THE Government will come under pressure to reform libel law when Mr Michael McDowell reintroduces his Defamation Bill next week.
The Bill, introduced in February last year, had to be reintroduced because of the Government's failure to bring forward legislation, the Progressive Democrats TD said.
It was debated last year, but before the committee stage the Government asked that it be shelved for six months since it had legislation proposals. But despite recommendations from the Law Reform Commission, no proposals have been forthcoming.
Mr McDowell's Bill would protect journalists who refuse to identify sources of confidential information when proof that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security cannot be established.
Mr McDowell said that while he was a liberal as far as newspaper content was concerned, he noted the print media's reluctance to apologise for inaccuracies. A press council or ombudsman was needed to ensure that public grievances were addressed.
But some people were pleased to be libelled, including members of the Dail, one of whom had collected £500,000 in a year, he said.
He warned, however, against campaigning against juries in libel cases. There was no reason to believe judges would differ from juries.
Unless his Bill was considered there would be no movement on defamation within this Dail's lifetime. Without a strong campaign, nothing would happen, he warned.
The Committee on Security and Legislation was hearing a deputation from provincial newspaper editors and managers. The editors" of the Westmeath Examiner, Mr Nicholas Nally, said provincial newspapers could not play and effective role if they were hampered by outdated legislation, such as exists in libel law. It cost local newspapers £50,000 to £70,000 a year to service libel claims.
That was not something the average industry had to face and arose mainly because of defective legislation "which the Law's Reform Commission six years ago" said no longer served the needs of, the citizen or newspaper within the constitutional rights".
"More and more we are encountering situations whereby a growing number of people are going to their solicitors on trivial errors and more and more it is difficult to get agreement on the wording of clarifications and apologies because of the insistence of the inclusion of a commitment from the newspaper in the wording of the correction to pay substantial damages."
The latest figures suggested defamation settlements and judgments had increased enormously every year. The overriding fear was that the "big one" would come along and liquidate some newspapers.
For the editor of the Kerryman, Mr Gerard Colleran, it was a sobering thought that a strict curtailment on freedom of expression in this State remained.
Most libel cases, he said, were taken by male business people or professionals, then by State employees followed by lawyers and politicians.