Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We had considerable debate on this in the Seanad. The text of Deputy Ó Laoghaire's new section seems to be inspired by the recommendation of this committee arising from the pre-legislative scrutiny of the communications (retention of data) Bill 2017.

The joint committee's report was issued recently but the Government, and more importantly the Attorney General, have not yet had the opportunity to examine the recommendations in the detail this deserves. I have doubts as to whether this is the correct location for a far-reaching statutory provision of this kind. I ask Deputies to appreciate that the potentially far-reaching nature of this amendment, and the provision of proposed subsection (3) whereby the High Court could permit identification of confidential sources of information where a journalist is the subject of investigation for suspected commission of a serious criminal offence, raise several important issues, not least what is meant by a serious offence. Does it cover dangerous driving or domestic violence? There is no definition of any kind and the result is that journalistic privilege may in effect be put at risk rather than be safeguarded.

Balancing the rights of journalists to protect their sources with other sources is rightly a matter for the courts. For example, the European Court of Human Rights has underlined that protection of confidential sources is an essential means of enabling the press to perform its important function as a public watchdog. That should not be interfered with except in the most exceptional of circumstances where some vital public or individual interests may be at stake. I do not disagree with the points raised by Deputy Ó Laoghaire but I am very concerned about the imported consequences of the amendment in the form of the text as it is. This is an issue that deserves the fullest of consideration. I do not believe we should decide it in the context of this Bill. Therefore I will not accept the amendment now.