David Norris (Independent)

It is interesting that my colleague on the Government benches is hesitating about this; I am too, for a number of reasons. First, it places a considerable burden on somebody who is trying to take this type of action. Bear in mind that this is generally an individual who is up against powerful vested interests. I note that at the Tánaiste's party conference, a great rally which was held last weekend, a gentleman there spoke against the privacy Bill. I hope the Minister will tell us later what is happening with that Bill. The gentleman was objecting to the Bill on various grounds, but he did not disclose the fact that he is the principal partner of a solicitors' firm whose major client is Mr. Anthony O'Reilly. That little bit of information might have been helpful.

I am on the side of the small person against big vested interests. What I most dislike about this Bill is that it is produced at election time, just as the Fine Gael Party launched its version in 2001 in advance of an election. With regard to the rights of the small person, this is a situation where somebody is expected to make not just one affidavit but perhaps a series of them as the trial process continues. One could end up with a trial within a trial. It is possible, for example, that somebody could swear an affidavit, there is a gap of two years before the trial is held, he or she makes an honest mistake in the witness box and is found guilty of a criminal offence. That is not a good idea.

This section is analogous with the provisions of another Bill, the name of which I cannot recall, dealing with personal injuries and insurance. I believe it was a mistake at that point, and now the mistake is being widened by its introduction in this legislation. It is to the disadvantage of the ordinary person who might make a genuine mistake. It does not trust the individual. The assumption behind the provision is that a considerable preponderance of people will perjure themselves. That is rather insulting to the Irish people. I do not believe a majority of people will do that and there is no need to deal with it in this way.

The Minister, unusually, does not appear to take into account the corrective system of the court in analysing this evidence. I share Senator Walsh's reservations but mine are stronger. It would be better to remove this section.