Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I second the motion.

As Senator Norris pointed out, he and I were very much ad idem on the debate in this House previously on the Defamation Bill 2006 and the Privacy Bill 2006. I think I referred to it, and he himself made an insinuation in that regard, as something of an unholy alliance because we have differing opinions on many other topics. Nonetheless, this is something which, at the time of the passing of the Defamation Bill 2006, should have been attached and enacted at the same time for reasons on which I would have expounded then.

It is important to recognise that we are debating an issue of two rights which are fundamental, namely, the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. People have a right to privacy and they have a right to their good reputation. There is an onus on the State to protect both of those. Those of us who would have argued in this House that they would see the State and, indeed, other states, move against, for example, freedom of religion in all sorts of different insidious ways would certainly have to articulate that we must stand up for all such freedoms - freedom of expression and freedom of assembly - which are all very much associated.

A free press is very much an essential component of our democratic infrastructure. In many regimes, we have seen that the work of good investigative journalism, often at considerable personal risk to the journalists themselves, has exposed not only corruption, but atrocities, in a way that has led to a resolution. Indeed, in some states some of them have sacrificed their lives in the pursuit of that, and that is something which we should acknowledge in these debates. In this country, we have also seen good investigative journalism into abuses by politicians and serious deficiencies within the public services and in the private sector. All of that is something that, in the enactment of any legislation, we should seek to protect.

However, I suppose it is fair to acknowledge as well that we have seen abuses by the media. Only in recent times we have seen the abuses by RTE in the Fr. Reynolds case, which displayed, at a fairly senior level within the organisation which is the national broadcaster, a complete disregard not only for the truth and good investigative practices, but also for the reputation of those whose lives can be destroyed as a consequence.

I know people against whom false allegations were made and who, subsequently, as result of the pressures that were brought to bear on them personally, committed suicide. It essential that these Houses and the representatives of the people ensure this fine balance is set at the right degree with regard to protecting the privacy of people, while at the same time ensuring freedom of expression, which can be difficult to define. I contend that, within our media, we have moved on from a situation where we were happy to read the written media or listen to or watch programmes on radio and television and be assured that what we were getting were the unvarnished facts of a situation because it was direct reporting. I rarely see any reporting in newspapers now as it is practically all commentary, often coloured with particular views and opinions and sometimes even the bias of those doing the writing.

The media has argued strongly against this Privacy Bill. I was highly critical of my own Government when it was in power for introducing a Press Council, although I do not in any way take from the integrity of the people who serve on it. However, a Press Council that is a creature of the media itself does not meet the first essential criteria of being independent. It should be established independently and should be seen to operate independently. I do not believe one that is paid for by the media itself can put itself forward in that light.