Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

On that point, the issue is how it is interpreted. I can see the distinction and the Minister has clearly defined the difference between statements of fact and honest opinion. However, in my mind, there is not an established and definite mark between honest opinion and issues relating to facts that could be held as honest opinion. Are there any cross-references that can be made in that area? I am being critical of this in defence of people who are defamed in a system where the legal costs are very significant and who are putting a lot at risk, something which is not the case with defendants, which are often corporations with very significant resources. Equally, many of the newspapers and the vast majority of our reporters and publications are responsible and report very responsibly. However, there is a small number that go in the opposite direction, often driven by the profit motive and an increase in circulation. There is evidence of this happening in Britain and people within the media have acknowledged that there can be a race to the bottom in terms of standards.

Much pejorative terminology is used in newspapers about "disgraced" individuals, but it is a matter of opinion whether a person is disgraced or not. That can be damaging to someone's reputation. There should be a clear distinction between something that one can challenge as an untrue statement and an opinion that can be damaging. The casual reader of a newspaper may not make a fine distinction between what is fact and what is opinion. We need to have some safeguards in that area, but I do not know how to do it. There should be a threshold that must be crossed to illustrate the distinction to the court.

In claiming the defence of honest opinion, one can sometimes see the prejudice running through the reporting. The old adage that the pen is mightier than the sword is very true. I have concerns for people, who may not be popular with the media, being vilified purely for the sake of vilification, rather than having to put up with a genuine expression of honest opinion. I do not know what can be done, but I would like to see the Bill strengthened so that there is a strong test for defendants to prove honest opinion. I do not detect that from the section or from other parts of the Bill. Perhaps nothing can be done, but I would like to put my concerns on the record.