asked the Minister for Justice the plans the Government have to control and regulate telephone tapping; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
51.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Telephone Tapping.
14.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will outline his proposals for changes in the law governing phone tapping.
I propose to take Oral Question No. 14 and Priority Question No. 51 together.
As Deputies will be aware, the Programme for Government 1989-1993 contains a commitment to introduce legislation to regulate the interception of telephone communications. It is my intention in line with that commitment to have appropriate legislation prepared as soon as possible. Deputies will appreciate that with the very heavy legislative programme of the Government it would not be possible for me to give a precise indication as to when that legislation will be ready.
I now call Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, who has a Priority Question tabled on the subject.
Would the Minister accept that there is an urgent need for such legislation? Would he not agree that following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the UK case and the judgment of the High Court in Ireland in January 1987 it is absolutely disgraceful that we have been waiting so long for this legislation? Will the Minister now confirm that priority will be accorded to this legislation and that it will come before the House within a certain time, say one month, two months or this session or next session?
As I have indicated in my reply to the questions, I have a heavy legislative programme. I have six Bills before the Oireachtas, the Video Recordings Bill, the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Bill, the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, Firearms and Offensive Weapons Bill, the Larceny Bill and the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Bill. In addition, work is in progress in my Department on the preparation of a number of other important legislative proposals, including proposals in relation to the abolition of the death penalty. The resources available to undertake work on legislation are limited and in such circumstances there has to be an order of priority. Everything, no matter how desirable — I take the point made by the Deputy — cannot be done at once. I will bring the legislation before the House as soon as possible. I do not want to mislead the House by giving a date and then have to answer if the legislation is not ready.
Would the Minister accept that there is a precedent Bill and that the legislation is already drafted?
There is.
The Kennedy and Arnold case has been cleared since January 1987 and the precedent could be used to produce the legislation virtually overnight. I had asked the Minister to outline his proposals. Does the Minister have any proposals or would he accept the basis of the approach and the safeguards included in the draft Bill which he has available to him?
The Deputy's party produced the Bill in 1985 but it died with the Dáil in 1987. It is not quite as simple as the Deputy suggests to pick up the former Bill of 1985. I have to examine it and satisfy myself that what was proposed is the best possible solution to the problem. This requires having the Bill examined in some detail. It is worth taking time so that we get the matter right. It does after all impinge on the security of the State. The Deputy can be assured that the Bill will be brought forward as early as possible but I do not want to mislead the House by giving a date today.
I acknowledge the Minister's heavy workload. Could the Minister give a broad outline, the parameters and the principles enshrined in the Bill to assure us that there is a real intent on his part to tackle this issue. In the meantime, if there is to be a relapse — with the election of a person with a certain history in that regard as chairman of another House — would the Minister give an assurance that he will ensure——
There ought to be no reference to the other House, Deputy.
——that he and no other member of the Government will slip into the practices that were engaged in by a former member of the Government who held the same office as he now holds?
The suggestion is beneath contempt.
Where is the contempt?
The Programme for Government contains a commitment to introduce that legislation. I have informed the House today that I will bring forward that legislation as soon as possible. I am reluctant to give a specific date in case I mislead the House. The details of the legislation are being examined. It would be totally improper for me to outline to the House my thoughts on this matter before bringing the proposals to Government, having them approved by Government and then circulated generally. On the need for additional safeguards, I want to emphasise to the House and to the Deputy that the Minister for Justice cannot initiate any procedure in relation to it. The procedure must be initiated elsewhere. I am satisfied that the present position has not led to the lessening of any safeguards.
The last point that the Minister touched upon is the basis for this problem. In 1982 the procedure that had been followed over the years was not followed and the President of the High Court stated that a deliberate conscious unjustifiable interference by the State through its executive organ with the telephonic communications of the plaintiffs had occurred and that such interference constituted an infringement of the constitutional rights to privacy of the plaintiffs. In that situation would the Minister confirm to the House that he accepts the absolute urgency of having this legislation put before the House without any delay and if possible in this session?
The Deputy should not need to be reminded—he was in Government and a Minister from December 1982 until March 1987.
The case was disposed of in January 1987.
The legislation was introduced in 1985 but never got a Second Reading in this House.
The case was running.
I can assure the Deputy that the Government have fully accepted the need for legislation and have committed themselves to it in the Programme for Government. I will not be found wanting in bringing forward that legislation. I am not prepared, with my present workload, to commit myself to doing it in this session but I am prepared to say — and I have said this on a number of occasions — that the appropriate legislation will be prepared as soon as possible. I have no doubt that we will have a very interesting and detailed debate on it.
You can be sure of that.