asked the Minister of Health why local authorities have been asked by circular 40/48 to make returns of the names and addresses of persons against whom proceedings have not been instituted but who have been warned about offences against Defence Regulation 56A; and whether it is proposed to use such information in any subsequent proceedings affecting the said persons.

In considering the institution of proceedings, it is important to know whether a person has been expressly warned about the provisions of Defence Regulation 56A. The information is not normally used in court before conviction, unless necessary to counter a plea of ignorance.

When the Minister says that it is not normally used, would he agree that, prima facie at any rate, such information would be inadmissible before conviction; and would he not further agree that it has no relevance after conviction because unless there is a previous conviction for the offence it would not be relevant at that stage?

I think that is a matter for the court itself to construe.