Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I have spent much time over the last week looking at both the proposals for a press ombudsman and press council of Ireland brought forward by the media. I have also read very carefully this Bill and the Privacy Bill 2006. I am completely opposed to some measures in the Privacy Bill. They are not right and go too far. I will not support the Privacy Bill as it stands because there are significant problems with it, which we need to look at.

However, today we are debating the Defamation Bill. Senator Leyden made a significant point when he spoke about the article in yesterday's edition of the Irish Daily Star. I agree completely with Senator Leyden. I thought the article was appalling. It brings us all into disrepute. The question is how we react to it. I read the article yesterday and examined how it could be dealt with under what has been proposed. The code of practice for newspapers and periodicals provides that newspapers shall at all times strive for fairness and honesty. I do not think any fair-minded person would consider what we saw yesterday to be fair. Under the privacy principle, the code of practice provides that readers are entitled to have news and comment presented with respect for the privacy and the sensibilities of the individuals. I make this point to perhaps argue against Senator Leyden. I agree with his response to the article, about which I felt embarrassed and saddened. It was completely over the top and unacceptable, but the real issue is how one deals with it. Can it be dealt with under the Defamation Bill and the proposals for the press ombudsman and the press council? It can be dealt with in this way. Some changes may be required and I will comment on those later.

I find the concept of a press council attractive because on each occasion the House has discussed defamation, libel and the press, Members always make the same point, namely, that people cannot seek remedies, redress or corrections without having recourse to the courts. Only those who can risk or who are in a position to raise large amounts of money can afford to go before the courts. Until now, therefore, the only way people could seek any kind of independent arbitration or redress was by taking that route.

The advantage of the proposal contained in the Schedules to the Bill is the fact that we will be in a position to establish a press council. This will mean that an ordinary person who has been defamed, badly treated, libelled or whatever by the press will be able to approach the press ombudsman, who will be independent, and he or she will be able to use his or her resources to investigate the complaint, reach certain conclusions and seek redress on behalf of the individual concerned at no cost. That is a major and important advance. The next avenue — still at no cost — open to the complainant will be that if he or she is not satisfied with the findings and conclusions reached by the ombudsman, he or she may appeal to the press council, which will also deal with the matter. For the first time, therefore, we will give ordinary people the right and the opportunity to have a matter corrected or to seek redress in a fair manner and at no financial cost. That is a major advance.

Most people who read something about themselves in the newspaper about which they are dissatisfied become concerned about their character, their reputation and what their neighbours and other members of their communities will think and they will want the information corrected. If an honest mistake has been made, it should be easy to correct. However, publishers state that they are often afraid to correct something because by doing so, they admit liability and stand open to court action as a result. That kind of nonsense creates difficulties and it is dealt with, to some extent, in the Bill. It is important that consideration be given to this matter.

I listened to Senator Norris's contribution and I know from where he is coming in respect of this matter. I have known the Senator well for 20 years and on more than one occasion he has been unfairly and badly treated by the media. I could place on record a number of examples in that regard. I have encountered similar difficulties with the media and, in preparing for this debate, I examined the way different newspapers dealt with me.

I had a serious argument with The Irish Times which, in my opinion, libelled me. I did not receive satisfaction but I was given the right to reply. I chose not to take the latter because it was not what I was seeking. The newspaper and its editor engaged with me on the issue and we argued the point. In the end, it was my decision whether I wanted to take the legal route. I do not know whether I will ever do so but I am not attracted to doing so. However, I would be attracted to taking the avenue offered by the establishment of a press council.

In respect of the next point I wish to make, I must declare an interest in that I am vice-chairman of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. Independent Newspapers did a three-page hatchet job on the latter that was unfactual and wrong. We were able to prove, line by line, that the supposed facts contained in the article were incorrect and that it defamed and damaged the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. The difference between that and the experience I had with The Irish Times is that Independent Newspapers — it is very difficult for me to have sympathy for it in this regard — refuses to engage with the board. This is an example of how badly the press does its business. Is it any wonder it does not receive much sympathy?

What can we do to change the position? We can pass the Bill and move matters forward. However, there are a number of difficulties with the legislation. For example, I do not understand the concept of partial privilege. I may not be present in the Chamber — I will listen on the monitor or read the transcript of the debate — but I ask that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform comment on what I am about to say in his reply. What will be the position if a person has dealings with the press ombudsman and the press council, remains dissatisfied and then decides to take legal action? Will he or she be in a position to take such action? I am seeking to ensure that no existing right will be restricted or confined by the potential establishment of a press council or press ombudsman.

Section 16(3) contains a ten-line sentence. I am suspicious of such sentences and am of the view that it is wrong to use them. If the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, has nothing better to do, perhaps he will read section 16(3) while I am commenting on it. We are presented with one long sentence, comprising a combination of sub-clauses, etc. and in my view it could be written in a more easily accessible way. The final part of the subsection states "[I]t is proved that the defendant was requested by the plaintiff to publish in the same medium of communication in which he or she published the statement concerned, a reasonable statement by way of explanation or a contradiction, and has refused or failed to do so or has done so in a manner that is not adequate or reasonable having regard to all the circumstances." Even in terms of punctuation, the use of a comma before the word "and" is somewhat daft. I do not know what purpose such a comma serves and I am quite nifty at syntax. I read the sentence in question on seven or eight occasions to try to gain some understanding as to what it means. It should be written in a way that Members and others can understand.