Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senator O'Donovan for his encouraging concluding remarks. I am not a learned Minister but listening to Senators this evening reminded me of the learned phase of my existence when one met a client who told one that they were only here as a matter of principle to which one replied: "How much are your principles worth?" That is at the heart of this section.

Those who are concerned about their principles will now for the first time have section 26. A declaratory order is available, to which no lodgement can be made, seeking the vindication of one's reputation and establishing as a matter of law on a matter of fact that defamation took place and requiring a correction. While section 26 was being debated I should have mentioned that I plan to revisit the section on Report Stage to ensure that where the court makes a declaration and directs an apology, the apology can be required to be in a place of equal prominence with the original statement.

Regarding section 27, the principles are being substantiated in the form of a claim for a cash award. It is entirely reasonable for legislators to provide for the same lodgement procedure that applies in any civil litigation. Senators Regan and O'Donovan pointed out that a defamation action is not the same as a personal injuries action but there is commonality between them. Both are claims for compensation for damages. The element we are addressing can be isolated because the legislation specifically provides for a declaratory order on reputation. At the conclusion of a libel action one cannot require an apology to be made by a newspaper. Much of Senator Walsh's observations on this matter can be reduced to the proposition that either we should not have lodgements in libel actions because it is entirely wrong, or we should be able to require apologies. When the matter goes to damages, the fact that damages were awarded illustrates the nature of the wrongdoing. In civil litigation a settlement is always made without concession of liability.

Regarding Section 27, I can meet Senator Walsh's argument in the sense that I am considering providing that the court can have the fact of the apology publicised in the defendant newspaper or broadcasting organisation in a place of equal prominence with the original statement. The readership or viewership can witness the fact that the defendant was forced to pay that sum of money and there was something unsound in what was said. That is as far as it can be put. If one were to follow the path suggested by Senator Walsh, who suggests there could be some form of sealed apology, it would only lead to further litigation. The purpose of the lodgement is to stop litigation, not prolong it.