Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

The plaintiff may have to pay the costs of the defendant. It represents a major gamble and is grossly unfair. Does the Department not see the inequity in this? The plaintiff may be a law-abiding citizen in court for the first time and would inquire of the legal team when an offer is made. The plaintiff is likely to follow the advice of the legal team. As a consequence, the plaintiff may lose everything and be left homeless. There is no consideration for the small man. We are in dereliction of our duties if the Bill passes as it stands. This is the most galling provision in the Bill. It does not even require, as an earlier section does, I believe it is section 20, that it must be accompanied by an apology. That is the very least that is required. The primary interest of most people who take a defamation action is restoring their reputation. We are crafting the Bill to provide that where somebody is defamed and takes a case, and where a certain amount of compensation is offered without an apology or retraction, the person could find himself or herself losing everything.

I cannot understand how a Government could impose that on an unsuspecting public. Of all the provisions in the Bill, this is the one to which I have the greatest objection. It disadvantages the individual when taking a case. In fact, the individual could find himself or herself on the horns of a dilemma simply because an offer is made. The least that should be done by amendment of that section is to provide that an offer without an apology, correction and retraction is not, in fact, an offer.