Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

——if some of the decisions of the press council did not find their way into print because they were considered embarrassing for newspapers. That would be wrong.

I often see newspaper apologies printed in some corner of an inside page, whereas they may refer to articles which were splashed across the front pages with offensive and defamatory headlines. Common sense should prevail in this regard and apologies should reflect that. They may even have to be published over a number of days so that a correction of the defamatory remarks can be achieved.

I have reservations about the proposal for a court lodgement, although I can see that it will encourage people to settle cases which, in itself, is not a bad thing. What will happen if the court lodgement is offered to an individual who feels that he or she has been genuinely defamed, but the offer is not accompanied by an apology or an acknowledgement that an apology will be published? If the individual subsequently continues to pursue a case and then finds that the award of damages is less than the court lodgement, where will they stand? My view is that if the court lodgement does not include a published apology it should be disregarded by the court. In some cases, court lodgements can be a lottery because one does not know what the level of damages will be. We have seen examples where damages have been way ahead of what anyone might have guessed. In other situations, however, people who have been the subject of clearly defamatory remarks have received insignificant damages as a consequence.

I will not labour the point, but the Circuit Court's award limit of €50,000 is too low. It should be €100,000. We should encourage people to use the Circuit Court rather than going to the High Court to pursue such issues. That would give greater scope to the Circuit Court regarding the level of damages to be awarded. If an amendment is tabled to that effect on Committee Stage, the Minister might consider it.

I have great difficulty with the fact that deceased people cannot be defamed. I note the Minister's comments regarding people who may have been defamed prior to their demise. We have seen such examples and it should be open to the bereaved family to pursue a case. There is another issue concerning the subsequent writing of history, but we should find a middle way. It is neither fair nor reasonable that lies should be published about somebody simply on the basis that they are dead and, therefore, cannot pursue a case for defamation.

With regard to the right to privacy, I remind Senator Cummins that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that all persons are entitled to a personal sphere of privacy and non-intrusion. I agree that it should not be an obstacle to good investigative journalism but I hope the Privacy Bill, which will be fought tooth and nail by the media, will see the light of day and be enacted. It should be amended to ensure that on the one hand it does not interfere with investigative journalism, while on the other hand it should underpin people's rights to privacy.