Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Nov 2014

Vol. 235 No. 12

Adjournment Matters

Internet Blocking Systems

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, for taking this matter on Internet blocking systems. Very often controlled filtering, or Internet blocking, lies outside the control of the public policy process. We have seen that Internet filtering policies have become more common where states cannot exercise their authority to reach criminals for prosecution or where Internet service providers outside their jurisdiction reject or ignore requests for take down. Given that, the function of Internet filtering is often carried out by third party actors who are external to public authorities. Issues of transparency, accountability and legitimacy are very much called into question and that, in itself, brings into the fold issues of freedom of expression, which is an area of contention. This is particularly relevant where filtering policies are not prescribed in law, when they do not adhere to due process principles and when administrative bodies have responsibility for the content and the sites being blocked.

When one looks at the issue of Internet filtering, it becomes clear that rarely are explicit laws designed to establish a technical filtering regime but rather there is a framework for restricting certain kinds of content online and banning certain online activities. Very often legal regulation which empowers filtering and surveillance is very vague and is not explicitly stated, if it is, in itself, stated. There are three main critiques of Internet filtering and blocking. First, it is the technical capacity of filtering and that it does not prevent under-blocking or over-blocking, which then has consequences for civil liberties. Second, there are the human rights concerns, such as freedom of expression, and that they are implicated by Internet filtering. Finally, filtering would not be conducive to positive developments ICT can facilitate, such as innovation.

In 2008, the Committee of Ministers called on member states to ensure that where filtering or blocking is used, it is only done if the conditions of Article 10.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights are met and that it should only occur if it concerns specific and clearly identifiable content and that a competent national authority has taken a decision on illegality and the decision can be reviewed by an independent and impartial tribunal or regulatory body. Academics and commentators have noted that while the regulation of specific illegal content, such as child abuse content - we saw this recently with the decision of UPC - is commonplace in many countries, the areas of contention and controversy are not the regulation of such material, which I must state explicitly, but the ease with which other types of content could be blocked as a result. Non-transparent regulation systems are very difficult to reconcile with freedom of expression, so that is why the need for categories of prohibited content to be clearly and precisely defined is critical for the prevention of excessive application of filtering and to ensure there is proportionality.

I would like to raise the issue of mission creep and curbing administrative discretion to extend filtering into other areas. If there is not a precise and detailed specification of the criteria for censorship, the censor, which, as I said, is very often a third party administrative body, essentially can have the power to exercise expansive discretion to restrict speech. It is important that there are three procedural safeguards which countries implementing filtering systems should provide, including the ability of Internet users to challenge the decision to filter before an independent judicial body, notice to affected users that Internet content was filtered and a definition of the categories of speech subject to filtering.

I raise this issue in light of the UPC decision and to ensure that now it is being implemented by UPC, it will not be contested on the basis of any of these issues. It should be underpinned by law and there should be a role for the State. It should be transparent and proportionate, and capable of being challenged before an independent judicial body and not just at the discretion of a third party.

On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, I thank Senator Reilly for raising this very important matter.

The Internet is a vital tool and contributes to education, communication, commerce and the gathering of knowledge among its many uses. However, we are increasingly aware that there are dangers inherent in the use of the Internet, in particular for children and young people. Blocking is just one of the tools available to ensure the safer use of this vital resource. As the Senator may be aware, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, attended the announcement of a new Garda initiative on the blocking of Internet child pornography on Monday, 10 November 2014. On that day, a great deal of hard work on the part of the Garda and of the company UPC led to the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Garda and an Internet service provider company, UPC.

Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the company agrees to block illegal child pornography on its Internet network in Ireland in accordance with a list which is to be provided by the Garda. Under the new initiative, when a person attempts to access the illegal content, they will instead see a stop page. The stop page informs the person that the content that they are attempting to access is illegal. It also gives contact information if the person wishes to complain that the content is incorrectly blocked. No details of the person requesting the illegal content will be retained. The Garda is engaging with other companies with a view to signing further memorandums of understanding.

A review of the memorandum of understanding with UPC will be carried out by the Department of Justice and Equality and the Garda after it has been in operation for a period of six months. This new Garda initiative, along with the existing work of the hotline.ie service, together fulfil Article 25 of EU Directive 2011/93 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

There are various technical means of carrying out blocking and also filtering on the Internet, but the result is that the end user does not receive the requested material from the Internet. The technique which will be used in the new Garda initiative is called "domain name system, DNS, poisoning". Other techniques include Internet protocol address blocking, uniform resource locator blocking and packet inspection.

Different techniques have their own advantages and disadvantages but some techniques may have the effect of slowing down interface with the Internet to the extent that it would impede efficient use. There are packages which are made commercially available to the public and which carry out filtering on a basis chosen by the purchaser. Such packages can be useful to parents or others who wish to protect children or young persons from certain online content. Of course, it must be said that there are no guarantees that all unwanted items will be captured by blocking or filtering systems.

The question of the voluntary or involuntary nature of filtering and blocking comes up for discussion. General wholesale blocking of Internet content is not desirable as the Internet should be a resource available to all. However, when it is a question of illegal content such as child pornography, then it is justifiable to have the means to block such content. Under the new Garda initiative, once a high enough proportion of the ISPs engage in the new Garda initiative there should be less inadvertent viewing of illegal content. This should free up Garda resources to pursue those who deliberately collect and even trade in child pornography.

Child abuse is a horrendous crime and its depiction on the Internet compounds the offence. The Minister recently attended the ministerial meeting of the EU and US Global Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Online. That conference brought home yet again that these dreadful crimes against children are completely unacceptable. I look forward to hearing the Senator's views, which I will bring back to the Minister.

I ask the Minister of State to communicate this to the Minister for Justice and Equality. The Minister of State said that as part of the new UPC blocking, the system gives contact information if the person wishes to complain that the content is incorrectly blocked. This goes back to a point I made. Any Internet blocking system should have a process whereby Internet users can challenge the decision to filter before an independent judicial body. Who will oversee any complaints that are made and who will make a judgment on any appeal on that?

There have been judgments from the European Court of Human Rights on over-blocking. The Minister of State said, "there are no guarantees that all unwanted items will be captured by blocking or filtering systems". There is also a danger, as I mentioned in my comments, of over-blocking of sites that might have some kind of link or image but where these are not child abuse images. In Britain, the Internet Watch Foundation blocked Wikipedia at one stage because of an album cover that was hosted on one of its sites, so there is an issue with over-blocking. I hope the Minister can revert to me on some of these issues in due course.

We have chosen to implement blocking by administration means. The remainder of the provisions of Article 25 are being transposed into Irish law in the criminal law sexual offences Bill, which is on the Government's legislative programme. At that stage, the Senator will have an opportunity to expand on her views and ensure that we have the proper safeguards as she outlined in her contribution.

Social Welfare Benefits

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting this matter.

This is a very recent development relating to the Dano case taken by a Romanian national against the German state which refused to pay her unemployment benefit. According to what I read, the person in question was refusing to seek work and felt that the state should still be obliged to pay her unemployment benefit. The European Court of Justice, the highest court in the European Union, has found in favour of Germany, which has implications. The original reaction to the European Court of Justice decision predictably enough came from the Tory party in Britain and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, MP, who welcomed it on the basis that it was common sense. It also raises the spectre of a continuing campaign to change the fundamental law of the European Union regarding the free movement of persons across the European Union, which UKIP in particular wants to see changed and which the British Conservative Party will press in the context of - as it puts it - reform of the European Union.

Given our close proximity to the United Kingdom and our growing closeness across a range of areas, it was inevitable that this question would come up. If the UK Government were to introduce legislation on foot of the European Court of Justice ruling, as I understand Germany and some other countries will do, it will have implications for immigration policy in general. It will also obviously have an impact on how social welfare in the United Kingdom is paid.

Given the close links between us and because of the close co-operation between the British and Irish social security systems, I was naturally anxious to get some clarity as to the response of the Government and in particular that of the Department of Social Protection. How will the Government respond? Will it involve legislation similar to the proposed UK model? In general, will it affect the payment of unemployment benefit or other social welfare payments to those from other parts of the European Union coming to this country to live?

On a related matter, does the Minister of State believe welfare tourism is an issue? The perception seems to be that it is an issue in the United Kingdom.

The freedom to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states of the EU is a fundamental right guaranteed under the EU treaties to all citizens and this can bring great benefits to those who exercise those rights and to the countries to which they move. However, it is important that those availing of these freedoms do so for the right reasons and are not intent on abusing the welfare systems of other counties.

The right of residence afforded to citizens from other EU countries is not unconditional and is governed by the terms of the residence directive 2004/38. Under that directive, EU citizens from other countries have an unqualified right of residence for up to three months. With limited exceptions, during that initial period, there is no obligation on a member state to provide assistance to the person or their family. Thereafter, the right of residence of people who are not in employment or self-employment depends on them having sufficient resources for themselves and their family so as not to become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system.

The judgment in the Dano case is very welcome as it clarifies the relationship between the equality provisions of the regulations on the co-ordination of social security systems and the right of residence under the residence directive. Ms Dano had argued that she was entitled to benefits on the basis of the former. The court concluded that if non-active persons, who do not have a right of residence, could claim social assistance under the same conditions as nationals of the host member state, it would undermine an objective of the directive which is to prevent nationals of other member states from becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host member state.

Figures on the number of persons that the Senator refers to as "welfare tourists" claiming benefits here are not available though it is considered that the number involved is relatively small compared with the overall numbers claiming benefits. The majority of nationals from other member states who are claiming payments have worked here at some stage, paid taxes and PRSI, and are entitled to receive benefits when the need arises.

The Senator mentioned the United Kingdom and the measures it introduced to limit the number of people coming to reside there. As the Senator mentioned, UKIP was responding to those, but it has not been a major issue in Ireland.

While this matter needs to be monitored closely, we do not see any evidence of a real problem at present. However, the Senator is quite right to raise it at this stage as an early warning signal. He mentioned open borders. I can very much understand why the Senator raised this.

As the Senator may know, access to social assistance payments in Ireland is subject to a habitual residence condition, which means that those in receipt of such payments are considered to have established their centre of interest in Ireland and to have significant contacts with this country. As well as satisfying this condition, the person must also meet all other criteria for the particular scheme. For example, a person claiming jobseeker's allowance must be available for and genuinely seeking full-time employment.

The statistics which are available suggest that foreign nationals are not over-represented in the numbers claiming benefits, which broadly reflect the number of migrants in the overall population and the workforce. Apart from the waste of scarce resources, unjustified claiming of benefits brings the system of welfare co-ordination provided under EU regulations into disrepute. This not only has an impact on migrants who are genuinely claiming benefits here, but also on Irish citizens in a similar position in other member states. In this regard, the decision in the Dano case is an important milestone in clarifying EU law in this area and its implications are being considered by my Department to see if it can further assist our action to minimise the abuse of our social welfare system. The key point is that we have responsibility in all areas to ensure the integrity of the social welfare system is upheld and that we limit abuses where possible. I thank the Senator for raising this issue.

I am very grateful to the Minister of State for clarifying the matter. The devil is in the detail. The detail is contained in the last paragraph and it includes the fact that the Department is considering the legal implications. It is a very serious matter for the Department to draft legislation that might further limit those who have entered the country who are genuinely seeking unemployment assistance or social welfare assistance and who are complying with the EU directive. I appreciate the flexibility that the Department affords through the habitual residence scheme in regard to Irish nationals who have decided to return here for a short period because of family and other considerations. This was of major concern to members of the Irish diaspora in the United Kingdom some years ago but the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, was very sympathetic to their view. The Minister of State will be very aware of the importance of ensuring Irish nationals are not denied unnecessarily. There is generous sentiment within the Minister of State's Department when dealing with cases of this nature. While the habitual residence directive is slightly separate from the issue I raised, it obviously has an impact on what we are discussing. It is for this reason that I am putting these points on the record.

I would be grateful if, at this early stage, the Minister of State could give any indication as to whether Department might be considering seriously the drafting of legislation, especially in light of the promise in the United Kingdom to introduce legislation in respect of the Dano case.

I pay tribute to the Senator for expressing an interest in people who had to emigrate over a long period. He has always fought their corner and has always brought the matter to the attention of the Government in a constructive manner. For that reason, I thank him for his contributions.

On the Dano case in particular, we certainly need to monitor the situation closely. We must examine the effect of the legislation in the United Kingdom. If there is evidence of a problem arising, the Department will react. The Senator can be assured of that. I thank him for bringing this matter to our attention.

Mental Health Services Provision

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, for coming to the House. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, is busy. Who is responding to me?

I am. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, would have responded but she is not in the country this week. I apologise to the Senator.

That is fair enough.

I wish to raise the matter of the inpatient and acute psychiatric service in Navan. I understand there are plans to close the inpatient service in the new year. When a new unit opened in Drogheda, we all very much welcomed it. The more we can do for people with psychiatric conditions, the better. There are too many people dying as a result of diseases of the mind. We were told the service in Navan would not be affected but it now appears that the inpatient service is to be shut. This will be a huge loss. Suicide awareness and prevention groups are telling us that people may die as a result of the decision. I would like to hear the Government justify the decision to close the inpatient acute service in Navan, if it has been made.

I thank the Senator for raising this issue as it is important to keep to the fore the progress on implementing the widely accepted policy in A Vision for Change, in line with the need to modernise mental health services across the country. It is clear from the many occasions that mental health has been raised in both Houses in recent times that there is widespread agreement in the Oireachtas that we should put in place services designed for the needs of service users today, rather than those considered adequate in the past. We have, therefore, continued to prioritise programme for Government commitments to enhance mental health services towards community-based care, while developing a more integrated, person-centred and recovery-based service overall.

The recent budget announcement of a further €35 million for next year brings to €125 million the funding ring-fenced by the Government since 2012 to improve mental health and suicide prevention services in line with best practice nationally and internationally. Despite overall financial pressures, and increasing demands across our care system, the HSE mental health budget increased from around €711 million in 2012 to €766 million this year, with the 2015 position currently being finalised in the context of agreeing a new annual service plan for the HSE.

In light of the reforms of mental health services now taking place generally, and to provide the most efficient and effective combination of services in each region, the HSE is amalgamating acute psychiatric inpatient beds between Our Lady's Hospital, Navan, and St. Brigid's Hospital, Ardee, to the campus of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda.

A Vision for Change supports provision of high-quality acute inpatient units based at major general hospitals as an important element of community-based mental health provision. The new building in Drogheda is at present under construction, and the opening is scheduled for the second quarter of 2015. The development will be a major improvement to the quality of the environment within which acute mental health services are currently delivered for the Louth–Meath area.

Discussions are ongoing on a proposal to use the existing inpatient unit in Navan as a day hospital for the wider hinterland. This would cater for clients who are acutely ill but who do not need 24-hour care. Day hospitals offer an alternative to inpatient admission for at least a proportion of service users. There is strong evidence that acute day hospital facilities are suitable for a quarter to one third of service users, who would otherwise be admitted to hospital.

The HSE is also making progress in Louth and Meath on the provision of fully staffed community mental health teams, involving reconfiguration as guided by A Vision for Change. Over the past two years, many new multi-disciplinary staff have been allocated to such teams, including social workers and occupational therapists. Community mental health teams are central to a modern mental health service, thus supporting clients to remain in the community. The development of the day hospital model across Louth and Meath would further realise this objective.

Community supports are also provided by the HSE via the home-based treatment team, and assertive outreach teams, in Louth and Meath. These are geared towards early intervention and avoiding admission to inpatient facilities.

As a day hospital, supported by appropriate community services, the unit in Navan will continue to be an integral part of mental health services in County Meath. The day hospital model is also progressing in Dundalk, Drogheda and Ashbourne.

I acknowledge that the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, is away and cannot be here. We all supported A Vision for Change. It was our policy and I believe everybody agrees with it and always did. We want to see it implemented as best we can.

If we read the Minister of State's script very carefully, we will note there is no actual commitment to maintaining Our Lady's Hospital, Navan, as a day hospital.

What the statement says is that discussions are ongoing on a proposal to use the existing inpatient unit in Navan as a day hospital for the wider hinterland. That conditional mood is used further in some of the other paragraphs. We are not certain if it will even remain as a day hospital but certainly any removal of the inpatient beds there will be a regressive step for County Meath. I would urge the Government to let people know what is happening. Too much is being leaked and given out mar dhea with phrases like "this might happen" or "that would happen". People want to know the plans for services. We know what A Vision for Change is but what are the practical implications on the ground? If someone needs help, where do they go? It seems that this is up in the air. We certainly welcome the opening of the unit in Drogheda but we do not know what is happening in Navan. The Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, has not been able to give any real commitment on that. I look forward to getting further details from her when she returns.

I warmly welcome Senator Byrne's endorsement of A Vision for Change. It is very important for mental health areas that we get a commitment to a community-based care centre. I know Senator Byrne is very committed to that himself. I thank him for bringing this to the attention of the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, and I will ask her to communicate with him on the specific items he has raised in his response.

The Seanad adjourned at 1.40 p.m until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 November 2014.
Top
Share