Results 4,001-4,020 of 16,537 for speaker:Brian Lenihan Jnr

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Senator Walsh referred to three paragraphs. The first is straightforward and refers to a report produced by or on the authority of either House of the Oireachtas. Clearly, a report of the House must have privilege attached. I am not sure whether it is provided for in the Constitution as well as in statute law. If statements in the Houses enjoy absolute privilege under the Constitution,...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 6 is purely technical. Amendment No. 7 provides that the reference in subsection (2)(b)(ii) to "the defence of qualified privilege" be in accordance with all of section 16 and not limited to section 16(2). A similar amendment may be required in section 29(4), and I will examine this matter prior to Report Stage. Amendment...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: We have helped the Senator to some extent.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The defendant whose editor had one opinion about the honest opinion and whose journalist who wrote the article had a different opinion would be in a weak position in any court proceeding. The credibility of his or her case would be undermined by the conflict within the defendant's command structure in respect of the publication. Regarding this practical matter, Senator Walsh's concern is...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The purpose of the amendment is to give greater clarity to the provision. These are the circumstances in which the defence of honest opinion fails. It fails unless the defendant proves the truth of the allegations, which has to be there. If the defendant does not prove the truth of the allegations when dealing with a matter of opinion, the opinion could not be reasonably understood as...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: This amendment provides that the new defence shall be known as the defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest and not public importance. Having examined the debates on the previous Committee Stage, I am persuaded by the argument that for greater clarity it may be better to use the term "public interest" which is well understood and well established in case law....

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Public interest brings greater clarity into the law which is always desirable. Public importance does not have a term of art meaning in the law in the same sense. Apart from established case law in this area, a matter of public interest can be distinguished clearly from a matter of private interest. Public clearly connotes the concept of a zone of private interest and, therefore, increases...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: This is a technical drafting amendment to improve the text of the Bill. The word "shall" appears twice in section 19, in lines 1 and 4. The reference to "shall" in line 4 is superfluous and this amendment proposes to remove it.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I have some sympathy with the views expressed. I will consider the issue and table an amendment on Report Stage. It certainly reads more elegantly with the insertion of the conjunction.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I am withdrawing my current amendment because of the Senator's observations on it and revisiting the issue the Senator raised on Report Stage. There is no point in amending the Bill with the Government amendment now and coming back to it on Report Stage.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I may revisit section 20 on Report Stage, addressing the issue Senator Regan raised. It may arise on this section but not necessarily because this is an offer of amends procedure which has existed since the 1961 Act. The issue, however, will be better discussed in some of the subsequent sections and we should have a more detailed discussion on the issue of the prominence of an apology. If,...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: These are technical amendments designed to improve the text to make it clear that the apology being made requires publication.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: It is seldom that a Minister in the Seanad considers it a bad idea when several amendments are grouped together. In this case, however, there might have been merit in dealing separately with these amendments because Senators Norris and Alex White are addressing two entirely different issues. Section 22 deals with the apology that may be offered by a defendant in mitigation of damages. A...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: On Senator Alex White's technical amendment, I come back to my core point that the timeframe is supervised by the court. The newspaper or publisher has an incentive to give a quick apology because that will reduce the person's damages. That is the best incentive. Senator Regan said the section refers only to actions and not to the promptness of the apology. It refers to an apology before...

Financial Resolution No. 5: General (Resumed) (6 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: When one has faith, one does not need indoctrination.

Financial Resolution No. 5: General (Resumed) (6 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I propose to share time with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan. During the debate on the pre-budget Estimates, we took stock of the scale of expenditure in the different sectors and, more important, the depth and breadth of the services...

Written Answers — Garda Stations: Garda Stations (6 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The programme of replacement and refurbishment of Garda accommodation around the country is based on agreed priorities established by An Garda Síochána in consultation with the Garda representative associations. The programme is progressed by the Garda authorities working in close co-operation with the Office of Public Works, which has responsibility for the provision and maintenance of...

Written Answers — Departmental Meetings: Departmental Meetings (6 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I propose to take Questions Nos. 219 and 220 together. I can confirm that my Department has a management advisory committee with whom I meet on most weeks, or as required. My special advisor normally also attends these meetings. I also of course meet on an ongoing basis with Department officials to discuss relevant matters as necessary.

Written Answers — Ministerial Staff: Ministerial Staff (6 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The position is that there is one Special Advisor in my Department. There are no Programme Managers or Policy Assistants. The Special Advisor is not a Civil Servant.

Written Answers — Residency Permits: Residency Permits (6 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I refer the Deputy to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 122 of Thursday, 29 March 2007, No. 252 of Thursday, 5 July 2007 and No. 1046 of Wednesday, 26th September 2007 and the written replies to those questions. The position remains unchanged.