Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Jun 2000

Vol. 520 No. 3

Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - Libel Laws.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

12 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he had discussions with the National Newspapers of Ireland in relation to changes in the libel laws; if he will outline the detailed proposals presented to him in this regard and the detailed commitments given by him in response; and the extent to which such discussions and proposals related to the Finlay commission recommendations on the appointment of an independent press ombudsman to be funded by the press. [15071/00]

Mr. O'Donoghue

Early last month I took part in a very comprehensive debate in the Seanad on various aspects of defamation law. At that time, I indicated that I was very aware of the immediate concerns the newspaper industry has in relation to this area of the law. I also made reference to past meetings with both the National Newspapers of Ireland and the Regional Newspapers Association of Ireland. Those meetings took place shortly after I became Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

As might be expected, I have received representations from the industry subsequent to that meeting and the NNI and the RNAI, as was reflected during my meetings with them, are broadly supportive of the recommendations for change in relation to the civil law of defamation, which are contained in the Law Reform Commission's report and which, to a large extent, are echoed in the Report of the Commission on the Newspaper Industry. To that extent, there is common ground between us.

With regard to the specific recommendation of the Commission on the Newspaper Industry on the need for an independent press ombudsman, that recommendation was for the appointment by the industry at large of a person to act as an ombudsman who would have complete independence in the performance of his or her functions and who would be funded by the industry. Essentially, it is a matter for the newspaper industry itself and can be advanced outside the ambit of any proposed defamation legislation. I am aware that a link has sometimes been established between the industry's willingness to move on this matter and progress with changes in defamation law. However, I believe this linkage is overstated and I see no reason the industry, in order to engender confidence in the community at large in the integrity of our press system, could not advance the matter themselves at this time.

As indicated by the Chief Whip at the beginning of this session, the Government's legislative programme contains a commitment to bring forward a Bill to reform the law on defamation. The heads of proposals for that Bill continue to be developed in my Department and the full details, when approved by the Government, will be announced in due course.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): Does the Minister accept we have dragged our feet for too long on this issue? Does he accept also that many of the scandals which have rocked the commercial and political systems to the foundations would never have come to light were it not for the penetrating and investigative journalism of a number of newspapers and the national television broadcasting service? What timeframe is envisaged? Will he accept that newspapers are considerably constrained in what they can and cannot do? It is ridiculous when something is said without malicious intent and an apology is afforded within a reasonable period, that the apology is not suf ficient from the point to defuse a situation which could lead to defamation proceedings?

Mr. O'Donoghue

A considerable proportion of the Government's legislative programme, 40%, emanates from my Department. Having regard to the evolving nature of priorities some matters will inevitably progress at a faster rate than others. There is also the fact that recommendations for change in this area require careful study so that their impact on the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the right to one's good name can be assessed fully.

In mentioning the tribunals and revelations there, one is straying on to other territory. It is clear the success of the tribunals in unearthing issues is due to the legislation brought forward to set up the tribunals. It is difficult to see how the evidence would have come to light without powers of discovery or the power to compel witnesses to attend. That is not to say I do not acknowledge the role of the media in this respect. I do and I have always had great respect for the fourth estate, although some members of the fourth estate might not reciprocate.