Wednesday, 10 Jun 2015

Written Answers Nos. 106-113

International Agreements

Questions (106, 111)

Mick Wallace

Question:

106. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the reason the third section of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 was passed in December 2014, six years after the passing of the rest of the Act; the measures that were taken to update this particular section of legislation, to ensure that it would adequately reflect the developments in technology and digital rights legislation in those intervening six years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22621/15]

Mick Wallace

Question:

111. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if an assessment was carried out on the recently enacted section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 to ensure that it is in full compliance with the European Charter on Fundamental Rights, following the 2014 ruling of the European Court of Justice, which found the European Data Retention Directive to be invalid, in view of the fact that it does not uphold the rights to privacy and freedom of expression; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22627/15]

Written answers

Minister for Justice and Equality

I propose to take Questions Nos. 106 and 111 together.

I wish to advise the Deputy that all parts of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 were enacted in that same year having been passed by both houses of the Oireachtas.

Part 3 of the Act was commenced in December 2014. The need to commence Part 3 of the 2008 Act arose from the changes brought about in line with the provisions of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. In accordance with that Treaty, instruments providing for co-operation in police and criminal justice matters were to be implemented within 5 years of the Treaty coming into effect, that is by 1 December 2014. Had Ireland not commenced Part 3 by that date, it risked infringement proceedings and potential fines.

The 2008 Act gives effect to the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. It applies only to mutual assistance in relation to criminal matters and is the basis for Ireland's mutual legal assistance arrangements with other EU member states. Part 3 of the Act deals with mutual assistance co-operation in relation to criminal investigations and prosecutions where the lawful interception of communications is considered necessary and appropriate. The adequacy of legislation in such areas is being kept under review in the light of developments of the kind referred to by the Deputy.

The Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 has no relationship to, or bearing on, the measures provided for in the Data Retention Directive prior to the findings of the European Court of Justice.

Data Protection

Questions (107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113)

Mick Wallace

Question:

107. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she or any other Irish Governmental officials were aware if the British authorities were monitoring Irish telephone and internet communications for years, via underwater cables, as uncovered by a person (details supplied) in 2014; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22623/15]

Mick Wallace

Question:

108. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her views on the revelations of a person (details supplied) in 2014, which alleged that billions of Irish communications, telephone and internet, were and are being intercepted, recorded and stored through a series of underwater cables by the Government Communications Headquarters in Britain; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22624/15]

Mick Wallace

Question:

109. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the actions or investigations that were carried out, or are being carried out, by her Department on foot of the Wikileaks reports in 2014 that large numbers of Irish telephone and-or Internet communications were being intercepted by the General Communications Headquarters in Britain, and were then shared with other intelligence agencies; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22625/15]

Mick Wallace

Question:

110. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if the Irish Government authorised the British monitoring or tapping of undersea cables, as reported by a person (details supplied) in 2014; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22626/15]

Mick Wallace

Question:

112. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will provide details of any communication she has had with the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding the reported tapping of the underwater cable by the General Communications Headquarters in Britain; if she is satisfied that any such reported surveillance is entirely a matter of within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22628/15]

Mick Wallace

Question:

113. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamentary Question No. 3 of 15 January 2015, if she has had any communication with the authorities in the United Kingdom, in response to the reports of tapping of the undersea communications cables by the General Communications Headquarters in Britain; if she has asked these authorities directly, in the interests of transparency and the fundamental right of Irish and all European Union citizens to privacy, whether this reported surveillance was authorised by the British Government; if so, under what British legislation is it covered under; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22629/15]

Written answers

Minister for Justice and Equality

I propose to take Questions Nos. 107 to 110, inclusive, 112 and 113 together.

I am aware of the reports alleging that GCHQ in the UK tapped into undersea communications cables. The media reports also suggest this may have been linked to surveillance being carried out within the UK’s own jurisdiction.

My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, was in contact with the British Embassy on this issue. It has been conveyed that it is generally understood that friendly relationships between States include acceptance of the principle that the privacy of communications must be respected. 

Protection of data and the privacy of communication are not matters which should be taken lightly and it is right that communications are safeguarded and protected against unlawful intrusion and interception.

The lawful interception of communications is sometimes a necessary tool for law enforcement authorities in order to protect citizens against terrorism and other serious criminal threats. The majority of citizens would accept that there should be a balance between personal privacy and public safety once the mechanisms by which such data is accessed is both legal and proportionate. Criminals and terrorists have not been slow to take advantage of the various technological advances in communications in recent years. It is essential that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the necessary resources to address this dimension of the threat. 

I want to emphasise that the interception of an individual’s communications in this State can only occur in the very specific circumstances laid down in the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act of 1993. This Act permits me to authorise an interception but only for the purposes of criminal investigation into serious offences or in the interests of the security of the State. The operation of the Act is overseen by a Designated Judge of the High Court who reports annually to the Taoiseach on his examination of its operation. In addition a Complaints Referee (normally a serving judge of the Circuit Court) is appointed to receive and investigate complaints from persons who believe that their communications have been unlawfully intercepted. If the Referee finds that there has been a violation of the Act he can order that the interceptions cease and recommend the award of compensation. It should be clear from the above that there is no question of me, as Minister, having authorised or having the authority to authorise the kind of activity alluded to in the Deputy's question.

Question No. 111 answered with Question No. 106.

Questions Nos. 112 and 113 answered with Question No. 107.