David Norris (Independent)

The Tánaiste is eminently reasonable, which is why we in this House love him so much.

I have been saying for a number of years that law should be written in accessible language. I may not be a lawyer and I may be economically illiterate but I have a nodding acquaintance with the English language. The term "give directions" means to give directions, and we cannot buck that. If I give somebody direction I direct them to do something. I believe the Tánaiste and those of us who take this view are remarkably close but I do not believe it would be any harm to alter the term to "may advise". That places no restriction on the judge in making the ruling.

I have no problem with awards being appealed to the Supreme Court as it is a very good idea. There is a significant difference and I may be economically illiterate and arithmetically challenged, but I can tell the difference between one and five. Even I can detect that. The difference in the Supreme Court is that you have five very experienced judges, not just one.

I would pose a question that is not entirely hypothetical, as I was involved in a case where a judge sued. What happens when one judge sues in a court and then his fellow judge, his little buddy, is awarding the damages? Do we not think there would be a little multiplier in that? The judge might say "Well, old Bloggs, I see him in the club every day, I will give him €800,000". That is perfectly possible and the issue should be obviated.

I thought there was a patronising element in what Senator "Mansewerage" said. There was an element of "we cannot trust the peasants." Who are they but eleven members of peasantry, and we cannot be trusting them with money. It might be all right for them cutting the bog but we are not going to let them loose on the purse. The Senator stated judges have more experience, but have they? They have more experience of what? What professional qualifications have they? Are they chartered assessors? They are not.

Judges are capable of being eccentric, and the Tánaiste will know there are plenty of examples of eccentric judges around this country. Some of them were written about by the commentariat in The Irish Times, no less, a red-hot roaring pinko who was not all that effete, strangely enough. That was Nell McCafferty, who used to write "In the Eyes of the Law." Some of the comments made by judges were remarkable.

I would challenge the idea that giving directions is a general advising of the jury. That may be the case in law. Barristers are wily, as the Tánaiste knows. Supposing a barrister would stand up in court and say, "My lord, do you not think it is time you gave directions to the jury?" Do we not think members of the jury would think they had better do what they are told? The language is important.

Everything the Tánaiste has said is met by the phrase "may advise". If the judge, in his or her wisdom, decides to let the jury have free reign, I would have no problem with a jury doubling the damages, having been told they are too much. The jury is indicating the judge to be wrong. I do not at all like this idea of second guessing a judgment.

To come back to Senator Mansergh's comments about judges having more experience and letting them have free reign on the question of costs, that is a very elegant argument for abolishing jurors altogether. If judges have more experience why do we go the expense and nuisance of juries? It is a bloody nuisance being on a jury, and I would know because I have been on one. It is the most aggravating task on Earth. I had achieved my alpha male status in the jury and I was winding myself up to award enormous damages, but I was baulked at the very last minute because the blackguards settled outside the court. We had been incarcerated with tea and biscuits for a couple of days. It was a dreary and awful case.

Why do we have this suspicion of juries if they are good enough to find the facts? For example, in many cases it is much more morally onerous to decide on facts when there are contending scenarios. Imagine, for example, a jury in a murder case, where they must decide if somebody is guilty of the very serious and heinous crime of murder, which until recently carried the death penalty. If we are prepared to charge juries with that task, I do not see why we are not prepared to let them decide, under advice from a judge, appropriate damages.

As this is the section dealing with damages, it is appropriate for me to formally reiterate that I propose to put down an amendment on Report Stage which, if accepted, will leave the editor and proprietors of a newspaper liable for the damages, rather than the individual reporter. That would be fair.

I am astonished at this suspicion of juries, which is a bit dangerous. I do not see why they should not be trusted with the decision. The Tánaiste has stated juries are trusted in this way, and this giving directions just means parameters are set out or advice is given. What is wrong with the term "may advise"? Is this another example of a specialised legal language which does not mean what these same words used in an ordinary context by ordinary people mean?

I hope the Tánaiste survives as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform after the next election and perhaps he could embark on a new task, as he has been cleaning up all the statute law, which is a very interesting, exciting and delightful job.