Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I would say to the Minister, as I would have said to the previous Minister in the previous debate, that if the Press Council were independent and in a position to give awards of up to €50,000 or €100,000 — one can choose any amount, much like the Personal Injuries Assessment Board — there would be an alternative whereby a plaintiff could pursue a route that was not costly, satisfied him and cleared his name. If I were defamed and were offered a lodgement of €50,000, I would much rather get €20,000 or €10,000 and an apology. Many people are in that position. This section puts people in the position of being in a lottery. Do they pursue the case and seek what they came for, namely, an apology and a correction, or must they accept money, which was a very secondary consideration in taking the case? We are forcing them into a position. The declaratory order is a different issue.

In respect of section 27(4), my colleague, Senator Callely, made an interesting point. Why is it there? It states that the defendant shall not be required to admit liability. There is no need for the subsection. We would only need it if we were saying the defendant would be required to admit liability. I do not have an argument with a situation whereby the lodgement is made with a commitment to publish an apology on page four of the newspaper or other publication. The judge is not privy to the contents of the apology but it is part of settling the case. By putting it as it is in the Bill, where one does not get the apology, we are ensuring the genuine person who did not take the action for money and who wants to get a correction is forced to continue his or her case at huge risk to him or herself. If the apology were part of the lodgement, the matter probably could be settled more reasonably from a financial perspective.