Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)

Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an tAire Dlí agus Cirt, Comhionannais agus Athchóirithe Dlí, Deputy Dermot Ahern. Tá mé cinnte go ndéanfaidh sé jab sár mhaith san oifig sin.

I take this opportunity to wish Deputy Dermot Ahern every success in his new post as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I have no doubt that, being a solicitor, he has a tremendous knowledge of the law and will be an outstanding success in the position. Like Deputy Noel Treacy, I too congratulate the Minister on the removal of the upper age limit for jury service, which was long overdue. The Minister can take satisfaction from that announcement.

I welcome reform of the 1961 Act which, like other speakers, I believe is long overdue. The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce a modern statutory framework to deal with defamation law and to replace antiquated legislation. Another purpose is to provide a victim of defamation with a better sense of his or her rights under the law. The new forms of remedy for those seeking speedy redress when they have been defamed are to be welcomed.

The proposed law will also assist publishers in avoiding making or printing defamatory statements. Following a long gestation period, during which time the Bill was widely discussed by the Law Reform Commission, many worthwhile provisions have been incorporated into the legislation. The right to free speech is important. Equally, the right to free press is important. However, there are caveats and I hope these issues can be addressed in the Bill.

I welcome the fact that plaintiffs and defendants in a defamation action must submit sworn affidavits verifying their assertions and allegations and must make themselves available for cross-examination. I do not believe the previous situation worked whereby statements could be made and it would take years for them to be addressed either through the courts or by way of apology. I welcome section 7 which deals with this aspect.

In many cases an apology can assist in avoiding court action. The insistence that in giving an apology the same prominence be afforded to it as was given to the original defamation statement will help to defuse many grievances. Not construing this as an admission of liability is essential from the publishing perspective. Section 22 deals with that aspect. I welcome also the fact that a defendant in defamation proceedings may, in future, lodge a sum of money into court. This has worked particularly well in other court cases and will, I believe, assist in reducing the number of court cases. It will allow plaintiffs a better understanding of where their case may be going.

Section 24 deals with publications using the "matter of public interest" as a defence. While I accept fair and reasonable comment is fine, there have been slippages in this regard by certain publications in recent years. I refer in this regard to overseas publications and, in particular, British publications whose banner headlines have resulted in court actions. It goes without saying that everyone is entitled to their good name. In this respect, the Press Council and Press Ombudsman are welcome developments.

I believe that publishers who have membership of the Press Council will adhere to its code of practice, which is essential. However, we must ensure that publications which do not become members of the Press Council adopt the same attitude and fairness, particularly when it comes to legal defence.

Section 38 deals with the limit on Circuit Court cases and it is particularly welcome that the sum has increased from €38,000 to €58,000. This will help to reduce the number of High Court actions and the trauma suffered by defendants and their families through involvement in long High Court cases. It will also bring about a reduction in fees.

The amalgamation of the torts of libel and slander into a single defamation Bill is welcome. My colleague, Deputy Thomas Byrne, alluded to the fact that proving slander is particularly difficult in court. I am sure we have all heard of instances of people alleging slander but not being able to prove it in court. As other speakers stated, one's good name is important and bringing the torts together in one Bill is welcome.

I wish to comment on what I term "insensitive" headlines and stories in publications. Often, these stories deal with deceased people. As many speakers stated, dead people cannot speak for themselves. Reference was made to the late Liam Lawlor, who was a Member of this House. Immediately after he was killed, a story was written about the circumstances of his death which was totally without foundation. If the story were true, I feel printing it after his burial would have been appropriate. However, it was written without any regard to the man's spouse and family.

Grieving families have enough difficulties without having to read banner headlines in the newspapers, particularly when they are untrue. If they do contain the truth, the story will still be good in a weeks' time when the person has been interred and given a normal Christian burial. More and more we see during the immediate period after death reporters delving in and seeking a story.

We understand the competition in the business and that each reporter is competing with his or her colleagues within a publication and that publications also compete with each other. It is all about selling newspapers and numbers for advertising purposes. However, where families are involved, a moral obligation exists for editors to ensure the headlines do not make it any worse for grieving families and to tone down what their reporters may write.

A recent tragedy in Wexford involved a father allegedly killing his wife and children. Prior to the burials taking place, journalists delved into theories on how and when the deaths occurred. Families have the right to grieve and bury their dead without having to deal with this. In this case, one journalist tried to piece together what had happened, suggesting the young son had not been suffocated in the bedroom but had incurred a shotgun injury. This was completely untrue. Two families were involved and going through a major grieving process. It was particularly bad that either family had to read this material.

Of course editors want stories, and this was a major story. Whatever we can do within the Bill with regard to the legalities is one thing. However, on the moral issue, I make a plea to editors to be more responsible. Through a connection, I am aware of the trauma caused to one of the families involved. It was extremely difficult for the family to grieve while reading theories of how the deaths occurred.

The recent story involving a GAA man in Waterford was valid in terms of events prior to his death. However, a couple of hours after he took his own life, gory details were published. This man had a son and other family members. The story would not have been any less valid a day after his burial. I find it extremely sad that our newspaper publishers would resort to printing the story before the man was buried. We always felt the British tabloids went for banner headlines and speakers mentioned Princess Diana and others. This is their style. I thought we had honourable traditions in Ireland and I appeal to publishers to reflect on this and to follow up on stories later.

Deputy Ulick Burke raised the matter of the Kilkenny hurler, DJ Carey. It is no business of the press if his marriage split up. It happens to many people. My second problem with the story was its timing. The story was released on the morning of the All-Ireland final, when DJ Carey was captain of Kilkenny. Fortunately for him, he led his team to victory. If the story was a good story, it would have held until the Monday or Tuesday. To print it on the morning of the match, when the man was going out to play the most important game of his career, was an outrageous invasion of the privacy of a sportsman respected the length and breadth of Ireland who had given so much to his county, club and the game of hurling.

I do not know why the story had to appear that morning. I do not believe the publication sold any more papers because DJ Carey was on the front page. The story would have been equally good on the following Sunday if the publication felt it would increase its sales figures. We, the Irish people, should try to get this message across. Everyone wants to read good stories and obtain the inside information. The timing of stories is particularly important.

In another case, the son of a man convicted of murder ten or 12 years ago appeared in a publication because a story evolved about the potential release of the prisoner. The son was a child when the conviction took place. What association did he have with the conviction? It is absolutely outrageous that this young person was subjected to whatever by his classmates in college because he was the son of a convicted person. I cannot understand how editors can stand over this. I accept newspapers compete against each other and they want to increase their ABC readership to secure advertising and so on. When politicians are the subject of negative stories, why must newspapers go after their spouses and children, who are not involved?

I have a friend who works as a photographer for a British tabloid. On one occasion, a high profile individual was the subject of a media story and he was told to camp outside his house and to get pictures no matter what. This meant he had to approach the windows of the house snapping in the hope he would get a picture. It did not make a difference if the subject's spouse or children were in it because the newspaper wanted a picture. Freedom of the press has gone too far. The newspaper was entitled to take pictures of the individual at the centre of the story, but why should his family members be dragged in? Why should the newspaper invade his home? Why should the photographer be encouraged by his employers to go up to windows taking photographs in a version of pot luck to see what he could get? If that is not an invasion of privacy, I do not know what is. Irish journalism needs to return to standards of basic fairness. Reporters should do their work professionally without invading privacy.

I refer to coverage of tribunals. Many of those who are the subject of their proceedings are deceased. I have read headlines in the newspapers, one of which concerned a Fine Gael councillor who was allegedly offered £250,000. This was not proven but the man was found guilty by the media. No consideration was given to the fact that the tribunal had not issued findings regarding him or others, yet his family had to endure significant publicity because of the allegation. I met the man's son who said his mother's life was not worth living. She could not leave the house because of the alleged shame. Let us have good journalism with decent standards.

See this speech in context