Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I join in welcoming the Minister to the House. He is probably the most frequent ministerial visitor to the House with much legislation which keeps all justice spokespersons in the House fairly busy. I also welcome the publication of the Bill before the House and the Second Stage debate on it. As the Minister stated, we have had debates on this matter previously.

In examining the content of the Bill, I tried to establish the principles by which we should assess and evaluate a defamation Bill. First, it need not be overemphasised that we need a free press. Objective comment and reporting and the contribution good investigative journalism makes to society is indispensable, and freedom of speech and a free press are a fundamental aspects of our democratic system. The second criterion I would apply would be that such a Bill should try to encourage responsible reporting, and I will allude to that. We have evidence from others that there are question marks over journalistic standards. The third criterion that I would apply would be the right of an individual to his or her good name. That is essential. It is enshrined in the Constitution and, indeed, elsewhere. The fourth criterion would be the right to privacy, with which Senator Cummins does not seem to find any great favour but which to me is an important principle by which we should judge and evaluate the Bill.

When this matter was debated in the House previously, somebody — it might have been the Minister — quoted Abraham Lincoln, who stated: "Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe." That quote, dating back a couple of centuries, illustrates quite clearly why one needs a free press in a democratic society. Article 40 of Bunreacht na hÉireann also clearly underpins the right to express views and opinions in society.

Senator Cummins mentioned the 1961 Defamation Act and it is extraordinary that it has lasted 45 years without amendment. The Minister needs to be complimented in this regard. Senator Cummins expressed surprise that legislation containing various amendments was not brought forward previously. I recall the Minister, in his role in Opposition, bringing forward a Private Members' Bill and being told by the then Taoiseach, John Bruton, that it was not a priority of his, and the Bill floundered as a consequence. That might explain to Senator Cummins why there has not been any amendment to the 1961 Act in the interim.