Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

49. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if she is satisfied that the current system governing the surveillance of private citizens meets best international standards of accountability following the recent revelations of Garda surveillance on a private citizen; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24381/17]

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We discussed this topic last week and I am happy to discuss it again, as the Minister raised more questions than she answered. It relates to governance of surveillance systems, in which respect the Minister was most vague. She stated that current legislation contains "strong safeguards to ensure the system of interceptions is operated properly" and that there are "multilayered checks and balances in the system." She did not flesh out these claims, so I wonder whether she could tell us how exactly Ireland lives up to international best practice in this regard.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The interception of telecommunications and the use of covert surveillance by the Garda and other law enforcement authorities are governed by the provisions of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 and the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009. The law provides a clear framework and sets out strict criteria for the use of interception and surveillance powers and it also provides for clear judicial oversight mechanisms.

I presume the allegations to which the Deputy refers relate to allegations of abuses of the arrangements in place for the interception of telephone calls. As I said when we discussed this in the House the other day, it would be a matter of extremely serious concern if there were any abuses of the system for intercepting communications. The power of interception is an intrusive one and it is essential to have a proper system of checks and balances. However, I believe people need to be very clear that these powers are essential in the context of dealing with the activities of serious organised crime gangs and also in countering terrorist threats to the State, both national and international. Look at what we have just seen in Manchester.

I outlined in detail to the House last week the position in regard to the operation of the provisions of the 1993 Act. It is important to note that the Minister does not initiate a warrant and may only grant authorisations on the basis of a reasoned application from the Garda Commissioner, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces or the chairperson of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, and then only for the purposes of the investigation of serious crime. This is not an ad hocarrangement. It is only for the investigation of serious crime and in the interests of the security of the State and applies only once a number of strict tests that are laid out in the Act are satisfied.

It is overseen by a High Court judge, as I outlined to the House. That judge does important work every year in examining those applications and the judge has the absolute right to demand whatever level of information he or she wants in this regard.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Terrorist acts are no excuse for us not to legislate properly or not to follow international best practice. The Minister pointed out that under current legislation, only the Minister, after an application has been made to him or her, may grant authorisation to intercept communications. This is not a safeguard. Surveillance based on political authorisation rather than a judicial warrant is not best international practice. The powers granted to the Minister for Justice and Equality of the day under section 2 of the Act are possibly beyond the expertise of any Minister. For example, if the Garda Commissioner tells the Minister that all other means have failed or are likely to fail to produce the desired information and surveillance is necessary, how does he or she prove this? Is the Minister qualified to assess the proof if any is presented? In the US, all applications for interception of communications must be made in writing under oath or on affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction, including a full and complete statement on whether other investigative procedures have been tried and failed, or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed or to be too dangerous. Is any Minister for Justice and Equality competent in these areas? Is the Minister presented with the full evidence of the attempts and failures-----

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me. I am informed there is a problem with the sound system and that Deputy Wallace's microphone is not working at present.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a conspiracy. It interferes with the bugging devices.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Wallace should continue.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

International human rights law requires that interception of communications be authorised by a judge or an equivalent independent body. The legislation in Ireland does not have these strong safeguards. Having a judge browse over a few of them at the end of the year is not serious oversight.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The law provides for a clear, judicially based oversight process. There are multilayered checks and balances which are designed specifically to guard against the type of abuse we saw in the early 1980s which led to the current legislation. The nature of the report submitted by the designated judge is a matter for the judge. As I said the other day, it is not a question of the length of the report but the fact the designated judges have been in a position to be satisfied that the system for interception has been operated in accordance with the law. That is what the reports have confirmed.

The Deputy made comments about the robustness of the work that is being done. That is up to the High Court judge, who is in place to examine it and make sure it is robust. I do not believe we should underestimate the abilities and experience of the individuals who have carried out that role with distinction. The Deputy is making comments about the work they have done. There is also an independent complaints mechanism-----

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me. We need to move on.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will conclude. It would be quite wrong to suggest it has been established that there is widespread abuse of the interception system.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To compare this with the UK, oversight of phone tapping there is carried out on a full-time basis by an interception of communications commissioner with 13 support staff. The UK commissioner publishes detailed, twice yearly reports, statistics on the number of interception warrants issued and errors made and the safeguards in place. There is no comparison with what we are doing.

I am not giving out about the judge. I am giving out about the system and the poor legislation around it. The designated judge turns up on the day, looks at the bundles, and says, "I will look at two of these, one of those and three of the others." That is not oversight but that is what is happening. We have spoken to the gardaí who actually presented these to the judge. It is not international best practice. As T. J. McIntyre has pointed out on numerous occasions, we are in the dark ages in comparison with what other countries are doing in this area. It is a very dangerous area and we should tighten it up.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, the Deputy does not know how the judge carries out the work. It is up to the judges to decide what level of detail they want in regard to any particular case. When responding to this in the Dáil the other day, I said that Ms Justice Marie Baker, who has the current responsibility, was informed of recent events and it will obviously be up to her to decide if further action is needed in regard to the issues that were brought to her attention by the Garda at the time of that court case. It is entirely up to the supervising judge to decide that level of detail. However, everyone is under an absolute obligation to give the judge all the information he or she requires, and I have no doubt that has been the case. Clearly, there are always developments in this area and I do not rule out changes to legislation in the future. What I am saying to the Deputy is that there is a robust system in place, supervised by a High Court judge, and that is a very important safeguard.