Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, to the House. I have three interests to declare. First, I am a director of Independent Newspapers, second, I am a writing contributor and commentator and, third, I was involved as a facilitator with the steering group which produced the model of the ombudsman. Given my experience in setting up ombudsman offices, I may have been helpful to the group.

I assure Senator Norris this model does fulfil the criteria for the use of the term "ombudsman". There used to be a snobby notion among statutory ombudsmen, of whom I was one, that other people should not be allowed to use the title. New Zealand is the only country that has protected it. The essence of an office of ombudsman is that, first, it should have independence, second, it should have resources, third, it should have access and, fourth, it should have the ability to secure redress for the complainant. Time will show whether this office fulfils those criteria.

I will not rise to the other baits which Senator Norris cast in front of me, partly because it would take too long and because I have no great taste for shadow-boxing. However, as he has bared his breast, I will let my wounds bleed for a moment too. I believe I was libelled, or at least misrepresented, on two occasions, once by an Irish newspaper that is sadly no longer in publication, and again by a British broadsheet that is. I was not looking for money. There was no malice in either case but in both cases what was published exposed me to a severe danger to my life, given the jobs I was doing. All I wanted was a correction and an apology that would set things right. However, given the law of libel in Britain and Ireland, the newspapers were afraid to give that apology to me because of where it would lead.

I welcome the Bill because it enables people like me to have that sort of matter cleared up. This is a charter to help the poor person and the less wealthy in their relationship with the press. The libel laws as they stand can be used by rich people as a pastime, whereas poor people get very little from them. This measure balances that again somewhat.

I join Senator O'Meara in congratulating the Minister. Like her, I appreciate the manner in which he has dealt with this legislation. It could form a model for dealing with legislation of this type. The Minister came to this House for a preliminary debate on the matter, attended a conference, engaged in extensive consultation and listened to people before introducing this proposal. I agree with him that this legislation balances the conflicting rights of the public to be informed, of the press to ensure that the public is informed, and of individuals to enjoy privacy and respect. It is difficult to deal with such issues in any society, but the Minister has made a fair and reasonable stab at it in this Bill.

I would like to mention some aspects of the Bill that I welcome. I am pleased that it ensures that the issuing of an apology will not be seen as an acceptance of liability, provides for the ability to make lodgments, allows courts to direct juries, limits the period in which a case can be taken and imposes a requirement for verified affidavits. While the legislation has some negative aspects, they are minor and can be dealt with on Committee Stage. I will give some consideration to whether we should extend so much protection to corporations in the absence of a financial loss. Having listened to Senator Norris, I am sure some of my colleagues in another place will have different views on the matter.

We need to concentrate on the important aspects of this legislation. I am glad that Senator O'Meara dealt with one such matter at length. I refer to the proposal to establish a press council and to provide for a press ombudsman. We may be quite late in coming to this point. It may have taken the push of another Bill, which we are not discussing today, to arrive at this juncture. This legislation represents something of an accomplishment for those involved in the industry's steering committee. They brought together the various strands of this disparate industry to face their responsibility to deal with their clear shortcomings, which can hurt people. It is important to have brought the industry to this point.

I have no doubt about the industry's desire for the proposed ombudsman to be independent, which is exemplified by the nature of the people who have been chosen and have agreed to select the first group of people to take on this role. Having said that, the new arrangements will be tested by the manner in which these people will operate, the quality of the person who is selected as the ombudsman, the access that the ombudsman is given and, in particular, the extent to which the ombudsman will be able to require redress to be given to a person, by means of publication or otherwise. While some of the sanctions which are provided for are like the H-bomb in nature, most of them are reasonable.

The Minister will be able to withdraw certification or recognition from the proposed press council if it is not performing in accordance with to the requirements set out for it. It is important that peer pressure be exerted within the industry to ensure that all interests respect the decisions of the proposed ombudsman and press council. I hope the industry will go further in that regard by making it part of the terms of employment of editors, for example, to respect the press council and its findings. That is part of the testing ground.

Senator Norris expressed concern about the proposal to provide for the defence of reasonable belief. It is a pity that people do not read beyond the side title or first subsection of sections of legislation. If Senator Norris had read further down, he would have learned that the rest of the relevant section surrounds the defence of reasonable belief with a series of conditions which have to be satisfied before the courts will allow it to be used.

As Senator O'Meara said, we are giving the industry the potential to show its mettle. It should be allowed to do that. When the press council has been established, it should be allowed to develop a code of conduct. The code of conduct is the most important part of the proposals relating to the press council, which have been circulated by the steering group. The principles which are set out in the code of conduct are central to the entire system. They should be regarded not as definitive but as work in progress. Part of the role of the proposed press council will be to work with journalists and other people in the industry to flesh out the code of conduct. The manner in which that is done will, along with the work of the courts, protect privacy as much as anything else. I do not want to sound like a member of the DUP talking about what Sinn Féin needs to do in respect of policing when I say that the work of the proposed press council is entitled to be tested over a credible period. The council should be allowed to show its ability to operate.

I welcome this Bill, which I will support, because it offers the opportunities I have mentioned. I look forward to the Committee Stage debate on some of the issues which are of concern to Members. Such matters can be sorted out at that time.