Mr. Peter Feeney:

That is a fair question. We were set up in a specific way. We are funded by the industry, so we are different from all the other ombudsmen offices, which are, essentially, funded by public moneys. We are funded by a levy on the industry. The view was taken that our main function would be in assisting individual citizens to seek redress when something wrong is published about them. It has always been the case, therefore, that we can only respond to complaints rather than initiate them.

We must walk the line between satisfying the print industry that we are independent, fair and of value while also satisfying the public that we are independent and of value. We sort of walk a tightrope in our decisions between understanding where the industry is coming from, while also understanding the importance of the rights of individuals. If we were to move into the area of being able to initiate complaints, we would come much closer to the functions of some of the other ombudsmen. They are all backed by legislation and we are not. It must be remembered that we are an independent and voluntary body and newspapers do not have to be members of the Press Council. Some 20% of regional newspapers are not in it. We would find it more difficult to navigate that path between the industry and the public if we were to have the power to initiate complaints. It would also add to our costs and, obviously, we are conscious that we are being funded by an industry which is in severe financial difficulty. We would not like to add to its costs in any way.