The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, recently signed into law Part 3 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008. This refers to targeted surveillance, meaning the person or persons whose information is intercepted would be the subject of a particular criminal investigation, that the request shall be detailed and make a reasonable case for the necessity of the interception of information. The reality is very different. As was exposed by Mr. Edward Snowden recently, billions of Irish communications are being actively recorded and stored by the British GCHQ and shared with other intelligence agencies. They have tapped into a cable under the Irish Sea and it appears that Vodafone has been paid tens of millions of euro for facilitating the activity. This is nothing short of mass surveillance and the indiscriminate targeting of all citizens of this country, regardless of whether people are innocent or guilty. It seems people are now guilty until proven innocent.

It seems that in a world where everything is collected and monitored, anyone who challenges unjust laws will be silenced. This undermines democracy. There is no system of judicial oversight instituted by this legislation signed into law by the Minister. The Minister has given extraordinary powers that are not subject to scrutiny and there is a proposal to set up secret courts to deal with third party companies that do not comply with the Minister's orders, which is completely at odds with any notion of transparency and judicial oversight practices that would be regarded as essential for any country adhering to the UN convention on human rights.

Why does the Government feel it necessary to violate all notions of transparency with regard to this legislation? Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Government authorised the British monitoring of the undersea cables? If so, under what legislation was this done?

I thank Deputy Wallace for his question. The Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 implements the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between member states of the European Union of 2000. Part 3 of the 2008 Act deals with mutual assistance regarding requests to or from EU member states for assistance in the interception of telecommunications. The recent decision by the Minister to commence Part 3 of the 2008 Act arises from an obligation under the Treaty of Lisbon whereby the State would be in breach of its obligations to fully implement the provisions of the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in criminal matters by 1 December this year. An EU convention is at issue, and this mirrors arrangements in other EU countries. Accordingly, it is open to the Garda in Ireland to request similar assistance from other EU member states if it is deemed appropriate.

The convention applies only to criminal matters. It does not apply to intelligence gathering. Essentially, where a lawful interception order is in place in one EU in relation to the investigation of serious crime, it can be given effect in another country upon request in accordance with the domestic law implementing the convention. In Ireland, the arrangements in place will reflect the provision of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993. That includes oversight by a designated High Court judge. The provision relating to in camera hearings arises because it would not be appropriate in open court to disclose who might be the subject of an interception order in the investigation of serious crime.

I cannot comment on the allegation of wholesale interception of Irish telephone calls by Britain. That is a matter on which I will come back to the Deputy in the context of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Justice and Equality. I do not have the answer here.

I am disappointed the Taoiseach does not know whether we have illegally authorised the monitoring of the sea cable. I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that in April of this year, the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of Digital Rights Ireland and declared the European directive on data retention invalid owing to its serious interference with private life and freedom of expression, thus violating the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Taoiseach said we are signing up to a commitment made under the Lisbon treaty but Part 3 is part of an Act introduced in 2008 and things have moved on since then. The fact that Digital Rights Ireland won that case this year changes the goalposts a good bit. It is now possible that we may be breaking different rules in Europe by signing up to this. What assessment of the 2008 law was done following the judgment in Digital Rights Ireland's European Court of Justice case to ensure that the law is in compliance with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights?

We have a serious problem with mass surveillance. Recently, the US was found guilty of spying on Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company, an economic summit, the IMF, the World Bank and the international credit card system, all to gain economic advantage in international competitiveness.

I refer to the type of industries around information which have set up in Ireland. The idea that GCHQ is tapping into cables and getting all the information it wants and sharing it with whoever it wants around the planet should worry the Government.

I saw the media reports that GCHQ in the UK was tapping into undersea communications cables. The media reports actually suggest that if such surveillance is being carried out, it is being carried out within the UK's own jurisdiction. Each country makes its own arrangements to have a capacity to intercept communications but I would expect that any such surveillance by any country would have to have a proper legal basis and that the interference is proportionate to the aim for which it is intended. As the Deputy pointed out, there would be understandable concern if the general principle of the privacy of communications was not being respected.

The need for the protection of people from terrorists and other criminal threats is acknowledged but the point must be made that it is necessary to ensure that the information is properly obtained and subject to appropriate safeguards, in particular in those cases. I would expect that the UK would follow these principles as well.

This matter is being investigated by the European Commission. As I said, these matters are governed by legislation in this jurisdiction and there is no question of any form of mass surveillance here. Furthermore, the relevant legislation is overseen by a designated judge of the High Court and the reports are laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Ireland will reiterate its belief at international fora and elsewhere that the principles I just mentioned are adhered to.

The story was based primarily on the grounds that if there had been any tapping or interception of these undersea cables, it occurred outside our jurisdiction. While the article did not specifically address that issue, any tapping or interception of these communications would likely have occurred within the jurisdiction of the UK and would presumably be covered by EU law.

As the Deputy knows, these communications cables are owed by commercial companies. Irish companies, such as Eircom, have an interest in some of the cables. The report goes on to say that the Irish owned cables in question, including those which link Ireland with the US and Canada, are routed through the UK. The matter is being investigated by the Commission. There is no question of mass surveillance here and the collection of any such data would have to be in accordance with the legislation laid down, which, in our case, is overseen by a High Court judge. The reports are laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.