Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I was also going to mention the Statute of Limitations. One year is too short. There has been some discussion of people who were accused in the wrong in shops.

Most of the shops with which I had dealings when I was a solicitor provided poor or no training for their employees, and that was the reason things were said that should not have been said. That can be overcome with training. Given the way in which the cases were approached, the Statute of Limitations was too short and perhaps should be extended. It is difficult to strike a balance between the right to a good name and the right to press freedom. It is probably the case that most of the witnesses saw the documentary on phone hacking that was broadcast on BBC last week. Amazingly, some of the editors of the newspapers who were involved in tapping the phones of victims of bombings or relatives of murdered children then blamed the system, claiming it was easier to settle cases and that maybe they did nothing wrong.

It is important to take the inequality of arms into consideration. By and large, that is the situation in most of these cases. Mr. Harty or one of the other witnesses referred to stakeholders. The majority of the stakeholders who have informed this piece have not been individual citizens with experience of being badly treated by print media or the likes of social media companies. In my experience, it is difficult to get the latter group to take stuff down as quickly as possible. There are measures here to address some of that.

We in Sinn Féin are opposed to the abolition of juries. We have argued that North and South. I am aware of the arguments that are made for abolishing juries. The same argument, namely, that the only way to reduce the cost of insurance policies is to reduce these mad verdicts that are given by juries and the huge compensation claims, was made back in the 1980s in the context of personal injuries cases. As all present are aware, and there have been a lot of amendments and legislation since then, all with the aim of reducing insurance costs, that simply has not happened. I do not think it would happen in this scenario either. I do not see that it is any argument for abolishing juries either.

I welcome the points made by almost all the witnesses, including Ms Harty, who has primarily represented the defendants in these cases. The heads of the Bill do not refer to the Statute of Limitations, but should it be extended to at least two years without having to give a reason, similar to the situation for personal injuries cases? The witnesses should have enough time to make their points.