David Norris (Independent)

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 18, subsection (3)(a), line 15, after "not" to insert "automatically".

The issue of apologies and their effects is troubling. The Minister has substantially weakened the interest of the ordinary citizen. I disagree that an apology would not constitute an express or implied admission of liability. It is plain common sense that it would constitute an admission and such is the interpretation in every other area of law. If I were involved in a traffic accident and apologised to the other party, that could be introduced as evidence of an admission. In plain, clear logic, it is nothing other than an admission if I apologised for making a mistake or for committing libel, and the Bill is incorrect to state that such an apology does not constitute an express or implied admission. It is like Alice in Wonderland to claim that saying one was wrong does not constitute an admission. The ordinary citizen's common sense should be respected. I made my amendment weaker than I originally intended by including the word "automatically", and the least the Minister can do is accept it because, otherwise, the Bill revolts common sense.

Subsection (4) is an outrage. While I do not know about the Minister, are we totally crazy as politicians to say newspapers can introduce evidence of an apology in mitigation but the claimant cannot? It is the most extraordinary proposal I have ever come across and it totally skews the balance between newspapers and the individual. By acknowledging an error and printing an apology, a newspaper can mitigate a serious libel from its point of view, even though it is not an admission of liability or admissible in court. On what planet do we live? The Minister should not think my sentiments on the matter are not shared because many of his Cabinet colleagues have told me in the privacy of the Members' bar that they feel the same way. They have thanked God that somebody has the balls to raise the issue because, although they would love to raise it themselves, they cannot do so. Few in this House, other than Members with interests in the newspaper industry, do not feel exactly the same. I can assure the Minister that the citizens of Ireland share my sentiments. What is being done here revolts reason and outrages logic, and I ask the Minister to accept at a minimum that an apology does not automatically constitute an express or limited admission.

The Minister should delete subsection (4). We are always hearing about level playing fields, yet a business organisation with enormous financial resources and insurance coverage can libel Seán and Moira citizen and then can apologise without admitting liability and introduce that apology in court as mitigation. How does the apology mitigate anything? The newspaper can introduce such an apology but the unfortunate individual is not allowed to do so. On what planet do Members live? I would like to hear other Members' opinions in this regard because, further on, it is stated that people in public life should be subject to less protection.

The Government has given in and has sold the pass under pressure from the newspapers. This happens each time there is a general election. It is not simply Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats who do this; Fine Gael did so five years ago. They are all at it and the turkeys will vote for Christmas as long as they get a gob-full of good publicity before the general election.