Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the manner in which the Minister has addressed the issue of defamation. As he rightly said, the programme for Government contained an undertaking to face up to this matter. There has been a long campaign in the media for such change but we must be mindful of balancing two important principles – free speech and the right of citizens to their reputation and good name. Freedom of expression, and particularly a free press, is fundamental to our democratic process. Any changes to the relevant laws must, therefore, be weighed carefully to ensure that there is no infringement on the freedom of the press. Freedom also brings with it a measure of responsibility but some people do not exercise that responsibility. Society needs regulation to maintain a good balance in this regard and that is why we have laws, but human fallibility means that freedom of any sort invariably will be abused.

This debate has continued for over a decade during which time the media, including the newspaper industry and others, have been campaigning strongly for changes in the libel laws. At the conference to which the Minister referred, and elsewhere in the debate, the argument has been made that our libel laws were in some way a barrier to exposing many issues, such as the planning abuses that have become the subject matter of various tribunals. I wonder if that argument stands up to scrutiny, however, because while the media were critical of many of the rezoning problems during that period, particularly rezoning that took place against the advice of planning officials and other council staff, it is fair to say, looking back, that they were also misguided. Officials can suffer from the same levels of human fallibility as councillors and elected representatives. On reflection, I wonder how journalists would have made the necessary distinction between those who were operating from genuine motives and those who were not. Could it have led to a situation where innocent as well as guilty people would have been defamed? That is an important question that must exercise all of us in this regard.

Another important aspect of this debate is that good investigative journalism should be encouraged. We have seen fine examples of such journalism which did the State some service. One example is where it led to a chain of events that was responsible for the establishment of one of the tribunals and perhaps others. Any change in the libel laws must be undertaken with caution to avoid lazy or malicious reporting which does not take the trouble to obtain the necessary evidence. Such reporting may end up defaming innocent people. We must be mindful of the power of the media against the vulnerability of the individual, which must be taken into account in any changes.