Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 18, lines 26 to 36, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

"24.—(1) Subject to subsection (4), it shall be a defence (to be known, and in this section referred to, as "the defence of fair and reasonable publication") to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought was published in good faith and in all the circumstances of the case, it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement.".

I tabled this amendment on the basis of my belief that newspapers may have too many hoops to jump through in proving fair and reasonable publication. An article published in good faith should be viewed by the court as not being malicious, and this should be sufficient to proceed with the defence of reasonable publication.

I am tempted to withdraw this amendment, however, in view of recent examples of untruthful newspaper allegations made against certain persons. On today's Order of Business, Members referred to articles published in recent days on the death of a young man in Lucan. These reports contained several untruths, including the claim that he was known to the Garda. Given that we have been discussing this Bill for some time, I had expected apologies to appear prominently in the newspapers that printed these lies. We saw on the television a grieving mother forced to defend the good name of her son. The newspapers in question printed what can be only described as rubbish. These allegations have hurt the victim's family, as they would any decent and right-thinking person. This is only one example but it is typical of the problem that exists.

Some weeks ago, I spoke on the Order of Business about the media treatment endured by the manager of the Irish soccer team in the wake of the victory in San Marino. One newspaper article the following Sunday suggested he should buy petrol and pour it over himself. This is gutter journalism and it must be stamped out. The sooner we have a press council with teeth the better. As I said, I had hoped today's editions of the relevant newspapers would include apologies for the untruths they published about the gentleman who died. This was a man who worked for charity. It is harrowing for his mother and extended family that such articles should be published.

I am interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say about my amendment but I propose to withdraw it in light of these latest events.