Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I congratulate Senator Norris for introducing the Bill, it is a topic that needs exposure. I also thank the Minister for his words and the consideration that he has given the Bill.

Thirty years ago my family went through a period where we were quite concerned about privacy. It was at a time when two supermarket people had been kidnapped, Don Tidey and Ben Dunne, and we learned of a threat to myself and my family. We asked the media to keep the details of our family home private and we got an immediate positive response. There seemed to be a different attitude 30 years ago because in the past year I have witnessed Senator Norris get so frustrated at some invasions of his privacy and I realised that things have changed considerably. Therefore, I welcome the debate on privacy because it needs consideration. The Minister suggested in his speech that this is not the right time for the Bill but it seems the correct time for a discussion. The question of privacy and media standards is of particular importance and the Bill attempts to close the gaps in our current system.

The fundamental question is whether we should allow news organisations to publish whatever they want. If they are limited will they survive? In a 2008 speech by Mr. Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, he admitted that commercial survival was at stake. If mass market papers are not allowed to write about scandals as well as drive public policy, he said: "I doubt whether they will retain their mass circulations, with the obvious worrying implications for the democratic process."

Here in Ireland, the public's right to privacy and the right to be informed are governed by guidelines from the National Union of Journalists, the Press Council and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. They are just guidelines on ethics and morality and the way they are interpreted in a fast-paced and constantly changing news environment differs. Some extreme cases merit attention and one that I can think of is the sudden death of Gerry Ryan, the broadcaster, in May 2010. It was, and could be argued, public information of national importance and RTE found itself in the role of an employer and a messenger. That was quite a dilemma for the State broadcaster. If one argues that the public had a right to know and RTE had possession of the relevant information, more likely before anybody else other than close friends and family, then we might expect the news to be relayed almost immediately. However, confirmation of his death was not transmitted until nearly three hours after his body was found. RTE's editorial decision was to balance the public's right to know with the feelings of Gerry Ryan's wife and family who had to be made aware of his death before the general public. The decision was made somewhat irrelevant given that a high profile RTE celebrity, Miriam O'Callaghan, tweeted about the death of Gerry Ryan before the official RTE confirmation. She stated: "Tragically it is true. So terribly shocking and sad. Life is just too cruel sometimes. RIP." The message was instantly re-tweeted by dozens of others on the site but Ms O'Callaghan deleted her original message after receiving a call from RTE. Then RTE introduced Twitter guidelines for its employees to avoid a similar occurrence. RTE's programme makers' guidelines on privacy rule that there is an onus, under law, to ensure an individual's right to privacy and it came into play regarding Gerry Ryan.

Are guidelines enough for RTE? If we consider a recent development where Sky News told its journalists not to report information from any Twitter accounts whose owners are not employees of the organisation. The new guidelines also warn Sky News journalists not to tweet about non-work subjects from their professional accounts. This is an interesting development because Sky News has used Twitter to break news on events, including the Arab spring uprising and other events. Should we allow RTE employees to use their position to impart knowledge and information that may infringe on privacy and perhaps be false? Should they be allowed to tweet at all? Let us consider the case of the late Brian Lenihan. It was not right that TV3 broadcast the news of his illness but we can look back on that later. On the subject of Twitter, we have all read about the controversy about the tweet that supposedly issued from a Sinn Féin account when Sean Gallagher was leading the presidential race.

In Sweden, privacy is policed by self-regulation and newspapers that publish false stories must publish press council rulings across most of the page, which is humiliating for them. This results in stronger privacy laws and a stronger defence of journalism in the public interest. However, a row broke out when one newspaper published details of the suspected killer of the foreign minister in 2003. I wonder whether the case of Sweden where a strong definition of the phrase "public figure" is provided for is worth following. That is a crucial question. One must also consider whether our privacy laws are good enough. A significant debate is under way in the UK following the telephone hacking scandal. The UK is examining our model of regulation under which the Press Ombudsman is recognised by the Oireachtas. Our ombudsman, Mr. John Horgan, who is in the Visitors Gallery, describes this as "independent regulation rather than self-regulation".

We must consider the fact that our system is looked upon as a model others should follow. Some argue our standards are too strict. Journalists have told me about scandals that affect the public interest, which are widely known in their circles, but they do not publish them as a favour or out of fear of our libel system. Do journalism students or practising journalists without formal training have sufficient training in the ethics of journalism?