Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is timely that we have this debate. It is approximately 12 months since we had a similar debate, which followed the public consultative process in which the Minister had engaged. That included the conference in the O'Reilly Hall in Belfield which was attended by many interested parties, predominantly media representatives. It amplified many of the issues that have to be addressed as regards this topic.

The Minister, in his contribution, has dealt quite well with the tort of privacy. In fairness, there have been some notable unwarranted intrusions into the private lives of individuals. However, the Irish media, in general, perform in a responsible fashion. That must be said at the outset. Often, in debates such as this, we tend to concentrate on transgressions and, as a consequence, the good that many journalists do "is oft interred", as Marc Antony said. The one aspect I am conscious of in this whole debate is the need for balance.

I believe, however, that a couple of trends are influencing the situation. One is increasing competition, particularly from the British tabloid press. That inevitably will drive the Irish tabloid media in the direction the British have gone. That sounds a note of caution and needs to be taken into account by any measures that are put in place, to ensure fair and responsible reporting. As the Minister has said, that is to be balanced on the other side by the decision in the Princess Caroline case by the European Court of Human Rights, which acknowledges that public figures have a right to a private life. It always strikes me as distasteful to see a media scrum outside courts and other public places.

It is difficult to be definite, but in certain scenarios involving court cases, I believe the outcome has been influenced by excessive media intrusion. It must also be recognised that judges, while they are open and fair-minded people and are trained in that regard, are also human beings. Obviously, they might tend to have regard for, or at least cannot ignore, what has been said. It is therefore important that this whole area is covered in a balanced manner.

The Minister referred to Abraham Lincoln when he said, "Let the people know the facts and the country will be safe". Undoubtedly, that underpinned the requirement of a free press in a democracy. I also subscribe to his quotation as regards Thomas Jefferson. I believe a free press, free society and free government are not interchangeable. They are all part of the same healthy process needed for a good vibrant democracy. Of course, as Abraham Lincoln was making his statement in the 19th century, he was probably referring to reports in which the facts were presented. When one reads a report today it is often difficult to extrapolate the facts from the writer's opinion. That tends to have an influence.

I made the point before in the past debate, but there needs to be a distinction between reporting and opinion. The press is entitled to give an opinion, but this should be distinguishable from reporting in a newspaper. I often find the two areas are indistinguishable. Newspapers have an enormous influence on people and the propensity to have sensational headlines, which I suppose help to sell newspapers, often sets the agenda in people's minds as regards the particular areas of public interest being reported. In a busy society many people are influenced by the headline simply because they do not read beyond the first paragraph of a report. This is another area that needs attention. Freedom brings responsibility and this has to be exercised.

It must be acknowledged, however, that good investigative journalism is essential. We have had some fine examples of that in Ireland, some of which led to the establishment of tribunals of inquiry. Some of these have done good work, albeit at a tremendous cost to the State. That type of reporting needs to be allowed to flourish in a manner that is not too inhibited by regulation and by the law on defamation, etc. This is an area which must be examined in that context. However, the change must be initiated with caution because the public needs to be protected against lazy or biased reporting. As the Minister said, the Constitution takes a balanced approach to this question.

It states that the State, by its laws, must take steps to defend the good name of the citizens. In Article 40, it states that subject to public morality and order, the State protects the freedom of speech to express convictions and opinions. The Constitution is a document that we discussed here when discussing the European Convention on Human Rights. A wisdom was injected into it which took account of many issues in a fair and balanced way. In many ways, it sets out the backdrop on constructing any press council and the regulations that would go with it.

There has been much discussion in the media over the past ten years on the need for a self-regulating press council. It is interesting that no initiative has ever been taken in that regard by the media themselves. The time has now come for the Government to take the issue on board and to develop it. Members of the media make great play of the fact that many of the issues which have come to light through the tribunals could have been avoided if they had been in a position to articulate their views and suspicions. That may or may not be the case. However, the whole subject of land rezoning was an area they consistently criticised without any regard to the need for rezoning to provide the land and the houses for a growing population. As someone who was involved in local government for a long time, I know that restricting and limiting rezoning enhances land prices and adds to housing inflation for those who are buying houses. That is an argument which has never been balanced in media comment.

We need to look at the power of the media against the vulnerability of the individual when we legislate to set up redress for citizens. The media is generally run by international corporations which have tremendous financial resources at their disposal. Since the cost of litigation in this country has never been seriously tackled, there is a need to ensure that the individual is not prevented by prohibitive costs from accessing the law and re-establishing his or her good name. I am echoing sentiments expressed by Senator Hayes in the last debate on this matter. He told the House that on occasion, he was prevented from pursuing a case on defamation due to the cost involved. There are many people in that position.

During the conference in Belfield organised by the Minister, a former Queen's counsel and Press Council chairman commented that the standard of journalism in Britain had seriously declined. Some of the speakers from the NUJ acknowledged this fact. The Minister quoted from Baroness O'Neill, who stated that some invasive media reporting has done a disservice to the cause of a free press. An editor of one of our national newspapers claimed that the press is there to challenge those who see themselves as in power. It is as if we did not live in a democracy and that our politicians were self-appointed to ministerial positions. That statement received widespread applause at the conference, which meant that those sentiments were not just that individual's bias, but were shared by many of those in the media. It alarmed me that such thinking permeates the media. The outcome could be catastrophic for the democratic process.

I noted the Minister's comment on the setting up of a press council. That needs a bit of focus. Ultimately, the composition of such a council and the individuals involved will determine the success or failure of that particular system. I agree with the broad thrust that there should be interest from civic society, the media and others. However, I am not convinced that the press should be allowed to make those nominations and to structure it. As a citizen, I vote to elect the Government. Once the Government is elected, I expect it to take responsibility and to make decisions. There is a propensity by governments of all hues to appoint independent bodies to make decisions which they themselves should be making and for which they should be accountable. That has been done against the backdrop of criticism about cronyism and so on. The democratic process and the free press should be strong enough for the Government to make decisions and then be accountable for those decisions. I am all in favour of taking responsibility.

Suggestions were made at the conference that some people could be members of this council ex officio. The Ombudsman was one such person mentioned. Such a position would be part and parcel of a press council. The NUJ and the NNI might have nominees, as well as a retired judge. There was also an acknowledgement that there should be some political input, so retired politicians could and perhaps should be members of the council.

I would like to comment on some of the recommendations of the legal advisory group on defamation. It is important to define clearly the new defence of innocent publication and the defence of reasonable publication. If they are clearly defined, there will be a mechanism to obtain redress for those who are defamed. Mention was also made about juries continuing in the role. While that was designed to reduce costs, there might be scope to look at the PIAB, which was established to remove the legal costs from the overall costs of insurance. There is no reason a press council could not be given such a role. Rather than going to court via a solicitor, people could make a direct complaint to a press council which could adjudicate and award damages to the individual. This could be based on a system such as that which operates in the PIAB.

There will be a need to ensure that those who ignore the code of ethics and the directions of the press council will suffer severe sanction. We developed such sanctions for publicans who breach licensing laws as they can be closed for seven days. If a newspaper seriously infringes individual rights and is then prevented from publishing for seven days, then that will ensure compliance with good standards.