Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

Three journalists, excuse me. There is quite a proliferation of interested parties around this House.

In this legislation we must ensure respect for those two fundamental principles — the right of the individual to his or her reputation and the absolute right of the press in a free society to publish freely about matters. Within that framework we must achieve another purpose, namely, to stop the present position where an individual, to vindicate his or her rights, must spend a long time in the Four Courts to arrive at a verdict after what can be traumatic court proceedings. That is why we have these procedures for accelerated apologies and for some sort of certainty on damages. In my view, that is an entirely reasonable proposal.

Section 18 provides for the defence of honest opinion. It replaces the current defence of fair comment. Under the present law fair comment is available where it is being pleaded that the alleged defamatory words were fair comment or expressions of opinion as opposed to fact. It is the same with this section. We are making it clearer that it relates to opinion, not facts. The deletion of this section, as proposed by Senator Norris, would be a revolutionary change from the current law, and I cannot support it for that reason alone.

Senator Regan has mooted amendments Nos. 12 and 13. The additional words proposed do not add to the understanding of the pleaded defence. Senator Regan is trying to introduce the concept of reasonableness, that if a defendant claims he or she believed an opinion then that is the opinion. Opinion rests on belief, not on reasonableness. That also would introduce a dramatic innovation in the law. I happen to think Senator Norris's characterisation of my legislative labours was highly unreasonable but I do not believe that I should be entitled in a defamation action to go to a court and try to prove the considerable unreasonableness of his opinion. We must be careful in this area. We are not doing anything in this section that involves a radical change in current law. Senator Jim Walsh fairly acknowledged that I had addressed his concern about the lack of clarity in the original formulation in an amendment I tabled on Committee Stage.

It is important that we realise that this is not new law. It is existing law that, in the case of opinions, an opinion honestly entertained does not land one in a liable action. That, to me, has always been the law and seems a reasonable provision.