Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I support the Minister on this issue and will try to defend him against his party colleagues. Senator Jim Walsh referred to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board legislation. The Cathaoirleach will recall we faced a similar situation when that legislation was brought before the House by the then Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, because he was the Government Whip. The problems were on the Government side.

Senator Jim Walsh is arguing against himself. This is precisely the model in the Personal Injuries Board legislation. The big debate which took place on the Government side at that time was whether an award could be made without an admission of liability. We debated that extensively and we tried to explain that there was no problem and that one would simply pay the money for the damages and that would be the end of the matter. The question of accepting liability, or in this case acceptance of liability leading to an apology, does not arise. It is precisely as the Minister said. In the case of this legislation, it is damage to reputation or otherwise while under the Personal Injuries Assessment Board legislation, it is damage to a limb or whatever.

At that time it was very difficult to get the agreement of the House on that point and to get it to understand that a defendant — in that case, an insurance company — having assessed a case would pay a certain amount of money without accepting liability or without any reference to liability. A long debate took place on that issue. This is exactly what is involved here. People will pay the money in all circumstances without accepting liability. There is at least one substantial legal precedent to prove that point.

Senator Callely made an important point. If another publication publishes a statement knowing money has been paid on account of it being published, it is more money into the hand of the person who was defamed. It would be very foolish for another publication to take that course of action, so I do not believe that would arise.

The reality is that the money can be paid without an admission of liability. That is the outcome if, as the Minister said, a person takes the decision to look for more money. In terms of the operation of the Judiciary, we cannot ask for more. I fully support this section.