Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the significant component for the media which is the new defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public importance. The important criterion there is that it be fair and reasonable, and that is the yardstick by which it will be measured if somebody subsequently takes offence and brings the issue to court.

It is interesting that the Minister stated that both the plaintiff and the defendant must bring forward an affidavit and be subjected to cross-examination. I will not object to that but I see a certain incompatibility with the rest of our legislation where there is no onus on a criminal, for example, to put himself or herself in that position. I acknowledge it is a feature of some of our terrorism offences and I have argued previously that perhaps it should be extended to all legislation. I will not object to it in this Bill, therefore, but it is a little ironic that it is in it. If it is worthy of being included in this Bill, we should review other legislation when it comes before the House to ensure a similar stipulation is put in place.

No doubt the Bill is a major step in the right direction and will be welcomed by most reasonable and fair-minded people. Good investigative journalism needs to be encouraged. There are many fine examples of such journalism. Indeed, there have been some fine examples of public service journalism, not just those which gave rise some of the tribunals but also in other areas, both in broadcasting and in the print media. Even the media seem to acknowledge that the Bill meets the criteria in respect of freedom of expression.

Whether the Bill will encourage responsible reporting and journalism is probably a more pertinent question. Freedom brings responsibility and not everybody always exercises that responsibility. In general, society needs regulation to maintain a good balance and that is why the various laws concerned are on the Statue Book. There are a few reasons for this need, one of which is human fallibility whereby freedom of any sort will invariably be abused unless there are effective checks and balances in place. There is also increased competition within the media. The increased emphasis on the bottom line and on getting a return on capital has to some extent given rise to a lowering of standards.

It was interesting that at the conference the Minister held in Belfield a few years ago, to which I referred earlier, a Queen's Counsel in his paper clearly acknowledged that standards within the media in Britain certainly had reached quite a low level. I was interested and impressed to hear the then secretary of the National Union of Journalists in similar terms acknowledge that journalistic standards in Ireland had declined as well, and we need to be cognisant of that. One would hope that with the new mechanism in place, especially the press council, there will be a thrust towards improving standards within the media.

Many years ago I, as president of a national organisation, became conscious quickly that if we wanted to get coverage for our point of view, we had to be critical of the Government or of the Minister. That was a sure way of hitting the headlines because the media wanted controversy and criticism. If, however, something was done that we wanted to praise or acknowledge, one could rest assured that we could certainly make the comment but we would not read about it in the newspapers.

The fifth criterion, which to me is important, is the right of an individual to his or her good name. The present position in that regard is unsatisfactory for the following reason, examples of which we have seen, that it is only people with considerable financial wealth who can afford to take the issue to the High Court or the Supreme Court or, for that matter, to the Circuit Court, and the legal costs are a significant barrier to people being able to re-establish their good name where it has been taken from them.

Many people would concede that going to court is something of a lottery. Even lawyers will say, "If you want justice, don't go to court". What one gets in court is the clinical interpretation of the law. In that regard, I welcome the proposal for a press council which will provide an avenue for redress without having to incur big costs. As the Minister has rightly said, in many cases people are just seeking a correction and an apology.

It is proposed that the press council will comprise 13 members, including seven public interest directors who will be appointed by an independent selection process. The Minister has been quite innovative in coming up with this idea because there was much debate and criticism in the media that the Government would be appointing the press council. There will also be one journalist and five council members representing newspaper owners.

I do not fully share the Minister's confidence in self-regulation. We have too many examples, including the legal profession, of where self-regulation does not work as effectively as it should. The Minister is, however, laying down a challenge. For a long time, the media have been seeking a press council as a means of self-regulation. Why is this only coming to pass now, however, given that the media could have introduced such a process voluntarily at any stage? It is only now when they are faced by a statutory press council that this is happening. Having said that, I wish the press council well. It will be interesting to see how it works in practice.

Yesterday, I heard some national newspaper editors on the radio. In one instance, they prevaricated as to whether or not findings of the press council would be published. It was only under pressure that they acknowledged this would happen. It would be a travesty——