asked the Minister for Justice if, in view of the statement by the Taoiseach on 9th November, 1972, (details supplied) that section 52 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, recently reactivated, giving certain powers of interrogation to the Garda is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and any person convicted under it would have a right of action before the Court of Human Rights, he will state the steps he proposes to take to amend this Act.

The reactivation of section 52 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, was not the result of a positive decision by the Government that it should be reactivated. The only decision that has been taken by the Government in relation to legislation in this area is the decision not to renew section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1976. The non-renewal of section 2 meant that section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, again became operative and that, in turn, meant that section 52, which relates to the questioning of persons arrested under section 30, also can be invoked by the Garda. This does not necessarily mean that it will be so invoked and the question whether it will be invoked remains to be considered.

The statement by the Taoiseach on 29th November, 1972, to which the question refers was made on the basis of the legal advice that had been given to the Government. However, during the period of office of the Coalition Government a different view appears to have prevailed and the section was brought into use again early in 1974 and several persons were convicted under it since then.

The Government have not yet had an opportunity of fully considering this matter afresh but will do so shortly.

In view of the Taoiseach's categorical statement in 1972, and the very grave implications that somebody can be interrogated on being brought in under the Act and of the difficulties of bringing cases before the European Court of Human Rights, would the Minister not agree that this is a question which should be treated as of extreme urgency? According to the Taoiseach, we are apparently in breach of the Constitution. This is a serious issue.

I have just told the Deputy that the statement made by the Taoiseach on 29th November, 1972, was made on the basis of the legal advice given to the Government at that time. I also told the Deputy that during the period of the Coalition Government a different view appears to have prevailed and the section was brought into use again early in 1974. The Deputy will agree it is only right that the matter be examined in depth, and this is being done. When the matter has been examined carefully and properly, the Government will then have an opportunity to decide on the matter.

If the Government had to reactiviate the Act rather than leave it as it is, would they accept the Taoiseach's interpretation of the Act or the previous Government's interpretation?

The important thing right now is, as far as I am aware, that we are not using section 52.

It is not being used?

It is not being used and, as soon as the examination of this area, which is an extremely important area for the reasons mentioned by the Deputy, takes place, I will bring the matter before the Government for a decision at that time.

The Minister would not care to give me any kind of estimate?

If I say "as quickly as possible" I genuinely mean as quickly as possible because I realise it is an important matter.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the effect of what the Minister is saying, leaving out the rights and wrongs of the matter, that while this section is there and available to the Garda Síochána they have been instructed to ignore it?

No.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Then what is the position in regard to it? Who took the decision not to operate it and when was it taken?

I have told the House that the section is not being operated and, if the Deputy wants further information, he is quite free to put down a separate question.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister is washing his hands.

Question No. 13.