Results 21-40 of 501 for speaker:Maurice Hayes

Seanad: Order of Business (7 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: I support the call for a debate on competitiveness and the economy. While I sympathise deeply with people who have lost their jobs, there is an inevitability about this which we must examine. I watched a BBC television programme last night where a female mill worker from Rochdale was brought to Sri Lanka to see where her job had gone. The woman in Sri Lanka was paid £100 per week for work...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: I move amendment No. 23: In page 22, subsection (1), line 4, after "statement" to insert the following: "and to give due prominence to the correction order such as will ensure that it is communicated to all or substantially all of those persons to whom the defamatory statement is published". I do not mind what form of words is used but this amendment seeks proportionality and timeliness in...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: The Acting Chairman has curtailed my wonderful perorations.

Seanad: Order of Business (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: I, too, am concerned by the reports that distressed Mrs. O'Toole. I will not go into whether they are spun out of the air or are the result of winks and nods or whispers from sources within the Garda. I have seen both happen, and both reflect badly on the ethical and professional standards of the people concerned, regardless of their profession. What I had intended to say has already been...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: As a director of Independent Newspapers and writer, I have an interest to declare in this matter, and I make such declarations ritually. We have focused on this issue each day we have discussed the Bill and I can only conclude that the intention is not to make progress on Committee Stage. I agree with the Minister that the purpose of this section was to encourage newspapers to offer...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: Senator Norris is extending the Sullivan judgment far beyond what anybody expects of it. The basis of the Sullivan judgement was that people engaged in the rough and tumble of political debate and public life should be regarded as having slightly thicker skins than others but if there is a liable people can proceed on that. Like Shylock, if we are pricked do we not bleed?

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: That should be respected. At the same time, we are not putting journalists, writers or others in a different position from the rest of the public when giving a defence of good faith because what is it but mens rea? It is the intent to commit the crime or whatever. There must be a good faith defence in that case as in this one. We tend to concentrate on the press and on the media but there...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: What Senator Tuffy is requesting represents good journalistic practice. Publishers should try to establish the contra case before publication. Most conscientious journalists would do so. I agree with what the Minister of State has said. It should be left either to the courts or to developing codes of practice.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: The court would ask whether at the time this was happening the person made the effort before he or she published?

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: I have a degree of sympathy with the position that a lodgement should either imply or include an expression of apology or of amends. That would be essential. However, let us remove this from the realm of libel and consider it in the context of another case where people are making claims against each other for injury, accident or the like. The court decides at what point one party has acted...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: I remind Senator Norris of the case of Sir William Wilde and Kit Travers.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: Sir William Wilde complained, rather ruefully, that he had been charged £5,000 for the pleasure of seducing a young lady whose virtue was valued at a farthing. There is no justification for treating libel actions differently from other actions, where a lodgement in court is accepted. It is up to the court to decide what is the reasonable price to put on the hurt and what redress is...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Maurice Hayes: There is an enormous difference between hurt feelings and paraplegia.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Maurice Hayes: Much can be said for the spirit of the amendment, and perhaps the Minister will consider it. Senators appear to agree that, as well as being appropriate and proportionate, apologies should be timely.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Maurice Hayes: I had thought the purpose of this provision was to enable people to avoid litigation if they did not want to enter into it and that people who might be satisfied with an apology could receive one. However, if people wanted to go on to litigate thereafter, consequently both sides would start from scratch as though, in a sense, the apology had not been given. There has always been a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Maurice Hayes: I am unsure whether including the word, "automatically" makes any difference from the point of view of drafting or interpretation. However, the general tenor of this provision should make things easier. If people subsequently want to go on to litigation, nothing will prevent them. The decks are cleared.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Maurice Hayes: That is true but it is possible to make progress.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Maurice Hayes: I agree with Senator Norris about the clumsiness of paragraph (a) and I believe the Minister should revise his opinion of Victorian drafters. They were much better and clearer than what we are getting now. Surely the point of concern is covered by subsection (2)(b)(i) and (ii). That clarifies the position reasonably well in the way the Minister is doing.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Maurice Hayes: I must declare an interest and as a writer in newspapers, thank the Minister for free legal aid and advice and for an invaluable exposition of the difference between one and the other.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Maurice Hayes: He should have turned it into a play.