Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

This proposes a significant change to what pertains at the moment. The Minister might clarify the situation but my understanding is that if a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the latter can refer the decision to the lower court. There have been famous examples of increases in awards but I am concerned about the Supreme Court being able to override a case which has been prosecuted through a lower court, such as the High Court. Evidence has been given and people have been cross-examined, which does not happen in the Supreme Court, yet the latter can override the decision of the jury. I know the media sought this provision but I question whether it achieves balance in favour of the citizen. I take the point made by the Minister on the previous section about the smaller person damaging a large corporation but in these cases the large corporation is on the other side, rather than the ordinary citizen with limited resources.

I am disappointed that discussions on a press council do not consider an independent system, similar to what the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment brought about in the insurance industry by establishing the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. The PIAB formula for deciding upon personal injury claims can act as a yardstick for agreeing compensation levels without incurring legal costs. The recent report of that body was very significant. It stated that cases were being addressed much more expeditiously and that justice was being dispensed for a fraction of the legal costs. I do not see why we cannot develop a similar system for this area. It would mean an independent press council or a separate assessment board but we should put in place such an organisation. If a person is defamed, he or she is entitled to a lawful adjudication but he or she should not have to risk whatever bit of wealth he or she has to restore his or her reputation, as happens at the moment and will happen under this legislation.