Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

While amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would preserve section 24(2)(g), they seek to alter its meaning by providing that the plaintiff's version of events must be obtained in advance and so obtained the nature and extent of their representation compared with the suspicion, allegation or fact concerned. While I have sympathy for and understanding of the thinking behind the proposed amendments they seek to be too prescriptive in imposing these conditions. If accepted they would run the risk of making the new defence unusable. There may be valid reasons the plaintiff's version cannot be obtained in advance of publication. I would prefer to let this matter be the subject of continuing jurisprudence by the courts in determining cases that might come before them. As to the nature and extent of the representation of the plaintiff's views compared with the suspicion, allegation or fact concerned presented by the defendant, I would prefer to let the courts decide on the basis of the particular case presented to them. Consequently, amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are opposed.