asked the Minister for Justice if he proposes to introduce legislation providing safeguards as to the manner in which phone tapping may take place, in light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Malone v. United Kingdom (1985); and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I am aware of the case to which the Deputy refers and, as I indicated in reply to a previous question on this subject on 13 May 1987, I am having the question of legislation to regulate interception of communications examined. Consultations related to this examination have not yet been completed. In accordance with normal practice, any proposals I may have in connection with this matter will be announced in the ordinary way in due course when they have been considered by the Government.

Is the Minister aware that as a result of the Malone case the position in this country is the same as it was in Britain before their recent legislation, in other words, that phone tapping without legislative restriction is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that it is not lawfully being carried on here at the moment? In view of the importance of this to combat subversion and crime, does he not think that we should urgently bring forward such legislation?

I am aware of the Malone v. United Kingdom case and the consequences of such a case are being considered by my Department. As I said, consultations in relation to this examination are still not completed and when they are I will be in a position to put proposals to the Government for consideration.

Is it not remarkable that two and a half years after the judgment in Strasbourg on the Malone case consideration is not yet completed? The British were able to make all their considerations and to enact the legislation in a much shorter space of time. What is the reason for the undue delay here?

The Deputy should not be suggesting, as I think he might be, that we should be slavishly following what the British do.

I am not suggesting that.

We have our own precedents in phone tapping.

When consultations which are in progress at present have been completed I will be in a position to put the proposals to the Government.

The point that I put to the Minister, and to which he has not replied, is not that we should necessarily have the same legislation as Britain but that we should have, after two and a half years, completed consideration of the matter.

This is leading to repetition.

Would the Minister care to express a view on the Bill which was brought forward in the House on this matter by the previous Government but which was then not proceeded with, and say whether that Bill is suitable?

The Deputy should know that the Minister does not express a view on proposals which are being considered. The Deputy will also know that when the proposals have been considered I will come to the House and express the view of the Government on such proposals.

Is the Minister indicating that it is not the Government's intention to bring forward the Bill in relation to phone tapping published by the previous Government?

The Minister has made his position very clear and in regard to any assumptions the Deputy may make he should have another look at my initial answer to Deputy O'Malley's question.

Is the Minister satisfied that telephone tapping in this country, even the approved kind which the Garda seek, not the unapproved kind that emanates from elsewhere, is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights? Does he not feel that it is in the public interest that the matter be rectified as soon as possible so that the approved kind of telephone tapping can take place for the suppression of terrorism and serious crime?

I have told Deputy O'Malley that I am having the question of legislation to regulate interception of communications examined. I also told him, and I repeat, that consultations are at present in progress and as soon as they have been finalised I will bring the matter to the Government for a decision.

All that work has been done.

I wish to ask one question.

Sorry, Question No. 12, Deputy Brendan McGahon.

May I ask just one question?

I have allowed a lot of latitude on this question. I hesitate to refuse the Deputy. I ask him to be brief.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will in the legislation avoid two errors which were set out in the previous Bill, first, the tainting of the Judiciary by involving them on a secret basis in security arrangements of the State and, secondly, the ludicrous exception in the Bill which prevented the use of phone tapping to investigate widespread conspiracies to commit summary offences?

As the Deputy knows, this is a very complex matter and must be given very careful consideration. The Government will have a decision to make bearing in mind all the consequences of what is involved. Then I will be in a position to come back to the House with the Government's proposals for discussion and debate.

Is the Minister sure it is not a political embarrassment for him to bring it forward?

We will have the death penalty for telephone tapping now.