Seanad report: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said he understood that people now had the right to contradict defamatory statements made about them in the Dáil or the Seanad.
Michael McDowell (PD) was responding during the committee stage debate on the Defamation Bill to Jim Walsh (FF), who had asked if the privilege of publication was being extended to those appearing before Oireachtas committees. Where someone made a statement defamatory of a third party, that statement could be subsequently published, he said. There should be some way of correcting it.
He said he was aware some people did not have absolute privilege in respect of statements made in committee. "I think from memory that the Constitution confers absolute privilege on members of the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of statements they make, but non-members are in a slightly different situation. I will look at the matter and see if we need to tidy it up."
As he understood it, both Houses had enacted standing orders which gave people the right to contradict defamatory statements made about them in either House. That was to some extent a counter-measure to the absolute privilege conferred by the Constitution.
Mr Walsh said the concern would be that an initial publication could be damaging or injurious to the affected person. He asked the Minister to consider what could be done about this.
Maurice Hayes (Ind) said Mr Walsh's point might be addressed by inserting a phrase such as "and not subsequently corrected or withdrawn by that member".
The publication was in good faith, once it came but if there was a retraction or correction in good faith, it should be taken account of as well.
The Minister noted that David Norris (Ind) was seeking the inclusion of a provision requiring people, "where they plead what used to be justification, to set out the facts upon which they will rely with regard to such justification".
He would look at that before the next stage of the Bill.
The sort of staffing difficulties hampering corporate law enforcement had also held up civilianisation in the Garda and, it seemed, staffing of the Garda Ombudsman's Office, the House was told.
Maurice Hayes (Ind) referred to complaints that the director of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement had been unable to get sufficient staff.
It struck him that this was a case of two perfectly laudable policies being in conflict with each other, and the Minister for Finance should be asked to come to the House to discuss the matter. Dr Hayes said he was fully supportive of the need to control Civil Service numbers, but that had resulted in necessary staff not being provided.
Shane Ross (Ind) said the director, Paul Appleby, deserved the support of the House. He had a key role to play, particularly in building up confidence in business.
The Minister for Justice said he intended, in the next few days, to put before the Government a Bill which would deal with the justifiable use of force by home owners to protect lives and property.
Michael McDowell made the announcement during the second stage debate on the Defence of Life Property Bill. The private members' Bill in the name of Tom Morrissey (PD) would provide a full defence in criminal and civil law cases where force was reasonably used by occupiers in dwellings to defend life or property against persons trespassing with criminal intent.
He said that as Mr Morrissey's Bill was consonant with Government's proposals he was happy to say that the Government had decided that it would not oppose it. The Government Bill would provide that in defined circumstances no civil liability would apply to a person in respect of injury arising from his or her actions in relation to a trespasser who had entered a dwelling or curtilage with criminal intent.
Brian Hayes, Fine Gael leader in the House said the Minister had effectively binned Mr Morrissey's proposed legislation.