I move amendment No. 3: "In page 7, to delete lines 29 to 32."

This amendment proposes to delete lines 29 to 32 on page 7. The intention is to remove the rule that "the reputation of a body corporate that trades for profit shall not be considered to be serious harm ... unless it has caused, or is likely to cause, the body corporate serious financial loss.". I do not like that particular change for the reason that if we take the view that a body corporate - for example, a charity like Trócaire - has a reputation, we are introducing a different standard of treatment for a body w…

Briefly, in reply, I have two things to say. I believe the defence of this particular provision put forward by the Minister is very weak. I will give him the following examples. It fails completely to distinguish between the personal proprietor of the restaurant Senator Mullen referred to, and the fact his family business has been incorporated as a shareholding with his wife. It fails completely and arbitrarily to deal with that situation, which I find wrong. Second, there is no explanation as to where this particu…

I fully accept the ruling of the Chair on that but I do say it is strange that the report of a parole board in this State carries privilege but one in Northern Ireland or the island of Britain does not carry such protections.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 8, line 26, before “an inquiry” to insert “a statement or”. This is an amendment that I genuinely believe the Minister should take on board. The defence being offered on page 8 to shopkeepers by the new section 8, amending section 18 of the principal Act, says the protection offered by that section is restricted to an inquiry as to whether the person who made the statement had paid for the goods or services or obtained services or had in his possession goods, proof of payment for ser…

The Minister correctly concedes that what he says here is not in any sense looked to by the courts as to what the section actually means but in my view it is not an overly strict interpretation of the word that the statement consists of an inquiry to say that it must be interrogative in nature. We will only find out whether the Minister is right that it is the case that judges will say they will expand the meaning of the term to cover statements and inquiries when a case is actually decided in the Circuit Court one…

It is not a proposition of fact; it is a question. It is wrong to confine the protection to shopkeepers to inquiries when it could be so simply changed to accede to the amendment proposed by me and Senator Craughwell.

I also want to move that the section be recommitted. This is not to delay proceedings but there are some questions I want to put to the Minister and I ask under Standing Orders that the section be recommitted. It will not lengthen the proceedings.

I move: "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of section 11."

We will have a vote on that then, which is a waste of time. I am being asked to group these amendments together and usually a speaker, under Standing Orders, is given the opportunity to say why it is necessary to do so and anybody else who says they disagree is given the opportunity to say why it should not be done, so I do not think it can simply be done in the matter Senator Gallagher has done. If he wants to say why I should not ask some questions about the meaning of this section that is proposed to be changed,…

I welcome that the Minister has moved in relation to this issue and that the somewhat sterile language this Bill arrived in the House with has been tempered by a wise decision by him to introduce an overall requirement of fairness in respect of publications on matters of public interest. I am grateful to the Minister for doing that and will support his amendment to retitle the section and insert the words he wishes to. Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, in the names of Senators Craughwell and I are intended to----…

If we are only stuck on that then I am happy. The amendments should be made.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 10, to delete lines 10 to 12 and substitute the following: "(b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement was in the public interest, (c) the statement was published in good faith, and (d) the publication of the statement was fair having regard to the rights of the plaintiff including the right to his or her good name.". Amendment No. 9 gives the court guidance, in paragraph (d), as to what we mean by "fair" - that it is "fair having regard to the plaintiff incl…

I move amendment No. 11: In page 10, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: "(3) Failure or refusal by a plaintiff to respond to any attempt by the defendant to elicit a response to a statement proposed to be published by or with the involvement of the defendant shall not— (a) constitute or imply consent to the publication of the statement, or (b) entitle a court to draw any inference therefrom adverse to the plaintiff.".

I do not want to delay things too much but this section was effectively an effort to recreate in Irish law section 13 of the UK Defamation Act 2013. As far as I am concerned, to make it obligatory to disregard any omission is, as Senator Mullen has said, a very far-reaching proposition. Although we have not reached it yet, amendment No. 13, which is in my name and that of Senator Craughwell, proposes to insert the word "reasonable" before "omission". If The Irish Times has to report on a row between Musk and Trump,…

I move amendment No. 13: In page 10, line 21, after “any” to insert “reasonable”.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 10, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(4) In deciding whether publication of a statement to the public at large or any section thereof was fair a court may have regard to— (a) the extent to which the statement concerned refers to the performance by the person of his or her public functions, (b) the seriousness of any allegations made in the statement, (c) the context and content (including the language used) of the statement, (d) the extent to which the statement dr…

I move amendment No. 18: In page 21, to delete lines 30 to 32 and substitute the following: “ “45. (1) The Circuit Court and the High Court (in this section referred to as the ‘court’) shall each have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and determine an application in accordance with this section.”.

The amendment seeks to give the High Court an identical jurisdiction to the Circuit Court in respect of identification orders. It may well be that the Circuit Court is cheaper. I sometimes wonder about that. It certainly is a lot more inconvenient in certain circumstances. The other point is that the Circuit Court is a court of local and limited jurisdiction. So is it where the defendant resides or where the defamation took place? Is that to determine which circuit is to exercise the jurisdiction?

I move amendment No. 19: In page 22, to delete lines 38 to 42 and substitute the following: “(5) The provisions of section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, shall apply in relation to the costs of any application for an identification order.”.