Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I agree with my colleagues on the urgent need for a debate on privacy. The Houses of the Oireachtas need to send out a very clear statement that if the media cannot regulate themselves to defend people's privacy then somebody else may have to do it for them. While it is not a route I would wish to take, if the power of the media is on one side and the vulnerability of individuals is on the other side, it is a function of the Oireachtas to mitigate abuse of power. If those who have that power do not find it in themselves to deal with it in a responsible way, those of us who have the duty to regulate the order of society will need to think about doing it for them, which would be a matter of great regret to me. I am not in favour of legislative regulation of the media. However, I believe we need to legislatively protect the privacy of individuals.

I cannot help being somewhat sceptical and quizzical that the onrush of debate about privacy in the media seems to have followed rather than predated an intrusion into the private life of a person from the media. I am more than a little concerned about this aspect. It did not seem to matter that a member of the Government, with whom I agree on nothing and who may well have political issues to address on something he did, had his private life filleted by a newspaper. Apparently his children were visited by representatives of a newspaper. It is better to have political opponents say this than to have political allies do so. What was done to that member of the Government by a newspaper was a disgrace. This was followed by the matter to which Senator O'Toole referred. Now, because a member of the media rightly took exception it is suddenly of concern. However, it is a critical issue and of concern to the least powerful, most vulnerable in our society.

I ask the Leader to ascertain why the director of the National Museum was prevented from speaking to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government yesterday about the M3 and its intrusion into the Hill of Tara site. He was supposed to come, but apparently he was advised not to come. I do not wish to attribute any sinister motives, but we should be told.

I have spoken about what I thought were the unreasonable demands of a Chinese delegation to meet the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in private. I have said that it was wrong. The European Union's director of security, Javier Solana, demanded a similar meeting in private and it was wrong. The US ambassador apparently announced yesterday that he will meet the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs only if it meets in private. I do not care whether the source of such requests is a tyranny or a democracy. To tell us that the representative of a sovereign state will debate the issues of the day in private only is an intrusion on our democracy. I do not criticise the committee — I criticise the governments of the countries which have decided to adopt such a policy.