Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I understand what Senators seek to do, although they have not passed the parliamentary draftsman yet. I notice Senator Regan proposed to delete the section which should not have happened. It is important to have paragraph (g) in the section because it is a protection. The paragraph states:

. . . the extent to which the plaintiff's version of events was represented in the publication concerned and, if not so represented, the extent to which a reasonable attempt was made by the publisher to obtain and publish a response from that person.

The purpose of this paragraph is to put a limitation on what is a fair publication defence. I understand Senators wish to strengthen this. However, with regard to amendment No. 23, Parliamentary Counsel states the term "reasonable attempt" may be interpreted in the plural as well as in the singular. Therefore, it is not required to state "attempt or attempts" because "attempt" encompasses "attempts" in current legislative practice.

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 would preserve paragraph (g) but seek to alter its meaning by providing that the plaintiff's version of events must be obtained in advance. I have a sympathy for and understanding of the thinking behind this proposed amendment. However, it is extremely prescriptive. Valid reasons can exist for not being able to obtain the plaintiff's version in advance of publication. One must leave to the courts the determination of what is reasonable. By inserting the word "reasonable" one gives control to the courts over the operation and conduct of the defendant.

In amendment No. 26, the Labour Party proposes that the nature and extent of the representation of the plaintiff's views compared with the suspicion, allegation or fact concerned presented by the defendant be taken into account. I am prepared to consider this prior to Report Stage. It appears to strengthen the subsection in terms of imposing an obligation on a journalist. It has a concrete meaning and I will examine this.