Mr. Peter Feeney:

I thank the Deputies and Senators for this opportunity to make an opening statement to the committee.

The Office of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council of Ireland were established in 2008, as the Chairman has said. It was an initiative of the newspaper industry, which recognised that trust in the content of newspapers required an independent means whereby the public could hold to account editors and journalists. After a detailed examination of newspaper regulatory structures in other European countries, a structure was developed for Ireland. It was seen from the very beginning that, for any structure put in place to have credibility, it would have to be independent of the press industry and of government. It was necessary to have independent public interest members who were not associated with the press. The Press Council has 13 members. The majority of seven are independent members and the other six members are nominated by national and local newspapers, magazines and the National Union of Journalists, which may nominate one member.

Also established in 2008 was the Office of the Press Ombudsman. The Press Ombudsman would be the first port of call for members of the public seeking redress. A code of practice was drawn up by editors. If a member of the public felt something published in a member publication breached any of the principles of the code of practice, he or she could make a complaint to the Press Ombudsman. I should emphasise that the decision-making function of the Press Ombudsman is entirely independent of the Press Council of Ireland. This is as it should be because my decisions as the Press Ombudsman can be, under limited circumstances, appealed to the full Press Council.

Unlike all other ombudsman services, the Press Ombudsman is not based on statute and we are not a statutory body. We are independent of government. However, as the Chairman has said, for the purposes of the Defamation Act 2009, the Press Council of Ireland is recognised as meeting the criteria necessary. A ministerial order signed in 2010 confers certain advantages on the Press Ombudsman. A significant benefit was that qualified privilege attaches to all reports of the Press Ombudsman and Press Council. Subscription to the Press Council and adherence to the code of practice also strengthens the entitlement of member publications to avail of the defence of reasonable publication in any court action.

The Press Ombudsman began receiving complaints in 2008. Since that date we have dealt with more than 5,000 complaints. Our emphasis initially is always on conciliation and trying to find a means of resolving complaints. This may mean a newspaper publishing a correction or clarification, it may publish a letter, or it may edit the online record or whatever. As part of the conciliation service we also provide a more formal mediation service for complainants and editors. Many complaints are resolved at conciliation. If conciliation is not possible, a complaint goes to me as the Press Ombudsman. If the Press Ombudsman judges that there has been a breach of the code, my decision must be published in full on the same page or further forward in the newspaper, and without any editorial comment. The only exception to this is if publication of the article is on the front page of a newspaper. In this case my decision must be published on one of the first four pages of the newspaper.

If either the complainant or the newspaper is not satisfied with my decision, the decision may be appealed, on a limited number of grounds, to the full Press Council. The Press Council then hears the appeal, and if the original decision of the Press Ombudsman upholding the complaint is affirmed, the publication must publish my original decision and the appeal outcome of the Press Council.

Membership of the Press Council is voluntary. In other words, no publication has to join the Press Council. I am happy to say all national newspapers - print and online editions - including Irish editions of UK newspapers, the majority of local newspapers, as well as many magazines have joined the Press Council. In addition, with the growth of online-only news publications, there are now many online-only members of the Press Council, with thejournal.ieas an obvious example.

In summary, the vast majority of journalism found in newspapers, magazines and online in Ireland is now subject to the independent complaints handling processes of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council. We pride ourselves on the speed with which complaints are dealt with. Typically from publication to a decision takes on average between six and eight weeks. If a complaint can be resolved at conciliation, the timeframe can be much shorter. For many people a speedy resolution to a complaint is the most important aspect of the complaints process. Senators and Deputies will be aware the alternative of pursuing an issue through the defamation process is very slow, very expensive and very time consuming. Typically, it can take two to five years for a defamation action to reach the courts.

After 15 years of operation what can we say? The number of complaints we receive each year suggests the public recognises the worth of the complaints process. It suggests that the public buys into the independence and value of the process. For the press, it can be said that publications have always fully engaged with the Office of the Press Ombudsman and have committed themselves to engaging in the conciliation process. The code of practice, which is subject to occasional review, has stood up well as a defender in the press, especially the rights of privacy, protection of children, the rights of accuracy, and the avoidance of prejudice.

It is my view the Irish public is well served by its newspapers, both national and local, as well as online-only news services as vehicles for information, comment and debate. The excesses found in the media in other countries are not found in Ireland to the same extent. In my view, the press in Ireland provides an important role in keeping the public well and accurately informed and plays an essential role in Ireland's democratic process. I would say this has been made clear in the past two years of Covid. The role the press has played in keeping the public well-informed with accurate information and measured debate has played a significant part in the way this country has faced the challenges of the past two years.

Of course, there are issues and problems. Public discourse has moved, in part, from traditional media of print and broadcasting to social media. This is largely an unregulated area and has led to a huge growth in misinformation, aggression and vitriol. As any politician can testify, this has tarnished public debate and allowed unsubstantiated comment, a status not found before. The Press Council welcomes Government proposals for the introduction of an online safety commissioner and a media authority as important parts in holding to account and regulating social media. No one can dispute the value social media has brought in opening means of communication and debate, but we must recognise simultaneously that social media can bring harm, and it is important to put in place structures to deal with it. Getting the balance right between defending freedom of expression and avoiding harm is not easy. In the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas, it is to be presumed we will see much of that debate.

The new media authority will bring together broadcasting and social media and recognise the changes that have taken place in the media over the past two decades. The Government proposals for the new media authority do not include the areas of the media that are covered by the Press Council. We welcome this distinction and see it as a recognition that current structures that apply to newspapers, magazines and online news services are working efficiently and have unique qualities that are best nurtured by the independent structures we have in place.

One of the main issues facing the print media today is the growth in dominance of social media and its distortion of the marketplace. As an example, about 85% of online media advertising spend in Ireland is directed to the major international social media organisations. This leaves the indigenous media such as online editions of newspapers and online-only services fighting over the last 15% of the available online advertising revenue. This has led to a direct result in a loss of jobs and a loss of journalists and fewer resources for newspapers to carry out their roles as the Fourth Estate. We can see this at local level where regional newspapers have fewer resources to report on local government matters and local court matters. Local communities rely on their local newspapers for critical information and debate on issues that count for them. The Government established a Future of Media Commission. This commission has concluded its report, which has gone to the Government. The Press Council urges the Government to publish that report and to implement as many of its recommendations as possible.

Another cause of concern is that the Government has not met the commitment in the 2009 Act that after five years there would be a review of the efficacy and usefulness of the Defamation Act. That review is now long overdue. It is hoped that the review may make recommendations in terms of the level of awards given in defamation actions.

No one doubts the importance of citizens being able to protect their reputations by using the defamation process but if the level of awards is so high as to threaten the financial future of the press industry and to act as a censorial hand on legitimate investigative journalism, then surely the balance is not right and needs to be addressed. One specific recommendation which the Press Council of Ireland has made to this review which was made several years ago, is that solicitors in advising their clients who are considering taking defamation actions should be legally obliged to inform their clients of the services of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council of Ireland. The level of legal costs in defamation actions in Ireland is out of line with other countries and is a major burden on the press. Recourse to the services of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council may ease some of that burden.

A final point, as ombudsman I do not have the power to initiate complaints. My office responds to complaints we receive. We also only accept complaints about individual articles, not general claims about the press. Complaints can only be considered about something that has been published in the last three months and complainants must be able to demonstrate that they have been personally affected by what has been published.

I am available to answer any questions members may have. The only limitation is that I cannot discuss individual complaints or their outcome or indeed reasoning behind any specific decisions. Section 6(1)(8) of the report of the committee on the review of the terms of reference for the Joint Committee on Public Petitions makes this clear.