Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is certainly honest. I commend Senators Crown, Barrett and Daly on bringing forward this Bill, in particular Senator Crown who introduced it on 3 July. It exemplifies the best work of the Seanad when we bring forward Private Members' Bills that are accepted by the Government. I welcome the Government's decision to accept it.

I too happened to see the queues of people queuing up at the Romanian embassy to vote. I think there were so many people that in the end some of them were not accommodated by the embassy in voting in a very tightly contested presidential election in Romania. I think it should make us appreciate our democratic systems more. The real strength of a democracy is when the Legislature is strong, when the Oireachtas is strong. When we see Private Members' Bill coming forward, that is a real mark of strength. I speak as somebody who has had Private Members' Bills accepted.

I agree with the point made by Senator Quinn in terms of the delay in bringing the Bill to Committee Stage. That can be a problem but I take heart from the fact that a review process is already built into the Defamation Act 2009. This will clearly feed into it. I think we can anticipate this will come forward.

The Minister and I have been working on the Employment Equality Amendment Bill which is languishing on Committee Stage in this House. I know there have been difficulties in bringing forward Government amendments but I am very hopeful, as I know he is, that we will see these amendments brought forward very early in the new year. That should encourage us in terms of the processing of Private Members' Bills. It does take time but we have had some successes in this House in that respect.

I have another point on the Seanad before turning to the specifics of the Bill. The heads of the sexual offences Bill were introduced last week by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, which I greatly welcomed, particularly the provision on the purchase of sex. I would ask the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald that the Bill might be initiated in this House. We have had a good record of debates on Bills that have been initiated in this House. The Department for Justice and Equality, not just under this Minister but under previous Ministers, has been particularly good at commencing Bills in this House. I would ask that this might be done as quite a number of us were very active in the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality when it did a report which led to some of the provisions of the Bill.

The Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2014 is seeking to amend the Defamation Act 2009, on which we had extensive debates in this House and in the other House. That Bill was a very comprehensive codifying Bill seeking to establish the balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to the protection of one's good name and reputation. Clearly it brought in many constitutional considerations. The Bill raises a significantly important point, which seeks to restrain the use of defamation proceedings by public bodies as a response to critical or public comment. I think Senator Crown speaks of this as potentially offering an unwarranted curb on free expression, that the balance is weighted against the rights to fair comment and freedom of expression. Having listened carefully to Senator Crown's speech, in which he refers specifically to the HSE, that seems to be a particular focus of the Bill. I note also from the Minister of State's comments, however, that the definitions of public body in the Bill appear to be far wider than just the HSE and it covers entities - the non legal term of entity - which may have unforeseen consequences. I can see that is one area where there would need to be very careful review and amendment. Senator Barrett and I were particularly interested to hear the Minister of State say that Trinity College would be covered potentially by the Bill in its current form.

The other interesting point is that we would all agree that defamation law generally should not be used in this way, but I would reflect on the Minister's comment that this is relatively rare. Most public bodies - I admit I am not so aware of the HSE's policy - do not tend to take defamation proceedings. In fact, the most recent case in which defamation and public bodies are associated in the public mind was the case earlier this year, where we saw RTE - in my view and the view of many of us - caving in too early to a threat of defamation against it by private individuals and organisations. I am, of course, referring to the incident in which Rory O'Neill made certain comments on the Brendan O'Connor show, which were then targeted by various people, who sought to sue RTE for defamation, and RTE then settled very quickly and paid damages. The targeting of public bodies in defamation suits may be a bigger issue, but that is something we would have to tease out.

I take the point that this is one issue that must be considered in any overall review of the Defamation Act, but I will conclude by saying that the most pressing issue in the Defamation Act of 2009 which requires review, is section 36, which, as everyone knows, created a new statutory offence of blasphemy. In this House, myself and Senator Norris in particular were very critical of that Bill. It was introduced by then Minister, Dermot Ahern, as a late amendment. Nobody was quite sure why, but he said there was an urgent need to introduce a new statutory offence of blasphemy. There was no case for urgency as far as I was concerned, and there has been much criticism, nationally and internationally, by human rights bodies of this definition of blasphemy. To return to the theme of democracy, it is inappropriate in a modern democracy to have this sort of provision, which can be used to bolster prejudice against different religions. We have seen blasphemy used in Islamic countries to bolster prejudice against Christians and Christian religions. Proper law on incitement to religious hatred, refinement of that law, would be much more appropriate than imposing a €20,000 fine on anyone who blasphemes. The Constitutional Convention has recommended that the offence be removed from the Constitution but in a review of the 2009 Act we could certainly just look at removing section 36.