John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I did not say the Senator should, I said he would. The point I make is that somebody should not necessarily be excluded because he or she has a connection. Again, it comes back to the public. If the public knows about it and is comfortable with it, so what? It is similar to the notion that county councillors are not fit to be members of boards. Will somebody please tell me where there are people who are so independent that they have no attitude to, or view on, how the press should be regulated or on other matters in public life? It is absolute nonsense. We can probably come back to that issue on Committee Stage.

I refer to privilege, to which there are two aspects. One aspect is dealt with very comprehensively in the Bill, namely, statements and the privilege attaching to them. It is reasonable they are covered and they are catalogued here. There is a different privilege, which is much more difficult, where the journalist protects the source. As happened in the recent past, an editor and a journalist were summoned to the tribunal to identify a source. Under the ethics of their profession, they said "No" and they are open to prosecution or to being held in contempt. There have been cases in the past where people went to jail and there was one very prominent case some time ago.

I refer to the experience of other countries. In general, although it is not universal, there is an acknowledgement of the need to protect sources and that journalists should have that type of privilege. If one pushes that to the limit, one could ask if that applies to a person told about a murder. One is getting into a problematic area here. In general, we must ensure journalists are secure in regard to their sources and that their sources are not exposed. There have been cases where journalists have had to go back to their sources perhaps on two, three or four occasions and eventually the sources agreed to the journalists publishing their names. That is not a very desirable way to proceed.

I refer to the dead, to which there has been some reference. Again, there are differences in how this matter is dealt with. The family of the dead should have certain rights. The Lawlor case was referred to. The family of the late Liam Lawlor should have had recourse. It does not seem sensible that the lady in the car had recourse to the courts but the family did not. It can be very defamatory to the connections of the deceased, although I do not want to use that particular case. The family is entitled to redress in such circumstances. From what I can see from the continental experience, there is scope for redress for families. The provision in the Bill deals only with the estate of the defamed person. In other words, the deceased would have had to have initiated the proceedings before he or she died for them to continue. I am not sure about that.

I refer to bodies corporate. Class actions are allowed in quite a few jurisdictions which would go beyond bodies corporate. I do not know whether one could consider the Irish Farmers' Association a body corporate, although perhaps one could. They are entitled to redress but there are probably some problems of definition or other problems which need to be dealt with.

The issue of privacy opens another debate which is probably appropriate for another time. In regard to what should be private, there is a different standard for public persons as compared to private individuals. A person's home is his or her castle and once he or she closes his or her door, it is reasonable that he or she should be free from intrusion or prying. There is, however, a different standard for public and private individuals.

I refer to the rulings of the European Court of Justice. In Austria, the rulings of the court are superior to the rulings of the domestic court. In a recent high profile case, Princess Caroline took a case to the European Court of Justice and a bizarre judgment was handed down. It was felt that if she was photographed in an unbecoming situation, that would be an intrusion into her privacy. We must have some regard to the rulings of the European Court of Justice vis-À-vis our domestic situation.