Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

I second Senator O'Toole's remarks on religious advertising. The change in this regard is very good and enhances legislation we fundamentally welcome in its totality. There is no reason a religious event or charitable auction, for example, that is contributing to a good cause should not be advertised. The same standards should apply to religious advertising as to any other form. The measure in this regard is positive and Senator O'Toole summed it up very well in saying its contrary would be liberalism gone made and taking things too far. There is no efficacious reason to prevent religious advertising.

I take Senator O'Toole's point on it being difficult to identify what is offensive and contrary to good taste. Of course it is subjective but there are certain objective criteria one could establish, one of which would pertain to the mockery of people with physical disabilities or any exaggeration of their condition in a comedy show. This would be offensive but we will not debate the matter in detail now because we could have something of a student debate that could last until midnight.

I welcome the right of reply, which was in the legislation before its amendment in the Dáil. I welcome the right of reply for those to whom an injustice has been done or who have been defamed or lied about. I subscribe strongly to the view expressed by Deputy Coveney in the other House on when somebody is defamed in a very transparent way, as was the Lawlor family after the tragic death of Mr. Liam Lawlor. It was suggested that he was travelling with a lady other than a PR lady on the night in question. The article containing this suggestion, which does not merit repeating, was in the Sunday newspapers the day after the accident. When such circumstances occur, it can be tremendously traumatic for a family, including the wife and children. Any of us could be the subject of defamation in the broadcast media today. We could be killed in a car accident – God forbid – on the way home, thereby technically removing the right of reply for our families.

I know the Minister has good will on these matters and I do not believe we should be at odds. However, it is regrettable he did not accept the amendment in this regard in the Dáil. Will he respond on how he would cope with a clear and obvious injustice? There are four elected Members in this room, one of whom could be the subject of defamation tonight. The Member could die shortly afterwards and his family would suffer extraordinary trauma. This is a real issue and the case of Mr. Lawlor highlights it in its most dramatic form. There is a myriad of other cases but it would not be fruitful for me to begin citing them. However, it is fruitful to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister again in this Assembly, where we are covered by privilege. The matter is serious and I am not engaging in polemics or wasting time. I am very serious because the next person affected could be the Minister, me or another Member. Who knows that it will not? It is a terrible thing to happen to a family.