Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 15 January 2015
3. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if the British intelligence body GCHQ's tapping of the underground cable between Ireland and Britain was authorised by her; if so, the legislation under which it was authorised; if not, the action she will take regarding same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1415/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraI have raised this issue twice on Leaders' Questions but got no answers. I heard back from the Taoiseach this morning but there were still no answers. What I want to know relates to the information leaked by Edward Snowden that communications cables between Ireland and the UK have been tapped. The Taoiseach said in the House that any tapping or interception of these communications would likely have occurred within the jurisdiction of the UK and would presumably be covered by EU law. There is no EU law to cover mass surveillance. Will the Minister answer the three questions I have asked on the issue?
I am aware of the media reports alleging that GCHQ in the UK has tapped undersea communications cables. The media reports also suggest that 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, has already been 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. I agree with the Deputy that protection of data and the privacy of communication are not matters that 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, as I am sure the Deputy will agree. 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 are both legal and proportionate. There is no question of mass surveillance. If we needed reminding of the threat posed by international terrorism then we need only look to the horrific events in Paris last week. 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.
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 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 or her examination of its operation. In addition, a complaints referee, who is 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. 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. As far as the UK is concerned, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has taken up that issue with the British authorities.
It would be good if we got some feedback if the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is talking to the British authorities about the fact that this is unlawful and that it is not good enough. If GCHQ is allowed to work in this area without getting approval from Ireland, it is very worrying. It would be interesting to see what the British might have to say about it, but that information should be relayed to the public. There is huge public concern about the fact that many communications seem to be under surveillance. The legislation signed by the Minister for Justice and Equality on 26 November 2014 has caused much worry for people in Ireland. Digital Rights Ireland won a case in Europe last year against the existing legislation. The case showed that the storage of much of this information on people was illegal and in breach of their privacy rights.
I will let the Deputy back in.
Would the Minister agree that under the powers she now has, she can force telecommunications companies to give her data that infringes people's privacy rights?
There is no question of the Irish Government agreeing to the situation outlined by the Deputy. The UK legislation is for the UK to decide. I have made it very clear that we have a very serious approach to any interception of telecommunications in this country. We have very clear laws about it. It is only used where there is a question of criminal activity or where the security of the State is considered to be at risk. There is a very serious approach to it overseen by a High Court judge and a Circuit Court judge.
Most citizens would agree that there needs to be a balance between the privacy rights of individuals and the protection of the interests and security of the State and dealing with criminal activity. They would understand that some action would have to be taken on very specific occasions and with a very specific approach under regulation to deal with that and to allow for that interception. I am aware of the ECJ case and we will examine the outcome of it. Even in that case, the ECJ made it very clear that in terms of criminal activity, the interception of communications was a legitimate action for a State to take.
I again refer the Minister to the concerns of the chairman of Digital Rights Ireland, Dr. T. J. McIntyre, who is a lecturer in UCD. He says: "It's worrying because it means telecommunications companies might be pressured into doing things that aren't entirely legal." He said that the companies would be prosecuted in secret and would be unable to disclose their objections publicly or even the fact that they were being prosecuted. He said he was very reluctant to allow that it was a good idea for the Minister to have the power to force companies to comply with secret orders.
The Minister is saying that the people are concerned about terrorist activities. Yes, they are concerned, but the balance appears to be going very much the other way. The principle of State security is being abused in order to impinge on the rights of ordinary people. Mass surveillance is becoming more common, there is far more interruption of communications and the private citizen is very concerned about it. We are heading down the wrong path on this.
I do not accept the premise of quite a number of points made by the Deputy. For a start, I absolutely believe that most right-thinking citizens would welcome the State's taking action to protect its citizens. Certainly, that is very much on people's minds following the Paris attacks in particular. My belief is that citizens want to be protected.
I have already told the Deputy that there is no question of mass surveillance. Neither do I accept the premise that companies involved in the communications industry will break the law. They will follow the law that is there.
Vodafone did.
I believe they will follow the law that is there and my experience suggests that is the situation. We want strong law that protects the rights of citizens but when appropriate and in the interests of dealing with criminality, particularly international criminal activity which we know is increasingly carried out via the Internet, it is important that our laws are strong enough to deal with it.
We know, for example, the role the Internet plays in the recruitment of foreign fighters internationally. I believe our laws protect the citizen but also ensure security and intelligence forces can work together to protect the citizen.
