Seanad debates

Wednesday, 21 March 2007

Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Multinationals are profit driven, which is a great motivator, but they have added immeasurably to the growth of our economy in recent decades. We have achieved full employment, which was an aspiration during most of my political life. It was a prime objective of all political parties. It is up to these Houses to provide the ethical and other frameworks so that they comply with appropriate standards. It is our job to ensure that framework is in place.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to examine the issue of prominence in the section. I also welcome his comments regarding the lodgement provision. As a fellow republican, it would be anathema to me to see that go through. Two scenarios, which conflict slightly, need to be addressed. The odd individual will sue a publication for soft money even where he or she has not been defamed. The other scenario concerns a person who has been seriously defamed and whose reputation is in tatters. They will be faced with having to make a lodgment without receiving an apology. We must err in the legislation on the side of such individuals. If these scenarios conflict, we must err on the side of the genuine person who takes a case so that he or she is not prohibited from having his or her reputation restored because he or she dose not have the finance to take the case. That would be totally anathema to republican philosophy. I hope the Minister will address this. I acknowledge the arguments for abolishing the lodgment completely but while a distinction is made in this regard for defamation and other civil cases, the lodgement should not stand without a commitment to an apology.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.