Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a ghabháil leis an tAire as an phost nua atá aige agus tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go maith linn ag an gcoiste agus nach mbeidh raic eadrainn go ró-mhinic. Ba mhaith liom freisin mo bhuíochas a ghabháil as an deis déileála leis an reachtaíocht thábhachtach seo. Tá súil agam nach mbeidh raic eadrainn faoi, ach tá sé thar am don athrú seo. In ainneoin an méid a bheidh á rá agam amach anseo, measaim gur reachtaíocht mhaith atá ann. Táimid ag déileáil anseo le hábhair thábhachtacha, clúmhilleadh agus ionsaithe ó na meáin ar dhaoine thar na blianta. Táimid ag feitheamh leis an reachtaíocht seo le fada agus, mar sin, déanfaidh mé iarracht moltaí dearfacha a chur chun cinn a bheidh muid in ann a phlé ar Chéim an Choiste.

Irish media markets may appear to be highly competitive because consumers have a daily choice of not only domestic newspaper titles and radio and television stations, but also British, American and other international outlets in every town, village and city. However, the vast array of choice we have cannot hide the fact that control of these media outlets is in the hands of a few people and that number is reducing. New media start ups do not emerge very often because they need hundreds of millions to bankroll them if they are to have any success on entering the market.

Domestic media outlets, whether they are local newspapers or radio stations or Internet sites, have never been more valuable and sought after. They are increasingly owned by a small cabal of media conglomerates. Key players in the domestic market include the Independent News and Media group, Communicorp and Liberty Global. INM owns the Irish Independent, Sunday Independent, Evening Herald, 50% of the Irish Daily Star, Sunday World, Star on Sunday, Sunday Tribune, Herald AM and a number of local newspapers. The company's 50% ownership with the British Express newspaper company gives it a stranglehold with Easons on the distribution of newspapers and magazines in Dublin.

Communicorp is one of Denis O'Brien's significant media and telecommunications vehicles. In Ireland, the company owns Newstalk, Today FM, 98 FM, Spin FM, a substantial share of Spin South West and, in 2007, it spent €200 million on Today FM, Highland Radio and FM104. The latter two stations have since been sold because the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland would not allow Mr. O'Brien to own another music station in Dublin. He also recently became a substantial shareholder in the INM group. Liberty Global is a large conglomerate and the parent company of UPC, which has a monopoly on cable television services through its ownership of NTL and Chorus, which serve more than 500,000 homes. It is dangerous for so few to control so many media outlets and this does nothing to reflect the diversity of views, interests and cultures in Ireland today.

However, the role of these media must be examined. A number of media have been blatantly misused by their owners to pursue vehemently an anti-republican agenda, making carefully phrased and frequently groundless allegations against Sinn Féin elected representatives, including myself, and supporters without any substantiation. To date, no effective mechanism has been provided to hold the media to account for this. They can act in the comforting knowledge that the cost of seeking justice through the courts is prohibitively expensive for ordinary people. In addition, in the case of elected representatives, who have been put in office by the voting public and who are dedicated to representing their constituents as they have been mandated to, the media are all too aware that the risk of bankruptcy, which would prohibit representatives from holding public office, is too great to take. It is a risk we should not have to take.

Sinn Féin believes, as stated in our 2002 election manifesto, that the operation of the media should be as much in the public domain and under as much public scrutiny as the media demand of other bodies and institutions. Self-regulation alone does not work. No industry or profession should be left to regulate itself. Some would say that the media is distinct from other sectors in that its role is crucial to the functioning of democracy, which is correct, but so too are the roles of the Judiciary and the legal profession, both of which must not be left to regulate themselves.

A Press Council was established last year, along with a Press Ombudsman. We welcomed it at the time but said that it did not go far enough. The Defamation Bill 2006 provides for statutory recognition of this body. The Bill as drafted merely provides for the recognition of a press council and the entire system is entirely voluntary on the part of the media. The minimum standard for composition of a recognisable press council contained in the Bill is also flawed, allowing for five directors representing the interests of media owners but only one representing the interests of journalists. The concept is based on the flawed British model, which has failed to stem declining standards of journalism and media publications in Great Britain. One member of the Press Council, the former chairman of the Labour Court, Professor John Horgan, has already resigned from his position citing the refusal of the council to publish dissenting judgments as his reason. Its refusal will diminish public confidence in the system in its infancy and confirm concerns that the media cannot be left to regulate itself.

In our view, the Press Council should have statutory powers and mandatory media membership. It should establish and enforce a code of standards. Such a code should also have regard for the needs of small publishers, not just large conglomerates. Its decisions should have binding effect. It should be composed of seven independent public interest directors, three directors representing the interests of media owners and three directors representing the interests of journalists. Large media groups should be prohibited from having more than one director each and composition should also ensure the representation of the various media types. This council should be required to publish annual reports covering important topics such as the findings of the complaints procedure, balance in reporting and coverage or other matters as directed by the Minister or the Oireachtas, as is the case with various other ombudspersons.

Níl gach rud sa Bhille seo go dona, in ainneoin an liosta fada atá luaite agam agus na héilimh a rinne mé maidir leis an chomhairle agus na meáin. Mar a dúirt mé cheana, cuirim fáilte roimh an Bille agus roimh an deis déileáil leis. Tá súil agam go mbeidh muid in ann déileáil ar Chéim an Choiste leis na gnéithe dearfacha de chomh maith leis na gnéithe diúltacha de. Tá an reachtaíocht atá againn fé láthair dírithe i bhfábhar siúd atá in ann cásanna a thógaint i gcoinne na meáin. Ní cóir go mbeadh an reachtaíocht go hiomlán ar an dtaobh sin. Tá cosaint sa reachtaíocht nua do na meáin, cosaint ar mhaithe leo féin nuair a fhoilsítear scéalta ina bhfuil spéis ag an bpobal.

Among other things, the proposed new legislation provides the press with a broad new public interest defence against defamation claims, namely, a defence of "fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public importance". Generally, this new defence would introduce a better balance between the protection of press freedoms and the rights of individuals. In addition, on the side of individual rights, the new law would be "actionable without proof of special damage". "Special damages" are damages that are capable of substantially exact calculation, that is, loss of earnings, medical expenses, etc. In the current situation, special damages must be proved to successfully take a slander case. However, in reality, the impact on a person who has been publicly defamed may not be financial at all. Such persons should not be excluded from seeking a remedy so this provision enhances access to justice.

A "member of a class of persons affected" will now be able to take a case where the defamatory statement could reasonably be understood to refer to the member concerned. This is important to overcome defamation through tactical reporting. For example, an article that switches from sentence to sentence between an individual's name and an organisation's name clearly has the effect of defaming the individual in the mind of the reader without technically doing so under the current law. Under the new legislation, the chance of legal recourse in such situations will be increased, which is why I welcome this change in the legislation. It closes a loophole which journalists have used to associate people in articles where no association is proven or where no association exists.

In addition, an offer of an apology will not be construed later by the court as an admission of liability. Currently, newspapers will usually not apologise even when they know they are in the wrong for fear it will be legally prejudicial. However, sometimes an apology is the most appropriate remedy and even more appropriate than payment of damages. This provision should open the way for the more frequent use of public apologies. On this aspect, I hope that it will not be a begrudging public apology and that any time an apology is extracted from the newspaper or media outlet, it will not buried down in the corner on page 20 or broadcast in the middle of the night when nobody is listening. The apology should be given the same prominence as the article that defamed the person in question.

Finally and significantly, this legislation provides for statutory recognition of the Press Council to regulate the industry. However, as I have already indicated, there is much room for improvement. While the Bill in general is supportable, it also contains crucial shortfalls, some of which I will outline. I have already hinted at one shortfall, na costais toirmiscithe cás a ghlacadh or the prohibitive costs of making a claim. Ní bheidh iad siúd, ar a déantar clúmhilleadh in ann cheartas níos éasca a fháil. Ní gheobhaidh ionadaí tofa cúnamh dlí, nó aon chosaint, i gcoinne féimheachta, mar a luaigh mé cheana. Tá cosc orthu siúd atá féimheach bheith ina noifigigh phoiblí. Dá bhrí sin, beidh na daoine atá tofa go dtí an Teach seo, an Seanad no aon oifig phoiblí i mbaol má dhéanann siad iarracht cás clúmhilleadh a thógaint i gcoinne na meáin. Mar a léirigh mé cheana, tá go leor airgid ag na gnóthaí ollmhóra sin. Tá go leor airgid taobh thiar de na meáin. Measaim go bhfuil teip sa Bhille os rud é nach leagann sé amach córas inar féidir le daoine ar a ndéantar clúmhilleadh teacht ar leigheas nó cúnamh dhleathach.

The defence of truth under section 14 is flawed. Where some of the words are lies but some are true, "if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation", the publisher still gets away with it. Due to the fact that it may still be difficult to prove the material damage done to one's reputation, this provision as drafted still allows the publication of statements that are false without remedy.

The "defence of qualified privilege" under section 17 protects people relaying incorrect information as long as it is relayed in good faith to a person with a legitimate interest in receiving it, namely, making a child protection report to the gardaí or a social worker. The Law Reform Commission has recommended that this defence be limited by some objective criteria. We need to look at what these objective criteria are and how we introduce them into the Bill as it progresses through the Houses. For example, they should also require that a reasonable person would have believed the recipient to have an interest or duty to receive the information.

To avail of the new defence of fair and reasonable publication, the defendant must only prove that "at the time of publication he or she believed the statement to be true". This defence, as drafted, is wholly subjective and, therefore, should also be qualified to provide that in the eyes of a reasonable person, it could also be believed to be true. In addition, despite claims to the contrary, this defence is not dependent on compliance with Press Council or equivalent standards.

Hearsay evidence can also limit damages. Under section 29, those adjudicating damages will have regard to unlimited evidence concerning the reputation of the plaintiff which, in civil courts, can also include hearsay. This provides for a framework of discrimination and will deter many people who have a legitimate defamation claim from taking action. That issue must be addressed.

Sinn Féin fully supports the right to information and freedom of the press as basic cornerstones of our democracy. We are opposed to censorship, media monopoly and abuse of the press by vested interests through the publication of biased or false information on individuals and groups. In keeping with this, we believe that the media industry should be fairly regulated and be accountable in the public interest, much as the media already demands of others.

I wish to give an extremely qualified welcome to the Bill and indicate my party's intention to propose amendments to it on Committee Stage. Measaim go bhfuil gá le Bille níos foirfe. Déileálann an Bille seo le ceisteanna tábhachtacha agus beidh orainn teacht ar ais chucu ar na Céimeanna eile ionas go mbeidh muid ábalta déanamh cinnte de go mbeidh deis ag na daoine ar a ndéantar clúmhilleadh cás a thógaint agus an clú sin a fháil ar ais, fiú má déanadh an clúmhilleadh sin le nó gan mailís. Is gá go dtuigfidh na meáin go bhfuil dualgais orthu chomh maith ó thaobh na saoirsí atá acu, gan mí-úsáid a bhaint astu. Tá dualgais orthu freisin, de thairbhe na saoirsí daonlathacha sin, an fhírinne a chur i gcló gan clúmhilleadh a dhéanamh nó gan clú duine ar bith a scrios d'aonghnó. Aon uair a milltear clú an duine d'aonghnó, tá sé deacair an clú a tharrtháil arís. Ní leor leithscéal gearr i gcúinne leathanaigh sa pháipéar, ná ní leor cás clúmhillte a bhuachaint. Go minic, i ndiaidh an chlúmhillte teipeann ar shláinte an duine agus ar a ghnó. Go minic freisin tógann sé tamall fada le teacht slán uaidh. Molaim an Bille agus tá súil agam go mbeidh Bille níos foirfe againn amach anseo nuair a bheidh muid críochnaithe leis sa Teach seo.

See this speech in context