Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for raising these important issues and for the opportunity to respond to the points made. There has been much confusion around the commencement of Part 3 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008. The 2008 Act gives effect to the EU Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters. It applies only to mutual assistance in criminal matters and does not provide for assistance for intelligence gathering purposes. I want to be absolutely clear about that. The need to commence Part 3 at this time arises from the changes brought about to the structure of the EU as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon. In accordance with that treaty, instruments providing for co-operation in police and criminal justice matters have to be implemented within 5 years of the Treaty coming into effect, that is by December 2014.

Furthermore, these measures, including the EU convention, have been brought within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice from 1 December 2014. In order to accede to the convention, which we have done, all parts of the 2008 Act had to be brought into force. Therefore, had Ireland not commenced Part 3 by 1 December, it risked infringement proceedings and potential fines.
The 2008 Act is the basis for Ireland's mutual legal assistance arrangements with other EU member states and has worked well since the other parts of the Act came into force. Part 3 of the Act deals with mutual assistance co-operation on the lawful interception of communications. What it means in practice is that where a lawful interception order is in place in one EU state for the investigation of serious crime, it can be given effect in another state but only in accordance with the domestic law.
In Ireland the relevant domestic law is the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, the operation of which is overseen by a designated judge of the High Court. The provisions are reciprocal so the Garda can request this type of assistance from other member states. Members will appreciate that, given the international nature of crime these days, there is an absolute need for this type of co-operation.
There has been media comment, some of which was somewhat exaggerated, about the provision for in camera court hearings for a failure by a company to comply with directions issued by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources under the 1983 telecommunications Act. The provision arises because, obviously, it would not be appropriate in open court to disclose who might be the subject of an interception order in the investigation of a serious crime. That would amount to a criminals' charter to frustrate lawful investigations. We could not allow that.
There have been recent media reports on the GCHQ in the UK. I would like to state clearly at the outset that there is no question of any form of mass surveillance being carried out in Ireland. It is important to point out that the implication was that it is happening within the UK's jurisdiction. However, it is very clear that every country makes its own legal arrangements for lawful interception. I would expect that any such measures, if they were ever in operation, would have a proper legal basis and that the level of interference would be proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved, in any given country's legal approach.
My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Flanagan, has been in contact with the British Embassy. He repeated the point that friendly relations between states include acceptance of the principle that the privacy of communications must be fully respected. This is a principle Ireland has outlined in international fora and in policy statements. The need to protect people from terrorist and other criminal threats is acknowledged.
However, it is always necessary to ensure that the information is properly obtained and subject to appropriate safeguards. I would expect the UK and other states to follow these principles. As I have already stated, in this jurisdiction, such matters are governed by legislation and there is no question of any form of mass surveillance here.