Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.

It is good to have the opportunity to speak on the Defamation Bill 2006 but before I do so, I join Deputy Dara Calleary in sympathising with the family of the late Nuala O'Faolain. She was an exceptionally talented journalist and the way she dealt with her illness and went on the airwaves helped many people. I visited somebody in my consistency around the time she spoke about her illness and it had an immense effect. When talking about journalists and the media, we should remember her great courage and the way she accepted her fate in life.

Before speaking on issues pertaining to defamation, I ask for clarification for which we, on this side of the House, have been pushing. It is on record for some time that the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is in favour of introducing the Privacy Bill in tandem with this Defamation Bill. However, it seems the former Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, was against the idea, as was our party spokesperson on justice, Deputy Charles Flanagan, since we believe the Press Council and the Press Ombudsman together with the Defamation Bill should be given a chance before revisiting the question of privacy legislation. Will the Minister clear up this grey area as to whether we should expect the Privacy Bill to be linked to this one in order that it is not necessary to either hold up this long awaited Bill or rush through the Privacy Bill before the Press Council has had sufficient time to deal with this? As Deputies, it is our job to highlight legislation which may quickly become out of date. If the Privacy Bill was pushed through before the Press Council could give adequate input, it would be a waste of time and taxpayers' money.

There are some provisions in the Bill which mean real improvement to Irish law and which I would like to discuss. The Minister said the Bill puts on a statutory basis a new defence of fair and reasonable publications on a matter of public interest and that this new defence is designed to facilitate responsible journalism, that it is not a charter to engage in casual defamation or character assassination and that it is not a licence for sloppy or vindictive practices by journalists or editors. He said it will be for the courts to decide what credence to give to an editor or a journalist who tries to cloak himself or herself in such a defence without proper regard for this purpose. This seems very positive and I hope the technicalities are sufficiently considered in order that there are no loopholes in the Bill, as often happens in legislation. It is important we tease that out.

Section 7 provides that plaintiffs and defendants in a defamation action will be required to submit a sworn affidavit verifying assertions and allegations and to make themselves available for cross-examination. It will be an offence for a person to make a statement in an affidavit which is false or misleading in any material respect. This is an important and necessary development. The situation until now whereby defamation could be claimed without an affidavit from a person bringing the case was ridiculous. This is very important to prevent nuisance cases. The affidavit would also be useful in considering damages.

I also welcome the development that an offer of an apology will not be construed as an admission of liability. The current legal situation prevents the giving of a speedy apology which, in some cases, could result in a decision not to take court action. Preventing unnecessary court action saves everybody money and means that the courts are free to consider cases of greater impact and importance. That an apology may be offered placating somebody and stopping him or her taking a case is very beneficial.

Section 26, which allows a plaintiff to apply for declaratory orders in lieu of damages, is intended to offer a speedy means of redress where a plaintiff only wants it acknowledged that defamation took place. This is an important clause because people often feel aggrieved or offended by defamation and reputations can be damaged by insults, character assassinations or unfounded rumours reported as fact. Many of those who are defamed are in the public eye and may be more motivated by a desire to clear their name than by monetary compensation. In that regard, I welcome the provision for a speedy resolution through an acceptance of the falseness of a defamation without wasting the courts' time on financial aspects.

In regard to my earlier point on clarifying the different opinions of the current Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, I commend the Press Council on its efforts to establish itself and improve the ordinary person's understanding of Ireland's print and broadcast media.

The need for fairness has been addressed in regard to newspapers. In a fiercely competitive market, newspapers face significant pressure to retain their share. We should salute the many good journalists and editors of small and large newspapers for the responsibilities they carry to tell the facts. Too often, we read stories that are not completely accurate but the punter believes what he or she reads in the newspaper. I have often been told ridiculous stories which are taken as gospel truth because they were reported in newspapers. The media have a huge responsibility in that regard and should be helped in every possible way.

Newspapers are also facing pressure from electronic media, which allow us to download stories from every part of the world to our laptops and BlackBerries. However, a well-written newspaper article remains the best way of learning about world events.

Does VAT continue to be imposed on newspapers? In my local authority in Tipperary, the removal of VAT on newspapers was strongly advocated. That should be considered because newspapers have become expensive for ordinary people and, if they are to be able to purchase several different publications, they should be made as cheap as possible.

See this speech in context