Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I might do that. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I note his first comment was that it would undermine the legislation, although I fail to see how it would do so. It is not the same as other civil cases. If I break my leg, for example, and take a case to court, I am seeking financial compensation. The court will not put my leg in plaster and fix it up for me; I must do that separately. I am seeking compensation for loss, so a monetary lodgement fully caters for my court claim. However, if I am seriously defamed in an article it could be far more important to clear my name by way of an apology. The inclusion of this section, as drafted, undermines the spirit of much of what we are trying to do in this legislation. We are trying to get claimants to deal reasonably with the issue and accept that the pursuit of monetary compensation is not the primary purpose of pursuing such cases. We are allowing for the newspaper industry to apologise earlier and to do such things.

As was rightly said, if a lodgement is made, it puts the plaintiff in a precarious position financially and legally and also in an invidious position if he or she lacks considerable financial resources. His or her primary motive could be the re-establishment of his or her good name. It might not be satisfactory for him or her to get €100,000 to put in his or her bank account, even if it is a very generous lodgement, if the whole town or county from which he or she comes does not see the record corrected.

I note what was said about judges but should we legislate on the basis that in order for the defendant to get fair play, it is absolutely at the discretion of the Judiciary? I do not believe that should be the case. Our legislation should ensure that the person who is offended can pursue his or her case and will be treated fairly. We should not encourage a defendant to make a lodgment in court unless he or she believes the article was wrong, untrue and defamed an individual. In such a scenario, it is not unreasonable to expect that he or she would be prepared to make an apology along with a lodgement. The apology should be read out in court and published. I cannot see the logic in taking this route. I appreciate the Minister said he would look at it between now and Report Stage.

The declaratory order is an entirely different matter. The plaintiff can go to the court in advance for the declaratory order with no compensation. I am not in favour of huge amounts of compensation. When we come to deal with the press council, I will argue that it should be independent and in a position to make awards up to a certain level.

The Personal Injuries Assessment Board model is a good one, which could be used in this instance. It would avoid the court route where costs are exorbitant. Until we reform costs in our court system, we should try to find alternative mechanisms to do this, as in the case of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. It is unsatisfactory that an individual, who is defamed, would go to court and come away with a lodgement but with no apology. If he or she does not have the resources to pursue the case, he or she is forced into a situation where he or she must accept the lodgement, even though a smaller amount in damages and a correction in the newspaper might have been his or her primary objective.