Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

That gives me an opportunity to call on our Government backbencher cum Independent cum "Yes" cum "No" side to practice what he preaches. Incidentally, he appears anxious to crow about the fact that, according to himself, the HSE made a special award or grant to some group in his constituency, albeit a deserving group. I remind him he is not the only Member of the House and that the HSE has an equal obligation to every other Member. Under the rules of democracy, it must treat everyone equally, particularly as it is not an elected body.

All Members have heard or read dubious statements which were damaging to the character, livelihood, well-being or professional life of an individual. This is a regular occurrence. There is a notion abroad that some reputations are more valuable than others. Everyone is entitled to fair treatment under the law and no one's reputation, regardless of their position or profession, should be taken lightly when certain scribes are considering what they believe to be acceptable or certain legal eagles are considering what might get past the laws of libel.

The case of a former Member of the House, the late Liam Lawlor, comes to mind. We all read disgraceful accounts of Mr. Lawlor's death in the newspapers. Regardless of whether he was a member of a political party or parliament, it was disgraceful that certain media outlets took such latitude in the knowledge that Mr. Lawlor had died. The Bill will not address this problem because, as other speakers have noted, the dead cannot be libelled. Their families, however, can be seriously damaged as a result of comments that are made on the basis that a deceased person is no longer in a position to take action against those who make them. It was ironic in the case of former Deputy Liam Lawlor that the matter was not as clear cut as the scribes and legal eagles believed and retribution was secured afterwards. Lessons must be learned from that case.

While I am conscious of the need to maintain freedom of the press and of expression, these freedoms must be measured against the degree to which the reputation of a group, body, agency or individual can be damaged by telling lies. We all have a duty to tell the truth as best we can. We should not tell a deliberate lie or deliberately misconstrue or present a case in such a manner as to mislead. To do so is equivalent to tell a lie and will be damaging. This is the reason I referred to specific posters which all and sundry can see. It is damaging to lie in a fashion which detracts from the case made by another person, undermines his or her character or damages his or her reputation. When will we draw a line?

In speaking inside or outside the House, Members seek to avoid damaging the reputation or character of individuals outside the House. This is as it should be because Members have privilege. Failure to observe privilege could result in its removal and the abuse of privilege is not excusable. Let us take a step further. What would happen if I or someone else were to decide to lie in such a manner as to damage a person's character? Would it be sufficient to issue an apology in such circumstances? It has been argued that if an apology has been issued, this should be considered in determining whether a libel took place. This depends on the extent of the damage done by the libel. In certain circumstances, it is well nigh impossible to repair the damage done to a person's reputation. If I write something which is defamatory and demeaning of an individual, the damage to the his or her reputation can be such that an apology would in no way ameliorate it. For instance, if some scribe writes that a person has been accused of taking money, as occurs regularly, it severely damages the person's reputation. However, allegations of a more personal nature, for instance, a wrongful accusation of child abuse, are so damaging that an apology would not ameliorate the harm done to the person's reputation. The extent to which the issuing of an apology should be taken into account must, therefore, depend on the gravity and nature of the allegation given the potential to cause irreparable damage.

The role of the press council has been raised. Members of the press, like public representatives, do a difficult job. If they become aware of a matter about which members of the public have a right to know, they have a duty to publish. However, they also have a duty to check the authenticity of what they publish and, in so far as possible, to verify and be reasonably sure of the facts beforehand. To do otherwise is dangerous. The practice of giving legal advice to the effect that it might be possible to get away with writing something is cynical and old-fashioned.

We must strike a balance between, on the one hand, the public good and the right of members of the public to have information and, on the other, the likely damage in the event that the information to be published is wrong or the article in question is misleading. In the final analysis, one must always err on the side of caution. If I say or do something that causes irreparable damage to a person's reputation, it is in the public interest that I fulfil my duty to give the other side of the story.

While the majority of journals and journalists observe this rule, I am worried by the actions of the minority who sometimes exert a significant influence over the responsible majority. I will take as an extreme example the role of the paparazzi in pursuing the late Princess Diana. The type of activity in which this group of journalists engaged over a long period with a view to selling magazines or other publications was disgraceful and should not have been tolerated. While the media will argue that the lives of those in public life are ripe for comment, I recall a couple of cases in which journalists were not anxious to investigate members of their own profession. Everyone is entitled to privacy and members of the media have no right to camp outside someone's hall door.

See this speech in context