Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon. I regret that this important Bill has taken an undue amount of time to come before the House. That said, I welcome it. For all the reasons outlined by previous speakers, the Bill is urgently required. We need it now more than ever. More and more newspapers, especially British ones, are coming to this country carrying scurrilous articles. I refer in particular to the article about one of our senior politicians, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. That type of journalism is unacceptable. It is disgraceful and a shame on the newspaper that carried it. We have seen other articles in the past that also leave much to be desired. I hope the measures contained in the Bill will help to improve the standards of journalism.

We are dependent on good investigative journalism and we have been well served by the media. There was a time when one could take anything one read in a newspaper as being factual. I still like to think what I read in a newspaper is true, but we know the ethical standards of some journalists are not as high as they should be. From time to time, certain newspaper articles have caused great hurt and upset and defamed people's character. This proposed legislation, which is overdue, should help to update our laws on defamation.

The press needs freedom to report accurately what is known to be true, but freedom of the press brings responsibilities, and we want to see these upheld. We want professionalism and high ethical standards in the press. There is a thin line between reporting factually and sensationalising a story. The Bill sets down the rules by which journalists must operate.

I welcome many aspects of the Bill, especially the setting up of a press ombudsman and an independent press council. The press ombudsman will provide the public with a forum for complaints about published articles and allow people to seek redress without having to resort to the courts. Heretofore, the majority of people could not afford to take on the press, no matter how strongly they felt their good name had been damaged. I welcome the fact that there will be more independent members on the press council than members of the journalistic profession. It is important that we strike the right balance. That, in itself, will help make it easier for people to seek redress.

I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I thank him for attending the debate. I regret that the families of deceased persons cannot seek to uphold the good name of deceased relatives, although if a case had been initiated before death, it can proceed. However, in some cases, the first time anything is written about certain individuals is following their death. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the reason he has omitted to provide redress for the families of deceased individuals whose good name has been called into question.

The defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public importance must be coming from the press. The version of the new defence in the Bill is much narrower than that outlined in the report of the legal advisory group on defamation, which has claimed this is to be regretted. The stronger we can make the rules, the better reporting we will get and the more protection that will be afforded to individuals.

I welcome the Bill's provisions in the area of damages. Currently, libel damages appear to be a lottery. This was evident in the recent O'Brien case. I had better not say any more about that case as it may be appealed. It is difficult to understand the level of award given in that case compared to other cases where greater damage may have been done but where smaller awards were given. Perhaps the Minister would indicate how that will change in the future.

I welcome the fact that the Bill requires the courts to address the jury on damages, where they are to be awarded. The party is also allowed to address the jury on the question of damages. In addition, an apology may be published without any admission of liability. I welcome this provision which will allow people to seek redress by way of an apology. Heretofore, some journalists appear to have found it easy to take a person's good name causing great hurt or damage to an individual or his or her family and, subsequently, to publish an apology in very small print and hidden within the newspaper some days or weeks later. I have always felt sympathy for the individuals concerned because while everybody reads the front page, very few people might see the correction or apology located elsewhere in small print.

I welcome many aspects of the Bill and hope it will be enacted as quickly as possible. It will deal only with articles published after the Bill is enacted and will not be retrospective, which is regrettable. However, that cannot be avoided.