Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, to the House and I welcome the Defamation Bill 2006. A great deal of preparatory work has been done on this legislation, for which we have been waiting for a long time. It has been introduced on foot of the due considerations of the Law Reform Commission. I understand that all of the LRC's recommendations, with the exception of a recommendation relating to the proposed ombudsman and press council, have been incorporated in the Bill. Extensive consultation has been undertaken.

I welcome yesterday's announcement of the proposed establishment of an independent press council and ombudsman, to be provided for under this Bill when it becomes law. While the code of practice that has been agreed is not cast in stone, it represents a good starting point for this law. As we know, it removes many of the defects of previous laws. I agree with the proposal to allow for the defence of reasonable publication in matters of public importance.

I also agree with the measure in this law, to which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform referred in his opening statement, which will allow judges to assist juries, as opposed to giving direction to them, when they are deciding on amounts of damages. We are aware of a recent prominent example of a judge deciding not to give such assistance, although he may have felt he was not allowed to do so. When a guiding principle is laid down by a superior court — particularly by the Supreme Court, as was the case in this instance — it is important to give juries some assistance. I think juries should look for such assistance, which they may not have done in the past. If the Supreme Court has made a decision as a benchmark, the judge should be able to assist the jury by saying that the amount of damages should be within certain limits. That would be an important step. If I understood the Minister correctly when he was speaking about this matter — I heard him fleetingly while I was passing a monitor — I agree with his approach. This is a good measure that is long overdue. That might have been a cause about which Senator Leyden and his colleagues know something. For a long time it was hand-cuffed, so to speak, to the Privacy Bill. The Minister, understandably, feels unable to give any assurance that that Bill will come before us shortly. It may never see the light of day; we will certainly not see it in this Parliament.

I referred briefly to the press council. The ombudsman and the complaints system being a new avenue to take without going to court, and which is free to the citizen, is important. It is natural for people to get upset if they believe they have been defamed but the cost of taking action is prohibitive. Many people believe it is a law for the rich and that only the rich can afford to take the gamble of going to court. I welcome that measure.

In an ideal world we should have a statutory press council but I accept this measure is an initial step. All the press have signed up to it, or so they told us yesterday, but if something were proved to be amiss in the future I am sure the matter could and would be revisited. Members of this House, and no doubt those in the other House, would be the first to shout about it. It is important that citizens have an avenue open to them that is free and that the question of costs will not come into their considerations should they decide to go that route.

I welcome section 26, which provides for a declaratory order. It concerns citizens who believe they can prove they were defamed but who are not seeking damages. As we are all aware, the media can be lax at times. To give a recent example, an apology was not offered over a period of six years. There were wealthy people involved in that case but some citizens may not be able to afford to take that route even though they would be able to prove they were defamed. They might not want to seek damages but if they have not been offered an apology this declaratory order, which is a new provision, is very important. I refer mainly to the print media, but it could apply to radio and television as well, in cases where an apology is not forthcoming and they are being truculent against the small man, so to speak. That is the reason section 26 is so important.

I welcome section 14 regarding defence of truth, although it is only a change of title in terms of justification. It is a sine qua non that someone would come to a case with clean hands. I am aware of an instance where a letter received prominent circulation. It was not published but one or two parties felt aggrieved because they were the parties referred to without actually being named. The hint was dropped that they would take an action, probably with the intention to frighten the small man, so to speak. Where people who may have been party to something irregular if not illegal, they cannot take an action without clean hands. If I read it correctly that is provided for in the section, which I welcome.

I give the Bill a general welcome, particularly the provision dealing with a press ombudsman and a press council. The question of their independence will arise but before concluding I should say that no one can doubt the credentials of those on the appointments committee, namely, Professor Mitchell, Dr. Manning, Dr. Miriam Hederman O'Brien and Kevin Murphy. They all have excellent track records and no one would doubt their ability to do the best. For that reason I welcome the Bill.