John Crown (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank in particular the Minister of State. We talked earlier on about the new politics and we have seen a good example of a very constructive approach. I was humbled by the detailed and appropriately forensic analysis of the legal deficiencies in the Bill, which were pointed out, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to have so much free legal advice as I have had this afternoon. We will eagerly await Committee Stage amendments and will look at them very constructively. The Minister of State has demonstrated commitment to new politics because the reflex position in this House seems to be that if an idea comes from the Opposition, it will fall into one of two categories. Category 1 is "It's a terrible idea and we're rejecting it." Category 2 is "It's a good idea, you haven't done a very good job on it and we'll be back with something better." It is rare that we see the third category. Senator Quinn has been very good at it and I have been lucky with another Bill or two down the years when the Government side will say "Actually, this isn't a bad idea and we think it may actually be something we can build."

I thank the Minister of State.

With regard to the question about the rarity of the event, although the event may be rare, the threat is not quite as rare. There can be instances of a thinly veiled resort to this threat. I am a student of science and I use statistics so I do not like to delve into anecdotes. Nevertheless, I am aware, anecdotally, of a number of cases where the threat has been mentioned or is implicit in a reply to criticism.

The broad scope of the organisations that would be covered exercised us quite a bit, and the Government is correct in that there may be specific cases where we would need to work out if organisations have legitimate interests. The question of special damages is not dealt with by the Bill. This relates to cases where it is judicially decided that, as distinct from the theory of defamation, a company is at the receiving end of unfair or inaccurate criticism by a commercial competitor. The best example in theory would be the VHI, although I am not here to criticise that company today. If in order to get commercial advantage it was alleged that the VHI - whose only shareholder is the Minister for Health, and which would be covered under this Bill - was selling a deficient product, this Bill would not stop the VHI from claiming for special damages. However, the pure abstract concept of claiming for defamation would be denied. We should remember that not every entity is the VHI, and this would also have covered NAMA or Irish Water. There can be cases made that there are appropriate targets which might be tempted to resort to this kind of defence.

We get very spiritual at times but when I hear of the Minister of State's conversion to rectitude on Seanad reform, like that conversion on the road to Damascus, we should remember there is more joy in heaven over one sheep that returns to the fold than over 100 which have never strayed.