Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on its publication. It is the product of a long gestation, as set out clearly in the Minister's remarks to the House, which involved the Law Reform Commission, draft Bills, a conference, a legal advisory group and extensive consultation. This is reflected in the high quality of the legislation.

Like Senator Norris, I welcome the fact that we have got first bite on this legislation. The Minister has always taken our views into account and is always willing to listen to views from both sides. The introduction of the Bill is a defining occasion for the media in this country. If the Bill is successful, especially with regard to the establishment of a press council and the appointment of a press ombudsman, it will mark a defining moment in the generation of an improved set of media standards and in the relationship between the media and the public. This is balanced legislation and clearly the Minister has listened to inputs from many sources in drawing it up. I particularly welcome the establishment of a press council and the appointment of a press ombudsman.

The Bill was published alongside the Privacy Bill and much was made of this fact. We know the two Bills initially were put together and that some members of the Cabinet and Government Deputies believe the trade-off for the Defamation Bill is a Privacy Bill. However, there is no question that the Privacy Bill as published is fundamentally flawed. It has been exposed as dangerous legislation in its current format. The reason for this is that it has not been the subject of extensive consultation or the subject of a Law Reform Commission report. It has not had input from the industry nor from those with knowledge and experience of the area. It seems the Privacy Bill has gone onto the back burner, but despite that I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the Defamation Bill which is timely, welcome and undoubtedly necessary.

The privacy legislation was initially welcomed in principle by the Labour Party and we have not given up on the notion of privacy legislation. The contents and framework of the legislation will be very important. We could not support the current privacy legislation as it is framed, but that is not the subject of today's discussion.

The Defamation Bill is welcome and we will not call a vote on Second Stage. The legislation contains an important provision for the establishment of a press council and the appointment of a press ombudsman. I apologise for not stating before I commenced my contribution that I am a member of the National Union of Journalists, a former practising journalist and take a considerable interest in the area.

In 1998 I published a proposal for a voluntary press council in the context of a changed media landscape and of a situation where the media continued to become an even bigger player in society, especially against a background of the weakening influence of former powerful forces such as the church, the Oireachtas and political parties. To some extent a vacuum has been created. What is normally referred to as the Fourth Estate has become a very important player in our democracy. In that context, as a member of the NUJ and a former practising journalist, I believed it was important for the media to take the initiative and establish a press council. This would be important in recognising the role and power of the media and that with that power would come duties and obligations.

The establishment of that council would also create a situation where members of the public — the majority of the public does not consider itself as having access to the courts system — who felt they had been wronged by the print media, whether individually or as a group, would have somewhere to bring their complaint and have it heard and know the industry would respond if the complaint was upheld. That proposal, while supported at some level by the NUJ, was never advanced by the industry, despite many opportunities to do so.

The same industry squealed at the notion of the Minister bringing forward the idea of a statutory press council and his initial proposal was not acceptable. It was certainly not acceptable to us in the Labour Party. I acknowledge, however, that the Minister listened and took on board the views expressed and has now come forward with an acceptable and potentially successful model for a press council. In general, it follows the model I suggested. Therefore, it would be hypocritical on my part not to support it.

When I published my proposal for a voluntary press council, I stated I did not support the idea of a statutory press council in the context of the need to guarantee press freedom and to ensure the Government would not have control over the media. However, considering what the Minister has brought forward, placing the press council in a statutory context will generate a greater level of public confidence in it. The statutory base will also give it greater standing and power in the community.

I read carefully the Schedule to the Bill which sets out the minimum requirements of a press council. It states the principal object shall be to ensure the protection of freedom of expression of the press. This is a significant guarantee. It also states as an object to protect the public interest by ensuring ethical, accurate and truthful reporting by the press. Nobody could disagree with that. I wish the future press council well in this vision. A further object is to maintain certain minimum ethical and professional standards among the press to ensure the privacy and dignity of the individual is protected.

I support all those objectives, particularly as a member of the National Union of Journalists. However, I wish to point out two facts. First, the National Union of Journalists already has a code of ethics and standards, but it is not upheld. The second point is that unless this press council is seen to live up to the legislation, it will not generate the trust and confidence of the public and will have been a failure. This is up to the press council itself.

I welcome the appointment of the appointments committee for the press council. I acknowledge the industry for agreeing to the establishment of the press council and press ombudsman. Coming from the industry, I know what a large step forward this is. It is necessary, long overdue and must happen. I call on the industry to live up to the standards expected of it by the public because those standards are undoubtedly falling. The impact of this is that public trust and confidence in the media is on the wane.

Members referred to the reportage on the Liam Lawlor incident, which was undoubtedly a watershed. A line was crossed and public outrage rightly followed. We in this country — it is great to be able to say this — expect a standard from our media. We expect the media to live up to a standard of ethics and professionalism on our behalf. One could say the independent media is private industry, and that it is not like RTE or State-funded media. However, the fact is the crucial role played by the media in our democracy is such that it must live up to standards.

We see the effect when public service broadcasters or newspapers take on an issue. The "Prime Time Investigates" programme on Monday last has transformed public discourse on the issue of mental health. Every day the reportage on issues by newspapers calls to account legislators and public institutions, which is their role. However, there is a balance to be maintained. Unless there is trust and confidence in the media, it has no standing in calling to account legislators or public institutions.

Most journalists know this and most live up to it. Increasingly, however, the demands of commercialisation, dumbing down or populism — call it what you will — apply. We see this every day of the week and people are sickened by it. The public knows there is no need to invade a person's privacy. There are many examples of slipshod journalism. When I worked in RTE I had occasion to point out that we were using a certain term on radio about a victim of crime. A woman had been murdered in the Dublin mountains, and journalists constantly referred to "the naked body of a blonde victim". I said that was not acceptable and asked why it was necessary to use such terms. That is just one example.

The families of victims of crime will tell of how they go to a newsagents in the morning and see their grief and personal history plastered all over a newspaper for purely voyeuristic purposes. Salacious details of murders are revealed, which in many cases the public lap up. Standards are falling constantly. It is up to individual journalists and it will be up to the press council to ensure minimum standards. I wish them well because they are up against it and have a high standard to meet.

This will be a defining moment in that it will define the future relationship of the media and the public in this country, which depends on the success of the press council and the media ombudsman. I do not take the same view as Senator Norris in this regard. My default mode is optimism. I foresee the success of the ombudsman generally. Although this ombudsman is being funded and put in place by the industry, I believe enough people in the media industry know we have reached a crossroads in this regard. Making the press council and press ombudsman work is a very serious matter because so much is at stake.

The press council cannot be seen as a regulator of the press but it is the place where standards must be seen to be upheld. We do not know how this will work in practice. What happens if it does not work? While there are appeals mechanisms, if the press council is not living up to the standards set down in the legislation, to whom would a member of the public complain? I realise it is a big question and perhaps the Bill is not the means to deal with it.

If the press council does not work, it is clear there would be no alternative but for the Oireachtas to act, particularly in the area of privacy, which is the key issue that has emerged. I agree with Senator Dardis that there is a different standard for those in public life, such as Members of the House, and private citizens. Politicians must be held to account, and the media is obviously one of the organs which holds us to account. However, there must be boundaries around that. When one goes in one's front door, that should be it.

I welcome Senator Dardis's remarks with regard to the experience in other countries, of which we need to hear. If useful points could be sent to Members via e-mail, I would welcome that as I do not have time to fully research the issue. We need to consider the context in this regard and get the balance right between, on the one hand, the media's right to ask hard questions, hold us to account and expose matters, and, on the other hand, the need to maintain privacy. I note the point with regard to the Internet, which is a difficult issue that could be teased out further on Committee Stage.

I warmly welcome the Bill. I commend the Minister on bringing it forward. I was remiss in not welcoming the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, to the House, for which I apologise. This is a defining moment in the relationship between the Irish media and the public. We are charged with a major responsibility with regard to the Bill.