Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

Amendments Nos. 12 and 15 are drafting amendments to correct the required reference to section 1 in sections 15 and 16. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are linked: amendment No. 13 provides absolute privilege for statements made in the course of proceedings during an arbitral tribunal where the statement is connected with those proceedings, while amendment No. 14 is a technical amendment consequential on amendment No. 13. Amendment No. 16. is also technical and the effect is mainly to provide for two separate subsections making the text clearer.

With regard to amendment No. 17, section 17(1) originally expanded the number of situations in which the defence of qualified privilege would fail. However, following consultation with the Attorney General on the legal issues involved, I am advised it would be prudent to amend section 17(1) so as not to alter the existing law. The revised position now reflects the existing position in law. It makes loss of defence of qualified privilege solely dependent on proving that the defendant acted in malice. Amendment No. 18 is a Labour Party amendment to section 22, which was accepted on Report Stage - if my memory serves me correctly, it was also a Sinn Féin amendment - and which is intended to encourage the making of an early apology. This matter was debated at some length in this House during the debate on this section.

Amendment No. 19 provides for a new section in section 24 concerning fair and reasonable publication of a matter of public interest. Subsection (4)(a) provided that the defendant be required to believe in the truth of the statement at the time of publication though it subsequently transpired to be false. It was brought to my attention that this could hinder the reporting of stories which contain a number of conflicting opinions and that it appeared to conflict with the provisions of subsection (2)(1), which allowed for the extent to which the statement drew a distinction between suspicions, allegations and facts. Having consulted further with the Office of the Attorney General on the matter, I came to the view that the provision in subsection (4) could add an additional bar to the Reynolds test developed originally by the UK courts. The effect could be to make the defence of reasonable publication more difficult to prove. Subsection (4) is now deleted. The amendments essentially restate subsection (1) while relocating to it certain elements of subsection (4). Amendments No. 22 is consequential on amendment No. 19, providing for the deletion of the former subsection (4).

Amendment No. 20 is a drafting amendment regarding standards adhered to by members and non-members of the Press Council. Section 24(2)(f) now applies to members of the Press Council, while the new paragraph 24(2)(g) applies to non-members. Amendment No. 21 seeks to improve the drafting of subsection (2)(1) so that it refers clearly to attempts made and means used by the defendant to verify assertions and allegations made by the plaintiff in his or her statement. Amendment No. 31 inserts a new paragraph in Schedule 1 Part 1 of the Bill to provide for qualified privilege with regard to defamation actions where the statement is required by statute to be made available for public inspection or publication.