David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank Senator Norris and those who proposed the Bill. I apologise to the Minister for not being in the House for his contribution as I had meeting but I will commit to reading his contribution. Given what previous speakers have said it was a significant and important contribution in the context of the Bill. I understand Senator Norris will not push the Bill to a vote which gives us an opportunity to discuss the issue at a later stage.

In any democracy it is difficult to strike a balance between competing rights. For example, the right to private property can often conflict with the public good. The building of an infrastructure where a person's property rights are set against the public good in terms of the need for the infrastructure to be built. It is important to strike an appropriate balance and in most instances we do. Likewise, the right of the public to be informed of matters of public concern can come into conflict with the rights of individual citizens to privacy. It is important to look at best practice and jurisprudence across Europe and in countries outside Europe. One has only to look at what happened in the UK. We had a debate on standards in the media recently. It is clear the News of the World crossed a line in regard to the invasion of privacy into people's affairs whether celebrities, politicians or whoever. There was no conflict in that case, it was a clear breach of the privacy of those individuals.

I consider the Bill useful in shaping a debate. It clarifies and bolsters the law in this area and potentially allows us to strike a greater balance between the two competing but essential rights - the right to public concern and the right of the public to have information and privacy. If the Bill is pursued there may be a need for a number of amendments to ensure the place of investigative journalism is protected. I am concerned at the use of pre-emptive injunctions. I am aware of the exception provided for in the Bill for investigative journalism among a number of other defences, which is to protect this crucial function. However, I am not convinced that the exception adequately safeguards that right but I am open to persuasion. If the Minister has not referred to the issue perhaps he will do so in his reply.

I wish to look briefly at the law governing the right to privacy. I understand there is a common law, a tort of invasion of privacy. The Bill would, effectively, put that on a statutory basis. There is also a right to privacy under the Constitution and in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides individuals with the right to privacy which is balanced against the right to free expression. While Kennedy and Ireland v. the Attorney General and Hanahoe v. Hussey are a good guide to the law on the right to privacy, as enforced against the State, I understand there are no decided Irish privacy cases involving non-State bodies such as the media. Recent European jurisprudence was seen to be hostile to the intrusion of the media into the private lives of public figures in cases where there is no overriding pubic interest. This is positive and arises from those breaches of privacy and where certain media outlets crossed the line we would all oppose that robustly. It is important that is set in the context of the issue being debated.

The most prominent European Court of Human Rights case is von Hannover v. Germany which involved Princess Caroline of Monaco while the British case Campbell v. MGN involved the supermodel Naomi Campbell. Campbell is also of interest because the House of Lords held that the established right of breach of confidence extended to protecting "right to respect for private life" without there being a need for a confidential relationship between the newspaper and Ms Campbell.

The most recent Irish case, the Gray case, seems to indicate that one can be guilty of invasion of privacy by way of negligence rather than previously where the intention had to be deliberate or involve bad fate. The law on privacy, in terms of individuals' ability to pursue the media, has been described as being in its infancy. Therefore, useful and relatively comprehensive legislation, such as this, which can be built on if the Minister so desires, with the support of political parties, would be a valuable way of advancing the law in this area.

I mention briefly an example of the danger of inadequate right to privacy. In November 2010 the annual report of the judge who oversees the data retention system of the Garda confirmed reports that a sergeant who thenworked in the Garda intelligence division had abused her position by accessing the telephone records of her former boyfriend, tracking details of his communications. That garda is still a serving member of the force. It is important that those who are there to uphold the law do so.

I apologise for not being in the House for the Minister's contribution. It is important when we make contributions that we listen to what the Minister has to say. I will read his contribution. I hope we return to the issue at some future date.