In the Seanad on 10 December 2003, I said:

In a debate in this House on the same subject more than three and a half years ago - on 10 May 2000 - I said we should be embarrassed by our lack of up-to-date libel legislation. Now the word I would use is ashamed, because the amount of foot-dragging that has taken place beggars belief. I understand the Minister's views and I know he is taking steps to rectify matters. Governments often make promises on which they are slow to deliver - there is nothing new in that. There is something particularly repugnant, however, in foot-dragging of this kind when it is so clearly motivated by self-interest.

For well over a decade, since the Law Reform Commission made its proposals in 1991, successive Governments of all shapes and hues have consistently refused to grasp the nettle. The Minister is now grasping it and we should see in January how well he is able to handle these matters. It is not easy.

This is not a technical matter of interest only to lawyers. The absence of a proper system of libel law directly undermines the principle of freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. We have had ample evidence over the past decade of the impact of the current set-up on our political system. Effectively, it is a way of muzzling the press, of heading off inquiries into matters that many would prefer were left unexamined. It is a way of sweeping unpleasant matters under the carpet and ensuring they are kept there. Nobody could argue that our public life has not suffered as a result of this muzzling.

Of course, the press are not plaster saints - I would not suggest that for a moment. Like the rest of us, they often make mistakes. They cut corners under pressure of deadlines or the fear of being beaten to a story by a competitor.

The media are increasingly ready to blur the distinction between what the public is interested in and what it actually needs to know. There must be an effective system of regulation of the media to accompany any new laws. Nobody is suggesting the media be given the freedom to do what they like in an unbridled fashion, but these matters are not excuses for doing nothing. Nothing excuses the extent of the foot-dragging that has been going on since 1991.

The excuse for the delay centres on an argument about the form to be taken by any regulation of the media. The media have consistently and strenuously objected to the form of statutory regulation the Government appears to favour, although having heard the Minister today I am not so sure, namely the commission or press council whose members would be appointed largely by the Government itself. I understand their reservations, but I cannot help feeling they are becoming unduly hung up on this issue. Neither can I help feeling that it has suited various Governments in the past, as it has suited every Government for the past ten years, to drag this issue out for as long as they possibly can. Even a press council, a regulated body appointed by the Government, would be much better than the unreconstructed libel laws in place at the moment. In opposing the kind of regulation that is proposed, the media may be looking for the best when they should be prepared to settle for what is good.

I have said many times there is a gap between the way we talk, as legislators, and the way we act. We are, for example, in the habit of frequently deploring the low regard in which the political process in general is held and the low regard for politicians in particular. While we go on talking, however, we are slow to do the very things that would help to rebuild public confidence and trust in the political process. I associate the libel and defamation issue with the political process because it is closely tied to political matters. Most of the people who have sued in the past have been politicians. Again and again we hear that journalists and newspapers have been gagged by the threat of libel action, either through direct threats from those affected or by their own legal advisers. We are told that some of the revelations now being made at the Mahon tribunal could have been in the public domain much earlier had it not been for the actual or feared threat of libel.

As long as we continue to drag our feet on this issue we deepen people's cynicism about our sincerity, yet at the same time we wish to make public life more transparent and to be more answerable to the people. What do the ordinary people think when they consider our failure to grasp the nettle of defamation and libel laws? They simply see it as a matter of politicians looking after themselves and their own interests. They see it as a defensive gesture by people and institutions that seem to have something to hide. We may argue against that, but I am talking about how the public views matters. The plain people of Ireland are not impressed by yet another Seanad session devoted to statements on defamation. What they want to see is a Bill on the subject, which will grab hold of the issue and drag our political processes into the 21st century.

This is the one question that should emerge from this debate: When will we see the long-awaited Bill to deal with libel? We have had the report of the Commission on Law Reform, endless other internal reports and interminable discussions, including debates such as this. The Minister has clearly been trying to get to grips with this matter in recent weeks and it has been interesting to see him place it high on his agenda. I hope we will now do something about it. I look forward to next month when the Minister, after listening carefully to the debate, goes about placing a law on the Statute Book.