As I spoke on the motion last week and as it is 6.20 p.m. I am happy to waive my right to speak.
Laws of Libel and Defamation: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Senator Manning on Wednesday, 10 May 2000:
That Seanad Éireann calls upon the Government to indicate what changes, if any, it proposes to make to the laws of libel and defamation and to outline its policy and proposals on the question of ownership and control of the media.
I welcome the Minister. Last week I listened with great interest to the debate on the relaxation of the libel laws. At times the debate is quite confusing. One can see right on both sides of the argument.
I grew up in an era in which one's good name was sacrosanct. Indeed, one was meant to defend it, even with one's life or at least at the risk of getting a black eye in a scuffle with the school bully in the school yard. At the time there was another prevailing philosophy which one might call a theology, that one never spoke ill of the dead. I was thinking of that irony here on morning on the Order of Business when the Cathaoirleach allowed me to speak on a topical matter and I found myself defending such diverse characters as Archbishop John Charles McQuaid and General Eoin O'Duffy. I felt both had been maligned in articles and obviously were not in a position to defend themselves.
On the other hand we all grew up in an era when we respected and realised the need for a free or unmuzzled press. To an extent it came to me again strongly this morning in a story from Bosnia, where the local police raided the television station simply because it had been adopting a line which did not suit the establishment. The official version of the story was that they were suggesting an uprising against the establishment. However, we have seen such action in so many dictatorships throughout the world – whenever it was endeavouring to arrive at the truth the media was always sidelined or, worse still, put out of action. At such times we were particularly pleased that we had a free media of our own because we could well understand the frustration of not being allowed to put across a legitimate idea. Nobody should feel threatened by legitimate ideas and it is important that ideas would be published, debated and that people would be given the opportunity to put forward a point of view. We have always held that view in Ireland.
On the other hand, it would not be an exaggeration to state that there have been severe abuses of that same freedom and there is not always an opportunity to put forward a reaction to those abuses. For instance, I am always disappointed by certain Sunday newspapers where five columnists may write on the same subject and sing from the same hymn sheet on the same page. That is disappointing because the least one expects is that a counter argument might be made and there is an opportunity to inform, educate and, if necessary, provoke the public. I see nothing wrong with that, given that we have such a high level of education and that there are so many discerning commentators among the public and in public life. These people are well able to take that provocation. However, I do not think it helps the good name of journalism or that it is ethical that this should happen. We must consider the whole area of ethics in journalism if we are to defend the notion of a free press.
This was brought home to me recently when a particular member of a religious order was demonised and, having subsequently been found not guilty in the courts, this fact was set aside. There was not the same balance of coverage for the exoneration of this person as there should have been and I believe if there had been, it would have done more credit to the media.
One of the great difficulties at present is the perception abroad that the whole area of journalism is being driven in the context of profit. Perhaps this is one of the side effects of competition. For instance, the more newspapers, television stations or radio stations there are, the more competition grows and, because it grows, it seems to be important to introduce sensationalism on a daily basis. I am sure many Members of this House who travel by bus or train have picked up a newspaper and found that the content under the headline bore little or no relationship to the headline. This is sensationalism for the sake of sensationalism and for the sake of selling a product. I am sure that if any other product was being sold on the same basis, such as genetically modified foods or another product where one must protect against false claims, there would be an outcry if such an extreme scenario prevailed. This is far more important in the area of journalism because of the power of journalists and the media.
We have imported from abroad some of the worst tabloid excesses in this regard. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the local press and media create a balance which very often restores our faith in that fine profession of journalism. This is also true of local radio. As the local media is so close to the local community, it quickly realises that whatever about titivating one's desire for sensationalism, people still want very solid news, very solid reporting and very solid provocation for public opinion. That has been my experience with the local media. As I said, this in many ways restores our faith in the media.
It is also true that there is a great effort on the part of some people in the national media to uphold those high standards. However, what I find missing is a willingness to criticise their own. There are maverick journalists, who are certainly in the minority, but I do not find many sections of the media prepared to criticise their own when they step out of line. If this is not done, it will indicate perhaps in the context of this debate that the media are not prepared for self-regulation. They must prove to many people that they are prepared for self-regulation.
I recall one case in the last 12 months which some might refer to as a mellowing concept on the part of a journalist. I very much admire this journalist for what he has done and he could in no sense be regarded as wimpish in the area of journalism. He has adopted a very independent role. He is no longer one of a herd and is prepared to look at the other side of the story. In one or two cases I found reference to him creeping into other sections of the media. Here was someone who was endeavouring to set the record straight and display a fair mindedness and some journalists were prepared to criticise him for leaving the herd in that particular case. This attitude did not last for long but they did rise above the parapet in that case.
There is also the question of the national interest which is very important, no more so than in relation to Northern Ireland. There are times in very sensitive situations when the necessary elements come together for a solution, when people are prepared to work and compromise in reconciliation. However, very often the challenge in a negative and almost destructive manner tends to come first of all from the media. I would like to know where the responsibility lies in relation to this. Is there the question of the greater good or the common good or is there the question of the national interest? I look back to a former Government Minister who sat at the Cabinet table and would have had access to State secrets. When he was no longer a public representative, he took up a position as journalist with an English newspaper. This was at a very volatile time in the North of Ireland. It was at a time when the situation could develop one way or another. Every time our Government endeavoured to pursue a particular line of action based on democracy, the common good and reconciliation, this person who had sat at the Cabinet table used a particular journal outside the shores of Ireland to undermine each step that was taken. Can that in any circumstances be justified? I am inclined to say it cannot be justified in such a case and that where the national interest is involved journalists must show common sense.
On the other hand, if we did not have a free press and free media, I believe many wrongs would have been perpetrated against people who were vulnerable. The media were needed in those situations. I would again like to balance my comments by saluting the contributions made by the media at that time. However, I hope the ethics of journalism will come to centre stage and that the influence and power the media have will be balanced with a degree of fair play and common sense.
I do not accept the argument that one of the reasons the libel laws should be relaxed is because of what we are now hearing from the tribunals. I do not accept this because it would make bad law. Let the media make the case for the relaxation of the libel laws not for any specific period or any specific incident, but with a broader vision of what the media should be doing.
I hope this debate will not conclude at this time because it needs to be ongoing. It is an evolving matter and there is a huge element of responsibility on us all. We should not rush our fences, but we should listen to both sides of the argument. I hope the media will continue to convince us that they will act responsibly at all times and endeavour to regulate their own area.
This debate is very important and the subject matter should have been aired long before now. Its timing is particularly appropriate given the publicity there has been in relation to the tribunals and investigations taking place. It must be acknowledged that particular journalists have done the country a great service in certain areas of investigative journalism. Through their investigative journalism, they have prompted further investigations via the establishment by the Houses of the Oireachtas of various tribunals.
The public has a right to know what is going in the public service generally and in the Houses of the Oireachtas. They have a right to know how politicians conduct their business. It is important that there is openness, transparency and accountability at all levels and at all times. However, we all have a right to privacy, whether we are politicians, private citizens, professionals or school children. Whoever we are, we have basic constitutional rights and it is important that those rights are valued, protected and defended. They can be defended and protected within the law of the land and it is vital that the law does so.
In debating these issues it is important to preserve a sense of balance. All laws should strive towards balance. In the case of reform of the libel laws we need balance and fair play. Nobody should be put at a serious disadvantage.
I disagree with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission that the defendant in a defamation case should have to prove that he or she has nothing to disprove. That is wrong. It would mean that any of us could at any time be put on the rack and it would be up to us to prove our innocence. If libel is committed against an individual, the onus is on him or her to prove their innocence. Immediately and automatically they are at a huge disadvantage. I fundamentally disagree with that principle. There is a need for balance.
In the discussions that take place on this, it must be appreciated that there is a certain element of concern and fear among the public and among public representatives in particular. There are outstanding journalists, highly professional, ethical people who operate to very high standards. They are honourable, decent people who do a very professional job, convey the essential element of whatever public debate is taking place and who are very mindful of the protection of the rights of individuals. That is what must be striven towards at all time.
In relation to libel cases there are particular difficulties. Among the public at large, politicians and in the media, there is good and bad on all sides. It is not a case of "them" and "us", rather it is important that the overall general good is protected. At present there are difficulties in how cases are conducted in the courts, in relation to how long it takes to process them, how long after libel is alleged that a case gets to court and how it is dealt with. There is a need to speed up the litigation process considerably. Some cases have taken four to five years from the time of the allegation to get to court. I refer specifically to the print media and in that context we are talking about the libel laws and the grounds for taking an action.
With regard to compensation resulting from such cases, currently a judge is not in a position to give guidelines to juries as to the amount of financial compensation they can award. I am not sure that is wise. It is important to have a yardstick relating to the damage that is done to a person in a defamation case. In the past juries adjudicated on insurance cases. Legislation was passed to enable such cases to proceed without a jury, but there has been no great change in the amount of awards. In relation to all such matters there is a need to have criteria laid down. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law reform should issue judges with guidelines relating to acceptable levels of compensation for various categories of injury.
In relation to defamation, defendants cannot make a lodgment in court without admission of liability. This is a bit far fetched in the year 2000. There is a need to have issue of admission of liability substantially reviewed. I hope that in the course of the debate somebody can come up with a proposal in that regard.
There are huge fears with regard to the media industry. As public representatives we are looking over our shoulders all the time. Every meeting to which a public representative goes at this stage, whether it takes place in a local authority, in the House, at a committee or elsewhere, there is openness, transparency and accountability. However, people are also now so careful and cautious that it is nearly obscene. They fear being open and saying what they feel like saying, within reason. They feel inhibited and that is not necessarily good for openness of debate or freedom of speech. It is a matter on which we need to be vigilant.
It comes down to the fear of being misinterpreted as a public representative. Some politicians are extremely articulate and can precisely put their points in the most effective way. Others get it wrong and convey a message other than what was intended and that can be misrepresented. That must be appreciated. The media need to appreciate that from the point of view of a public representative such fears exist.
Equally, one can also appreciate that journalists need to get a story. A newspaper is a commercial business. It is a competitive business and those involved have to get headlines, sell newspapers and keep a commercial operation viable. We are lucky to have a number of very good national Irish-based newspapers which are commercially viable, and long may that last. It is important, in the interest of Irish society and of our culture and ethos that the publications of Independent Newspapers, The Irish Times and The Irish Examiner maintain their hold of the Irish market and continue to report on matters of national and international interest. Imported newspapers, particularly tabloid newspapers, which report stories with little substance but a high level of sensationalism, do not serve the interests of the Irish people. I hope Irish newspapers go from strength to strength. It may be necessary to establish a regulator to maintain standards in the press. The press council applies standards to its members but difficulties arise when journalists operate outside the national remit of the press council.
The journalist, Sam Smyth, suggested recently that if a person in public life can prove that he or she was libelled with recklessness and malice, he or she should be entitled to compensation. If someone is libelled it should not be necessary to prove that the person who committed the libel did so recklessly or maliciously. This puts an unacceptable onus on people in public life and the idea should not be entertained.
Our overall concern is for fair play and a balance of rights. It is important that we maintain standards. I appreciate the fact that the media have pushed back frontiers, particularly on social matters, and have helped to bring the country into the 21st century. However, when this interferes with the constitutional rights of the individual, frontiers are being pushed too far.
It is good that we are having this debate and I hope it will lead to a reform of the libel laws.
It appears that journalists are the only people in the country who are above reproach in matters of morality and integrity. They resemble pharisees while public representatives are cast as publicans.
A short time ago an RTÉ journalist, in his contribution to "Thought for the Day", expressed the opinion that there were some bad teachers. He was sacked immediately. RTÉ apologised to the teachers' unions and, although a brilliant man, he was never allowed to work on RTÉ again. I loved to hear him on that programme but now "Thought for the Day" is neither one thing nor another. Where was that man's freedom and how was it recognised by his colleagues?
Douglas Gageby once said that the duty of a good press man was to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. I do not agree. A good journalist should be fair and balanced but many are not. I have sympathy with today's journalists because many of them are freelance or are employed on short-term contracts. Unless they produce scoops they do not make any money. How often do we read a headline which bears very little relationship to the article below it?
It is right that scandals are exposed. We must all be above reproach. I have been in politics for almost 37 years and I am confident that no skeleton will be found in my cupboard. When we examine scandalous behaviour we must ask ourselves what is the end product of that behaviour. The end product of the planning scandal which is reported every day in our newspapers is that thousands of people in this city have affordable homes and jobs. Of course, the system by which this was achieved was not correct. The end product of the Blood Transfusion Service Board scandal is death and destruction but which scandal gets bigger headlines? Senior people in the Blood Transfusion Service Board retired with large cheques and golden handshakes. Why do the media not report this more fully? On "Questions and Answers" last Monday evening half an hour was spent discussing the political scandal but less than five minutes on the BTSB scandal. Is this balanced, fair or just reporting? I ask people in the media to examine their consciences and see if they are being fair. Politicians go before the public every three and a half years, on average. How many journalists go before the public?
Those who work in the media are interested in stories as products. They campaigned to have the proceedings of the Dáil and Seanad televised, but only the titbits which journalists consider to be interesting are broadcast. Excellent debates on subjects such as child care are completely ignored by the media because they do not sell papers. The business of journalists is to sell a product to make money for themselves and a profit for newspaper proprietors. Local newspapers provide a community service. They are mostly privately owned and run like any family business. They give fair coverage and have a feel for what is happening in their areas.
Not long ago an RTÉ employee was found to have taken money but it was not suggested that everyone in RTÉ was dishonest. However, a very eminent reporter claimed on "Today Tonight" a few evenings ago that everyone knows that money was being paid to every politician in the country. What happened in one area of Dublin was not happening in rural Ireland. The councillors and politicians of rural Ireland are decent people. I have seen many millionaires around the country try to become Members of this House. If they could buy votes money would not stop them and if I had to compete against them I would not be here. I went around in my small car, stayed in bed and breakfasts and got elected. I speak on behalf of the county councillors who are decent, respectable people. They can hold their heads high.
It is scandalous that people in the media, who talk of balance, put us all into one category. There are also journalists who are not right. The same thing happened with the clergy. A handful of priests did wrong but the media branded all the clergy as being wrong. There was no mention of the good work done by priests and nuns who sacrificed their time and their lives to give people an education and to help them. Where was the balance in that? Why did the media not talk about the good that was done? It was far greater than the evil, yet the bad acts were highlighted.
I always return to the gospel. Our Lord had only to pick 12 people. He picked one bad one who sold him down the river and took the 30 pieces of silver. There are bad people in every section of the community. Human nature has not changed. A small number of people are keeping the law courts busy. If everyone was like the people attending this debate there would be no need for lawyers, gardaí, social welfare workers or the courts. Many people would be out of work. A small number of people who are not living within the law are making many people rich.
Some years ago I called in this House for the establishment of a press council. The media were not anxious about having one. On that occasion only Senator Manning, Senator Cassidy and I spoke on the issue. Nobody else wanted to talk about it. There should be a press council. Who watches the press? Nobody. People in the media will write something in the newspaper under a large headline which perhaps three months later will be retracted by an apology printed in a small corner. Where is the balance in that? Why is the apology not given in headlines of the same size? There is a balance in the media, but it is not fairly represented in the national newspapers or the tabloids. The tabloids contain as much good reading as the broadsheets.
The establishment of an ombudsman for the media has been suggested, but that would be a very bad job. It is important to remember the old saying, he who pays the piper calls the tune. If the media were to pay for an ombudsman we could not expect much fair play. We need an independent press council with teeth, not an ombudsman. Journalists could be represented on it.
With all the lawyers they employ, people in the media can write articles and fail to mention the name of the person involved, yet everybody knows who is being written about. The planning scandal contains nothing but allegations. Nobody has been accused of anything, yet the media are prepared to accuse many people of a lot of things.
Do the media pay for stories? Journalists say they do not, but do they get their stories by way of expenses? Some reports indicate that the writer is in receipt of Garda files. Often a photocopy of the file will be published. How are such files obtained? Are they paid for? Every person has their price. I often wonder how journalists get confidential information, such as Garda files.
The media are running the law courts, the politicians and the country. Journalists often telephone people with questions but they are unhappy if the answer is not what they want. A journalist contacted me recently in connection with a speech I made in this House on alcohol abuse. However, he did not want my views on that; he wanted me to say something on another matter mentioned in the debate. I refused and told him I wanted to talk about alcohol abuse. Did he publish that? Did I get a headline? No blessed way. It was not news for him, but if I was daft enough to comment on the matter he wanted me to I would have been in the news.
The Garda have the power to question people but they must have a reasonable case. It is time we had a privacy law. We need privacy. Journalists have a cheek to telephone somebody at home on a Saturday or Sunday morning to ask questions. People telephoned me recently on a couple of matters but I told them what to do and I did not use parliamentary language. They have a cheek. Who do they think they are? Do they think they are lawyers? They seem to think they have more power than the Garda Commissioner.
I question the sincerity of people in the media. I know they must write to earn a living, but they are not being as fair and honest as they purport to be. Many solicitors and people in other professions have broken the law in a big way, yet we do not see solicitors being accused carte blanche of being dishonest. However, because a few politicians are only alleged to have taken money, we all stand accused by the media who say we are all at it. I want the media to be fair.
I have been in public life for 36 years. The following are lines from the poem The Village Blacksmith:
His hair was black and shiny,
His face a golden tan,
His brow was wet with honest sweat,
He earned what ere he can
And looked the whole world in the face
For he owed not any man.
Thank God I can look them all in the face after 36 years. I am not one of those accused. The great majority of the county councillors and Deputies are decent, honest, respectable people. It is scandalous of the media to try to paint us all with the one brush when as yet it is all allegation. There is not one criminal before them.
The media have taken to calling people by nicknames. A poor fellow got into trouble with the law and he was called by a nickname. Regardless of whether they are criminals, people have been christened and given a name. The media have even taken the liberty of calling Ministers by nicknames. That is scandalous.
If a Deputy or Senator has done something wrong in public life let him be confronted here. Why should his house, wife and family be photographed? The family is not involved. Human beings are involved here. The behaviour of some cameramen who use telephoto lenses on cameras to try to photograph innocent people is scandalous. There should be more rights to privacy because we need privacy for our families and our homes.
I would seldom speak on an issue such as this because I would find that I had something else to do. However, at this point the problems have become so manifest that people must speak out. Now is the time to ask how we got so far before we met these people. That worries me more than what these people are saying. Senator Farrell has just made the point about requesting apologies. There is not an edition of the six o'clock news during which one would not see the High Court in the first four minutes. In times past one would never see the courts on the news but one sees the courts in the news every night, whether in cases of murder or an apology. It is in court that one must seek an apology, which is a sad reflection on the broadcast and print media.
I find it disturbing that people are printing articles just to make money on the basis that if they do not print, they do not make money. I am only about 23 years in public life but up to ten or 15 years ago the journalists were a different calibre of person. Why is that? I always understood that if one was going to be a journalist one studied in the college in Dún Laoghaire and people studied very hard. In the past one always stood up for them because they were trained journalists. Nowadays anybody can write for a newspaper just to make money. I find that upsetting, particularly with regard to the regional rather than the national papers.
Although I did not agree with it in the past, a press council is needed. It would be in the interests of the genuine journalists and everybody else, in making sure more money does not have to be paid to people and in facilitating apologies. Although I do not know anything about press councils or commissions, it seems that since the press council came into being in Britain the system works much better there than here.
I do not want to criticise journalists for the sake of it because I might criticise them for doing just that. Only a few weeks ago in Cork city, there was a discussion about a sale of land in the city. A member of the council made negative allegations in the Irish Examiner against politicians and ex-politicians in the council and other councils. By the next evening, at city council level, the councillor was prepared to say that he was misquoted and had not said what was reported. As Senator Farrell has said, there was no attempt by the relevant paper to give an impression that what they printed was wrong. I cannot say whether the councillor made the remarks or not, but he said publicly in the council that he was misquoted and that he did not make them. In other words, there was an apology to the council.
Some days afterwards, a column by a journalist in the paper was printed, making the point which the councillor had made, that there was a question mark over the sale of the land to this particular developer or developers. I readily admit that the argument made by the journalist was fair and I am not saying he should not have made it, but if there was any question mark over the sale of the land to the particular developers and if the councillor was making the point on the night, why were there no objections by the councillor when the sale of the land was being made? The press did not bring that matter to the fore or question it.
That is where I want to see the line being drawn – I like to see both sides of an argument being put fairly. I know this journalist very well and he is a good friend of mine. I telephoned him and said that I did not understand what he was doing and I asked him why he did not put this question. He said it was only relevant during that week. It is very sad to see that in public life people are prepared to print something just for the sake of it. If people are going to do that, they lose their standards. I had rated him very highly but my opinion of him fell.
I asked him why he did not question why there were not objections to the sale at the time but that three years later there are objections because a person involved is under question with regard to other matters. I carry no flag for that person or any other. I carry the flag as a city councillor for Cork city and as a Senator of the State. I carry the flag for Cork city and I make no apologies for that. I felt the development was badly needed, irrespective of who bought it and we received a great price. I suppose if we had held it back until today, we might have received more for it. I would not mind holding it back if the city would make more money. I do not care who does it as long as it is done. That is all that worries me.
The Irish Examiner was giving the impression that everybody bar one person was wrong, and it was right. That is why I asked at the outset how we got so far before we met them. At that rate, we would do nothing – I would not get out of bed in the morning if I thought that was the situation. They are right and we are all wrong. How did the city develop so well or so far before these people came in and started making the point that they think it should be done a certain way? Why are they not asking what happened in Dublin, which is another matter?
I do not want to make points against Dublin, but why is the press not asking how all this came about or how was it created? Why was there was so much corruption created by so few and the opportunity given to them – if indeed there was corruption because there is still a question mark over this at the tribunals? Obviously, some people are still being questioned. Why was consideration not given by everybody at council, city, county and administrative level to ensure there was a proper development plan that did not create corruption? One creates corruption by giving people the opportunity. That is a sad reflection on us.
There is no way it could be done in Cork city because in 1969 we had a development plan. We added to it in 1974 and again in 1979 and nobody had any say after that. There was the development plan and we had to work on that. Our tunnel was under consideration in 1972 and it opened in 1999. That is how far ahead we had to plan for development. The Minister knows that is the way we worked. However, that did not happen in Dublin.
Cork copied it from County Kerry.
We probably did and that is why Dingle is doing so well.
Why did we not see this coming and being highlighted by journalists? Why are they not asking how it was created? They should be asking who was wrong, seeking to find out who was not broadminded enough. That is the question I would ask.
There is a sad state of affairs in County Dublin, not in Dublin city thankfully. The way County Dublin has been planned is something else. Monday after Monday it was expanded by rezoning field after field instead of having a long-term development plan and had there re-zoning to be done it could be done over a five year period. That is what happened in Dublin. Everybody, unfortunately, was lobbied to do various things.
I make no excuses for anybody but a newspaper gave an impression that there was a question mark over Cork city planning when I know there was not. If there is any question of any of the 31 members of that council taking any money, I would walk on his or her corpse. I would find it very disturbing. I can happily say it did not happen but that was not the impression given by the Irish Examiner. I resented this as a real Cork man and could not understand why the newspaper did not state on the Tuesday that it was wrong when the relevant member said that he had been misquoted. It should have had the guts to do so. That is what I call calibre.
An issue may be raised on a local radio station and the impression is given that what is being said is correct. No matter what one does one cannot make contact with the radio station on the two or three telephone lines available. How did we get so far before we met the persons concerned? It worries me that they always seem to have the opportunity to express their point of view.
There are some excellent and classy journalists in the country whom I give great credit. I read Stephen Collins's column every Sunday. I probably have spoken to him only once but he is very fair and down the middle. I would read his column one thousand times over. I read the columns of one or two others in the Irish Examiner of whom I am very proud because they write about issues in general terms, the way I like them to be discussed – in other words, in terms of what is best for the country.
The question is never asked, "How was the Dublin issue created?" The people of Dublin do not deserve this. Neither do genuine politicians. I know of city councillors in Cork who are so committed they would die for the place. I know of councillors who are never in a hurry to get home on a Monday night. They would do the same on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights. I am not looking for glory but I would do the same myself. The same is true of councillors in Kerry, Clare and elsewhere. Opportunities should not be created to make money. One should do what is best for one's area.
Dublin is in a mess. I cannot believe the way it is going. Over a period of seven to ten years it has reached the stage where there is no movement. This is not fair to those living in the capital. One of the persons involved in a particular shopping centre is a Cork man. I am aware of his affiliations and understand the way he thinks. I carry no flag but if the person in question had not built three developments in Cork they would never have been built. I make no apology for saying this but if there is a question mark it is only right and proper that he should be questioned and the media generally should be saying this. I heard a funny joke on an American public television programme last week: "How would you know an Irish person with Alzheimer's? They never forget a grudge." It is sad but that is how they think of us.
The only place where one will get an apology from journalists is in the courts. There is therefore a need for a press council. I have never spoken about journalists in this way before; I just want them to get on with the job they have to do. We have reached the stage where every little person writing for a newspaper does not know what the particular city or region is about. There are people writing in the Irish Examiner who would not be able to spell the word “Cork”, who do not know what the people living there are saying and talking about. The rest of us do and they are insulting us by giving the wrong impression.
I thank all the Senators who took part in the debate. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform gave us a full statement last night not just on the issues of censorship and defamation but also on the question of ownership of the media and the Government's intentions.
Although it has not come to any great conclusions, it has been a useful debate. We start from the position that there should never be a close or cosy relationship between the media and those in politics. There must always be tension between us. We see the world in different ways. Mr. Eamon Dunphy once described some of the Irish soccer writers as fans with typewriters. If political journalists were to become fans with typewriters we would be in a bad state. We have to expect therefore a certain stringency, distance and suspicion on the part of the media in all that we do.
As politicians, we can be very quick to rush to judgment and doubt the motives of journalists who disagree with us. We are very quick to categorise them. If this debate can do something to let each side see the genuine problems of the other and the dimensions within which each works it will have been useful. I have a number of specific proposals to make in this regard.
There is a big difference between this debate over the last two weeks and a similar debate on the media about five or six years ago on the same issues. At that stage the media represented with a degree of accuracy that the laws of libel and defamation represented an enormous economic drain on newspapers in particular. That case is no longer made. The newspapers and the media generally are among the main beneficiaries of the economic boom. While the libel laws are an irritation and constraint, they do not represent the same degree of threat. It has been said that certain newspapers were prepared to pay out £1 million or £2 million per year in libel costs because the stories which generated the libel payments boosted circulation. While that is a charge that has often been made, it is good that we are not discussing the issue in the context of an immediate economic threat to the media.
It is important to state that we are discussing this issue in the context of an unprecedented amount of scandal, admittedly in a very limited area of Irish public life, a matter about which Senator Cregan spoke at some length. Whatever the scandal, it is in one specific area. Every other council has a clean bill of health. The scandal has left most figures in national life with their characters unassailed. It would be wrong, therefore, to change the laws of libel and defamation as an immediate response to a crisis. It would be better to change them because they deserve to be changed or not at all.
As an earnest of good faith I ask the Minister responsible to consider introducing an interim Bill on the reform of the laws of libel and defamation. I think it was Senator Quinn who made the point last week that the Bill promised by the Government is unlikely to see the light of the day in its lifetime. It is No. 65, out of 66, on the C list announced by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach at the beginning of this session.
There is agreement that there are a number of specific changes that could be made, the first of which is a change to the apology laws. If a newspaper makes a mistake and issues an apology this is regarded as an admission of guilt and they cannot do it. I will be very specific here. If a mistake is made about me on the front page in large headlines then the apology should be equally prominent and large. However, if an apology is given in good faith, and very speedily given, where a genuine mistake is made then that should be sufficient. Any fair minded person would regard that as something that can happen, especially at the speed with which the media operate. I would see no difficulty with having that written into law.
The media request for judges to give a guideline on the financial cost or damages to be awarded is not unreasonable. It is not a guarantee that the awards will come down. In the insurance industry when juries were abolished the judges made higher awards in very many cases. However, if the media would feel happier with judges giving a more informed estimate of the actual damage done to a plaintiff, then I would have no great difficulty with that. I would also have no great difficulty with the lodgment of sums of money in court. These are three immediate reforms. I believe the Minister, having listened to his speech, would have no difficulty with them either. As an earnest expression of his intent that would be well worth doing.
The media promised to establish a press council or ombudsman but they have not done it yet. They say they will not do it because the libel laws have not been reformed. A press council or ombudsman should be established because it is the right thing to do. Last week I used the phrase "a confidence boosting measure" to describe it. The public would be assured that if they have legitimate complaints against the media they will be examined inexpensively, speedily and by an impartial person paid for by the media. That would go a long way towards rooting out many of the complaints that are left unresolved because the person making the complaint cannot afford to go to court or being resolved very expensively in court. I urge the media industry to establish an ombudsman fairly quickly.
One of the most disappointing parts of the debate has been the reaction of many media people outside the House. They can clearly see the changes they want and make a strong case for them but they do not seem to understand the genuine fears very many people have about giving more power to the media. Those who speak out, as I did last week, will be accused of trying to defend a vested interest, of trying to stop the frontiers being shoved back or of not wanting to see greater freedom of the media for some defensive reason. That is not the case. As Senator Maurice Hayes said in a very eloquent contribution last week, we are talking about a balance of rights – the right of the individual to privacy, the right of families not to be intruded upon and the right of people to their good name. All these are rights that were hard won and fought for. They need to be protected as well. If we allowed almost unlimited intrusion or if we depended on the media to restrain themselves, the evidence to date would not give us much confidence that this would happen. Media people seem to find it hard to grasp the fact that there is a balance of rights here. They will argue that they will be responsible and will show restraint.
Our media are not homogeneous. There are all sorts of different newspapers, agendas and standards. Newspapers fight circulation battles by appealing to the lowest common denominator, intruding into privacy and grief and writing stories which can do enormous harm and where there is no justifiable news value involved. These things happen on a daily basis and ordinary people resent this aspect of the media. They are suspicious of change. It is not just the politicians who are suspicious or resent change and who want to see the media restrained. If the media cannot restrain themselves then someone else must do it. The laws of the State and constitutional protection are factors that must also be taken into account. That is the eternal problem.
For a joke a colleague of mine in the other House, who has raised media issues for quite some time, asked a senior journalist in this House last week why he does not pay some attention to the side of the story which calls for the continuation of certain controls and the establishment of an ombudsman. He was told, "You do not pay my salary." In other words, this is the agenda of the media. If members of the media were to apply that standard to other aspects of public debate then only one side of the story would be reported. I regret that only one side of this story is being reported at present. Those people who support reform of the libel laws will get coverage for their views. The only parts of my speech last week and that of Senator Maurice Hayes that were covered were those that called for change. There was nothing about the part of my speech which said why we should be reluctant or suspicious of change.
If the media are serious about moving this debate on then they should recognise the legitimate fears many ordinary people have about some of the proposed changes. They should also accept that this is an area where a little humility would not go astray. Journalists have said that they will wage war on politicians until they get what they want. They have threatened to do various things until they swing public opinion behind them. I do not believe that they will swing public opinion. We are a conservative and fair minded people and we do not like seeing anyone being done in by the media. People often turn against that type of treatment.
At the beginning and end of this debate we talked about the balance of rights, fairness and the right to know and to publish as against the constitutional rights of the individual to privacy and to their good name. I am glad that this debate has started. I appeal to my friends in the media to at least open their eyes to the other side of the story.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.