"Let no one in this house believe that this will make the protection of children easier. On the contrary, it will make it significantly more unpleasant, " McDowell warned as his legislation was passed into law.

Again last week, the minister found himself backing a proposal which went against his own public wishes. On Tuesday, he met a commitment to bring forward proposals to reform the libel laws. But under pressure from his ministerial colleagues, he was forced to also publish the first ever Irish law on the protection of individual privacy. Back in December 2003, the justice minister stated, "My worry is that a statutory law on privacy could end up protecting 'the great and the bad' rather than the weak and defenceless in our society."

Now that situation has come to pass, with both the defamation and privacy bills likely to be introduced in the Oireachtas in the autumn.

While the libel law reforms and the establishment of a non-statutory press council have been generally welcomed, genuine concern exists about the privacy proposals and who they will eventually protect.

Ireland does not have privacy legislation. There is, however, a considerable legal framework in place to protect an individual's privacy.

This protection is available through the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted by Ireland in 2003;

through the European Court of Human Rights; through Article 43 of the Irish Constitution and through the criminal law code in areas like stalking and harassment. "I would have thought that there was an adequate framework to protect the right to privacy of an Irish citizen, " Hugh Hannigan, a media legal expert, with Simon McAleese solicitors in Dublin, said last week.

The new privacy bill has its roots in the 2002 programme for government agreed by Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats, which promised libel law reform and new privacy rules.

McDowell has a long-standing interest in the former but he was opposed to the latter.

However, around the cabinet table there are a number of ministers who argued that defamation and privacy was a package. It has been reported that Martin Cullen, Noel Dempsey and Brian Cowen led the charge. "The media criticise us, so give them nothing, " was how one government official summarised attitudes.

While they like good headlines, in general politicians don't like media attention.

Some of the members of Dail Eireann who have the highest profiles have the thinnest of skins. Crucially, however, they confuse criticism with privacy invasion. Although gossipy stories about politicians are not reported here like in the United Kingdom, there have been a small number of stories in recent years which have caused offence. Martin Cullen was upset by media intrusion into his private life at the time of the controversy over the awarding of a PR contract to Monica Leech, a supporter of his in Waterford.

Confronted by continued opposition from colleagues, McDowell eventually conceded the point on privacy. A review group was established last Easter without the involvement of any representative of the media or the general public. Its report formed the basis for the new bill published last week. Interestingly, the legislation does not contain a definition of what exactly is 'privacy'. The courts will most likely be asked to undertake that task as lawyers seek to use the legislation to stamp out 'invasions' of their clients' privacy.

In the UK, film stars, soccer players and pop singers have taken steps to protect their privacy using a media industry code of practice.

Manchester United's Ruud van Nistelrooy objected to the publication of pictures of his honeymoon. Movie star Kate Winslet objected to the publication of photographs of her children. David Beckham took an action in 2004 under press complaint rules when he was photographed on his hotel balcony during that year's European soccer championship. Beckham argued he had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. The photo agency involved later made a substantial donation to charity.

McDowell's review group on privacy was influenced by a landmark case taken by Princess Caroline of Monaco.

The royal, who lives in Germany, went to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that paparazzi attention was an invasion of her right to privacy. The court's judgement means any photographs of her taken in private and in public places cannot be published unless their use informs a matter of genuine public debate. The implications of the judgement have yet to be fully played out in the courts but the implications seem to mean that photographs of public figures in public places require a genuine public-interest defence.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, every person is entitled to a personal sphere of privacy and non-intrusion. While that 'sphere' is smaller for public figures, they are still entitled to enjoy a certain level of privacy. Most of these UK cases and the Princess Caroline judgement involved photographs of people who can be described as well-known, if not famous. There is, however, no real paparazzi culture in the Irish media. The fear is that the proposed law will be used by the rich and the famous to gag legitimate investigations as much as it would be to curb gutter press stories. As McDowell said, privacy law will most benefit "the great and the bad".

The law may be a threat to the legitimate use of secret recordings, pinhole cameras and doorstepping individuals at their home or place of work. All these techniques have been used reasonably in recent times to expose wrongdoing. The type of work undertaken by RTE's Prime Time may well be inhibited by the new law. It may be more difficult to use confidential documentation like that which sparked the National Irish Bank expose. It may be more problematic to film undercover like in the Leas Cross report.

Should the subject of an investigation get wind of media queries, then they will be down to the courts seeking an injunction to stop the reporter's work. The courts will have to place public interest criteria alongside privacy rights, and there is no way of knowing which principle will win out.

McDOWELL'S PRIVACY BILL WHILE privacy is not defined in the Privacy Bill 2006, the proposed legislation contains a number of actions which could be considered a violation of a person's right to privacy. These include surveillance of a person, the disclosure of information obtained by surveillance and the disclosure of letters, diaries or medical records belonging to a person.

There are two specific exemptions to these violations including where disclosure is considered to be in the public interest and where a public servant is acting as a 'whistleblower'.

Media outlets will be allowed to argue a defence against breach of privacy where they can prove that the material was reasonably obtained in "an act of news gathering". The courts will have to consider a number of issues when dealing with privacy actions. These will include the age of the complainant, and the purpose for which the information was used or intended to be used.

It will also be an offence to use the name, likeness or voice of an individual without their consent to promote any product or service.