Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)

I compliment Senator Norris on introducing the Bill, which seeks to implement a commitment of both the previous and current Governments. I thank the Minister, who is not shy about attending the House, for his excellent and detailed contribution on this issue. Senator Norris's contribution was so good and the Minister's response so positive, yet cautious, that there must be a strong argument for the acceptance of the Bill and revisiting it on Committee Stage in due course. That should not be done in a rush or a panic; it should be done in consultation with the various parties concerned. While supporting the Bill and acknowledging the role and importance of the media, I also recognise this is a significant industry providing jobs and economic opportunities. That has to be remembered in the debate as part of the balancing act.

The reference to the Mahon and Moriarty tribunal reports is important. The media should have nothing to fear from a privacy Bill if the transparency envisaged in the legislation before us and in the Mahon tribunal report is provided for. A privacy law would be very safe from their point of view because as long as we are transparent as politicians about what we need, what we do in the rest of our lives can be private.

There have not been widespread breaches of privacy. There are examples which are very difficult for the people concerned, but prurient intervention in people's lives is not a common feature of the Irish media. I have heard journalists talk about stories they will not publish because there is no public interest in them. Such stories might be of interest, but they do not affect decision-making or standards of probity, rather they involve the personal fallibility of people. There is a sense that there are certain things the media will not publish.

Celebrities seem to be fair game and privacy is important for them. Nevertheless, this has to be balanced against the activities recorded in some of the various super injunction cases taken. Football players were portraying themselves as eminent family men and making a living from promoting family-based products, while acting completely differently. Such persons do not deserve a right to privacy.

The right to privacy has an important history in constitutional law. It was invoked in America in the Griswold case on contraception. The Minister referred to the McGee case in Ireland. Many of the old restrictions on how the State interacted with the public were lifted following the establishment of a right to privacy in the Constitution. It is right we then move to protect people's privacy from unnecessary intrusion, particularly but not exclusively by the media.

There is a very strong Defamation Act in place for the media. It has been strangled somewhat because some of the legal advice received by many newspapers is extremely restrictive and based on old thinking rather than the changes introduced in the recent Act. There was meant to be a quid pro quo in liberalising the law on defamation or expanding the defences available to the effect that a privacy Bill would be introduced. That has not yet happened, which is regrettable.

We stand for a free media, but people are entitled to live their lives within the law as they see fit. I repeat my call to the Minister that, if Senator David Norris agrees, the Bill be accepted on Second Stage and that after a considerable period of reflection, the Government come back with proposals. The general principles of the Bill should be passed. The Minister has justly raised various points which do not go against the principles of the Bill but call for a substantial and detailed debate on Committee Stage. The adoption of such an approach might be appropriate.