Results 12,541-12,560 of 16,537 for speaker:Brian Lenihan Jnr

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 Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: If Senator Norris tables an amendment on the question of what a defendant should plead, naturally I will examine it. However, this Bill already requires that a defendant must swear a verifying affidavit on the defence filed and the defence will have to be verified on oath. This is a substantial change in the existing law. On the point made by Senator O'Donovan, section 14(1) is a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: First, for the reasons outlined by all the Senators and accepted by Senator Norris, the effective operation of the judicial power in the State requires that absolute privilege should attach to the statements made by the Judiciary in court. Members of the Oireachtas enjoy such privilege and it is absolute in character. While Members also have a committee that regulates the abuse of that...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: It is fair to say that his work came to a conclusion. One of the difficulties associated with spelling out in greater detail in the Constitution how one removes a judge is that it makes it easier to so do, thereby undermining the independence of the institution. However, there was a full exploration in the last Dáil as to how one would go about such an enterprise. As for the judicial...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: When I have those views to hand, I will introduce legislation on it. Senator Norris makes a fair point. While I do not wish to be seen to criticise the Judiciary as I am the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, it is important that utterances from the judicial bench do not damage people in their reputations. I recall that a wise District Court judge, who has now retired, told me...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The purpose of this proposed amendment to section 15 is to provide for certainty that absolute privilege will attach to the reporting of family law cases. Section 40 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 provided for a relaxation of the in camera rule, with the key safeguard that the confidential nature of family law cases would continue to be respected. Section 40(3) specifically...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Members of local authorities enjoy qualified privilege and that is dealt with in the next section. A qualified privilege is a privilege to make an utterance or publish a statement in circumstances where the privilege can only be destroyed in the event of malice being established. That is the current position in regard to local authorities. Senators should recall that absolute privilege is a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Yes, my advice is to be careful with regard to the Labour Court. The Labour Court may well enjoy a qualified privilege because the parties making statements there have an interest in making them and the person hearing the statements has a duty to hear them. There may well be a qualified privilege but it is desirable, as a matter of principle, to have an exhaustive list of the occasions to...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Yes.

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 Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: We have had a very wide-ranging debate on this section and it has afforded Senators an opportunity for a quasi-Second Stage debate. I will add my tuppence worth. On the net issue of the section, I have indicated to Senators that I am anxious to reconsider the section in terms of its consequence for an order for costs in the Supreme Court. That issue should be examined. It is desirable that...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Once someone establishes that he or she has been defamed, of course feelings come into the equation in the assessment of damages as Senator Norris outlined very well. The Senator questioned whether we should have lodgements. Lodgements are a well-established part of our civil litigation system for the obvious reason that they discourage litigation. Litigation is very expensive for the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: We will be able to revisit apologies.

Written Answers — Work Permits: Work Permits (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: It is not proposed to allow asylum applicants to take up paid employment pending a final decision being made on their applications. Section 9(4)(b) of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) provides that an applicant for asylum shall not seek or enter employment. It must also be borne in mind that under the 1996 Act asylum seekers only have temporary permission to remain in the State pending the...

Written Answers — Departmental Publications: Departmental Publications (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I assume that the Deputy is referring to the Annual Report for 2006, which falls to be published in 2007. My Department's Annual Report for 2006 was, in fact, published in April 2007 when it was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Annual Report for 2006 was made available in hard copy and was also placed on my Department's website. As the Deputy will appreciate, an Annual Report...

Written Answers — Citizenship Applications: Citizenship Applications (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Officials in the Citizenship section of my Department inform me that there is no record of an application for a certificate of naturalisation from the person referred to in the Deputy's question.