James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

150. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence to examine a matter (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44144/24]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a critical component of the measures taken to ensure the security of Óglaigh na hÉireann, security vetting, for both Permanent Defence Forces (PDF) and Reserve Defence Forces (RDF) applicants, is conducted to ensure the suitability of candidates to occupy the role for which they have applied. This vetting is conducted with the assistance of An Garda Síochána (AGS).

The duration of the process can depend upon many factors, including the volume of applicants and the information provided by the candidate during the application process. In addition, should applicants provide information with an associated external/non-national component, this necessitates engagement with international vetting authorities. This process and the timelines associated with it, is completely outside the capacity and authority of Defence Forces control, and can invariably result in significant delays. Once security clearance has been confirmed however, applications proceed without delay to attestation stage.

It should be noted that for the RDF, regardless of clearance status, all applicants engaged in the induction process are included in Phase 1 training which has been specifically introduced in an effort to provide meaningful activity for prospective inductees at the earliest possible juncture, and to reduce the training time to be observed once the applicant is inducted.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

151. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence to examine a case (details supplied) and have it reviewed urgently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44256/24]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has not been possible to provide a response in the time allocated for PQs. I will revert to the Deputy in due course.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

152. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will provide a schedule in respect of the number of instances in which the military intelligence branch has placed tracking devices on vehicles as part of investigations; whether these trackers left the jurisdiction, and on how many occasions per tracker, in the past ten years to date; the jurisdictions in which the tracker visited; whether it returned to the State; and the value of items intercepted and or seized as a result of these surveillance engagements, in tabular form. [44271/24]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy will appreciate, for security and operational reasons, given the sensitive nature of such matters it would not be appropriate for me to disclose details of surveillance operations undertaken by the Defence Forces.

However, I wish to advise the Deputy that in relation to the Defence Forces' military intelligence function, there are a number of statutory provisions on which they rely for the collection and processing of intelligence, for the purpose of maintaining the security of the State, viz.

1. Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages (Regulation) Act 1993;
2. Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009; and
3. Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011.

In his most recent report Mr. Justice Michael Twomey, appointed as the Designated Judge pursuant to Section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009, reviewed the operation of this Act by the Defence Forces for the period 1st August 2022 to 31st July 2023. His report was submitted to An Taoiseach in November 2023.

In this report Mr. Justice Twomey advised that he had inspected the Military Intelligence files for court ordered surveillances for that period (11 in total). Mr. Justice Twomey stated that “In each case, the application for an authorisation was made by a “superior officer of the Defence Forces” and authorisations were issued by a District Court Judge.”. He added “In all of the files, a full report was contained on the file, setting out the necessity for the application and, where relevant, the results of the surveillance following authorisation by the District Court Judge.”.

Mr. Justice Twomey further stated in his report “I was impressed by the professionalism of the members of the Army involved in surveillance work which is of great benefit in the fight against activity which threatens the security of the State. It is not appreciated, because of its covert nature, the extensive and important role which the Army plays in protecting the State against attack in all its modern technological forms.”.

Finally, I want to make it clear, based on the reviews undertaken by the Designated Judge, that I am satisfied that the surveillance operations undertaken by the Defence Forces comply with the statutory provisions provided to them by the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009.