Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of the State to the House. It is an honour to second the Bill brought forward by Senator Crown. There are several distinguished debaters on the Government benches today and I look forward to a stimulating discussion on the right to free speech.
Article 40.6.1° of the Constitution begins:

The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:-
i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

It is wonderful that "criticism of Government policy" is included as a right of citizens in our Constitution. Transparency and accountability are the essence of why we are here. I do not wish to go over old ground, but I will observe that it was part of why this House was endorsed in the referendum. People like the idea that persons such as Mary Robinson and Owen Lancelot Sheehy Skeffington in the past and Senator Norris today have come here to express views. Great debates take place up and down the length of this country, in clubs and pubs, all the time and they must be allowed to continue. Indeed, some would say the capacity to engage in that type of debate is one of the great discerning characteristics of Irish people.
I speak as one for whom the provisions of this Bill have a personal resonance in that I once found myself in the position that a State body found something I wrote objectionable. I admired the lawyers who stood by me on that occasion but it was an eye opener to see the other side, with a massive number of lawyers plugged into the national debt, so to speak, in an effort to prevent publication. Happily, the result was the one I was seeking. This thin-skinned approach to the expression of public opinion is not suited to the type of world in which we live. A nation that faced such a crisis as we did in 2008 to 2011 must have full scope for criticism of what went wrong at that time. We in this House have a duty to stand over every penny that is spent. It is what those who voted for us want us to do. Let us stand up for a society where opinions are freely expressed without people reaching for the defamation lawyer.
An item in one of the newspapers today sets out the view of a person working in the ambulance service that this vital service is being abused. He expresses the opinion that a person who miscalls the ambulance service three times should lose his or her medical card. It is helpful to nobody if every person who has legitimately called an ambulance should claim to have been maligned and defamed by this individual articulating the view that some people misuse the service. It is that notion of a type of collective destruction of what people feel is their right to a good name. There has been too much of that and the individual in question is entitled to express his views about the ambulance service. Likewise the Galway poet - I will not be more specific than that in case there is defamation involved - who said of a certain welfare officer in Galway that he was so stingy in giving out the money that one might think it was his own money. That is a legitimate expression and there is no call for every staff member of the welfare service in the city of Galway saying they have been defamed.
I agree with Senator Crown that public bodies should not have public relations departments. Let the people we pay heavily to manage some of these large organisations come out and engage in a public debate. Resorting to lawyers because people have legitimate complaints and criticism of public policy is not acceptable. That type of criticism is part of the normal cut and thrust of debate. Senator Crown has suggested that if one is really thin-skinned, one may have €1 in damages. Those who feel inclined to take such cases should grow up and engage in proper public debate. The public is entitled to ask questions and have answers to those questions. It is a right enshrined in the Constitution and is at the core of our democracy.
It is an honour to second this Bill and I hope the Government will look upon it favourably. Its acceptance would be a meaningful reform initiative which serves to enhance transparency, accountability and public debate. We have made huge progress in recent years such that people who were previously outside our democracy and, in some cases, resorting to physical force are now inside it and engaged in democratic debate. This Bill is a logical development of that process. It would be a terrific boost for democracy and free speech in this country if the Government were to accept it.