Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

It is a pity Senator Norris is not present. I take the Minister's point that particular bodies should not be in a position to advise the courts. The latter should be independent in the assessment of damages, etc. I would favour a situation where a person could make a complaint to the press council and if he or she was prepared to allow it to deal with the matter up to a particular point — for example, where it might award up to €50,000 in damages — he or she would then sign a waiver indicating that he or she would not subsequently take the matter to court. We should create a system whereby a person would be in a position to circumvent the need to go to court in order to vindicate his or her good name. In that context and acting as somewhat of a halfway house, the press council could solve the issues.

We are trying to encourage people to take routes other than those that involve the necessity to pursue costly court cases. In addition, I am also concerned that much of the time of the courts is being taken up in dealing with issues that might be resolved directly by the parties. I presume people will first approach the newspaper or media organisation they believe to have defamed their good name in order to seek an apology. If the latter is not forthcoming, they will then go to the press council. If we could allow for some determination at that level, even small amounts of compensation, we would save court time and perhaps facilitate the thrust of what we are trying to achieve here. I see some merit in it. The PIAB is not a good analogy to use, as previous speakers have said, but it is the closest to an independent press council. The PIAB was set up for specific reasons. The press council needs to be independent. We could not allow a body established by and paid for by the press to make such determinations.