Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate. As in the Seanad, Members on all sides have strong views on this issue. I have listened to a number of speakers since coming into the House but I kept a close eye on the debate from my office. It is clear that many Deputies have personal issues in regard to the law of defamation. I have taken account of their contributions and will bear them in mind on Committee Stage.

I have noted particularly the views expressed by Deputies in defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest, as set out in section 24. I share many of the misgivings expressed in regard to what constitutes the public interest. However, our courts and those in the UK and their decisions in this area have evolved a new type of defence in respect of matters of public interest whose discussions would be of benefit to the public. Deputies should be aware that this defence will be a difficult one to plead successfully. It is clear that it will not be available for trivial issues, often manifested in some of our print media. The provisions of section 24 seek to put a statutory framework on the jurisprudence that is being developed.

Deputies mentioned the operation of the Press Council. As my predecessor mentioned, it is a light model of regulation and is just up and running. The House will wish to give it some time to reach an effective level of operation. Deputies will appreciate that it would be inappropriate of me to comment on the recent resignation of a member of the Press Council. He made his position clear in a newspaper article, which I read with some interest. Deputy Rabbitte asked how many members were on the Press Council. There are 13 members — seven are independent public interest directors, five represent owners and publishers and one represents journalists. In effect, it has an independent lay majority. In connection with what Professor John Horgan had to say in his article, Deputy Rabbitte asked what should be our attitude. It is important that we allow the Press Council to establish its own practices and procedures. It is not for us to be prescriptive in regard to how it should lay down its operating procedures. Others may have a view on that issue. We should err on the side of caution when it comes to intervening.

Many Deputies asked for clarity in regard to the Privacy Bill which is on the Order Paper. I am happy to provide that clarity. Deputies should bear in mind that the Privacy Bill creates no new law, rather it puts a statutory framework on the existing constitutional right to privacy and it has regard to the rights provided under the European Convention on Human Rights. In so doing, it incorporates the developing jurisprudence in regard to the appropriate protection of privacy in our courts, the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Privacy Bill seeks to inhabit the space between, on the one hand, the Data Protection Acts and, on the other, the necessary and appropriate provisions in regard to security and crime issues.

The focus of the Privacy Bill is not as some commentators and Members seem to think all about possible violations of privacy by the media and nothing else. This simply is not so. The Bill deals with a range of situations where the privacy of a person might be violated and which would not involve the media at all. Many of the complaints my Department receives in this regard involve actions by individual citizens against each other. I am sure other Members receive similar complaints from time to time.

The Privacy Bill provides innovatively, and for the first time in Irish law, for the protection of a person's right to control the exploitation of their own image for commercial purposes. This has been in the news recently in regard to sports persons and others. The privacy provision in the Press Council's code of practice will help if its members are willing to subscribe to the standards set down to prevent excesses by the media and to avoid unnecessary court actions.

The law in respect of defamation and privacy is dynamic. It changes its features constantly. We need to keep under review all developments of the law.

See this speech in context