Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I welcome what the Minister has said in so far as it concerns the desirability of providing that an apology made would not act against the interests of a defendant. It is desirable that the law would always encourage people to do the right thing. In that regard, it is desirable that a defendant would give evidence in mitigation of damage to the effect that he or she made an apology.

I also welcome what is provided for by the Government's amendment in terms of ensuring some adequacy of apology in respect of prominence. However, the Minister should go further and accept Senator Regan's amendment. The question of it being a reasonable and adequate apology is surely worthy of our consideration. In so far as the Minister suggests that this might act to limit the effect of the section, surely it would only limit it in such a way that it could not be availed of by the media where the apology in question was not adequate. It is one thing to talk about the prominence of an apology. We have all seen situations where the outrage is perpetrated and the apology subsequently gets much smaller billing. However, we have also seen a phenomenon where the apology can be very mealy-mouthed. It is desirable that the legislation should provide that the reasonableness or adequacy of the apology should be a matter for consideration. I do not see why the law should not specify that the apology in question should be a reasonable and adequate one.