Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his contribution. I also welcome the opportunity to debate issues relating to defamation and privacy. However, we cannot adequately discuss privacy in any real way if we are not also to discuss the regulation of the press. We had a debate on this matter previously and it is regrettable that little progress has been made in the interim.

As regards privacy, it is an indisputable fact that many parts of the media are capable of being reckless in respect of the facts and the reputations of individuals. Some in the media display absolute disregard for the boundaries of basic privacy. The Minister outlined some instances of this and there have been some notable cases in recent times. I refer to the attempt by Ireland on Sunday to fabricate stories about a Government Minister having a relationship with a woman and stories involving Charlie Bird and the Kilkenny hurler D. J. Carey, who was subjected to disgusting and intrusive coverage. These stories proved to be extremely hurtful to the individuals involved and also to their wider families. It is here that press intrusion becomes really unacceptable. Where a public figure puts himself or herself forward in the public domain, they can expect to have accusations, etc, thrown at them from time to time, which, I recognise, can be unacceptable. However, when such coverage affects someone's wider family it becomes particularly intrusive and unacceptable.

I do not know how one should deal with the article by Kevin Myers in The Irish Times yesterday. While the article did not refer to particular individuals, there is no doubt that many individuals are affected when they are spoken or written about in such a fashion. Such articles affect parents and children and they place a slur on them. As far as I am concerned, this type of journalism is unacceptable. The articles to which I refer are, as the Minister stated, merely cheap stunts designed to boost the circulation of newspapers and they damage people's reputations and good names. The truth or appropriateness of a story always seems to come second and newspapers always seem to want to publish sensational articles while not caring about the damage they might do.

As already stated, it is difficult to discuss privacy without also referring to regulation of the press. The press continues to operate in what is largely an unregulated environment. While that is healthy, it would also be desirable to retain an environment which values such freedoms. However, when press freedom has been abused in the way experienced here recently, there must be an acceptance of the need for some accountability and regulation of the press. This could come in the form of an independent press council — with some statutory backing — charged with setting and enforcing minimum standards. Fine Gael has very clearly set out its position on press regulation. We are in favour of the establishment of a press council which would be representative of the social partners, the wider public interest, editors, publishers and journalists and which would have an independent chairperson. We made clear our complete opposition to a statutory press council comprising Government appointees. I am glad to the Minister agrees with us in that regard.

An effective and efficient mechanism for regulating the press and for allowing legitimate complaints to be dealt with must be instituted. In putting it in place, however, we must be careful that we do not introduce a system that militates against the vital role the free press plays in a democratic society. Fine Gael is by no means a stranger to the important issue of press regulation. In October 2001, we published our proposals for the regulation of the press in a document entitled Press for Change. We recognise the fact that in any healthy democratic society, a free and vibrant media is a key weapon in achieving greater accountability across all sectors. We, therefore, support an independent, effective and free press.

In addition to the proposal to regulate the press, consideration must be given to the merits of introducing laws that safeguard the privacy of every person. If we lived in an environment where standards of journalistic decency and good taste prevailed, there would be no need for such a law. However, the abuse of particular freedoms by a small number of journalists means that the situation needs to be managed by legislation.

I previously made the point that defamation law reform and the regulation of the press do not have to be interconnected issues. The case for the reform of our defamation laws has been well made. The Minister felt so strongly about reform of the defamation laws that he published a Private Members' Bill in 1995. Despite that consensus we are still a long way from seeing any moves to address this issue. I am sorry, but Deputy McDowell was not the Minister at that time.