John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, to the House. I welcome the legislation and disagree with much of what Senator Norris has said.

One of the satisfactory aspects of the Bill is that it is being introduced into this House which has quite a good record with regard to speaking on these matters. I recall several debates about the question of defamation, privacy and the rights of a free press. The work of the Law Reform Commission has been very valuable in informing this debate.

It is obvious that the legislation needs to be updated to deal with the pace at which media and society has developed and to have regard to publication on the Internet and by electronic means outside of what the newspapers might publish. Those of us of a particular generation are inclined to focus exclusively on the newspapers and on radio and television but the area has expanded so dramatically that some form of regulation is required.

I am a member of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution which has been examining freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and the matter of privacy. Within the past week a group of us visited Berlin and Vienna. We had quite detailed discussions with newspaper editors and leading constitutional lawyers and parliamentarians about these issues. We also visited Norway, Denmark and Sweden. There are some instructive lessons to be learned from these countries. In Norway, Denmark and Sweden, the matters of freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are part of their culture and of which they are very protective.

A free press is a basic characteristic of any democracy and any civilised society. That press should be unfettered to a degree which would almost lead to the balance in terms of protections for groups, whatever about individuals, being regarded as being somewhat infringed.

Senator Norris referred to the matter of opinion and fact. It was the editor of The Manchester Guardian who said that facts are sacred and opinions are free. I do not think the legislation treats opinions in the way that Senator Norris has treated them. It is quite legitimate for any newspaper to say, for instance, that the Government should go, that it is incompetent or that it should be re-elected. Such types of opinions are perfectly legitimate in a democratic society. The newspaper in that instance is not saying that in its opinion, citizen X is an idiot and citizen X has behaved illegally and has done X, Y, and Z which is wrong. The Bill makes this distinction between fact and opinion and it makes it well.

There is a different standard for public persons and for private persons. The section in the Bill dealing with matters of reasonable opinion or with matters of public importance is correct, in my view. During our discussions in Austria, we considered the scenario of a government Minister who is homosexual. There is nothing wrong with that and that person's privacy should be protected. However, if that person, as a result of that sexual orientation, starts to make utterances which then are reflected in legislation or in how they vote within the parliament, that is a matter of legitimate public concern and is something newspapers should be able to report.

The matter of control of the Internet is very problematic. It is obvious that some countries have not dealt with this problem and some countries have encountered difficulties in trying to deal with it. Section 2 of the Bill refers to electronic communication and defines "statement" as including visual images and decides that a statement can be published on the Internet. This is desirable but the degree to which this can be enforced is problematic. I am not so sure whether the provisions in the Bill are sufficient and I suggest this should be examined between now and Report Stage or before the Bill is sent to the Dáil.

I have dealt with the important aspect of opinion as provided for in the Bill. The offer to make amends is dealt with differently in other jurisdictions. It should not be the case that an offer to make amends or to make a correction should be prejudicial. An offer to make amends or put an explanatory note in the newspaper should not prejudice the position and this is dealt with in a reasonable fashion in the Bill. The matter of consent is important.

I refer to the matter of technology and images. I have been critical of circumstances in the past concerning private individuals. I have been extremely critical of circumstances where a child is murdered — there was one very notable case — a funeral is held and because of the technology available, a cameraman standing 200 yards away can shoot close-up images of people at their most vulnerable. That is out of order. It is one thing to seek and receive consent but, increasingly, there is no regard to consent. These are not matters of public importance. It is entirely wrong that people should be subjected to that intrusion at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. That matter needs to be controlled.

That brings us to the press council, whether it can control matters of that nature and, if there is a breach, the degree to which it can intervene to ensure other breaches do not occur. What is proposed in regard to the press council is reasonable. I agree with the Minister that this should not be a statutory press council in the sense that it should not be independent and self-regulating. What is in the Bill is reasonable.

Schedule 2 refers to protecting the public interest by ensuring ethical, accurate and truthful reporting by the press. Now one is into a really difficult area. What is ethical? Is it ethical to show images of people at a funeral? It is unethical but I can think of people in the newspaper industry who would say it is ethical. That is an extremely difficult area. It is a different from what the Minister spoke about. He spoke about an issue which is important, namely, taste. That something is very distasteful does not mean it is unethical. We have enough experience from our domestic history as to what people, including those in this House, did when it came to matters of taste and how they attempted to control matters they thought distasteful. What I am trying to say, although not particularly well, is that taste is even more arbitrary than an ethical standard. That something is in bad taste should not mean it should not be published.

One then comes to the point reached in Denmark with the Islamic images. Does one say there is an absolute right to publish matters of that nature even though they offend very large numbers of people with a particular sensitivity? That is when one gets into a difficult area. Freedom is very important and it is essential to defend it, and in those circumstances, however distasteful, offensive and even blasphemous something is, the newspaper still has the right to publish. It led to deaths in that case so one is getting into a difficult area.

Senator Norris spoke about what the press council would do. It is up to the law to regulate how the press operates. It is up to the council to apply standards which are different from what is in the law. I do not see having an independent press council separate from what is in the legal provisions, although it is part of what is before us, as a problem. There was a press council in Austria which the proprietors decided not to fund anymore, and it fell. It has still not been restored and they do not believe there is anything particularly difficult about that.

There is also the question of advertising. The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland can regulate what is in advertising. Again, the issue of taste comes into that. Does one leave that separate from the press council or does one include advertising in the work of the press council? That issue needs to be addressed.

The chairperson of the press council and the independent public directors shall be persons who are of standing in the community, persons who are independent of the interests of owners and publishers of periodicals, etc. I am not sure about that provision. Senator Maurice Hayes would make an excellent chairman of the press council.