David Norris (Independent)

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 22, subsection (2), line 27, to delete "shall give directions" and substitute "may advise".

This relates to the control a judge will have over the question of damages. It is very bad principle to second-guess a jury. Section 29(2) states that in a defamation action brought in the High Court, the judge shall give directions to the jury on the matter of damages. That is not appropriate in all circumstances because it ties the judge's hands. It states the judge shall give directions to the jury. In other words, the Minister has such a low view of people's intelligence, he does not believe they are capable of coming to a reasonable conclusion about damages.

On Second Stage, or perhaps during an earlier discussion on Committee Stage, the Minister pointed to a case where a large amount was awarded. It was thrown out and went back to another jury which increased the amount, even though it had been told it was too much. There is no question of doubt that is what the people wanted. I do not like this type of authoritarianism. In the above case, a jury was empanelled but the result was not liked and it was fired off to another jury which not only took the same view but provocatively increased the amount.

It is like the Government's attitude to referenda on the European Union. If it does not like the result, it will keep asking the question until it gets the right answer. It is a variation of what, I believe, Mr. Bruton said in the Dáil, that is, "You didn't ask the right question". The attitude here is that we will keep asking the question until we get the right answer and since juries are such a pain in the backside, we will ignore them, tie their hands, not let them decide and will make the judge decide.

The Minister came up with a series of arguments. He is always interesting to listen to and that is why I am happy to spend an afternoon here. The Minister is not only delighting and entertaining me, he is also continuing my education. Senator Mansergh was perfectly right but the situation is disastrously worse than he supposes. My economic education did not commence in the 1970s; it has not yet commenced. It is a subject about which I know absolutely nothing. I am delighted to say I am totally unacquainted with the vulgarity of economics. In fact, I am an economic virgin which is one of the few degrees of virginity to which I can legitimately and honourably lay claim.

My amendment is one which the Minister should be tempted to accept. I am not saying the judge can never give directions but that he or she may advise. That is a more civilised way to deal with the matter rather than saying the judge shall say, in all circumstances, that the jury must give the person, say, €16,506. The judge can say a reasonable estimate is between €30,000 and €40,000 or between €10,000 and €15,000. The words "may advise" take away this straightjacket element. Since the Minister has indicated he will consider various issues, I hope he will consider this one while he is at it.