asked the Minister for Justice if he will make a statement on the recent reports in the press of widespread telephone tapping quoting the legislation under which the Government authorises such activities.
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Telephone Tapping.
4.
asked the Minister for Justice the number of authorisations he has given in the past year for the tapping of telephones, the number of people whose telephones have been tapped, if people other than known criminals and subversives have been affected and, if so, the numbers and the categories involved.
6.
andMr. Deasy asked the Minister for Justice if he will make a comprehensive statement on recent reports concerning the tapping of telephones and the opening of mail by his Department; if he will confirm that the telephones and post of politicians, journalists and others are being tapped or interfered with; the number of such authorisations granted, the standards of monitoring or the criteria which applies in such circumstances; if he has satisfied himself that such a procedure is necessary with particular reference to the invasion of privacy this constitutes; the principle on which such approval is granted and the process of selection of individuals or organisations for such treatment.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together.
At the outset I wish to say that newspaper allegations that my Department are involved in telephone tapping and the opening of mail are totally untrue.
I would refer the House to the detailed reply given by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Desmond O'Malley, to a series of questions on 17 February 1972—Volume 258, columns 2136 to 2145—regarding the monitoring of telephone calls. That reply referred to the legal position and indicated that warrants for the interception of telephone calls are issued only where this is necessary for security purposes or for the prevention or detection of serious crime, information as to which could be got in no other way. The reply also indicated that such warrants had been issued by every Minister for Justice, with the knowledge and approval of every Government, since the foundation of the State.
The procedures in relation to the issue of warrants that were mentioned by the Minister at the time have also been adhered to by his successor, Senator Patrick Cooney, and by me. I am satisfied as, indeed were all my predecessors, that it would not be in the public interest to disclose information regarding the number of warrants in force at any particular time.
The recent press reports alleging that telephone tapping here was widespread are not in accordance with the facts and are obviously speculation.
If the reports were not correct, why were they not denied by the Minister?
If the Deputy had taken advice from some people in his party he would know that in this area there never has been any question of denials being issued at any time at which there were such allegations, allegations which usually come from English newspapers.
The Minister could have issued a denial a month ago.
Is the Minister aware of the consideration by the European Court on Human Rights on the matter of telephone tapping in Germany? Is the Minister aware also of the view expressed by that court to the effect that the criteria operating in Germany would be the minimum to be consistent with the proper expression of human rights law? Can the Minister say whether such criteria apply here or are there any criteria in relation to the issuing of warrants in respect of phone tapping?
I am quite satisfied that what we are doing in this area is legal. This conclusion is based on the advice available, advice that has been available to a number of Governments and which I accept.
I am asking the Minister whether such practice would be legal in the European context?
As the Deputy knows very well, it is not my business to express views on what might or might not be in line with the views of the European courts.
Can the Minister give a categoric assurance to the House that the telephones of Members or their post are not being subjected to surveillance of any kind?
The Deputy should be advised by more senior Members of his party that it has been the practice always that the type of assurance he seeks has never been forthcoming from a Minister for Justice. The reasons for this are obvious: the process of elimination sets in immediately if the situation is otherwise.
Instead of making vague generalisations about the alleged acts of his predecessors the Minister should be giving an assurance to the elected representatives of this country that neither their phones nor their letters are being interfered with.
The Deputy's attempt to generate heat in this regard is most unbecoming of him and of his party, too. I am adhering strictly to the principles and the improved guidelines laid down by Deputy O'Malley as Minister for Justice and which were also adhered to strictly by his successor, Senator Cooney when, as Minister, he was supported by Members of the party who are sitting now with the Deputy.
If the Minister——
We have spent 25 minutes on a few questions. The answers being given are in accordance with the usual practice.
——is willing to recognise that there is an area of concern in regard to this matter and that there is a right on the part of public representatives to know whether their telephones or their post are being interfered with, can he tell us whether there are criteria which apply to the warrants issued for such surveillance?
Obviously, the Deputy has not consulted with some of the more senior members of his party.
Question No. 7.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I hereby seek permission to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Can the Minister say whether under the procedures he has mentioned he is obliged to consult with any of his colleagues or with anyone else before making an order in respect of phone tapping?
The procedures under which telephone monitoring is permitted have been spelled out clearly, but if the Deputy is not familiar with the procedures I shall communicate the information to him.
Can the Minister appreciate that it is not possible for each of us to have at hand at all times the records of the debates for 19 February 1972?
I accept that.
Therefore, would the Minister be so kind as to give the information being requested?
I will send the information to the Deputy.
Has the Minister not got the information in his head?
I have told the Deputy that I will send the information to him.
Why is the Minister not prepared to give it now?
If the Deputy so wishes, he may have the information within a day or so, that is, if he is genuinely interested. There is not any question of my playing tricks in this matter.
May we take it that the Minister would support a Watergate type of campaign against Opposition Deputies.
This is not the legitimate means of probing in respect of a question.
The Minister seems to have been very happy with the previous administration.
I have enough difficulty in having to listen to what Deputy Harte says publicly without listening to what he says privately.
I do not know whether the Minister is playing to the gallery but he is engaging in the lowest form of wit. Is the Minister denying that there is a Watergate-type of operation in regard to Members of this House?
This barging is not acceptable at Question Time.
Would the Minister support a Watergate-type campaign at Leinster House?
The Deputy is talking utter nonsense. He is being grossly irresponsible whereas one would have expected that his move to the front bench would have led him to be more responsible.
The only conclusion I can come to is that there are a few people from Abbeyfeale in the gallery.
If there are, I am not aware of them and they must have been brought in by my Fine Gael colleagues from Limerick.