Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 90: To ask the Minister for Defence if Army intelligence continues to keep files on politicians and political activists similar to those revealed in the State papers recently released under the 30-year rule; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1764/05]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1276: To ask the Minister for Defence the number of persons currently monitored by Army intelligence. [1645/05]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 90 and 1276 together.

Both the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces perform complementary roles in the protection of the security of the State. There is ongoing and close liaison between the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces regarding internal security matters, including in the intelligence field. Both agencies gather and share information and assessments on perceived and emerging security threats. In addition, mutual assistance and co-operation is maintained between the Irish security services and those of other like-minded countries to ensure the effective flow of relevant intelligence.

The Garda Síochána has the primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State. In the intelligence field, the Defence Forces act in a complementary role, primarily in the gathering and analysis of intelligence on paramilitary activities, while also providing intelligence on external threats, in particular, threat assessments in respect of locations where the Defence Forces are deployed on overseas peace support missions. Military intelligence is also responsible for ensuring the security of the Defence Forces against internal threats.

I am advised that military intelligence does not maintain files on politicians or political activists per se. It would only be in cases where a person, or a group to which he or she belonged, was considered to pose a potential threat to the security interests of the State that it might be considered appropriate to monitor such activities.

The director of intelligence provides briefings to me, to the Chief of Staff and to the Deputy Chief of Staff for operations on such threats. In addition, the Chief of Staff, who is a member of the national security committee, apprises that committee on the nature of such threats. Obviously, of their nature, the content of those briefings must be kept confidential. As such, I am not at liberty, nor would it be appropriate for me to indicate the nature and extent of any activities, which the Defence Forces might undertake in this regard, or to disclose any information I received on such issues.

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What possible justification exists for any army intelligence service to maintain files on political activists? While I know the answer the Minister has just given, I want to pursue the matter. Simply because their views might not have been mainstream, is it appropriate that people of political integrity such as Kadar Asmal, Anthony Coughlan and others were monitored in this way? Somebody who saw files gave those names as people being pursued under this system.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no justification for maintaining surveillance on people just because they happen to be political activists whose views do not coincide with the mainstream political opinions of the day. Military intelligence reports to me and I assure the House that nobody is under surveillance from military intelligence anyway simply because they happen to be involved in politics or democratic political activity. Only people whose activities are judged to be a threat to the security of the State are the subject of military intelligence. I cannot comment on the cases to which the Deputy refers and I am sure he understands why. They were certainly before my time and I am not aware of them. I am advised the criteria are as I have outlined.

A control system exists in that military intelligence reports on a regular basis to the Minister for Defence, who is a political figure and happens to be me at the moment. It reports to the Army Chief of Staff and to the Deputy Chief of Staff in charge of operations. I am the only political figure in that troika. I must take responsibility for those whom military intelligence keeps under surveillance. I accept this because it reports to me on a regular basis and I am satisfied that what it is doing, as I understand it on the basis of what I see, is quite in order.

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister aware that the newly released State papers reveal that this body monitored political activities by campaigners against joining the EEC and other activities? What assurances can the Minister give the House that this practice is not continuing? Was the Minister aware that those names were included in the State papers that were recently released after 30 years?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am aware of the State papers to which the Deputy refers. However, I will not make any comment or second-guess the judgment of the people who decided to put anybody under surveillance at any time. That was done by people in military intelligence and was sanctioned by or at least known to those who were Ministers at the time. I answer for military intelligence now and take full responsibility for what it does now. It reports to me on a regular basis and I am satisfied that what it does now is the minimum necessary and no more than is necessary.