Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Exactly. The public are the best judges of these matters and they do not need a press council to speak on their behalf. On occasion I, and I have no doubt many others, feel a certain degree of distaste for individual articles or editorial decisions. While politicians have to develop thick skins, vulnerable people in society need not have to do so.

It is in vogue these days to query the principle of self-regulation. I am on record as being unconvinced that independent non-State self-regulation is a bad thing in a democratic society. The media should seek to avoid being hoisted by their own petard because they have been uncritical opponents of all self-regulation without seemingly hesitating to see what the effect of that logic would be if it was turned on themselves.

On this occasion I call to mind the dialogue between Thomas More and Master Richard Rich in A Man for all Seasons. Richard Rich said he would tear down every hedgerow in England to get at the devil and Thomas More replied, "And what happens when the devil turns on you? Where will you hide?" The same applies to the whole question of self-regulation. The media has been excoriating the notion that non-State regulation is appropriate for any corner of our society except, curiously, themselves. I hope I am a little more consistent. I stand up for non-State independent regulation in some sectors such as the Law Society. At the same time I can see that a non-State independent press council, if it is given some statutory recognition, could be the answer to our difficulties regarding minimum standards in the press.

I go against the current grain in that I believe self-regulation in many areas functions very well and the State, in principle, does not have to control everything in society. I equally believe, however, that self-regulation must carry with it the notion that there are some rules to which injured parties can point in seeking redress from abuse of press power. That is the nub of the issue. If a newspaper proprietor or editor were to thumb his or her nose at generally accepted ethics or an agreed press code of standard and seriously injure an ordinary individual, would that be a case of fair game and "too bad" as far as the individual is concerned? In other words, if we have a toothless press council which can do nothing and effectively be ignored with complete impunity, is it worth having at all? There was an interesting dialogue on this subject in Vincent Browne's magazine recently. Conor Brady's article in that magazine should be read because he makes the point that press councils internationally, which are not supported by any regulation, are useless institutions in the great majority of cases.

It is in its own interest for the print media to behave responsibly. While I am fervent in my efforts to protect and enhance the role of a free press, which often means putting up with bad taste or dubious propositions, the press themselves must and can do more. The stock and somewhat injured response, especially to recent criticism, has tended to be variations on a theme that while everything the press does may not be perfect, they must be allowed to do it anyway without let or hindrance because they might discover something of public interest. I agree that we cannot have statutorily imposed perfection but equally we should not be in the position where a newspaper can constantly interfere with someone's privacy, claim it is the house style and that people do not have to buy it if they do not like it, and expect us to walk away. The victim of the intrusion by the media is left with no redress of any kind.

I have been in continuing consultation with the National Newspapers of Ireland press industry steering committee. That committee, to which I want to pay tribute, is currently working on the further development of its initiative to establish an independent press council, with a press ombudsman as its key operational factor, using an agreed press code of standards. I recognise that may be a formidable task but the committee may also not enjoy the luxury of unlimited time. A code of standards will be seen not only by the political establishment, which in this matter is very important, but also by the public as the critical factor in an independent self-regulatory process. The bottom line is that it must be good and it must work.

If the approach of the National Newspapers of Ireland can be brought to an acceptable fruition, I hope to confer on such an independent press council, through the Bill I am preparing to reform the law on defamation, by way of resolutions to be moved in both Houses of the Oireachtas, a degree of statutory recognition necessary for it to properly fulfil its objectives in an independent way.

I am conscious that a code of standards to which the print media organisations can subscribe and adhere will be the critical element of independent regulation of the press. It is not for me or the Government to dictate what should be contained in such a code of standards but I envisage providing for the development of such a code among the broad recognition criteria in the defamation Bill. I am sure Senators will agree with me that the public interest must be served and must be uppermost in this process.

In any consideration of the issues at the heart of today's discussion, there is the question of what is acceptable behaviour by our print media. Is it intrusive telephoto lens photography at private occasions? Is it reporting on the family travails of famous or public figures? Is it salacious stories of little public relevance beyond titillation and profit?

It has been generally recognised by the Irish media — I say this in fairness to it — that even public figures have a right to a private life beyond their public duties. In return, there has always been, by international standards, an above normal access to our public figures, as befits our open and democratic traditions. We have had, therefore, a reasonable and decent press, in general terms, and the degree to which public figures have been accessible has stunned those who have witnessed it.

Responsibility rests with media owners, editors and journalists to establish and maintain standards and to invest in better journalists and journalism. While I have no wish to whitewash the inevitable colour from much of our print media coverage, I am obliged to ask whether it can seriously continue to publish completely made-up stories, fictitious by-lines — I cannot understand how anyone can stand over an article and pretend it was written by someone who does not exist — and a reliance on "denial" type journalism. As regards the latter, if one were a journalist, one might put to Senator Ryan some accusation in the form of a fax sent on a Friday evening——