David Norris (Independent)

I thought so too. That is why I reprimanded him over it but the net effect of it was that he denied it and said he called him a goblin. I have the evidence of what he said. That is the type of behaviour of which I do not approve. When one seeks an apology and it is not given one then has to sue and that is a fairly dicey game. The individual who takes on a newspaper must have a great deal of courage, bipolar syndrome or a great deal of money behind him or her. It can be nerve-wracking but if one believes one's reputation is impugned and one goes after the person responsible, he or she will not give an apology until one has them by the throat, and then they will try to do one afterwards.

Does anybody remember when the same stable of newspapers libelled the late Niall Andrews and he sued? They laid in wait for him. It took about 18 months but by God they got him. That is what people are afraid of. That is why it is appropriate that an apology should be given and it should be given the same prominence as the original article but lets us not be foolish and naive in these matters because there are people who will punish one for telling the truth. There are people who do not know or care about the truth and who print stories in order to sell newspapers. We in this House are barking mad to attempt to create two tiers of people. If this Bill goes through, and I sincerely hope it does not, people like us in public life will be fair game. The media can lie as much as they like about us because they will have every kind of available defence and although they will be able to apologise, we will not be able to use the apology. Therefore, this is a good amendment and while I respect Senator Maurice Hayes for tabling it, I am deeply concerned about much of the rest of the contents of the Bill.

I accept libel is a terrifying experience, especially for the person being sued. I have been on both ends of this game, although I was not all that terrified in my case. I do not have long pockets but I am an up and down kind of person. I will table an amendment to say that the person who shall be liable for damages and costs shall be the proprietor of the newspaper and the editor because the buck should stop at the top desk. The individual journalist should not be penalised in this way. I am involved in a form of balancing act. I am passionately on the side of the small person who may be crucified by newspapers which, by and large, do not give a damn, and the more English papers enter the market, the less they give a damn. As a fellow journalist with many friends who are journalists, however, I also have a good deal of sympathy for people who are subject to libel actions because this could be disastrous for a person who is individually liable.

I welcome this amendment but there is a lot more work to be done. As the Tánaiste's colleague, the senior partner in the arrangement, might say, "Some done, a lot more to do". I hope we can either get rid of this Bill or else make it more amenable to the rights of ordinary people as well as politicians who are merely ordinary people who accept a further level of responsibility on behalf of the community. They should not be penalised simply because they take on this role.