watching erotic material on the one hand and committing horrible crimes on the other, who will classify the Official Censor when he has consumed enormous masses of this material? Or is the Official Censor some super mortal, some Ubermensch, whose complete impermeability to filth places him in a class of his own? I just do not believe it stands up. I will listen with the greatest interest to what Senator Jackman has to say. The material I have read from the United States of America is (a) very complex in its interpretation and (b) a lot of it is so clearly motivated, was so frequently interfered with — particularly during the Presidency of Mr. Reagan; I almost said the late Mr. Reagan — it is very difficult to be clear about it. I do not want to be tedious. I realise it would not be appropriate for me to range too widely. I understand we will have an opportunity to talk briefly again when specific amendments are going through. Is that right?
No, the Senator has one opportunity only.
I will be brief. With regard to all this high-minded stuff, not one word of which I believe, about the need to protect the kiddy-winkies and how extraordinary it always is that the kiddy-winkies are always trotted into the front-line in these pseudo-moral arguments — how extraordinary it is that this legislation which has had the benefit of the wisdom of the Dáil, which has been bounced backwards and forwards between the two Houses, has not taken any account whatever of the principal difficulty in any legislation such as this, the necessity for which is clear in a number of sections, that is for understanding definitions of "obscenity" and "pornography". There has been a very considerable debate in this country over recent months in the course of which these definitions have been examined very carefully but it seems to me there has been no real attempt whatever by the Government to take on board these very serious problems.
I would have been quite anxious to place on the record some of the statements made by the previous Minister with regard to the sexual orientation clauses in particular. May I recommend to the Minister, as a little light entertainment to brighten the Christmas season, that he roll his eye over them because, if he is interested in athletics, he will certainly find some very spectacular somersaults between the present Bill, that introduced in the Dáil, and the Minister's very forthright answers, his denials repeatedly under cross-examination that such clauses existed anywhere or could be legitimate. I should like to leave the Minister, who I know is a very decent man, with a little bit of a conundrum for Christmas——
How does the Senator know?
Well, he looks very decent and he wears glasses which makes him look very intelligent.
Acting Chairman
Perhaps the Senator would stay with the amendments.
Yes, I am confining my contribution exclusively to the amendments. The Minister is so decent he does not require to be amended at all in order to be decent.
Quite seriously I should like to make this point: here we are really basically glowing in self-satisfaction at having introduced sexual orientation clauses — now, I am glad to say, becoming almost automatic — even engaging, as I have pointed out, in a considerable degree of grammatical sleight-of-hand intended to persuade people since this little item has apparently proved popular that it was always thus in the Government's mind. Yet the form of behaviour to which we are extending this protection is still a matter for the criminal courts. This is still a current issue because, as I am sure the Minister is aware, in recent years — although in the Criminal Courts the operations of specific sections has largely lapsed, in matrimonial courts the introduction of certain forms of evidence, in cases involving judicial separation, quite frequently has been halted because of the fear of criminal prosecution. We are now in the delicious position that we watch on the screen under the protection of the Minister's Video Recordings Bill, activities which, if carried out between citizens of the country, would actually constitute a criminal activity.
I would like the Minister to spend some time resolving that difficulty because it seems to me that, in a sense, the proliferation of sexual orientation clauses is very largely putting the cart before the horse. I personally believe that a horse and cart are a very admirable method of transport but they need to go in the right sequence. They are also very ecologically sound, but it is necessary for them to go in the right sequence. In squirting out sexual orientation clauses wholesale, all over the place, indiscriminately, the Government are not doing anything other than really presenting a slightly ludicrous case when they do so in advance of reform of the principal law.
Like Senators Neville and Norris, I have difficulty with amendment No. 3 in that there is not included the word "gender" for groups of persons in the State against whom hatred would be stirred up on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation. I should have liked the word "gender" to be included with regard to the exploitation of women and children on account of the incentive to violence through sexual exploitation and the viewing of videos.
On reading the Dáil debate and the Seanad debate of November 1987 I was disappointed to note that a definition of the word "pornographic"— which appeared to present a major problem in the course of the passage of the Bill through the Dáil — was not included. There is no doubt that violent and pornographic films depict sex in a totally objectionable and degrading manner. Indeed, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, the then Minister for Justice, mentioned pornography many times in the course of his remarks in this House describing the degrading and sexual type of films we are trying to ban. In the debate in the Seanad of 4 November 1987, at Volume 117, column 1212, he had this to say:
I have no hesitation in including pornography in the Bill and in dealing with it by way of a total prohibition of supply.
Obviously at that time the then Minister was interested in including that clause. Perhaps the Minister present could inform me why that was not followed through. It is sad that there was no success in having that definition included in the Bill. The debate in this House is the last stop for this Bill without outlawing the sale, distribution, supply and the viewing of pornographic videos. Now that we have observed the powers of the Official Censor I find it difficult to understand why he should not have been given that extra power to tackle the video nasties, the proliferation of pornography and degrading films that can be seen everywhere. They are not on sale legitimately but we know that they are being distributed widely from the backs of vans, cars, in pokey little shops and houses. They are certainly in circulation and are illegal business on a large scale.
When the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill was being debated in this House I asked that violence towards women and children should be included. I was told it might be more appropriate to include it in the Video Recordings Bill. I ask the Minister to give me legitimate reasons why this topical and prevalent problem in our society is not included in the Bill. Research has shown that there is a direct link between violence to women and children and viewing those pornographic videos. If amendment No. 3 had been carried through, amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would also have been included in the Bill.
I want to make a comment on amendment No. 3. I want to take issue with my colleague, Senator Norris, who said he is against censorship. I am not against censorship when it is for the common good. For too long we have had an obsession with the censorship of so-called explicit sexual material. That is an important area of censorship but in the midst of all this we have lost sight of the censorship of violent material. The cult of violence has been allowed to develop far too much and I am convinced that much of the video material portraying violent scenes is extremely harmful to the public and, in particular, to young people. We have not adequately addressed the issue of violence in the past when dealing with censorship. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on the extent to which amendment No. 3 will deal with violence in videos.
I want to thank Senators for their contributions. Senator Neville raised the question of putting a time limit on the review of the Bill. When this question was raised in the Dáil, I rejected it on the basis that it would be incorrect to put a time limit on the review of any Act and that it would be better and much more appropriate to do so in the normal ongoing review of legislation because we might find it necessary to make adjustments after a much shorter period than two years. Putting a time scale on the review would be unwise because it will be kept under ongoing review anyway. If it is found necessary to make changes, they will be introduced.
Video piracy is mainly a matter for copyright legislation. My colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has responsibility for that area. Legislation on this topic is being considered in that Department at present. However, the Video Recordings Bill provides protection against video piracy in so far as it is proper.
We dealt at length in the Dáil with the question of pornography and a number of amendments were proposed to the Bill. As I said in the other House, it is not correct to say that pornographic video works are not dealt with in the Bill. Pornography is covered by the word "indecent" in sections 3 and 6 in the same manner as it is covered by that word in the Censorship of Films Act, 1923.
Some Senators referred to costs. Amendment No. 5 will add to the costs under this Bill but it will not give rise to any extra costs to the taxpayers as all costs will be covered by the fees charged under the Bill.
One has to differentiate between the serious element and the levity in Senator Norris' contribution. The Minister said many times that he will give careful consideration to all arrangements made in relation to the Bill. Consideration was given to the views expressed and I have no difficulty whatever in saying that. What is debate all about? Both Houses have debated the Bill and I accepted some amendments when I was dealing with the latter Stages. I think it is correct if in the course of debates, Members' views are strongly put that they are accepted. I have no apology to make to Senator Norris or anyone else. Senator Norris used words like "somersaults" and "juggling". He said he had read the classics. Unfortunately I did not. I did not have the time because I have a constitutency to look after. I have no difficulty whatever in considering and accepting the views expressed. This is why so many changes were made to the Bill. This is what debate is all about. The consideration of those suggestions has led to many changes in the Bill. These include the licensing of outlets, classification, sexual orientation and other matters. The Minister and I indicated in the Dáil that we were willing to make changes suggested in both Houses. These changes have been made and I do not think anybody could possibly complain — or have grounds for complaint — that we did not make changes in the Bill arising from the discussions and debates by Members of both Houses.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghábháil leis na Seanadóirí uilig a ghlac páirt sna díospóireachtaí ar an mBille seo. Rinne siad sár obair agus tá a rian sin le feiceáil ar an mBille.
Cuireadh fáilte go forleathan roimh an mBille nuair a pléadh é sa Teach seo don chéad uair, breis is dhá bhliain ó shin. Theastaigh Bille den sórt seo ó formhór na ndaoine sa Teach seo agus san Dáil. Ach ní raibh gach éinne ar aon intinn maidir le gach rud a bhí beartaithe. Bhí daoine ann freisin a cheap go raibh gá le cumhachtaí breise sa Bhille. Dúirt an tAire go raibh sé réidh chun éisteacht le gach duine a raibh tuairimí le nochtadh aige agus ar an mbonn sin bhí díospóireachtaí an-mhaith againn.
Le linn na ndíospóireachtaí sin glacadh le moltaí maidir le ceadúnas a bheith riachtanach chun fístaifid a dhíol nó a ligint ar chíos. B'shin athrú mór sa Bhille. Glacadh le hathruithe eile freisin a neartaigh an Bille.
Mar is léir ón méid atá ráite agam cheana féin táim an-sásta leis an gcaoi in ar pléadh an Bille. Tá an Bille neartaithe go mór de bhárr na moltaí a pléadh sa Teach seo agus san Dáil. Arís mo bhuíochas do na Seanadóirí.
Nollaig shona agus athbliain gan bhuairt daoibh uile.
I would like to thank all the Senators who took part in the debate on this Bill. When the Bill was first introduced in this House just over two years ago there was a general welcome for it. I think it is fair to say that there was total agreement on the need for a Bill to control the supply of video works. It was clear during the debates in this House, however, that there was a fair divergence of opinion as to the provisions which should be in the Bill. Suggestions were made and ideas considered in a very open and constructive way. As a result of these frank discussions a number of amendments were accepted in this House. Perhaps the most significant group of amendments that were accepted here were those which provide for licensing of persons who sell or rent out video recordings.
When the Bill went to Dáil Éireann from here there was also a general welcome for it there. Again, there were different views as to what the best approaches were to controlling the supply of video works. As in this House, a number of amendments were debated and accepted in the Dáil. One group of amendments accepted there were those which provide for classification. As Members of this House will be aware that was a topic that was debated here and for which there was a considerable volume of support. Having regard to the views expressed in both Houses on this point the Minister agreed to bring in amendments which provide for classification. The result of this is that parents and others buying or renting video recordings will know the age groups for whom any particular work is suitable.
Both Houses also discussed in some detail the criteria for refusing to grant a supply certificate or to make a prohibition order in respect of a video work. The criteria in question are contained in sections 3 to 6 of the Bill. Here also the debate on these two sections resulted in amendments which, I am satisfied, strengthen the Bill. In particular I should mention the amendments which provide that incitement to hatred of groups on a number of grounds are reasons why a supply certificate may be refused or a prohibition order made in respect of a particular video work.
All in all I think it is fair to say that the debates on this Bill in both Houses are a good example of democracy at work. The Minister let it be known that he was willing to consider all amendments and to give careful consideration to them before arriving at any decision. That he did so is evidenced by the fact that the Bill has been changed significantly since it was first introduced and these changes resulted from suggestions put forward both in this House and in Dáil Éireann. These amendments have resulted in a stronger Bill and I think everybody who took part in the debate is to be congratulated on that score.
Finally, I would like to mention a theme that has been mentioned on a number of occasions during debates on this Bill. That is that parents have a very important responsibility as regards vetting the material which their children watch. A video film suitable for children over 15 may not be suitable for children under 12. Similarly, films which are suitable only for those over 18 will be in peoples' homes. Parents must accept their responsibility to supervise the watching of video films by their children so that they do not see material that could be frightening or upsetting or otherwise unsuitable. Whereas I am satisfied that the Bill is a very good one it cannot take the place of parents in this matter. It is imperative that they play their part also. Once again, my thanks to all Senators who took part in the various debates on this Bill. I extend my best wishes to all for Christmas and the New Year.
Question put and agreed to.