Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)

Senator Craughwell asked whether I would consider amending section 34A(d). I will always consider what is said in this House and I will reflect upon it for Report Stage, but my own view at this preliminary stage is that, when I look at section 34A(d), what is set out there is comprehensible. The Senator says I should stop at "the use in bad faith of procedural tactics". What is also included is:

such as delaying proceedings, fraudulent or abusive forum shopping or the discontinuation of cases at a later stage of the proceedings in bad faith ...

I see no harm in that being included. They are not completely exhaustive; they are examples of the type of behaviour that gives evidence of bad faith. As the Senator says, a court knows what bad faith is, but notwithstanding that, in the context of the transposition of the directive, it is probably important that we try to stay loyal to the terminology used within the directive.

The Senator also spoke about investigative reporting. My own view is that we have good journalists and good reporting in Ireland. There is an index of journalism and free press throughout the world. Ireland is always in the top ten. Notwithstanding criticism that may come from the media about our defamation laws, we still have a very vibrant media and a media that is regarded internationally as operating in a very free environment. It should be said that, unlike stuff we read on social media, if we see something published by the traditional media in Ireland, there is a good belief that what they are publishing is true. We know that sometimes they will get it wrong, but in general if a newspaper publishes allegations that are strong, we know that it must have a good basis for doing so because of the defamation laws. That is one of the understated but important benefits of the balanced defamation laws we have in Ireland.

The Senator referred to a number of individual cases. I am not going to go into that. I have said before that we do not want the courts to be used as the place where people go to try to score political points or for the purpose of trying to pursue a greater political agenda. That does not just happen in the field of defamation. I disagree with the Senator suggesting we should criminalise the behaviour of people taking actions that are found to be abusive. That is not a good idea. We must be careful about the types of behaviour we criminalise. If there are abusive court proceedings, there is a civil remedy set out here that is going to be sufficient. Politicians must have a thick skin, as we all do. I do not think we should be running off to the courts when somebody says something about us that is wrong and damaging. However, there are times where people may be very severely damaged in their reputations by the publication of false statements. That is something the Defamation Act is designed to deal with. It is not designed to facilitate people scoring points.