Tony Kett (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, to the House. I also welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Bill. The concept behind the Bill has been in gestation for some time. The Minister said that the National Newspapers of Ireland commissioned a draft defamation Bill in 1994. Few believed the Minister last year when he committed himself to being open-minded about the draft legislation. Having read parts of the Bill I can say that he has delivered on his word. The Bill may not have progressed much since 1994 simply because those proposing it might have been afraid of the outcome and what they had they held.

Defamation is a serious issue which needs to be addressed now. In drawing up the legislation the Minister must maintain a balance between freedom of speech and the right of an individual to his or her good name and reputation. Balancing those two rights can be tricky but at the same time the Minister must recognise that freedom of expression is fundamental to the workings of democracy.

Some journalists and commentators on this issue made off-the-wall claims that they should have an absolute right to write what they wish and that should take precedence over all other considerations. Those comments lie where they are because under no circumstances could that be the case. For example, the front page of the Irish Daily Star yesterday was outrageous. To malign someone who has given her life to politics in that way shows the newspaper up for what it is. That was not the first time the editor of that newspaper had been in the limelight for publishing such content. We have come to expect it.

Democratic society is entitled to a press for high standards and good ethics. When those two values are in place it is incumbent on the press to hold people like us to account if we are to be accountable to the public. That is the case in most democratic societies. The media, however, has no system of regulation. The only recourse available to someone who has a legitimate claim against the press is a right of reply. While the defamation may be on page one, the reply will probably be on the back page. Litigation is the only other option. There are few who can take on the power of the media. A balance is needed to give someone who is defamed redress without having to take that expensive route. The Bill seeks to achieve that and will deliver when the dust has settled.

I am not sold on the provision to appoint an ombudsman and an independent press council because the council is to include 13 members, seven of whom will be independent public figures, a further five will be drawn from the representatives of newspaper and magazine publishers while one member will be drawn from the National Union of Journalists and one of the independent members is to be chairperson. It will be the overall decision-making body in a new procedure to enable members of the public to lodge complaints about press behaviour. If six of the 13 members are all of the one ilk it would be difficult to achieve independence. Will there be a quorum for the meetings and will it simply make a stipulation regarding a number of people? If, for example, seven or eight is a quorum, if six of those who turn up religiously are the media gurus and they are like-minded, independence goes out the window. It may be that the quorummust comprise members of each group among the 13.

The Bill introduces a new defence of "fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public importance". That is a fair and reasonable point because it makes it harder for the individual to sue without good reason and protects the media. There will no longer be an admission of liability and if in court a newspaper apologises or lodges a sum of money that should not be seen as an admission of liability. Although we have not heard from the press it should be fairly happy with the Bill because it may have feared that the Government would appoint itself arbitrator.

Many people's reputations have been destroyed by outrageous reporting. The most annoying aspect of that is that even if an apology is submitted the following morning the damage is done. Mud sticks. Heretofore most media organisations preferred to fight a claim in court than admit they are wrong. Defamatory comment, even when it was wrong, sullied one's reputation and the only means of retribution was an expensive one.

We must be sure, however, not to stifle good investigative journalism of which we have seen many examples, including "Prime Time Investigates" last Monday night. A good story needs no embellishment. Headlines rarely bear any relation to the story below them and sensible stories may have outrageous headings. It is the nature of the business that headlines sell newspapers. Accordingly, newspapers with any degree of integrity should print headlines that match the content of stories. Unfortunately, democratic politics and an active newspaper industry need each other in equal measure. I hope the Bill can in some way assist members of the public to achieve a situation whereby nobody can be defamed or have their character taken without having access to reasonable redress.