Seanad debates

Tuesday, 6 March 2007

Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

3:00 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I am impressed by Senator Walsh's contribution which was fair, measured and reasonable. I also have a degree of sympathy with Senator Maurice Hayes's comments because I understand that one does not want to have blood in the water, in other words, the fact that an apology is given means that people who might not otherwise take an action sniff blood and decide that, having received an apology, they can go for the publication in question. It is a matter of striking a balance. The problem, however, is that the section lacks balance and favours one side.

While I understand the concerns of Senator Maurice Hayes and, like everybody else, want good investigative journalism, I do not want the apology to be used as an excuse. I will retain my amendments in order that I may resubmit them on Report Stage. Will the Minister of Stage ask officials to examine the section to ascertain if the lack of balance, about which all Senators have some reservations, can be addressed? In such circumstances, I would not be vexatious in pushing my amendments. It is not a matter of personal vanity on my part to have my name on an amendment which is accepted.

I accept that the Minister controls the Whip and that the reality of political life is that Members on that side will have to do as they are told and will be dragooned through the lobbies. There is clearly a belief on all sides of the House that there is a lack of balance in this regard. It is incumbent on the Minister to ask his officials to consider whether it is possible to introduce an extra degree of balance.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.