Alex White (Labour)

Whatever the issues before the Supreme Court, this section has merit. I do not support those who seek that it be arrested. There exists an unanswerable logic and rationale for saying that we ought to regard, in the spirit of promoting public debate on matters of public concern, a man or woman in the public arena as being in a somewhat different position to the so-called little man referred to earlier on. There is no question but that this is the case. We must support this if for no other reason than that the Acting Chairman or I must have an opportunity to respond to things said about us.

It is true that in public debate people are often offended. I have suffered this myself. However, I will not discuss the matter now as we should not discuss in this House issues related to us personally. People in public life ought to understand that they are part of a wider public discourse. In my view, it is overly defensive for people to take the view that newspapers should not be rigorous and robust in their dealings with us. That is the type of democracy in which we live and it should be promoted rather than stemmed in this Oireachtas. I strongly support this provision.

It may be suggested this gives carte blanche or a free-for-all to the media to say what it likes about public figures. However, that is not the case. The section contains safeguards in this regard. One could even make the argument that some of the safeguards are overly restrictive. For example, an over-arching safeguard is that the court must take into account the extent to which the statement concerned refers to the performance by the person of his or her public functions. It does not relate to any statement made willy nilly about a public figure. Rather it refers to statements about him or her in the context of the performance by him or her of their public duties. The notion that this is a free-for-all is wrong. It is wrong of Senators or anybody else to give the impression that is what is being proposed.

Subsection (2)(f) refers to the Press Council and the requirement for the court to consider the extent to which its code or a standard equivalent to it were adhered to by the media concerned. That is vital. Relevant to this debate is the support which we provide to the Press Council and press ombudsman.

I also share Senator Harris's scepticism about the notion of a privacy Bill; I have real doubts about it. I know the Minister's position on it. He has said fairly he will give the Press Council an opportunity to consider where it will go and what it will achieve, which I appreciate. I, no more than the Minister, do not want to pre-empt what might happen in that regard. I have an innate scepticism about these proposals that appear increasingly to be made that people consider it necessary to restrict the media in the way that has been suggested. I am not saying we should have a free-for-all position, as many restrictions are already in place, as is right and proper.

This is a substantial Bill. It is not a charter for the media to do or say what they want. It has nuanced some of the existing law and introduced some new progressive changes. I regard the introduction of a provision for fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest as a progressive change, which I support.

Following what Senator Mullen said and my good friend, Senator Norris, teased me a little on the debate on Committee Stage——