Jim O'Keeffe
Question:12 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice whether he expects to introduce legislation on telephone tapping during the tenure of office of the present Government; and, if so, when.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Telephone Tapping Procedures.
I would expect to be in a position to introduce legislation in this area during the next session.
Does the Minister not accept that it is now four years since Mr. Justice Hamilton, President of the High Court, delivered his judgment in the phone tapping case and further that the President of the High Court stated that the dignity and freedom of an individual in a democratic society shall not be——
Quotations are not in order at Question Time.
Does the Minister not accept that it was clearly stated in the High Court that the rights of the individual could not be assured unless private communications were safeguarded and that four years later it is ridiculous that we do not have legislation from the Minister on this very important issue?
What is ridiculous is that a Bill entitled The Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages Regulation Bill, 1985, was published and introduced by the administration of which the Deputy was a Minister of State and it was left from 1985 until that Government were chased out of power in 1987. I can assure the Deputy that I am having legislation prepared on this and it will be introduced in the autumn session. The implications of the European Court of Human Rights' ruling on 24 April 1990 on Kruslin v. France are being examined and when they are clear, the Bill will be published and debated. I have no doubt the Deputy will be delighted to contribute to the debate in the autumn session.
Does the Minister not accept that his reply adds fuel to the concerns of those who believe that this Government are reluctant and embarrassed to introduce such legislation because of the incidents in 1982? Does he agree that the judgment of the High Court issued only in January 1987 and that since Fianna Fáil took office in 1987 there has been in the Department a draft of the Bill, which had been circulated prior to the court judgment? Will the Minister explain why that Bill has not been circulated during the past four years?
What really needs to be answered is the initial question, why that Government of which the Deputy opposite was a member did not proceed with the Bill——
There was a High Court case.
The Deputy can be assured that the necessary legislation will be introduced in the autumn session and with the co-operation of the Members opposite will be passed before Christmas.
I will believe that when I see it.
Having pursued the Minister and the Taoiseach on this legislation on the Order of Business many times — I remind the Minister that he told us on numerous occasions before that the legislation was being prepared as a matter of urgency — I now ask the Minister to outline the difficulties attaching to the drafting of this Bill. While he has indicated that progress will be made in the next session will he publish the Bill before then or must we wait until the next session for its publication.
Since the 1985 Bill was prepared, as I have indicated earlier, the European Court of Human Rights delivered an important judgment on telephone tapping, the case of Kruslin v. France on 24 April 1990. I understand that the judgment raised questions as to whether the procedures for telephone tapping which were provided in the 1985 Bill would be adequate in terms of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is important that we get it right this time. I can assure the Deputy that the legislation will be published as soon as possible — he may not have to wait until the autumn session. I am not saying it will be published before the summer break but the intention is that it will be debated and passed during the autumn session.
I would remind the Minister that on 9 November 1989 he said it was his intention, in line with the commitment in the Joint Programme for Government to have appropriate legislation prepared as soon as possible. How can he expect anybody to give credence to a similar assurance he is now giving us in 1991?
The Deputy should have listened to what I said. In response to a couple of barbs across the Floor he said the then Government had to wait for a court case in 1987.
That was four years ago.
I have just referred the Deputy to a court case of 24 April 1990 and I have given a specific date when the legislation will be introduced — it will be in the autumn session.
We will pursue the Minister on the issue.
I will hold my breath——
Please do.
——but not my tongue.