If the Cathaoirleach wants votes all afternoon, Senator Craughwell said it was not agreed. Perhaps he was not heard.

I have to say to the Chair that it is a section of huge importance. Rattling off sections in the way the Chair has is most unfair, especially if a Senator says it is "not agreed" and he is bulldozed out of the way.

If the Cathaoirleach wants votes all afternoon on every comma in this Bill, he will get it now. If the House wants to go back to section 11, it is entitled to do so, as the Chair well knows.

I am not against efficiency.

Just so everyone knows, Senator Craughwell and I spent an hour talking about this section this morning and came here with the express intention of opposing it.

I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider this particular amendment. This amendment to the Act of 2009 was tendered in the course of the Dáil debate by the Minister. It is not referred to, as far as I can see, in the original explanatory memorandum and it actually promises a very radical effect of change in the defamation law of this country. The House should be made aware that back in 2006 and 2007, when the 2009 legislation was being prepared and was actually commenced in this House, I remember sitting where the…

I thank the Fianna Fáil Members for tabling this important motion. Those of us in the Seanad Independent Group had put down a similar motion, which was much less elaborate, on 22 September to the same effect. I thank those Members who have also tabled amendments to the motion. It is important that this House speaks frequently on this subject. While you can illuminate the outside of the Houses of the Oireachtas with Ukrainian colours, there is a sense that events in the Middle East have dwarfed the Ukrainian struggl…

I second the amendment.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 7, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following: “PART 4 DEFAMATORY STATEMENT 6. Section 2 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the following for the definition of “defamatory statement” appearing in that section: “ ‘defamatory statement’ means a statement that tends to cause harm both to a serious and to a lasting extent in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and ‘defamatory’ and ‘serious harm’ shall be construed accordingly.”. This is an importan…

I will come back to them at a later stage. We are not on Report Stage yet. I will be proposing them later.

The Minister has proposed in section 8 that there should be a provision which deals slightly with the circumstances we are discussing here but it is inadequate. There is not much point in waiting until section 8 is reached to point out that it is no answer to the points that have been raised by Senators. It proposes to extend the defence of qualified privilege to situations where the defendant inquires as to whether: the person whom the statement concerned had— (I) paid for goods or services, (II) obtained services…

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am also grateful to him for quoting from his own officials' view about what people in the Attorney General's office have said. That is a first, I have to say.

I would say there will be a salvo coming the Minister's way from Merrion Street for doing that. However, it answers the question in that I had suspected there was a notion that the serious harm threshold was regarded with suspicion by what I consider to be extremely conservative legal advice. I will give an example to Members of the House. If somebody called me a paedophile, that would be defamatory. If somebody says it to me in the presence of my wife and nobody else, there is practically no harm done to me of a l…

They are very welcome.

No, I am glad the Leas-Chathaoirleach did that. We will reach the amendment at a later stage, but I ask the Minister to think about this point. The Minister is proposing that the courts will be able to say to people that yes, they have been defamed and they have no other way of finding out who defamed them other than to bring an application to court, but they must now pay Elon Musk and his lawyers for the expense involved. If the Minister wants to have something that will really numb applicants, this is it. People …

I do not want to call a vote at 2.30 p.m. because we will be here until 2.45 p.m. In the two minutes remaining, I want to make the point to the Minister that if Senator Fitzpatrick received a letter from somebody saying she had defamed them in something she said in this House, her solicitor could write back and say that was an occasion of absolute privilege. If the person then commenced a High Court or a Circuit Court defamation action, she would go to a competent barrister and solicitor. They would apply immediate…

I second the motion.

I have great pleasure in seconding Senator Craughwell's motion. He has spoken very eloquently and movingly about the personal aspects of this particular issue, which is raised in the notice of motion. I just want to say a few things. I am very grateful to him that he used the time of the Independent group of Senators to put this issue before the House. In large measure, it is something that is not spoken about. The HPV vaccination programme has been rolled out among school pupils, which is a very good thing, but it…

I move amendment No. 3: In page 6, line 28, after “jury” to insert the following: “, unless it is ordered by the High Court that, having regard to the nature of the claim on which the particular action is based, both the public interest and the interests of justice would be better served by its trial with a jury.”. This amendment is similar to amendment No. 2 but is different in some respects. It provides that in future defamation claims, the presumption would be that they do not attract jury trial in the High Cour…

I thank the Minister for his reply insofar as it goes. However, he has avoided the fundamental proposition that I asked him to give a clearer explanation for, namely why it is that if somebody alleges that he or she was beaten up by a garda, he or she is entitled to a jury trial, but if a journalist says that he or she was beaten up by a garda, no such entitlement exists? In the course of an eloquent and learned reply to my point, that has been completely avoided as an issue. The point I am making is that there wil…