asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he has received the final report from the study group which investigated the allegation by the General Secretary of the Fine Gael Party concerning alleged phone-tapping which was the subject matter of numerous parliamentary questions in the autumn of 1980; and if he will make known the outcome of this investigation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Phone Tapping Investigation.
1.
A report on the detailed examination of the complaint made was received. It was not possible to establish by whom or in what circumstances the overhearing complained of had been carried out.
Is the Minister stating that no phone tapping whatsoever took palce? I am talking about tapping rather than overhearing because phone tapping was the allegation made at the time. Would the Minister take into account that in a statement given by the general secretary of Fine Gael at that time, who is now in a high-ranking position in the Government he made allegations and named people? Is there any foundation for that allegation? That report was made to the police. What does the Minister now propose to do to stop those wild and irresponsible allegations being made against the staff of the Department, particularly the technicians? What steps will he take to prevent this type of wild allegation made at that time by the secretary of Fine Gael, led by the posse that came into the House of Deputies headed by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, who is now holding down a responsible ministry?
I am sure the Deputy will agree with me that any subscriber is entitled to make the complaint that was made and the Department would expect that a complaint of this kind would be brought to their notice so that it could be fully investigated. That is what happened in this case. There were bona fide grounds for complaint. The complaint was made and it was investigated. After full investigation all that is possible is to say it was not possible to establish by whom or in what circumstances the overhearing complained of had been carried out.
Would the Minister define the difference between a complaint and an allegation? A wild allegation was made at that time and it was carried daily in the national press as though some people had tapped the phone. The then secretary of the Fine Gael Party gave names of people who actually listened to the phone tapping. He said this in a statement given on the issue to the Garda Síochána. What protection does the Minister intend to give to the staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, particularly the technicians, against those wild allegations? That is a separate question to the normal complaints the Minister is answering me on. I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer.
I am sorry the Deputy is not satisfied but the facts are that any subscriber who has a legitimate cause for grievance is entitled to complain to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is a matter of semantics whether you label the communication a complaint or an allegation, depending on the sensitivity of the recipient of the allegation or complaint. The Deputy's sensitivity on this matter might cause me to think "he doth protest too much".
Another cover up.
It is a reasonable inference by me. As I said, the matter was fully investigated and unfortunatley it has only been possible to establish that the overhearing complaint did take place and it has not been possible to establish by whom.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister try not to dodge the issue? Would he have the honour and integrity to tell the House there was no alleged phone tapping taking place such as was stated in the allegation made by the then secretary of the Fine Gael Party, Mr. Prendergast, who is now a high-ranking official and adviser to the Government? Is the Minister trying to insinuate in his reply that that allegation was not made? It was emphatically made and it was made here by a posse in this House of Deputies headed by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, aided and abetted by the present Minister of State in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, who is now silent on this issue.
It might be helpful to the Deputy if he was made aware of the findings of the investigation by the investigating officers of the Department. They found that there was no reason to believe that the overhearing complaint did not take place. They also felt that it was most unlikely that the overhearing could have occurred accidentally on two different occasions in the one day, particularly when the conversations involved different telephones.
Would the Minister tell the House if he is aware to any illegal phone tapping being carried on in the State? I refer to phone tapping being carried on without the sanction of the Minister for Justice. In view of the seriousness of the situation has the Minister any plans to alter the regulations and rules covering phone tapping or to abandon the practice altogether? In view of the seriousness of the situation, could the Minister assure the House that there are no journalists, politicians, members of the Judiciary or any sensitive posts like this involved in any phone tapping at this time?
I can assure the Deputy that this particular incident appears to have been totally isolated and happened in some circumstances that are unknown to the investigating officers. I would like to assure the House that there are no grounds for unease in this regard. I assure Deputy Brennan that there is no illegal phone tapping taking place.
In view of the Minister's reply and in view of the fact, whether the former Minister of State likes it or not, that there is widespread questioning among the public about the safety and privacy of the telephone system, would the Minister agree that there is no slight whatsoever on the staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and that in fact it is quite a simple thing for somebody with technical knowledge to tap a telephone?
I am afraid I have no knowledge of the technicalities of the operation described by the Deputy. I am aware that crossed lines lead to overheard conversations from time to time and there is a lot of misunderstanding because of that. Noises are sometimes heard after dialling numbers and people misinterpret them as suggesting that something is happening to the line but these are normal technical consequences of a service which is not of a standard we would like it to be.
I am glad to hear the Minister saying there is no reason for any unease. Would he now be honest enough to admit that there was no reason at all for unease at the time this complaint was originally made? Would he accept, having seen the files, that this allegation in the first instance was no more than a scare propaganda-seeking exercise, in view of the fact that tapping was supposed to have taken place on 11 November and that the official complaint from Fine Gael was not lodged in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs until 5 March last?
I would not admit anything of the type suggested by the Deputy. The investigation into this complaint was initiated by the Deputy and was carried out by officers of the Department, who are independent in their operations, and whose integrity is beyond question. Their report was furnished and it indicated that there was no reason to believe that the overhearing complaint did not take place and it was most unlikely that the overhearing could have occurred accidentally on two different occasions.
(Interruptions.)
There is undue sensitivity here. I want to put it on record that this investigation was initiated by the Deputy opposite when he was Minister and the officers of the Department carried out this investigation impartially and thoroughly and I am giving the result of their investigation. Any suggestion now is a reflection on the integrity of those officers.
I want to bring the Minister back to the question I asked.
Will he now tell the House openly and honestly, having seen the full records of this investigation and having said that it was carried out impartially and was instigated at my request, that the time factor from 21 November 1980 to 5 March 1981 surely bears out the view that it was no more than a scarce propaganda exercise? Will the Minister admit from the other side of the House that this is what it was and will he explain why there was such a long delay from 21 November to 5 March in making a complaint?
If the Deputy felt there was an undue delay in making a complaint and that, as a result, the complaint was frivolous he should not have had it investigated. It is quite clear to me from the detailed report of the investigating staff that it was a substantial complaint and deserved to be investigated in the same way that any complaint from any subscriber should be investigated.
I will allow one final supplementary question.
I will not accept the word "complaint". I want the Minister to comment on the following. On 21 November the alleged phone-tapping took place. On 5 March in the following year a complaint was lodged officially by the Fine Gael organisation to the Department. However, on three occasions in this House when Dáil questions were on the Order Paper concerning the alleged phone-tapping, the Fine Gael Party who were then in Opposition said their investigations were not complete. They withdrew their questions until their investigations were complete and then they lodged a complaint with the Department. Until they lodged their complaint the Department could not take any part in any deliberations concerning the alleged phone-tapping. What the Minister has said is ridiculous. The whole matter was a public relations exercise, degrading to the staff, and in particular the technical staff, of telephone exchanges in the country and causing grave concern to many phone users who believed and still believe that their phones are tapped.
We cannot have a statement on the matter.
The type of statement now made by Deputy Killilea could tend to heighten unease on the part of the subscribers. I want to remove that unease by saying I am satisfied that nothing illegal can be proved to have happened. With regard to the suggestion that there was a delay in making the complaint, it is odd that this point was not taken up when Deputy O'Keeffe was given a reply. I will quote from the last paragraph of a letter to him:
While the examination is still continuing, I am not hopeful at this stage that it will be possible to establish by whom the listening was done. If, however, there is any further information that you or Mr. Prendergast could give that you think might be helpful in tracing who might have been involved I will of course be glad to receive it.
That is in stark contrast to the suggestion here today that the complaint was frivolous. If the Deputy thought at the time that it was frivolous, as he appears to think now, he should have said so in his letter in answer to the complaint.
The Minister is trying to twist words and phrases but it will not work here.
The Deputy may ask a question only. We do not want any more statements.
Is it not a fact that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs cannot investigate a complaint until that complaint is lodged in writing with them? I ask the Minister to answer that question.
Of course.
We cannot have a series of questions here. I have allowed nearly 15 minutes on this question.
Will the Minister tell the House on what date the complaint was officially lodged by Mr. Prendergast through his aide in this House, Deputy O'Keeffe?
According to my information, Deputy O'Keeffe wrote to the then Minister of State, Deputy Killilea, on 5 March. Subsequent to that complaint being made, correspondence took place with Deputy O'Keeffe but the point now being made by the Deputy was not made in that correspondence. I cannot understand his indignation at this stage.
I wish to ask one final supplementary question.
On condition that this is the final supplementary question on this matter. I cannot allow any more supplementaries.
The Minister has answered two questions that are relevant to the matter: first, that the Department could not investigate until a written complaint was lodged and that the complaint was not lodged until 5 March. This was despite the fact that we had a charade both inside and outside the House by members of Fine Gael——
The Deputy is making a speech.
I want the Minister to state clearly and once and for all that there never was any basis for the wild allegations made by Fine Gael when they were in Opposition in this House.
All I can repeat is the answer I gave at the start. A report on the detailed examination of the complaint made was received. It was not possible to establish by whom or in what circumstances the overhearing complained of had been carried out.
I am calling Question No. 2.
I have not finished my reply. I want to emphasise that was the report of the investigating officers of the Department, men whose integrity is beyond question.
On a point of order, due to the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply to this very important question, I would appreciate if the Chair would give it priority for hearing this evening on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy. I am calling Question No. 2.
(Interruptions.)
Order. I have called Question No. 2.