Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

In discussing the Defamation Bill, the role of the media and of writers in the week that we mourn the passing of Nuala O'Faolain, it is appropriate that we take time out to pay tribute to her and to her writings which would never have attracted the need for this Bill. Her writings were a model for all journalists, being incisive and challenging. Her last outlet in the media, her interview with Marian Finucane some weeks ago, is one that has impacted on the consciousness of Irish people. Were all people to attain the standards of Nuala O'Faolain this Bill would not be needed.

That said, the Bill is welcome. In this culture of mass media which seems to grow bigger every day and lose its borders through the Internet and so many other means, the Bill is necessary. Its key features are appropriate because they level the playing field for both sides.

I note that under the provisions of the Bill an offer of an apology no longer means an immediate admission of liability which is appropriate. If a paper gets a story wrong, it can offer an apology and publish one without leaving itself open to a weakened defence later in the process. That plaintiffs and defendants need sworn affidavits to be examined in the courts is welcome. These will enable everybody to see what is the issue and where the problems arise. This will allow a proper case to be heard and, hopefully, avoid a lengthy legal process which only adds to the expense.

There is also the issue of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest. That is a new defamation defence in Irish law. That defence is fair and welcome and may remedy the potential difficulties being created by the provision of the body corporate in granting the powers of the body corporate on defamation. There is a danger, as Deputy Thomas Byrne outlined, that this could be abused. The matter of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest could evolve into weakening the worst aspects of the body corporate because there is no doubt that large companies and large organisations resort to the legal process and would do so, if this provision opened up to them, in an attempt to quell opposition to plans of developments, plans of growth or opposition to any concerns about product. This new defence is welcome in that area.

The creation of the Press Council and the press ombudsman is a welcome development. We have all had Professor John Horgan with us in our parliamentary parties earlier in the year. He is on the road doing the work he needs to do. It is important that his office be resourced properly so as to sell its message around the country. It needs to be on the road and in people's faces. It needs to outline to people its responsibilities in order that people can engage with the ombudsman in the event of being slighted unfairly. The press ombudsman needs to have a similar presence at various events and gatherings as the Health and Safety Authority and other bodies with a function in protecting personal rights. I also expect Professor Horgan will be given a budget similar in size to the budgets available to these organisations.

I hope the apparent difficulties regarding the Press Council are resolved as soon as possible. I refer specifically to the former Minister's remarks on the occasion of the launch of the Press Council to the effect that sceptics were being served by doubts surrounding the council's independence. I hope immediate measures are taken to address this issue.

The media have evolved significantly in the five years it has taken to bring the legislation before the House. Whereas Ireland has been rather cosseted by a high standard of national and local media, other countries have experienced the development of a mass media market governed by the motto "publish and be damned" and the rule that if a story sells it should be published. As Deputy Rabbitte stated, this approach in which business principles dominate journalism is beginning to creep in here.

A number of speakers referred to a case taken against a newspaper by a Member of the House. As Deputy Rabbitte noted, the newspaper in question acknowledged its error when it lost the case. Nevertheless, the defence it submitted for the error, namely, that it was within its rights to take the action it did because the individual concerned was a public figure, was breathtaking. This defence was published in the findings of the case. A line is crossed when a person who is gravely ill cannot come home to the comfort of his family without having to worry that people are lurking outside his house to try to take a photograph with a view to selling it to a publication. No one deserves this treatment and it is awful that regulations must be introduced to protect citizens from it. This case shows a deterioration in decency and a lack of respect for the person.

Journalists are subject to immense pressure from accountants employed in media organisations. The measure of journalism no longer appears to be awards or other forms of recognition but the number of newspapers sold. Advertising is king and the advertiser rules. Newspapers advertising their product emphasise how many ABC 1 or ABC 2 readers they have and their value to advertisers in terms of product sales. Unfortunately, the standard of writing appears to be secondary to the ability to attract the right kind of reader with the right kind of money who, in turn, will attract the right kind of advertiser. It is unfortunate the media is moving in this direction, although we are fortunate to have journalists who are willing to resist this culture. The Bill sets out to support and maintain high standards.

The emphasis of the body corporate provision must be on fair play and free speech. I echo Senator Alex White's comments in this regard. Decisions by large institutions of all types to engage in new projects, whether an economic programme, a planning proposal or the development of a new product, always invite opposition. In a democracy such institutions must not be able to revert to legislation to try to weaken such opposition. People have a right and duty to stand up for what they believe is right and the new provision should neither assist nor prevent them from performing this duty.

The tidying up aspect of the legislation is welcome. I note Deputy Byrne, a relatively recent graduate from law school, had a book of torts with him when he spoke. As a result of this legislation, solicitors around the country will be scurrying to consult their textbooks because the Bill tidies up so many old offences and defences and makes the law relevant to the current media market.

The legislation is welcome given the changes in the media environment since 2003. The growth of the Internet and multinational media groups and the emergence of competing newspapers within a newspaper stable delivering different messages to suit different audiences makes it difficult to understand and manage this sector. The Bill is well-meaning and appropriate and I wish it every success.

See this speech in context