Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

One could argue that in any instance, be it personal injuries or defamation of character, a lodgement denotes an admission of liability and is in some way an apology. I have some support for Senator Walsh's argument.

Defamation is a tort and an unusual hybrid creation from a legal perspective. For the first time in our legal or political lifetime, we have a chance to deal with this issue which has not been dealt with since the early 1960s. I see some merit in the case of a lodgement of coming clean and apologising where there is blatant and obvious defamation under the new law, such as where a section of the media, such as a radio station or RTE, in unquestionable terms takes somebody's character without proper assertions. An example would be the case I mentioned last week — I will not dwell on it — which involved Liam Lawlor, God be good to him, which everyone accepts was blatantly wrong. In those circumstances and in most cases where a person's character is taken, be it the ordinary man in the street or, as in the case of Liam Lawlor, a lady from Ukraine who was an interpreter and whose character was severely and unfairly defamed, in the case of a lodgement why not come clean and say "Sorry"?

This is possibly a teaser for the Minister. A personal injuries case is slightly different. A bone is broken or damage is done and compensation is awarded. Under the Constitution, our good name and character is something we hold very dear. We often walk a tightrope in public life because people say that because we are in public life and politics, we are fair game. Would it not be possible to frame this section in such a way that where a lodgement is made, the defendant admits that the real foundation is that the person's good name has been taken and apologises for doing so? One is talking by and large about the print media and radio or television stations. Perhaps I am misreading it but I cannot see why this cannot be done.

We are offering some sort of opt-out clause or diminution, not necessarily of responsibility but certainly of damages, if we allow a newspaper to admit within 48 hours that it was wrong and to print a fine front-page apology on equal terms with the article that defamed the plaintiff, thereby resulting in most instances in the plaintiff receiving a very small figure in compensation. That is an opt-out clause for the defendant.

We accept that these defendants in most cases have large sums of money behind them. They have the best legal teams. I will not name names but some of the huge media conglomerates around the world have the best counsel on stand-by. The best legal teams are available and are probably on retainer. The unfortunate person who has been defamed may not have such facilities.

Given that it is such an unusual tort and that this Bill is the first opportunity to address this, I would find it difficult to accept that in all instances, with or without money and regardless of the seriousness, when a person's good name or that of a company or a body politic such as the Seanad or the Dáil, which can be seriously damaged, is taken, when it comes to an apology and financial compensation, the defendant can offer €50,000 but does not have to apologise. Perhaps the learned Minister can enlighten me and I am sure he will. I am not here purely to support Senator Walsh. If a vote is called, obviously I must refrain. I would still like a sincere explanation.