Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach when he last received a report from the complaints referee appointed under section 9 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993; the main findings of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8549/07]

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach if he has received a report from the judge designated under section 67 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 to keep under review the provisions of that Act in regard to powers given to the Garda to access data in regard to telephone records; if the report included details on the number of occasions on which these powers were invoked by the Garda to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8550/07]

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach when he last received a report from the High Court Judge, designated under section 8 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 to keep the Act under review; the main findings of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8702/07]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach when he last received a report from the judge designated under the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 in relation to access for the Garda to data and telephone records; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9535/07]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 9: To ask the Taoiseach when he last received a report from the complaints referee appointed under section 9 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14122/07]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, together.

The Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 empowers the interception of postal packages and telecommunications messages for the purpose of criminal investigation or in the interests of the security of the State. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 provides for the retention of telecommunications data and access thereon for the purpose of criminal investigation and in the interests of the security of the State. The Acts also include comparable mechanisms for judicial oversight of compliance with their provisions and for addressing complaints.

My role in respect of the operation of the Acts is as follows. A High Court judge, the judge designated for that purpose by the President of the High Court under section 8 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, has the duty of keeping the operation of that Act under review, of ascertaining whether its provisions are being complied with and of reporting to me. That report is usually received annually and is laid by me before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The most recent report was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on 28 November 2006.

The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 conferred additional duties on the designated judge. Those duties are similar to the ones conferred by the 1993 Act and relate to the retention of and access to communications data. The Act also provides for the designated judge to report to me with regard to its operation and the first such report was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on 26 March 2007, in respect of the operation of the Act by the Garda Síochána. On 12 April 2007 the second report under the Act, this time in respect of the operation of the Act by the Army, was laid before both Houses.

Section 9 of the 1993 Act provides for the appointment by the Taoiseach of a complaints referee. A person who believes a postal package or a telecommunications message or communications data has been intercepted may apply to the complaints referee to have the matter investigated. The complaints referee will then investigate whether a relevant authorisation was in force and, if so, whether there was any contravention of the provisions in the Act.

If a contravention is found by the complaints referee to have occurred, he will report the matter to the Taoiseach. To date, no such report has been received by me. Both the designated judge and the complaints referee are judges of standing and are independent in the exercise of their functions under the Acts.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps the Taoiseach can explain if I am the only one who thinks it odd that, according to the Data Protection Commissioner, over 10,000 requests were made in 2006.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This was a broad brush question and I was not asking——

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——the Taoiseach to go into detail. It seems odd that, under the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, the Data Protection Commissioner has confirmed there were 10,000 requests or 300 per day.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not trying to get the Taoiseach to state that it was 299.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not asking about the operation of the Act. I am asking him to give some advice or opinion on whether it is normal that 10,000 requests were made by the Garda Síochána in respect of accessing telephone records in 2006. The Minister told the House that the Act would be strictly controlled and limited to the investigation of serious crime. Many law-abiding citizens will be taken aback to hear that on 10,000 occasions it was necessary to invoke the Act in order to combat serious crime and suspected terrorist offences.

Regarding the point made by the Ceann Comhairle about the designated judge, whose independence and probity the Taoiseach has commented on and which I accept, the only report laid before the Houses was a result of parliamentary questions. The designated judge had not laid a report until the parliamentary questions were tabled. The report relates to the Army accessing telephone records. There is no report for the Garda Síochána accessing this number of records. Many people would be surprised to know the Army is accessing these records.

I refer to the remarks of the assistant data protection commissioner, who stated that perfectly innocent people are having their private records pored over.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My role is limited but I will try to be helpful. Only the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may authorise interceptions. The oversight powers of the designated judge and access of the complains referee are part of the systems of checks, balances and safeguards laid out in the Act. In his most recent report to me, the designated judge stated that he is satisfied the provisions of the legislation are being maintained and the provisions of the 2005 Act are not being used for routine Garda inquiries and investigations.

The security services must be equipped with the necessary powers to detect and prevent crime and maintain national security. Unfortunately, modern communication technologies are often exploited by criminals and terrorists for their own ends and the security services must be able to intercept those communications. In giving powers of interception, the legislation provides a framework within which the use of those powers are subject to independent judicial oversight. Mobile phone use is pervasive, with more than one per head of population, and against such a background it would be expected that there would be a significant number of requests for access to telephone data records.

On the issue of the designated judge taking until March to provide the annual report on the operation of the 2005 Act, in the report sent to me in March 2007, which was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, he stated that he considered those charged with the maintenance of records should be given a reasonable period to set up and maintain the scheme designed and intended by the legislation. I remind Deputies that the 2005 Act only came into operation on 8 March 2005. This is a new area of responsibility that requires appropriate new review procedures to be devised and implemented. That is what took so long.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am aware the authority to authorise interceptions is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Since I presume that power is exercised judiciously, I have no concern about it. I am concerned, however, to know the Taoiseach's response to the view of the Assistant Data Protection Commissioner that perfectly innocent people are having their private records pored over. There were 10,000 applications from the Garda Síochána alone, which is an extraordinary number, almost 30 per day. Will the Taoiseach address this incredible number of resorts to this power? Is the Taoiseach concerned that the Assistant Data Protection Commissioner made these remarks?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it normal in peacetime that the Army would access this information in this way? Should there not be a public awareness campaign to inform citizens that there is a referee?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not think I will get the opportunity in the time remaining in this Dáil to ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about this matter. I also do not think he will be the Minister in the next Dáil so I hope the Taoiseach might be kind enough to answer the question about the apparently high number of resorts to this legislation by the Garda Síochána.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Rabbitte asked if I think the numbers sound high and I do, but I am assured in the report that the proper procedures and requirements are scrupulously observed. It is not a loose arrangement; a case must be put forward by the gardaí and sanctioned by the Minister. I do not have the figures for the number of requests made by the Army but I assume those numbers were higher in the past for obvious reasons.

The important issue is not the number of complaints made, but the number substantiated. The complaints referee has never provided me with a report to the effect that a contravention of either Act has occurred. It seems fair, however, that we should highlight the fact that there is a complaints referee.

On the question of the Assistant Data Protection Commissioner asking if personal phone records are being properly accessed, it is my understanding that he has no role in the area and complaints cannot be considered by him or by the Data Protection Commission. They can only be considered by a complaints referee, who is an independent judicial officeholder.

Under the Act, if the complaints referee upholds a complaint, he is required to inform the complainant in writing of this, report his findings to the Taoiseach and, if he thinks fit, by order, do one or more of the following: quash the authorisation, direct the destruction of any copy of the communication intercepted or make a recommendation for the payment of a sum to the complainant by way of compensation. That is set out in the Act and I am responsible for appointing the complaints referee. The Act requires that the holder of the role shall either be a judge of the Circuit Court, a judge of the District Court or a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing. Judge Carroll Moran is the current complaints referee under the Act.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why was no report laid before the Houses by the designated judge in respect of applications by the Garda Síochána? The report before the Houses concerns the inspection of the Army records. The judge says the documents he has inspected related to those located in the premises of the Army. No such document in respect of the Garda Síochána was laid before the Houses by the judge. According to the report, in the exercise of his powers of review on 30 March 2007, he attended the location at which the records of the Army are maintained. I cannot find such a document from the designated judge in respect of applications by the Garda Síochána.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand there must be a review in respect of both and I will raise the point.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Rabbitte has raised a matter of fundamental importance. There is extraordinary usage of mobile phone technology in this country and the vast majority of people are not aware of the implications of the legislation.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach is going to make a statement on the report he received. I am not asking any detailed questions but most people do not appreciate that the details, but not the content, of every telephone call, mobile phone call, fax, internet use and e-mail are stored for three years. The information includes a daily record of the physical location of mobile phone users and data on every number called, the time of the call and its duration. The vast majority of people do not know that fact.

Deputy Rabbitte mentioned 10,000 requests by the Garda Síochána. Three of the top technology leaders in high profile companies have warned that the data retention legislation could impact on the country's business climate and competitiveness.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach is aware of this issue. The managing director of Microsoft said that Irish legislation is going beyond what is required from an EU perspective and will place significant additional costs——

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked him to make a statement on it and I just want to set out the background so the Taoiseach could comment. The Ceann Comhairle has set out on this course and is being very exact.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The managing director of Microsoft said: "While we respect and understand the needs and concerns of the law enforcement agencies, there is also a need to take personal privacy concerns and the broader needs of business into consideration". Dr. Chris Horn from Iona Technologies said: "If our Government, and indeed governments across the EU are going to retain data, we must have an assurance——

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Dr. Horn said we must have assurance that such information is stored in a proper fashion and that safe procedures are in place governing access to it.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Arising from the report the Taoiseach has received and in view of the vast quantity of information that is being stored, is he happy that the method of storage and facilities are correct and that proper procedures are in place in respect of access to such data by the persons who seek it?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That should be in the report the Taoiseach receives. I am not querying the judge in any way, but this is a matter——

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Ceann Comhairle uses a mobile phone. His information——

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Ceann Comhairle's mobile phone information has been stored for the last three years.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am concerned about the safety of the Ceann Comhairle's records, as well as those of everybody else.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This question is about proper procedures within the Garda Síochána and the Army to seek information. I cannot answer as regards everything else. That information is stored. I cannot answer who has access to it or who can get it because I do not have information on these procedures. The range of information stored has been highlighted before. As regards the ways people can access such information, I can only answer in the context that there are procedures. On the broader question being raised by the Deputy, I say the answer is "Yes", because quite frankly I do not know.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have listened with interest to what the Taoiseach had to say. The question certainly raises the old maxim about life imitating art, given the film, "The Lives of Others" about east Germany that is currently being shown in cinemas. It begs a question that the Taoiseach is in the best position to answer. Given the think tank report entitled, Power to the People, does he accept that it is not in the interest of public confidence in the authorities if we do not have a clear understanding as to why there is a need for such a large amount of surveillance?

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach as Head of Government has responsibility for the confidence of the public in the authorities.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am simply quoting from that report, which is relevant to the question we are debating. It says that people have confidence in the Garda, but not in the complaints procedure. Will the Taoiseach accept that work needs to be done here? We will not continue to have public confidence in the law enforcement agencies unless there is a clear explanation as regards the extraordinary amount of surveillance that has been brought to light.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gardaí have to follow a procedure that is set down if they wish to get interception. That has to be approved by the Minister and in the case of a complaint the role of the complaints referee is also laid down in legislation. I have outlined already what has to happen. If the Complaints Commissioner upholds a complaint, he can inform the complainant of this in writing. He reports his findings to me. I have not received any findings. If he sees fit, he may, by order, do one or more of the following: he can quash the authorisation to intercept under the Act, he can direct the destruction of the copy of communications intercepted, or he can recommend the payment of a sum to the complainant by way of compensation. All of this procedure is laid down in legislation.

As regards questions concerning data in companies and other systems and whether they are properly controlled and maintained, I cannot answer because I do not have the facts.