Ceisteanna — Questions.

Inter-faith Dialogue.

Enda Kenny

Question:

1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the inauguration of the structural dialogue between the Government and the religious organisations on 26 February 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8297/07]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the opening in Dublin Castle on 26 February 2007 of the structured dialogue with churches, faith communities and non-confessional bodies; the way he envisages this process advancing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8370/07]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the commencement of structured dialogue with churches and other faith communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9647/07]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his dialogue with churches, faith communities and non-confessional bodies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12573/07]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

The Government invited the consultation partners who had been engaged in developing the arrangements for the process of structured dialogue between Government and the churches, philosophical bodies and non-confessional organisations of Ireland to Dublin Castle on 26 February 2007 for an inaugural event and a reception.

The occasion was arranged to bring the partners together for the first time in this process and to build public awareness of the dialogue process from the outset. Both the Tánaiste and I addressed the meeting on behalf of the Government. As I indicated on the occasion, I believe this dialogue will be a new and important strand in the civic and political culture of this State. This process will build better understanding across a more diverse society. It will also advance to a new and more appropriate basis the relations of mutual respect and engagement between the civil authorities and those who lead our churches, faith communities and non-confessional bodies, which have been so significant in shaping the ideas, values, and even identity of so many of our people.

The inaugural event of 26 February is being followed by a series of bilateral meetings with the dialogue partners. The optimal arrangements for meetings are still under consideration, including the potential for combined representation of natural groups and smaller communities. The dialogue partners are being invited to set the agenda for their initial meetings with Government, with both sides adding themes and issues to the dialogue as it develops. I would not envisage the Government meeting any partner through this process more than annually, although the dialogue could continue through correspondence or with officials.

The series of bilateral meetings commenced this week. There was a meeting with the Church of Ireland on Monday and there will be meetings with the Roman Catholic Church and the Jewish community later today.

Having regard to the functional responsibility in the first instance of Ministers and Departments, I would not propose to comment publicly on each meeting and every issue raised. However, I have no objection to the dialogue partners declaring their agenda and discussing their perspectives in public and through the media. It is an envisaged goal of the process that the dialogue would stimulate public interest and debate on important issues, providing a constructive contribution to public policy development.

I would also like to preserve and develop the annual assembly of the dialogue partners, perhaps involving a themed address and a reception. I believe that this is conducive to good relations generally and contributes towards an improved sense of community.

There is of course a limit to what can be accommodated within this dialogue. We embarked on this programme with a significant number of churches and bodies, reflecting the pattern of initial consultations and representing the faiths and beliefs of a large majority of the people living in Ireland today. There remain several groups whose interests have yet to be addressed. Over the coming months, officials at my Department will seek to develop appropriate arrangements to facilitate their association and contribution.

I am pleased with the positive response of the dialogue partners to the initiative. I believe they welcome the opportunity to present and explore perspectives on important themes, to contribute towards the development among the public and in the media of an informed understanding of the issues and to contribute to a general discussion in wider society of issues of interest.

I thank the Taoiseach for that reply. I remind him of what he said when he first addressed this structured dialogue with churches, faith communities and non-confessional bodies. The Taoiseach spoke specifically about aggressive secularism. Does he consider that kind of comment would have chipped away at the basis of the Republic, taking into account the separation between church and State which is both important and necessary? Did the Taoiseach have a particular motivation in putting all these people into the single category of what he termed "aggressive secularists"? Is it not a fact that everybody can have their opinion? People may not wish to be associated with any particular religion or they may wish to reject all religions. They may wish to live in a secular society.

Is any person involved in this structured debate whom the Taoiseach might call an aggressive secularist? Perhaps he did not have a particular motivation for addressing it in that way in the beginning? Is a programme of meetings tentatively laid out for the future or was there an agreement that a number of meetings should be held per year in which the structured dialogue could take place? I am interested in the Taoiseach's views on these "aggressive secularists". Perhaps many of them exist in the political life also. I invite the Taoiseach to comment.

A number of points have been raised. Deputy Kenny is totally correct. Bunreacht na hÉireann guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession and practice of religion. Obviously, if somebody wishes to have nothing to do with any church or association, he or she is entitled to do so.

This dialogue first emerged from the draft constitution on Europe. A number of countries, France in particular, have been leading the way in this regard. Dialogue has taken place with churches and non-confessional bodies as a basis for continuing a dialogue with the churches. The fact is we have changed dramatically. Files in my Department show that in the past there tended to be involvement and association with half a dozen church bodies. That is all there was. People contacted Departments about schools and that continues, but things have changed dramatically and continue to change. As I stated in my reply, we must try to determine how to accommodate the groups that have surfaced in the country that want to be part of the process but which are not represented in the main body of groups. Those involved include the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist churches, the Lutheran churches, the Moravian Church — Irish district, the Religious Society of Friends, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Salvation Army, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jewish Representative Council, the Imam of the Islamic Cultural Centre, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Council of Churches and the Humanist Association of Ireland.

There is now a range of other groups of one form or another in the country which have no dialogue with the State and want to be involved. Needless to say, because of the population change in the country, these groups are demanding they have contact and relevance, be it through structured dialogue or otherwise. I am not too sure how representative some of the groups are and I have instructed officials to talk to them. The religions I have listed are only some of those in the country today.

On my comment on "aggressive secularism", my personal view is that I do not like, agree with or support the secular State and believe religion has a predominant role to play. I have no problem with secularists who do not want to have any religion but aggressive secularists are people who infringe on other people's rights. There are people in society who believe religion, of any kind, has no part to play and they are not shy about making their voices heard either. As an individual, never mind as Taoiseach, I am not afraid to voice my views in response. Their views stick in my craw, quite frankly, and I am entitled to offer my views in response to them. In my job, both as a politician and as Taoiseach, I do not share their view. If they want to stay quiet, I will stay quiet, but when they speak I believe I am entitled to speak.

I respect the Taoiseach's views. However, could he give me an example of what he had in mind when he used the term "aggressive secularism"?

People who tend to make contributions that denigrate the role of churches in modern-day society.

In the Taoiseach's dialogue with churches and communities of other faiths, has the issue of the role of the churches in education been addressed? Does he expect it will be a feature of dialogue in the future?

The Good Friday Agreement makes reference to the proposed establishment of a consultative all-Ireland forum representative of civil society. Does the Taoiseach expect that representatives of the main or wider church and faith communities will be afforded either direct participation in the civic forum or ongoing engagement therewith?

On the issue of education, Members will appreciate that most of the meetings have been attended by officials. We have tried to model them on structured dialogue that took place in other countries. The French model is particularly successful and its constitutional position of not affording any church priority over another religion or faith community is respected throughout the world. However, there are normal, traditional connections between the main churches and Departments and I do not want to detract from this. The minority churches would be very strong in this regard and they have always had a position — I will not say a privileged position — in which they were able to state their case and protect the minority communities throughout the country. They were always afforded the opportunity to do so under the Governments of the day. I do not want to change a model that works and has worked well.

The issues of education, integration and structural change are now considerable for all the churches. Without stating the agenda, my discussion with the Church of Ireland certainly concerned its desire to protect its community and ensure that the State would continue to provide schools and facilities therefor, although it might not be for a large number. It is a question of not diminishing the access the church traditionally had to the Departments. Issues also arise for many of the new churches and faiths, which are now quite substantial in number.

During Question Time I mentioned the school in Hartstown. Its principal and the Archbishop of Dublin, who was speaking on the day of my visit, pointed out that there are 29 nationalities and 14 religions represented in the school. Although the school is under the patronage of the Archbishop of Dublin, making progress in this regard requires a fair bit of working out. These are difficulties we have never faced before but which we must face in the future.

What about the Good Friday Agreement?

I did not think of that matter and will certainly consider it. The Deputy's question is really whether the representatives of the churches have access to the civic forum. Although I have not thought about it, I do not see why they could not have access, given the agreement of the civic groups of the forum.

When the Taoiseach was speaking at Dublin Castle last February, his comments on aggressive secularism gave rise to the following observation from journalist, John Waters, of which Edmund Burke would have been proud. I would be interested to hear the Taoiseach's views on this interpretation: "As we observe our society plunging into the secular paradise promised by the liberal ideologues who triumphed over the custodians of tradition, we observe also the manifestation of the many baneful symptoms of this shift." Waters referred to drug and alcohol abuse, etc., as part of these symptoms. Would the Taoiseach also include — I am sure this arose in his discussions — the aspect of one's word being one's bond, as in the case of the Adelaide Hospital? Did this arise in discussions with the Church of Ireland representatives, given that the charter that led to the move to Tallaght included a commitment that the Adelaide and National Children's Hosptial could remain where they are? Is there still an opportunity to honour this charter given that the Oireachtas was involved in the bond given? One was led to believe very clearly that the site of the National Children's Hospital in Tallaght would not be up for renegotiation. Did this arise in conversation and is it a subject of the ongoing dialogue with which the Taoiseach hopes to continue?

It did not arise under structured dialogue with the Church of Ireland but I have had separate meetings with the representatives of the church on this matter on a number of occasions. The National Children's Hospital comprises only one aspect of the matter, which has featured for a number of years, as the Deputy knows. The Government's position is that the Church of Ireland and its ethos have always been regarded as special and have been protected by the State. This includes the Adelaide.

Both denominations, it is not one denomination.

In this case I was referring to the Church of Ireland. I did not have discussions with any other denomination about the issue. No denomination, other than that of the Archbishop of Dublin and Archbishop Eames, raised the issue with me. Dialogue with the Department of Health and Children and the HSE is continuing, not just on the children's hospital but on the broad agreement of that charter.

I want to be clear. The suggestion from the Taoiseach's reply is that the Church of Ireland ethos was the reason for raising the issue. I have spoken to the people in charge at Tallaght Hospital and they are clear that the ethos of any one denomination is not in question. Rather, it is the ethos of respecting each parent and background without fear or favour. Is that the Taoiseach's understanding of the points raised by the Church of Ireland? It is not only the Church of Ireland ethos that is being considered.

Let us be clear. The issue is that the charter of the Adelaide Hospital, negotiated by the Church of Ireland——

Which is multi-denominational in its understanding.

——would be adhered to. There is a separate question about children. Deputy Sargent's first question concerned the Church of Ireland ethos as enshrined in the agreement on the Adelaide Hospital and that this would not be lost when changes are made in any area and that the State would respect the charter. I accept that.

The charter said Tallaght.

Telecommunications Data.

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when he last received a report from the complaints referee appointed under section 9 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993; the main findings of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8549/07]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he has received a report from the judge designated under section 67 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 to keep under review the provisions of that Act in regard to powers given to the Garda to access data in regard to telephone records; if the report included details on the number of occasions on which these powers were invoked by the Garda to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8550/07]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when he last received a report from the High Court Judge, designated under section 8 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 to keep the Act under review; the main findings of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8702/07]

Enda Kenny

Question:

8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he last received a report from the judge designated under the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 in relation to access for the Garda to data and telephone records; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9535/07]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when he last received a report from the complaints referee appointed under section 9 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14122/07]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, together.

The Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 empowers the interception of postal packages and telecommunications messages for the purpose of criminal investigation or in the interests of the security of the State. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 provides for the retention of telecommunications data and access thereon for the purpose of criminal investigation and in the interests of the security of the State. The Acts also include comparable mechanisms for judicial oversight of compliance with their provisions and for addressing complaints.

My role in respect of the operation of the Acts is as follows. A High Court judge, the judge designated for that purpose by the President of the High Court under section 8 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, has the duty of keeping the operation of that Act under review, of ascertaining whether its provisions are being complied with and of reporting to me. That report is usually received annually and is laid by me before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The most recent report was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on 28 November 2006.

The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 conferred additional duties on the designated judge. Those duties are similar to the ones conferred by the 1993 Act and relate to the retention of and access to communications data. The Act also provides for the designated judge to report to me with regard to its operation and the first such report was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on 26 March 2007, in respect of the operation of the Act by the Garda Síochána. On 12 April 2007 the second report under the Act, this time in respect of the operation of the Act by the Army, was laid before both Houses.

Section 9 of the 1993 Act provides for the appointment by the Taoiseach of a complaints referee. A person who believes a postal package or a telecommunications message or communications data has been intercepted may apply to the complaints referee to have the matter investigated. The complaints referee will then investigate whether a relevant authorisation was in force and, if so, whether there was any contravention of the provisions in the Act.

If a contravention is found by the complaints referee to have occurred, he will report the matter to the Taoiseach. To date, no such report has been received by me. Both the designated judge and the complaints referee are judges of standing and are independent in the exercise of their functions under the Acts.

Perhaps the Taoiseach can explain if I am the only one who thinks it odd that, according to the Data Protection Commissioner, over 10,000 requests were made in 2006.

The Chair wishes to point out that, according to the Taoiseach's reply, his remit is narrow in this instance. He receives the reports of reviews by the designated judge and the complaints referee for the Houses of the Oireachtas. Both are independent of the Executive and questions regarding the day-to-day operation of the legislation should be referred to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

This was a broad brush question and I was not asking——

I accept that but my intervention was for the benefit of the House.

——the Taoiseach to go into detail. It seems odd that, under the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, the Data Protection Commissioner has confirmed there were 10,000 requests or 300 per day.

The question should be addressed to the line Minister.

I am not trying to get the Taoiseach to state that it was 299.

The operation of the Act is a matter for the line Minister.

I am not asking about the operation of the Act. I am asking him to give some advice or opinion on whether it is normal that 10,000 requests were made by the Garda Síochána in respect of accessing telephone records in 2006. The Minister told the House that the Act would be strictly controlled and limited to the investigation of serious crime. Many law-abiding citizens will be taken aback to hear that on 10,000 occasions it was necessary to invoke the Act in order to combat serious crime and suspected terrorist offences.

Regarding the point made by the Ceann Comhairle about the designated judge, whose independence and probity the Taoiseach has commented on and which I accept, the only report laid before the Houses was a result of parliamentary questions. The designated judge had not laid a report until the parliamentary questions were tabled. The report relates to the Army accessing telephone records. There is no report for the Garda Síochána accessing this number of records. Many people would be surprised to know the Army is accessing these records.

I refer to the remarks of the assistant data protection commissioner, who stated that perfectly innocent people are having their private records pored over.

My role is limited but I will try to be helpful. Only the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may authorise interceptions. The oversight powers of the designated judge and access of the complains referee are part of the systems of checks, balances and safeguards laid out in the Act. In his most recent report to me, the designated judge stated that he is satisfied the provisions of the legislation are being maintained and the provisions of the 2005 Act are not being used for routine Garda inquiries and investigations.

The security services must be equipped with the necessary powers to detect and prevent crime and maintain national security. Unfortunately, modern communication technologies are often exploited by criminals and terrorists for their own ends and the security services must be able to intercept those communications. In giving powers of interception, the legislation provides a framework within which the use of those powers are subject to independent judicial oversight. Mobile phone use is pervasive, with more than one per head of population, and against such a background it would be expected that there would be a significant number of requests for access to telephone data records.

On the issue of the designated judge taking until March to provide the annual report on the operation of the 2005 Act, in the report sent to me in March 2007, which was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, he stated that he considered those charged with the maintenance of records should be given a reasonable period to set up and maintain the scheme designed and intended by the legislation. I remind Deputies that the 2005 Act only came into operation on 8 March 2005. This is a new area of responsibility that requires appropriate new review procedures to be devised and implemented. That is what took so long.

I am aware the authority to authorise interceptions is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Since I presume that power is exercised judiciously, I have no concern about it. I am concerned, however, to know the Taoiseach's response to the view of the Assistant Data Protection Commissioner that perfectly innocent people are having their private records pored over. There were 10,000 applications from the Garda Síochána alone, which is an extraordinary number, almost 30 per day. Will the Taoiseach address this incredible number of resorts to this power? Is the Taoiseach concerned that the Assistant Data Protection Commissioner made these remarks?

That is a question for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Is it normal in peacetime that the Army would access this information in this way? Should there not be a public awareness campaign to inform citizens that there is a referee?

We are straying into an area that is more appropriate to the line Minister.

I do not think I will get the opportunity in the time remaining in this Dáil to ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about this matter. I also do not think he will be the Minister in the next Dáil so I hope the Taoiseach might be kind enough to answer the question about the apparently high number of resorts to this legislation by the Garda Síochána.

Deputy Rabbitte asked if I think the numbers sound high and I do, but I am assured in the report that the proper procedures and requirements are scrupulously observed. It is not a loose arrangement; a case must be put forward by the gardaí and sanctioned by the Minister. I do not have the figures for the number of requests made by the Army but I assume those numbers were higher in the past for obvious reasons.

The important issue is not the number of complaints made, but the number substantiated. The complaints referee has never provided me with a report to the effect that a contravention of either Act has occurred. It seems fair, however, that we should highlight the fact that there is a complaints referee.

On the question of the Assistant Data Protection Commissioner asking if personal phone records are being properly accessed, it is my understanding that he has no role in the area and complaints cannot be considered by him or by the Data Protection Commission. They can only be considered by a complaints referee, who is an independent judicial officeholder.

Under the Act, if the complaints referee upholds a complaint, he is required to inform the complainant in writing of this, report his findings to the Taoiseach and, if he thinks fit, by order, do one or more of the following: quash the authorisation, direct the destruction of any copy of the communication intercepted or make a recommendation for the payment of a sum to the complainant by way of compensation. That is set out in the Act and I am responsible for appointing the complaints referee. The Act requires that the holder of the role shall either be a judge of the Circuit Court, a judge of the District Court or a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing. Judge Carroll Moran is the current complaints referee under the Act.

Why was no report laid before the Houses by the designated judge in respect of applications by the Garda Síochána? The report before the Houses concerns the inspection of the Army records. The judge says the documents he has inspected related to those located in the premises of the Army. No such document in respect of the Garda Síochána was laid before the Houses by the judge. According to the report, in the exercise of his powers of review on 30 March 2007, he attended the location at which the records of the Army are maintained. I cannot find such a document from the designated judge in respect of applications by the Garda Síochána.

I understand there must be a review in respect of both and I will raise the point.

Deputy Rabbitte has raised a matter of fundamental importance. There is extraordinary usage of mobile phone technology in this country and the vast majority of people are not aware of the implications of the legislation.

It would be must better to debate this with the line Minister who is responsible.

The Taoiseach is going to make a statement on the report he received. I am not asking any detailed questions but most people do not appreciate that the details, but not the content, of every telephone call, mobile phone call, fax, internet use and e-mail are stored for three years. The information includes a daily record of the physical location of mobile phone users and data on every number called, the time of the call and its duration. The vast majority of people do not know that fact.

Deputy Rabbitte mentioned 10,000 requests by the Garda Síochána. Three of the top technology leaders in high profile companies have warned that the data retention legislation could impact on the country's business climate and competitiveness.

The Deputy is getting into detail which is more appropriate to two different line Ministers, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

The Taoiseach is aware of this issue. The managing director of Microsoft said that Irish legislation is going beyond what is required from an EU perspective and will place significant additional costs——

The Taoiseach does not have responsibility in his Department for that area.

I asked him to make a statement on it and I just want to set out the background so the Taoiseach could comment. The Ceann Comhairle has set out on this course and is being very exact.

A number of Deputies have questions and I will not reach them.

The managing director of Microsoft said: "While we respect and understand the needs and concerns of the law enforcement agencies, there is also a need to take personal privacy concerns and the broader needs of business into consideration". Dr. Chris Horn from Iona Technologies said: "If our Government, and indeed governments across the EU are going to retain data, we must have an assurance——

Has the Deputy a question? It is not appropriate to be quoting during Question Time.

Dr. Horn said we must have assurance that such information is stored in a proper fashion and that safe procedures are in place governing access to it.

That is a matter for the line Minister.

Arising from the report the Taoiseach has received and in view of the vast quantity of information that is being stored, is he happy that the method of storage and facilities are correct and that proper procedures are in place in respect of access to such data by the persons who seek it?

That is a matter for the relevant line Minister.

That should be in the report the Taoiseach receives. I am not querying the judge in any way, but this is a matter——

The Deputy is asking about the report.

The Ceann Comhairle uses a mobile phone. His information——

I am sorry, but we are dealing with Question Time under Standing Orders and we want an orderly Question Time.

The Ceann Comhairle's mobile phone information has been stored for the last three years.

If Members wish to raise these issues, there are other ways of doing so.

I am concerned about the safety of the Ceann Comhairle's records, as well as those of everybody else.

That is why the matter should be raised with the appropriate line Minister.

This question is about proper procedures within the Garda Síochána and the Army to seek information. I cannot answer as regards everything else. That information is stored. I cannot answer who has access to it or who can get it because I do not have information on these procedures. The range of information stored has been highlighted before. As regards the ways people can access such information, I can only answer in the context that there are procedures. On the broader question being raised by the Deputy, I say the answer is "Yes", because quite frankly I do not know.

I have listened with interest to what the Taoiseach had to say. The question certainly raises the old maxim about life imitating art, given the film, "The Lives of Others" about east Germany that is currently being shown in cinemas. It begs a question that the Taoiseach is in the best position to answer. Given the think tank report entitled, Power to the People, does he accept that it is not in the interest of public confidence in the authorities if we do not have a clear understanding as to why there is a need for such a large amount of surveillance?

We are dealing with the Taoiseach's function in accepting reports from a judge and a complaints procedure and matters arising therefrom.

The Taoiseach as Head of Government has responsibility for the confidence of the public in the authorities.

The questions that go all over the place should be directed to the appropriate line Minister.

I am simply quoting from that report, which is relevant to the question we are debating. It says that people have confidence in the Garda, but not in the complaints procedure. Will the Taoiseach accept that work needs to be done here? We will not continue to have public confidence in the law enforcement agencies unless there is a clear explanation as regards the extraordinary amount of surveillance that has been brought to light.

Gardaí have to follow a procedure that is set down if they wish to get interception. That has to be approved by the Minister and in the case of a complaint the role of the complaints referee is also laid down in legislation. I have outlined already what has to happen. If the Complaints Commissioner upholds a complaint, he can inform the complainant of this in writing. He reports his findings to me. I have not received any findings. If he sees fit, he may, by order, do one or more of the following: he can quash the authorisation to intercept under the Act, he can direct the destruction of the copy of communications intercepted, or he can recommend the payment of a sum to the complainant by way of compensation. All of this procedure is laid down in legislation.

As regards questions concerning data in companies and other systems and whether they are properly controlled and maintained, I cannot answer because I do not have the facts.