Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

I congratulate the new Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and wish him, his wife and family and all his officials the very best for the future. His is a difficult role. I compliment the former Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on the role he played in the Department and his far-seeing developments.

The reform of our defamation laws has been long in the making but is to be welcomed, even though overdue. The setting up of the Press Council and the Office of the Press Ombudsman was the work of the former Minister, Mr. Michael McDowell. It is no easy task to reach agreement among all the elements of the media industry to the code of conduct and complaints mechanism. Credit for this considerable achievement is due to the Irish press industry steering committee which brought together the representatives of the national and regional newspapers, as well as the UK newspapers with Irish editions and the periodical publishers.

The role of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council is to ensure newspapers and magazines abide by a code of practice agreed with the support of all major newspaper and magazine publishers and the National Union of Journalists. The concept is to give the public a faster and cheaper avenue to resolving grievances with newspapers than the courts provide. We all know that going to court should be a last resort and can be very time consuming and an arduous and lengthy process. I would like to see newspapers resolve all complaints internally in the first instance and most papers and magazines are well equipped to do this. It is hoped complaints will be resolved within six weeks once the system is fully operational. Only in cases where complainants and publishers fail to reach an agreement between themselves will the Press Ombudsman or the Press Council impose any sanctions.

A section of the proposed Defamation Bill will allow newspapers to apologise where they have made genuine errors. Fear of litigation if an apology is offered can be an impediment. Any publication that offers an apology to a third party may find itself open to legal proceedings if this is a case of defamation or if untruths are told about a person or an organisation. This has long resulted in a reluctance on the part of newspapers to apologise, even when they recognise that an error has been made. This is a grey area. Some have reservations and concerns about media intrusion and this is not exclusive to those of us involved in politics. However, the former Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, was emphatic that if the media failed to show respect for the right to privacy as specified in their own code of practice, the Government would proceed rapidly with its privacy legislation. This is to be welcomed as a further measure to strengthen this new provision.

The Bill underpins the activities of the Press Council and the Press Ombudsman and removes the liability previously associated with an apology. This change will strengthen the hand of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council when dealing with complaints against journalists and editors. There is a new defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest. This is an important development in terms of the ability of the media to investigate and report on matters of public interest. This is to be welcomed and the media are to be thanked. We owe them a great debt for their investigations. They bring us the news and report on what is happening.

Also of importance is the ability of the media to investigate themselves in cases involving wrong-doing. This is not an easy defence to plead and not for use in trivial circumstances. Many are sceptical about libel law reform as they fear that any action taken against the media will result in the media exacting their revenge such as making them a target for further negative stories or publicity. This would certainly be the view of many in public life. The world of journalism must be open to public scrutiny. The code of ethics sets out clear guidelines which must have the full support of all the stakeholders — publishers, editors and journalists. The establishment of the Press Council code of practice and the Defamation Bill uphold the principle of a free press but also urge journalists to be fair, accurate and truthful and to respect the right of all individuals, including public figures, to a private life.

Bereavement is an area where we hope newspapers could show more sensitivity. In regard to recent and ongoing events, I appeal to all organs of the media to exercise restraint. There was a recent tragedy in Wexford and earlier this year in my community a horrific murder was committed in a rural parish. Communities in those areas are not able to deal with the intrusion. It is bad enough to suffer the trauma of a terrible deed and senseless act and to try to come to terms with it while comforting the grieving families without the intrusion of the media who have a scrum in the community for photographs and background evidence of the family. That is unacceptable.

If a person is convicted of a crime and gets a custodial sentence which he serves, he pays his debt to society. Hopefully, he will have been rehabilitated while in prison. When that person is released, he is a free person.

In the recent case in Wexford, nobody could have any facts in regard to what happened. Yet journalists came on radio and television and tried to piece together the last desperate acts that may have taken place in that household and put a picture to a tragic story. That is deplorable and must be condemned out of hand. Nobody could or should be expected to condone that.

Where a person seeks legal redress following an apology, which I had to do and got it, the cost of defamation litigation is over priced. It is almost impossible to obtain the relevant apology because of the costs incurred by the injured party and, if successful, by the newspapers who have to print an apology. That is unfair also.

See this speech in context