I thank the hon. Member for raising this important matter. At the very outset, let me remind the House that the protection of freedom of expression and the right to privacy are enshrined in our Constitution. Any form of unlawful interception or tapping is a direct violation of the Constitution and of the fundamental rights and liberties enshrined in our Constitution. As I have reported to the House in my earlier statements on this subject, the previous government had installed, at enormous cost to the public, – enormous cost – a very sophisticated electronic mass surveillance system to spy on every Mauritian indiscriminately. They were spying on everyone, Madam Speaker – on you, Madam Speaker, on me, on the hon. Leader of the Opposition, on the former Prime Minister, on every Member of this House, including Ministers of the Government. The hon. Member, himself, was spied upon, his father, who was a Minister at the time, was also spied upon; on his family. Not only that, Madam Speaker, on the Judiciary, on the civil society, on diplomatic missions, on every family in their home and intercepting their private data. The system was intercepting in real time every digital communication, every one of them – - every telephone call, every email, text messages, social media communication, - of every man, woman and young person who happened to have a mobile phone or an email. And they were storing it in a secret data centre for examination by their own chosen agents – hand-picked – and for the purposes that had nothing to do with national security or the investigation of any crime. If you even clicked to like a social media post like many people do on YouTube, Facebook or TikTok, the system would secretly harvest your action and store it for their use. Madam Speaker, as I reported to the House last year, on my orders, that system was dismantled, shut down and rendered inoperable. It was a grotesque abuse by a sinister regime, intent on perpetuating their power. It was also illegal and a serious criminal offence, and I can inform the House that a criminal investigation is underway. I am informed that arrests have been made and more will follow. I am necessarily, Madam Speaker, constrained in the amount that I can say concerning this extremely serious matter. But those grave and illegal abuses of the private lives of every citizen in this country should not blind us to the need for Mauritius, in a turbulent and increasingly perilous world, to ensure its freedom and security are not threatened by those within or without, and we want to put an end to that. The properly authorised and legitimate use of covert surveillance methods is a time- honoured and necessary means of protecting the public. There already, Madam Speaker, exist provisions in our legislation under several enactments for such lawful interception, for instance – • Section 56 of the Dangerous Drugs Act; • Sections 29 and 30 of the Cybercrime and Cybersecurity Act; • Section 32 of the Information and Communication Technologies Act; • Section 25A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and • Section 10B of the Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act. All these laws, Madam Speaker, contain a fundamental safeguard. Any telecommunication interception may only be carried out upon the application to, and authorisation by a Judge in Chambers, on the basis of reasonable grounds. You must get a warrant for that. This judicial control constitutes a critical protection against any misuse, abuse or unlawful interception. This Government will act within the law, Madam Speaker. However, the House will shortly have the chance to scrutinise and debate the National Crime Agency Bill and its accompanying legislation, which together, will introduce the most profound and far-reaching changes in law enforcement that our country has seen since the colonial days, even before independence. That legislation will not address the question of surveillance other than in the investigation of crime, and that only. But with the changing threats and the new law enforcement architecture to which this Government is committed, and as part of the Government's radical programme of reform and strengthening of the institutions of our country, it will be necessary in the near future, to consider new legislation. That legislation will place the use of such means in the true and legitimate interest of national security, not the personal and political interests of a particular regime, on a sound constitutional and legal footing. Careful thought is being given to the essential independent structures necessary to guarantee the proper and proportionate use of such tools to be included in the new National Security Act. Madam Speaker, let me remind the House that this Government will not allow this country to drift back into an intrusive system where surreptitious eavesdropping was the order of the day instead of protecting the citizen, and where abusive power was exercised without any restraint at all. We were elected to restore what had been compromised, that is, trust, accountability, freedom and liberty, freedom of expression, and respect for the rule of law. We must never again return to the criminal abuses of the previous regime, which attracted such powerful and righteous indignation throughout the country.

Yes, Madam Speaker, may I?

Yes.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, in reply to my question last year in February, the hon. Prime Minister gave a guarantee that all equipment had been shut down. Now, the hon. Prime Minister says that for judicial purposes, subject to a judge's order, there is interception and monitoring.

I did not say that.

My question to the hon. Prime Minister is: given that the State still has the capacity to intercept – it is still within the State apparatus – with all the risks of political abuse and misuse, why does he not consider it urgent and necessary to come with an oversight and accountable mechanism like is being done overseas in Commonwealth countries?

I did not say, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member is wrong. There is no system at the moment. There is none. I explained. I just said that the system was dismantled, shut down and rendered inoperable. So, there is none at the moment, but what I said in my answer is that we will have to come with new legislation for the purpose of the matter that I mentioned like terrorism, drugs and all those criminal offences.

Madam Speaker, are we to believe that judges' orders are not being complied with by the State?

There is no mechanism to listen to anyone. That is the problem. We are trying to get the people who are at great cost – millions of dollars we are talking about – to re-look. Let us see what was in that thing. They are refusing for the moment. Persol is the company concerned. They have not actually done so. I have requested that, instead of going to buy new equipment, we will have to... but again, under very strict control by the judiciary.

Madam Speaker, my last question.

Yes.

There is no trust on the guarantees that have been given that the system is not being used. I will ask the hon. Prime Minister to consider urgently, as is being done in the UK with the setting up of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, to review, it is reported to a Select Committee of Parliament on all phone tapping and interference and monitoring activities, as well as a legislative framework, a stand-alone legislation. It is done there under the Investigatory Powers Act, with a commissioner being appointed, a former judge, who is appointed to ensure that there is oversight and accountability. It is ample time; does he not agree that this be done now in the wake of the Moustass Leaks? And I will end by this: if the former hon. Prime Minister had no idea he was being recorded, how can this one be so sure?

Okay, hon. Prime Minister.

I did not catch the last bit of his question.

Yes, it is so long.

For the former Prime Minister, I did not hear.

He was not aware that he was being monitored.

No, what I said is: if in view of the opacity, the former Prime Minister himself did not know he was being on tape, how can the hon. Prime Minister...

(Interruptions)

How can the hon. Prime Minister know? Because there is complete opacity. The question is to please consider what I am telling you.

Madam Speaker, it is ridiculous what the hon. member has just said. It is the former Prime Minister who got this machine to be installed and now you are saying that he did not know?

What about the oversight?

You are trying to defend the undefendable. Undefendable! They spied on everyone including himself, his father who was a Minister, his family.

Madam Speaker, that is...

Now, you are asking for open house. Security matters have to be security matters. We did say that we will bring new legislation. There is no system – you might not believe or you might believe. There is no system to intercept anything at the moment. It is dismantled, but we will come with new legislation.

Madam Speaker, may I...

No, no, no!

(Interruptions)

First, I will invite the hon. Prime Minister to consider what Australia...

No, you have to ask a question!

...the UK and South Africa have done. Second, I have not provided an excuse for anyone. What I am saying is, how can the hon. Prime Minister...

(Interruptions)

That is not what I said! What I said is, how can the hon. Prime Minister guarantee, if we have had former Prime Ministers on tape in office, that it is not happening to him given the opacity?

You have already said that!

That is the question. Do not turn my words. This is not what I said!

I am not sure what he is saying. He is saying that I am spying on myself?

No, but you do not know – the opacity!

I know.

Okay, next question! Next question, hon. Apollon! SSR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT – FORMER PASSENGER TERMINAL – CURRENT & FUTURE USE