David Norris (Independent)

The intention of the amendment was to allow for the proposed insertion of the word "automatically" as a possibility after the word "not" in subsection (3)(a) which, as drafted, states: "does not constitute an express or implied admission of liability by that defendant, and". That means that it cannot constitute an implied admission. However, when one says that it "does not automatically" do so, it would leave open the possibility that in certain circumstances it could.

The point I was making on the last occasion — and I did have some degree of moral support, at least, from Senator Jim Walsh — was that the net effect of the Bill is to skew the balance against the individual in favour of the newspaper proprietors who have very large vested interests in this area. I cannot accept the notion that it is not normal drafting. There was a wonderful example of normal drafting the last day. God almighty and His entire family could not understand section 18(3)(a) which was such a collection of nonsense that the Minister agreed to have it redrafted. I will not accept guff referring to normal drafting because it does not exist.

All that is sought on both sides of the House is drafting that is clear, simple and defends the rights of citizens. Inserting the word "automatically" provides an avenue of approach whereby a plaintiff may be given a level playing field. I remind the House that when this legislation goes through, one will be able to tell any number of lies about a citizen and follow them with an apology that must automatically be taken in mitigation of the effect, consequences and damages that accrue subsequent to an action for libel. The apology will be a valuable weapon in the hands of the press and, if this is how the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, wants it, then that is fine but he is simultaneously removing that weapon from the ordinary citizen. He is asking the court to pretend the apology never took place and I suggest that such apologies made by newspapers are worthless and are only made to save money. I accept that it would be improper to restrict the freedom of the press excessively and impede investigative journalism, but I also feel it is wrong to hinder the individual plaintiff as this legislation will.

I apologise for being briefly absent from the House. I passed through the ante chamber, did not hear a whisper of McDowell and thought I should follow the Leader's instructions.