Michael McDowell (Independent)

I was interested by the Minister's evocation of the debate that occurred here when I introduced the Bill for what became the 2009 Act. He referred to the then Senator Norris's response and remarks. There was a vogue at the time to describe me in the media as a rottweiler. I have some very interesting cartoons over my mantelpiece at home showing me doing various things to other people's legs. I also remember that on one occasion, I think in Dáil Éireann, a spokesperson or Deputy from the other side of the House referred to me as a rottweiler. Somebody else described me as more like a labrador than a rottweiler, and asked the person on the other side of the House "What does that make you?", or "What dog are you?". In a nasal voice, the then Deputy Des O'Malley said, "Maybe I should suggest the word 'shih tzu'." Thank God I have escaped from the canine pound and am here.

There are a number of things I wish to say. I want to go back over the genesis of section 26 because the Minister has spoken about it. A divergence had arisen between England and Ireland after the House of Lords decided on a journalist-based defence, which it made as a kind of common law judicial development of the law of libel in Britain to provide a defence for responsible journalism. The decision of the House of Lords set out criteria by which that could be evaluated. That followed a jury decision in respect of a claim brought in London by the former Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, against an English publication. We must remind ourselves that there was doubt in Ireland about whether there was an equivalent defence here. I do not know if it was Mr. Justice Charleton or Mr. Justice Ó Caoimh, but somebody handed down a High Court judgment that appeared to state that it was the law in Ireland to follow-----