Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Prior to the adjournment of the debate I was reminiscing about the damage caused by a lie and how reparation can be made. It is no harm to ponder this for a moment. If grievous and permanent damage is done by a publication to a person's character, to what extent can this damage be addressed by an apology? There is a thinking in some quarters of the media that an apology should be sufficient to address any hurt or damage done, but I do not accept that. If the damage is of a permanent nature and seriously undermines or takes the character of the person or group concerned, it is immaterial what apology is made as the damage cannot be repaired. If permanent damage is done, there is no way restitution can be made, notwithstanding access to such in the courts.

It would be better to carefully think and research before putting into print that which is of a dubious nature. As we all know, such things do not normally find their way into print unless they have been carefully researched and double checked by legal experts. This in no way reduces the possible negative impact on the victim. We spoke previously about various people who have been affected.

Previous speakers referred to the Press Council and I spoke about the right of the media to publish. The obligation on the media with regard to publishing information they feel is in the public interest must be weighed against the possible damage to the person involved who might become a victim if the information is incorrect. A situation is developing whereby a print and be damned attitude is unfolding. This is justified by some commentators as the proper route to follow on the basis that it best serves the public interest. I do not accept that either. It is a question of balance.

Care and responsibility should be had at all times for the need to make at least a reasonable attempt to print or disclose what is factual. I had this dispute with my erstwhile colleague, the Independent Government backbencher, prior to the adjournment of the debate. I have witnessed the reputation of many people being totally and absolutely unnecessarily damaged over the years without any reparation, which is deplorable. However, activities that took place would not have happened if the media had been able to disclose them. The argument was a newspaper could not go to print because of the danger of being brought to book in the courts.

The Press Council should be a useful mechanism for self-policing but I am not sure to what extent it can be independent, to what extent media outlets are independent generally or to what extent they are influenced by one another. For example, does it follow that if a media outlet decides to go in a doubtful direction, all the others will follow? The lowest then becomes the common denominator, which is very dangerous. I question the independence of media outlets. Ireland is a small country with a small population where everybody knows everybody else. I wonder whether all media outlets are independent. Are they all influenced by one another? Are they all controlled or directed by the editorial opinion of one outlet?

There are examples of newspapers that come from the same stable and that are in the control of the same trainer having similar opinions on controversial issues, which is worrying. Impartiality and the need to head in the right direction and make a fair decision do not necessarily follow in such an environment, which could be damaging. I could have sued various media outlets over the years, as could the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The theory was because it was printed, an article had authenticity. What a lot of arrogance. If an article is printed, that does not necessarily make it true. There is an obligation when a story is published, which could have damaging consequences for an individual or family, to verify it and to ensure it contains some semblance of truth. If it is not possible to do so, the media outlet concerned should take a second look at itself and ask what purpose it is serving. Is it merely to sell the brand or to compete with a tabloid? What other purpose does it serve? On the law of averages, Members, who are in a similar position by virtue of the privilege accorded to us by the House and in the courts, should have regard for putting the truth on the record. We should not depart from that, otherwise we demean and lower the standards set for us.

I was watching television years ago as a journalist speculated in a way that was not helpful to a series of people. I rang him and asked where he obtained his information. He said it was printed in the press. I said that was remarkable and I asked him whether he checked what happened to those who printed it. He replied he had not, which is amazing. The moral of the story is it is still incumbent on those in the business of making, breaking and publishing news to verify the information and to establish whether it provides a sound basis for the conclusion they have reached. If it does, they can proceed to publish.

I refer to a libel case currently before the courts involving a self-confessed criminal who was awarded almost €1 million for being defamed in the press. The case is on appeal and I cannot comment further but that is extraordinary. It will do no harm to ponder these issues as we contemplate the legislation. I hope the standards imposed by the Bill will be fair and honest. I hope they will not deprive the public of information that is in their interest or extend beyond the reach of the individual the right to his or her protection under the law.

See this speech in context