asked the Minister for Justice the proposals he has to provide legislative protection for citizens against electronic bugging or eavesdropping.
9.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electronic Bugging and Telephone Tapping.
8.
asked the Minister for Justice the procedures he has introduced to ensure that there will be no repetition of the abuses of the system of tapping of telephones which he promised last year; and if, in view of his statement in the Dáil on 16 February 1983, he will indicate when it is intended to lay this information before the Dáil, or to otherwise make Deputies aware of the new procedures.
(Limerick East): I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
I expect to be able to put proposals relating to the interception of letters and telephones to the Government in the very near future and I would hope to be in a position to introduce legislation to provide for adequate safeguards in this area before the Summer recess.
In the matter of legislation to protect citizens against electronic bugging or eavesdropping, I indicated to the Deputy in my reply of 16 February 1983 that, because of technical and legal complications, the enforcement of legislation that would be effective could prove extremely difficult. The matter is under examination but it is unlikely that legislation, if feasible in this area, will emerge for some time.
When I put down this question almost a year ago, the Minister claimed that the two issues involved were completely distinct and separate. He is now answering the two questions together. In relation to telephone tapping, will the legislation which he will be introducing cover the terms under which official tapping takes place? The question arose in the first place as a result of what was alleged by the Minister to have been an improper use by the Garda of warrants for phone tapping.
(Limerick East): In February of 1983 the Deputy raised one matter by way of question and the other by way of a supplementary question and he got a full answer, so I cannot see what he is objecting to in that connection. The legislation about which I am speaking will introduce adequate safeguards in conformity with which Ministers of Justice, on the advice of the Garda, can sign official warrants for the tapping of telephones.
Will the legislation also cover the tapping of phones by private individuals?
(Limerick East): I have no evidence of phones being tapped by private individuals. I can only legislate for those areas of the signature of telephone warrants which are within the ambit of my Department. There are sections, of course, under a Bill recently introduced at the introduction of An Bord Telecom which deal with listening to private telephone calls and prescribes appropriate penalties.
Does the Minister propose to take into consideration the recommendations of the judicial inquiry which his Government plan to set up when he is considering the new legislation and new measures which are to be put before the House?
(Limerick East): I have very recently answered questions in this House on a judicial inquiry. What I am referring to here are proposals which I intend to put before the House shortly. I expect to be in a position to introduce legislation to provide adequate safeguards before the summer recess.
Do I take it that the Minister is intending to proceed with the judicial inquiry in the first instance? Also, which inquiry was to provide——
Deputy, please, we discussed the judicial inquiry at some considerable length on 8 March. To travel that road again now would be repetition.
The judicial inquiry was to provide recommendations in this area. The Government have promised, on one hand, that there is to be a judicial inquiry but are we to take it that the Minister is now saying that there is not to be a judicial inquiry? Would he please make that matter clear at this stage?
(Limerick East): I can assure the House that the Deputy is tempting me sorely on a judicial inquiry.
Why does the Minister not go ahead with the judicial inquiry?
(Limerick East): I have already answered the question on the judicial inquiry. I am answering here a specific question on legislation to deal with the matter which has been raised. I have said that there will be adequate safeguards introduced by way of legislation.
How many warrants with regard to telephone tapping have been signed by the Minister in the past year, or since taking office? Could he give the House an assurance that no telephone tapping is taking place with regard to any Member of this House with his approval at this moment?
These are two separate questions, Deputy. I am sorry.
They arise out of the question which has been put down. This is a legitimate question and the Minister should answer it.
The two questions deal with proposed measures to be introduced in the House.
Finally, arising from the Minister's reply——
Please, I asked a supplementary question and would like the Minister to assure me that no telephone of any Member of the Oireachtas is being tapped at present. I also want to know how many warrants he has signed.
(Limerick East): I can assure this House that the criteria communicated to the House by previous Ministers for Justice — Deputies O'Malley, Cooney and Collins——
We are asking the present Minister.
(Limerick East):——that those criteria are being carried out absolutely by me. These allow for the tapping of telephones and the signing of warrants by Ministers in cases dealing with subversive or criminal activity. It has not been the custom either to confirm or deny the tapping of telephones, but the Deputy can gather what the position is, from what I have said about the criteria of criminal or subversive involvement in content.
I am sorry, I must ask——
I am calling Deputy O'Kennedy.
We have not heard the Minister reply.
I am sorry, Deputy. The Chair is not going to abdicate its control of Question Time.
I am sorry, but I must suggest——
I call on Deputy O'Kennedy if he has a question to ask.
The suggestion which the Minister has made is absolutely disgraceful. The Minister, in effect, is saying that people are having their telephones tapped at this moment.
We are not having you or——
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is a friend of the Deputy. He can defend him all he likes.
Order, Deputies, please.
(Limerick East): God help Europe if the Deputy is elected.
As we are now moving into an era of sophisticated electronic equipment which can be used or abused in this area, would the Minister not think it appropriate that there should be now what we have never had before, perhaps understandably — judicial determination of the role of the State in this area, which could only emerge from a judicial inquiry? Is the Minister saying, in a matter which is so vitally important for the private individual as to the balance of rights between the individual and the State, that the Judiciary would have no function in respect of an inquiry? Would he not think that the Judiciary could help very clearly here in laying down guidelines to enable him to bring in legislation which would last for a number of years, in view of the reality of today's technological equipment?
(Limerick East): As I have said in reply to the initial question, I plan to introduce legislation with adequate safeguards before the summer recess. I do not propose to go into the details of the legislation before it comes into the House. On the related question, I refer the Deputy to my reply to Deputy De Rossa on 16 February 1983.
The Minister insists on answering questions that are not asked. I asked a very specific question which is quite different from that of Deputy De Rossa.
(Limerick East): Would the Deputy put it down as a separate question?
The Minister is now acknowledging that these are different matters. As we await legislation which the whole House will welcome as an aid, not just for the Minister but for all concerned and the media, I am seriously asking if the Minister would not acknowledge that a judicial determination clearly setting down criteria for the advice of the Minister, this House and the public, would be a worthwhile exercise? Is he dismissing it as of no consequence and will he go ahead and ignore the benefit which that could give to any Minister at any time and to the House generally?
(Limerick East): I have tremendous respect for the Judiciary and also for this House. I am proceeding to introduce legislation which I intend to put before the House before the summer recess. In drawing up those proposals, I am very aware of the opinions of various judiciaries and, in particular, a judiciary at European level who have sat on this matter.
A final question——
I am moving on to the next question. I am sorry, Deputy.
In relation to that reply——
The Minister is making insinuations and he refused to have a judicial inquiry. He sits there like a choirmaster.
We are getting into a discussion. I must have order.
A last question. Would the Minister please indicate to the House what he means by the opinions of various judiciaries, or of judiciaries at European level? I do not know what that term is meant to represent. Does the Minister not recognise that the only Judiciary who have a function in this nation, as one of the arms of the Constitution, are the Irish Judiciary? Various judiciaries — whatever that means — or judiciaries at European level, are of no consequence. For a Minister for Justice to talk here in those terms suggests that he does not know the role of the Judiciary in this nation.
The Minister does not know that.
(Limerick East): I wish to politely point out to the Deputy that legislation is normally initiated by Ministers through their Departments and is not initiated by the Judiciary in normal circumstances.
They make recommendations.