Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)

I welcome and compliment the Minister who always finds time to come to the House and listen to how we view legislation that is about to be enacted. This is an opportunity for me to discuss the Bill and compliment the Minister on updating and reforming the law on defamation. In his contribution he said he consulted widely going back to the 1990s and set up the legal advisory group to facilitate more discussion, especially the impact of the legislation on the public. That is welcome.

However, I have the read the Bill and thought about it. I have changed my mind on it very often during the past week. We all want a democracy, freedom of speech and journalists who will investigate a story and present it in a fair and reasonable manner as outlined in the Bill. I have no difficulty with that. The problem is how best to measure what is being told and printed and how it is interpreted by the man in the street. The Bill is an attempt to level the playing pitch between those who write articles and those who read them. I am not sure if we are getting it right in this legislation.

I will never forget reading about the late Liam Lawlor's death. I was shocked by the headlines and the details and I have yet to see an apology. Maybe there was an apology but, if so, I did not see it. As he is dead the family has no redress. That is not fair to a family who have been so tragically destroyed by such articles.

Yesterday, while discussing this Bill, I saw on the front page of the Irish Daily Star, this gutter newspaper, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, depicted as, "Mary the Blood Sucker". What will this legislation be about? If that story was printed after the enactment of the Bill what would be its impact? Would there be enough power to deal with that gutter press? It led me to ponder on the mindset of the journalist who wrote it and his background. Would he have done it if it had been his mother, sister or family? Did he have a hidden agenda apart from what was in the article?

If one wishes to present an article in a fair and reasonable manner how does one assess fairness and reasonableness? I have a difficulty with those two words when I look at the picture on yesterday's newspaper. This happened while we were debating the issue. It leads me to ask whether there is any respect for the legislation we are attempting to put through. It is a disgrace.

There are fine journalists around the House with whom I relate. There are also good investigative journalists the work of whom we saw on television on Monday night last when discussing another interesting subject matter. There is no control over the print media. It puts a spin on the subject and gets everybody involved. One cannot find out where the spin is but it is clear from the headline and the article there is no correlation between the two. The information is fact but the spin can misinterpret it and destroy a reputation.

A key element of the Bill is that the press council will allow for the man in the street to pursue a correction of the headline. That can be done by means of a written apology. Words are cheap. If a written apology is being provided for, will it get the same measure of a headline on the newspaper as the original headline which destroyed the character of the person or will it appear in some obscure part of the newspaper where nobody will notice it? Then it is too late as the reputation of the person and his or her family and the community in which he or she lives is destroyed. That is my concern. It is easy to make an apology to which no liability is attached. One can say one is very sorry, but the damage is done. The damage was done to the Minister for Health and Children yesterday by that headline. How can that statement be corrected? I am concerned about the essence of the press council and whether it will have teeth.

I want us to work with the journalists and the press and I want trust. I want fairness and loyalty but I do not want gutter as portrayed in the article. Those in the Visitors Gallery are listening to this debate as well as those in the Chamber. I want those in the Visitors Gallery to know that we try to do a good job in this House——