Eoghan Harris (Independent)

I concur with Senator Alex White on his distinction between opinion and fact. I was indisposed during the earlier Stages of this Bill but, on the occasions on which I could have contributed, I felt I would have been regarded as having had a vested interest. However, I must speak on the question of fact and opinion simply because I have been astounded in recent weeks by the absolute determination of politicians of all parties to trammel and limit, in every niggling way, the work of the press. A myth is being created in so many of these amendments about the small man in a shop who has his reputation defamed and who has no recourse against the great barristers, the O'Reillys, RTE and the great corporations. I worked for 25 years in RTE and never encountered such a small man. I encountered programme after programme that wished to expose exploitation in respect of the sweepstakes of the Irish Hospitals Trust and pension funds, and by rogue solicitors and gangsters continually protected by the libel laws.

I work in a newspaper in which the business of the libel lawyers is a matter not of law but of risk management. This is the case with all newspapers. Mischievous letters demand apologies and they are followed immediately with demands for damages. Surely politicians, who comprise the most litigious of all groups, should be more careful to ensure they protect the press. Surely the events of recent weeks would make politicians realise the reputations of no small men have been defamed. A man with a long criminal record has been awarded almost €1 million in damages and the jury was not allowed to be told about this that and the other, which matters would have brought themselves to bear in any fair-minded court. One of Ireland's wealthiest men was awarded €750,000. The Supreme Court lowered the award but it was increased again because the jury was not allowed to be told about that court's intervention.

The reality of life is that none of the activities of the rogue solicitors, rogue capitalists, gangsters and criminals, who have names such as "the Viper" and "the Tosser" and whom Paul Williams has been exposing for years, would have been exposed if the politicians had their way. In the approach to this Bill — I do not refer to the detail of the Bill as it is good and long overdue — there seems to be no good will by politicians to back a free press.

I have never sued anybody in my life. One should look at the Internet some time to see the entries on me. They include references to death sentences and murder and suggest I should be run out and abused. This is a small country and it is almost impossible to lose one's reputation in a small country; everybody knows one and knows pretty much when lies are being told. The Earl of Clarendon stated libels are best dealt with by being ignored and by being ignored they appear not to be deserved. There is a lot of truth to this in a small country.

Politicians, who comprise one of the most litigious and sensitive groups, should be particularly careful not to convey the impression to the public that they are trying to trammel the press further. This is a good Bill but I fear there is a privacy Bill behind it. The daily life of a newspaper, be it The Irish Times, The Star or the Daily Mail, involves an endlessly difficult struggle to get the truth printed. What newspapers need is help and not trammelling, manacling and dragging down.

Senator Alex White rightly stated facts are sacred and comment is free, but when one is dealing with rogue solicitors or criminals, it is very important to be able to say that such and such a criminal is hanging out with another criminal and has been doing so for ten years, thus resulting in the reasonable opinion that a third party, who is with those criminals all the time, is in fact a dodgy customer. This may not be a matter of fact but any reasonable person will assume that if one habitually hangs around with criminals, one has no good intent.

In this regard, consider the Ferns case. This story would not have emerged if many politicians, of both Houses, had their way. They would have introduced laws to prevent the publication of the facts and opinions necessary to throw light on the extraordinary events surrounding Fr. Fortune in Ferns.

In the cases I can recall, including that of the money lending tribunal and the Irish Hospitals Trust sweepstake, in addition to those involving Denis O'Brien and Michael McDonagh and the recent ones involving rogue solicitors, all I see are strong people. In a society in which anybody can approach a solicitor on a "no foal, no fee basis" to take a mischievous case, there is no particular danger to the small man. The case of the small man that is being posited is mythical. What goes on in both Houses regarding the libel laws and the privacy Bill shows excessive concern for the proprieties of politicians.

This is an open democracy. Provided there is genuine freedom of the press, an adequate apology system and adequate freedom of discourse, we should take a bit more of the rough with the smooth and stop trying to crush press freedoms, which, in the fine analysis, we have seen to be the foundation of freedom so many times in our democracy.