Feargal Quinn (Independent)

This has been an interesting debate. We do not often have debates in which Lincoln and Jefferson as well as Dr. Con Lucey of Cork are quoted. This is a topic about which I do not know a great deal, although I have been involved in one incident in which, when being quoted in The Irish News in Belfast in 1968, I was referred to as a well known IRA man. I was very upset that I had been mistaken for somebody with a similar name who was prominent 50 years earlier. I got in touch with the newspaper by telephone, but I was even more upset with the correction, which stated that not only was I not an IRA man but my pro-Unionist loyalties were strong. I almost felt like taking a defamation case from the other side.

The words I have prepared for this debate do not show much sympathy for the delay that has occurred on this matter over the years. 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 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, as the Minister said earlier. 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.