Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)

I thank the Minister for his reply and his consideration of the amendments before him. I really appreciate the thought he is giving to the real-life experience of the potential application of these laws in the retail space. I hear him and I agree with him when he says that spurious allegations should be challenged. They should be robustly challenged and good name should be defended. Unfortunately, there is a dynamic in this retail space, particularly for small retailers. They are independent. They are by definition small and they are working on their own. Many of them are family-owned businesses, sole traders and perhaps second or third generation operators of a shop. It can be a small or medium enterprise but they are operating independently on their own. Those type of people do not have the benefit of a HR department, quite typically. They do not have the benefit of a legal department. They engage professional support and services when they need them. They engage security in their shops. They engage solicitors when needed. They obviously pay for insurance, but when a claim is made against them, it is the insurer that makes the decision. I do not see how it is in the insurance companies' interest most of the time to defend the claim. I am not an insurance expert. I do not have the insight into the forensic economics of the insurance industry. However, from my layman's knowledge, I cannot see how the insurance company is incentivised to incur costs to defend what are relatively small cases when they can settle the case without having to incur the costs of defending it and they can ultimately raise the premiums for their customers. Therefore, it is difficult to rely on the insurance company to take the hit or to take on the cost. I appreciate there are examples and I appreciate the Minister having shared them with me. That is one dynamic which I appreciate the Minister considering.

There is a second one. The Minister quite rightly points out to me that for us to seek to create a blanket immunity for any sector of our population would be unprecedented. He challenged me to find a precedent. I stand here unable to point to it but what I can point to is a nuance, and I ask the Minister to consider this. As politicians, we do not have immunity. If I go out and I do or say something outside of this House, I do not have immunity. However, if I say something in this House, I have a privilege. What I am suggesting and what our amendment is attempting to achieve is that in the instance - just in this instance and not in the generality - where a retailer has cause to enquire of an individual if they have paid for a purchase or goods, that would, in that unique and narrowly defined instance, not be cause for an action of defamation.

I have made my point. I thank the Minister for considering it. I will withdraw the amendment today if it goes to a vote when we reach it. I hope we can engage further over the coming time and find a resolution here. I believe the Minister's intention is to put forward the most robust and beneficial legislation in this space and I thank him for his consideration.