David Norris (Independent)

I will not delay the House on this matter, but I will say one or two things. The first is that this is an attempt to second guess juries. The machinery we already have is adequate for addressing the situation so effectively outlined by the Minister. This was the Government's position. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill states at the outset: "The purpose of the Bill is to revise in part the law of defamation and to replace the Defamation Act 1961 with modern updated provisions taking into account the jurisprudence of our courts and the European Court of Human Rights". It is not just a question of a margin of appreciation. We are taking into account the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights.

Does the Minister accept the will of the people or does he wish to elevate the Supreme Court above their clearly expressed will? Is it not a possibility that can be contemplated without bringing about the ruin of the institutions of the State that the Supreme Court could make an error? It could misread the public mind. If there is one thing that is clear, it is that the public has a mind on this and is very clear on it. I not sure but I believe it was unanimous in those cases. It would be worthwhile looking at that.

What this means is that there is a dangerous opposition, that should not be politically fostered or encouraged, between the Supreme Court on the one hand and the will of the sovereign people on the other. This is unhealthy and wrong. If the people wish to deliver on salutary judgment and punitive damages and if having been told that this is not appropriate, they go and double the amount, the message could not be clearer. The Supreme Court and the establishment of Ireland may not wish to hear that message and newspapers certainly do not wish to hear it, but it is a very clear message delivered by the Irish people to unresponsive institutions. By enacting this section of the Bill, we will be making those institutions even less responsive.