Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Micheál Martin mentioned the unique role of Oireachtas Members in serving their constituents. I echo what he said. I know that it is a concern, certainly among members of my parliamentary party and the Cabinet, that we should not bring forward data protection laws that would restrict Deputies and Senators in doing the work they have been doing for years and decades in serving their constituents. When this issue was discussed by the Cabinet, as part of its decision, the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Attorney General were mandated to examine the unique role of the Oireachtas Member to see if any exemption or exception might be appropriate when it came to communications between Oireachtas Members and their constituents or about Oireachtas Members and their constituents. At the same time, however, we need to be mindful of the fact that, as legislators, we probably should not impose laws on others that we are not willing to impose on ourselves. That is something we have to bear in mind, but it is part of the ongoing considerations.

On the Murray report and protecting journalists' sources, I did dust it down and look at it. It is still under consideration as to whether we can legislate to protect journalists' sources. We have identified three complications and certainly would welcome the advice of Deputies in other parties on how we might overcome them. The first is the definition of a "journalist". Journalism is an unregulated profession. We know what a doctor is because to protect the title one is registered with the Medical Council. We know what a nurse is because it is a protected title and one is registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Board. We know that also to be the case for physiotherapists and teachers. A huge number of professions are regulated. One cannot just call oneself a teacher or an architect. They are regulated professions. One must register with a professional body and uphold a certain code of conduct and there is a mechanism by which one could be struck off the register. Journalism is not in that space. It is an unregulated profession. I know that there is a press council, but journalists are not regulated in the way other professions are. One does not have to register; one cannot be struck off and there is no fitness to practise body, which creates a complication. It is difficult in law, therefore, to define what a journalist is. Particularly in the current era when there is a huge amount of social media, there is the emergence of the citizen journalist who is somebody who may have another job, be self-employed or have a business but who may also be a journalist on occasion, perhaps for an hour a day or whenever he or she likes to be a journalist. We would need some way to define what a journalist is before we could protect their sources. That is a complicated task when it is not a regulated profession in the way other professions are regulated. It is not a protected title in the way other titles are protected.

There is a second reason we would not protect sources for other people. As politicians, we are often given confidential information by people. I am sure people in other walks of life are also given confidential information. Would we apply it more widely? I imagine some of it is covered by Dáil privilege, but it may not all be covered. There may be other professions for which we could also consider this. We would also have to consider exceptions. For example, there is legal privilege whereby lawyers have protections. Doctors, for example, are protected by doctor-patient confidentiality, but in no cases are these protections absolute.

If the High Court orders a doctor to breach patient confidentiality, he or she must do so. There are certain conditions under which doctors are expected to breach doctor-patient confidentiality, for example, if a patient poses a danger to other people. Again, we would have to consider under what exceptions journalists could be required to give up their sources. Would it be following a ruling of the High Court, for example? All those things have to be thought through. I have not thought them through yet or determined the right answers and certainly we would welcome the advice and views of other parties in that regard.

The Government made a decision last year to accept 13 as the age of digital consent, based on recommendations made by organisations and individuals that work with children who are best able to advise us on the balance of autonomy versus safety. Advice was sought from the Children's Rights Alliance, the Ombudsman for Children as well as Dr. Geoffrey Shannon, the special rapporteur for children. They all recommended that we opt for 13 rather than 16. I understand that some parties have reconsidered and changed their position of late. Of course, people are entitled to do that. I will not criticise anyone for changing his or her view because we all do that on occasion, as facts and contexts change. I assume that this will go to a vote at some point over the next period.

See this speech in context