Margaret Conlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)

I am grateful for an opportunity to speak to this Bill and thank Deputy Dara Calleary for sharing time.

While many changes have been introduced in the area of defamation law since the enactment of the 1961 Act, substantial reform of the law on defamation is long overdue. The large number of new forms of media and on-line activity creates potential for an increase in the number of cases of defamation. Further modernisation of this area of law is needed to take into account the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and courts of law in this jurisdiction.

The main features of the Bill I propose to highlight include the novel provision requiring a plaintiff and defendant to submit a sworn affidavit showing the veracity of their statements and positions. Furthermore, the requirement that they make themselves available for cross-examination will allow the cut and thrust of argument to show the strength of each party's stance.

Many people in public life, including me, have had their good name and character impugned. Public figures and private citizens may fall victim to this problem. Everyone is entitled to a private life. There are no excuses for journalists to go beyond the bounds of their profession to secure a scoop or headline. The Bill provides that if someone is proven to have defamed a person, an apology must be given the same or similar prominence as the original statement. I welcome this innovative measure. How many times have we seen an article on the front page of a newspaper, complete with sensational headlines, in which a person's character was defamed? In many cases, a subsequent apology appears weeks later in the middle of the newspaper in such small print and under such a minute headline that it is virtually unrecognisable and frequently overlooked. This practice is unfair to the victim.

Although the independent Press Council was officially launched on 9 January 2008, it requires the enactment of this legislation to function fully. The code of practice for the print media is also in place. The new body will need to be reviewed and its performance and operation subject to constant monitoring. I am concerned that certain sections of the press and other forms of media have not registered with the Press Council. It is necessary that they do so to prevent the emergence of myriad systems to deal with grievances because this would dilute the efficacy of the Press Council.

I recognise the need to have a free press. For this reason, the inclusion in the Bill of a new defence of "fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest" is a welcome step. Journalists digging, investigating and probing have discovered many worthwhile stories over the years. However, it is imperative that all journalists work to the highest professional and ethical standards, engage at all times in accurate reporting and do not base stories on anecdotal evidence and sensational headlines.

A further element I welcome is the merging of libel and slander into the tort of defamation. Slander, as Deputy Thomas Byrne, a solicitor, said, is very tough to prove with extra hurdles put in place. Many people are afraid to take a case when a defamatory remark is made against their character for fear of even further damage or the media highlighting the defamatory remark. No one would want further attention drawn to himself or herself. When a court case is taken and an award is made, it goes some way to remedy the damage and alleviate the hurt caused. However, the damage has already been done and the hurt has already been caused to the individual and his or her family. A person's good name and character is a priceless asset in the workplace and publicly. I hope journalists will exercise greater care to ensure fewer such cases are necessary.

Younger people are now possible victims of this new tort of defamation. We hear horror stories of young people being bullied and possibly defamed on social interactive websites such as Bebo and Facebook. The electronic age is well and truly here to stay. We must be able to tackle these new media if they step outside the bounds of what is acceptable because we must be able to protect all our citizens. I mention young, impressionable teenagers. Unfortunately in the past, this type of defamation and bullying has led to disastrous and sometimes fatal consequences.

It is also important the print media do not ghettoise certain areas in which hardworking, honest people live. Often people are labelled. Although they try to portray themselves in a positive light through positive and progressive actions, this is often lost to the media.

Certain newspapers and radio and television programmes seem to like nothing better than bad news and sensational headlines. Sensational headlines sell newspapers and there is huge pressure on journalists to get the big scoop and the big story and to print the big headline because that means more customers and, ultimately, more revenue. There is a need to exercise more caution because the truth must always be to the fore and the defence of truth will always succeed.

The area about which I am greatly concerned is the libelling of the dead, which shows a complete lack of respect. There was always a tradition in this country of respecting our dead. Colleagues mentioned the disgusting coverage of the late Liam Lawlor's death, that of Princess Diana and more recent tragedies. The media were insensitive and extremely hurtful to the families who were subjected to the coverage and comments while they were mourning the death of a loved one and trying to cope with their untimely passing.

I welcome this much needed Bill. Reform is certainly needed and for the many reputable journalists who write honourably and deal only with facts, we must ensure that high standard is maintained. We must also ensure all our citizens are protected in a media market which is constantly changing.

See this speech in context