Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)

Before dealing with this Bill, I would like to refer to an Adjournment item from a fortnight ago, in which it seems that something I mentioned identified an individual that I did not name. In the interests of fair play, I must say that it was never intended that any individual person should have been identified by the comments on that occasion.

I welcome the Minister to the House and I wish him well in his difficult new portfolio. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to debate on this Bill in some small way. The law on libel needs to be updated. We are all conscious of the need for freedom of the press. There has been fantastic investigative work done in the past, despite the restrictions that exist under current legislation, by various journalists in the print and other media. Were it not for the great endeavours of those journalists, there would be many issues that would not have entered the public domain. Hopefully, this Bill will allow for a continuation of important, investigative journalism, but also an expansion of that aspect of it.

It is vital that we emphasise at all times the importance of a free press and of fair comment in the public interest. People are entitled to their good name and to balanced reporting. It is also important that people cannot hide behind the law where there is obvious wrongdoing. This Bill must take on board the issue of privacy in tandem with that. We all know of situations where individuals have suffered severe repercussions from statements in the press. There have been many instances of unfair comment. The former Minister, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, felt that it was necessary to resign as a result of comments that were very intrusive on her family. Such a case should not arise again.

Sports people such as Paul McGrath literally served time in hell enduring elements of the press. The hurler DJ Carey suffered similarly. I remember reading the press reports on aspects of his life that were terribly unfair to him and those connected to him. If this Bill is to change the outdated 1961 legislation, it is important that instances such as these do not occur.

Section 18 updates the defence of fair comment, which becomes the defence of honest opinion. This is an important section which affords the press an important defence against allegations of defamation. It states: "It shall be a defence (to be known, and in this Act referred to, as the "defence of honest opinion") to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that, in the case of a statement consisting of an opinion, the opinion was honestly held".

Section 24 goes further and provides for a defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public importance. On the face of it, it sounds reasonable but it gives the press qualified privilege in printing false information and stories not based on fact. It states:

Subject to subsection (4), it shall be a defence (to be known, and in this section referred to, as "the defence of fair and reasonable publication") to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought was published—

(a) in good faith, and

(b) in the course of, or for the purposes of, the discussion of a subject of public importance, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and in all the circumstances of the case, it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the court shall, in determining whether it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement concerned, take into account such matters as the court considers relevant, including any or all of the following:

(a) the extent to which the statement concerned refers to the performance by the person of his or her public functions;

(b) the seriousness of any allegations made in the statement;

(c) the context and content (including the language used) of the statement;

Those are two sections that must be dealt with because they give licence to the press that it has not had and they need amendment or modification. I am not satisfied that the Press Council, together with the Press Ombudsman, has sufficient power to ensure the licence is not abused. Since sanctions are not provided for, they will not be as great a deterrent as an award of damages in court. In introducing the new defence we are adopting the law that decided the Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Limited and Jameel and others v. Wall Street Journal Europe cases in which there was a split decision. These legal principles are under examination by the Supreme Court in Ireland and it may be preferable to await the outcome of that case before jumping in with crude amendments to this legislation. We may have no confidence that newspapers will not adopt this provision as cover for their existing practices.

There is a constitutional right to freedom of expression and it is important to have a free press in any democracy. It was stated in Dun & Bradstreet Inc v. Greenmoss Builders in the United States that there was no constitutional value in the false statement of fact. It is important that the Minister take this point on board and provide safeguards in the public interest. The Press Ombudsman and the Press Council were established since the beginning of the year and everyone in Ireland has access to an independent press complaints mechanism that is quick, fair and free. These words are important from the experiences with which we are familiar in years past. The new complaints mechanism is designed to ensure the freedom of the press is never abused and the public interest is always served. There are many principles of independent press regulation all over the world. The objectives of the Press Council and the Press Ombudsman are to provide the public with an independent forum to resolve complaints about the press quickly, fairly and free of charge and to maintain the highest standards of journalism and journalistic ethics.

Competitiveness in the media world, including between journalists in a competitive profession, leads to elements of the media making outrageous comments. As the stories roll, one would imagine that the comments were more outrageous in order to gain commercially. The media see it as a need for sales of a journal. Ireland has benefited from the high professional standards of journalism in the main. During the years, inside and outside the House, we have honoured many of the great Irish journalists. Long may this continue. However, if there is an outside influence that dictates standards and requirements, resulting in deterioration of those standards, the profession of journalism will be the loser. That would be a pity for the many fine individuals who have graced the position of journalist in this House and the other aspects of journalism dealt with in Irish newspapers.

Deputy Treacy referred to the importance of having more than one voice. In certain instances in the past editors or owners dictated the slant on various issues. Some were unfair to individual politicians, Ministers or parties. So be it but where there is an element of unfairness recognised by the public and the best interests of the public have not been represented, we hope this Bill will give an opportunity to an individual — whether the individual concerned or an outsider — to refer the matter to the Press Council and the Press Ombudsman for decision. The importance of the Bill lies in there being a quick and fair response. It is important that we see those principles reflected in the objectives of the Press Council and the Press Ombudsman. We must have confidence in the 13 members who will make up the Press Council. The council must be seen to be at all times fair in addressing the difficulties that arise.

The first principle is truth and accuracy in information. Very often, there are elements of inaccuracy in reporting and we do not get the whole truth. It is important significant inaccuracies and misleading statements in reports and distortion of pictures in articles published are corrected promptly with due prominence. In the past, apologies from the print media or on television or radio have not been given due prominence. While apologies are these days given prominence, in the past they were often small, one or two-line paragraphs in an isolated part of the newspaper not necessarily within the news section. The Bill provides that, when appropriate, a retention, apology, clarification, explanation or response shall be published promptly and with due prominence.

The next principle is distinguishing fact from comment. Comment, conjecture, rumour or unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact. However, newspapers and periodicals are entitled to advocate strongly their own views on topics. We have had many examples of this in the past month or two in respect of tragic cases of one kind or another. The reporting of comment, conjecture, rumour or unconfirmed reports can have serious consequences. In a particular case that comes to mind, reckless reporting by the media led to the death of a person. It was sensationalism carried too far.

I mentioned that newspapers must strive at all times to be fair and honest. Privacy is a personal right under the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated into Irish law. I outlined at the outset an example of the invasion of privacy and the consequences it had for one of our colleagues. This should not be allowed to happen. It is hoped that many of the provisions in current legislation will be deleted following enactment of this Bill. It is important we support the Bill and, where necessary, amend it in the interests of fairness.

See this speech in context