Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

The review is to happen "not later than" five years, so it could take place after five months. This is an area of law that evolves on a daily basis. One of the reasons for the delay in passing this legislation since its publication is that things have changed not just on this island but also across the water. Many judgments handed down in the UK have implications for our law. I hazard a guess that we will be coming to review this legislation sooner than the time limit of five years. A Fine Gael amendment specified that the review be completed in three months but we felt that was too short a period because of the requirement for consultation, thus, it is up to one year.

The issue of defamation of a deceased person has been subject to much examination by me, my officials and others. We have considered whether such provisions exist in other jurisdictions that have similar defamation laws to ours and we have not come across anything that would help us in that regard. Section 39 allows for the survival of causes of action on death, but that obviously does not take care of the situation raised by Senators Norris and Walsh. As I said in the Dáil, this is a subject that needs to be revisited.

Senators may recall that my immediate predecessor suggested that the Privacy Bill 2006, which is on the Order Paper in this House, be left aside for a period to allow the Press Council to become established. At the launch of the annual report of the Press Council and the Office of the Press Ombudsman I indicated that I would progress that issue and spoke of the necessity of a period of consultation with the wider public. There was consultation with the various interests on the Privacy Bill but I am always suspicious of such consultation; there should also be consultation with the wider community, particularly in an area such as this in which the wider public are not really interested until they or people in their families are affected. To a certain extent there is a silent majority who would have a view, I have no doubt, if they were put in particular circumstances, as happened to the family in Clontarf mentioned by Senator Norris. They feel helpless and that there is nowhere for them to go. In that context we will commence the wider consultation process on the issue of privacy and then return to the Bill.

I raised the issue of defaming deceased people with the chairperson of the Press Council and the Office of the Press Ombudsman. In the code of practice of the Press Council, principles Nos. 4 and 5 are of particular relevance. Principle No. 4 sets out the standards to be met in respect of the right to protect one's good name, while Principle No. 5 sets out the standards for respecting the privacy of individuals. Paragraph 5.3 sets out the standards to be adhered to with regard to situations of grief or shock and the respect to be afforded to grieving families. My information is that the press ombudsman and Press Council are taking a proactive stance to ensure the print media adhere to those standards. That will give some comfort to families such as those mentioned by Senators Walsh and Norris. It is an issue we can return to, particularly in the context of a review.