Peter Kelly (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

I wish to share time with Deputy Mattie McGrath.

I congratulate the new Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who will continue the excellent high standards that he has brought to the other portfolios he has held. I wish him, his officials and the Garda Síochána every success in their work on behalf of the people. I have every confidence that the Minister will do himself, his constituents and the people proud.

This Bill provides for the reform of the law relating to defamation and will replace the current legislation which dates back to 1961. It is important because it concerns the very essence of a democracy, namely, the right to freely communicate facts, opinions and comment. Any change in this area must be carefully thought through in all its implications. We cannot afford to get this wrong which is why the formulation and implementation of this Bill has been such a long and detailed process.

The need for reform was set out in the programme for Government and, since then, the Bill has been subject to a great deal of reflection and consultation. In that context, I congratulate the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who engaged in a lengthy and thorough debate and consultation with our colleagues in Seanad Éireann. This consultation has resulted in some further improvements to the Bill, upon which I will expand later. The contribution of the former Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, was acknowledged by all sides of the House, most particularly by Senators Joe O'Toole and Eugene Regan.

The Bill takes into consideration recent case law and is designed to simplify the law of libel for the media and those taking legal actions. There are many positive provisions in the Bill which I fully support. At present, newspapers and print publications are reluctant to apologise even when they have made genuine errors as to do so could expose them to legal proceedings. This, in turn, can lead protracted court cases which can impose enormous costs, particularly for people eager to restore their good name. The Bill will do much to clear up what is, at present, a very grey area.

The Bill will mark the start of a move towards a system based on conciliation. This change will strengthen the hand of the Press Ombudsman and Press Council in dealing with complaints against journalists and editors. The new defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest, rather than public importance, is aimed at bringing greater clarity to the law. The term "public interest" is well understood in case law and hopefully this will clear up any ambiguity.

The issue of what "public interest" means was raised on Committee Stage in the context of the death of the late Mr. Liam Lawlor — may he rest in peace. The coverage of Liam's death was particularly hurtful to his family in what was already a terrible time for them. The coverage of death, including by suicide, is a particularly sensitive area. The Press Council has an opportunity to step in and determine what is fair and reasonable. This function is best left to the Press Council, rather than going down the legislative route. That said, I was concerned at some of the media coverage of the recent horrific tragedy in Wexford. Some of the reporting must have caused further suffering to the broken families and friends left behind. In similar circumstances in the United Kingdom, a system is in place whereby only one photographer attends the funeral and photographs are then pooled. I do not see why such a system could not operate here.

It is vital that the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council have the full support of publishers, editors and journalists. It is also vital that those who make complaints, be they public figures or otherwise, feel free to do so without fear of recrimination or of being singled out by the media. The Bill will encourage journalists, who often work under time pressures and tight deadlines, to be more aware of the need for fair and accurate journalism. In this regard, I congratulate all members of the print media who have signed up.

Freedom of the press is essential to our democracy but it cannot be completely unfettered. The establishment of the Press Council, along with the passing of the Defamation Bill, will ensure that the traditional high standards of Irish journalism will hold firm in the new globalised media market.

Speaking in the Seanad, the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said he had recently indicated to the Press Ombudsman his wish for the Press Council to address as a priority the breach by newspapers of the fundamental Irish custom of respect for the dead, especially on the occasion of a funeral. We have a great respect for the dead, especially at the sad time of funerals. This respect must be maintained.

The Minister was responding to concerns expressed by Fianna Fáil Senators Jim Walsh and Denis O'Donovan about the impact on the family of the late Deputy Liam Lawlor of reports published in the immediate aftermath of his death in a car crash. The matter was raised on Committee Stage of the Defamation Bill. The Minister said there were difficulties about dealing with the issue in this legislation but that it was a matter on which action would need to be taken. He was anxious to give the Press Council an opportunity to plug the black hole. However, he also said that if the Press Council could not demonstrate a capacity to do so and legislators could not address in the Bill the issue of defamation of a deceased person at the time of his or her funeral, he would return to the issue when dealing with the Privacy Bill. He stated it was an issue which he was not prepared to let pass any further. He said the new defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest rather than public importance was aimed at bringing greater clarity to the law. The term "public interest" was well understood and well established in case law and also reflected recent developments before the courts when Mr. Justice Peter Charlton had made reference to it. Others are concerned that the change will enable a defence of defamation to be mounted with a very low standard of proof. The view was expressed that it was necessary to have a definition of "public interest" included in the Bill. The media will be entitled to lodge a sum of money in court without an admission of liability.

Another important change in the law is the creation of an offence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest. One of the principles accepted by the Minister during the course of the debate in the Seanad was that an apology by the media would have to be given the same prominence as the original offending article. The Bill was described in the Seanad as a progressive measure. We all hope it will lead to better relationships between the press and the people.

The concept of the Press Council is to give the public a faster and cheaper avenue to resolving grievances with newspapers than that provided by the courts. The aim of the council should be to encourage newspapers to resolve all complaints internally in the first instance. Most newspapers and magazines are well equipped to do this. I hope complaints can be resolved within six weeks once the system is fully operational. Only in cases where complainants and publishers fail to reach agreement will the Press Ombudsman or the Press Council impose any sanctions. Bereavement is one issue on which it is hoped newspapers will show more sensitivity.

I commend the Bill to the House. The majority of journalists are decent, honourable, reliable, sensible and fair-minded. My brother is a journalist, as is my nephew and sister-in-law. I take the opportunity to commend the Longford Leader, the Longford News and Shannonside radio for their excellent coverage which is fair and impartial at all times. I was told one time that the only bad publicity was an obituary but I do not believe that any more.

See this speech in context