asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if the proposed legislation to increase fines for encroachment by foreign trawlers will be introduced in this Dáil term.

This matter is being considered in my Department in conjunction with a number of other legislative proposals concerning fisheries. It is unlikely that the necessary legislation will be ready for introduction in the present Dáil term.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Minister for Justice, in reply to a question tabled by me, agreed that such legislation was necessary and promised to introduce such a measure? Why the delay?

I expect that the legislation will be introduced early next session. The main punishment for foreign trawlers fishing within our limits is the forfeiture of the gear and the catch. While the skippers of these trawlers are aware that the fine is limited to £100 the gear and catch could run into six figures, as happened recently.

In this review of the legislation will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it would be desirable to include things, other than the mere increasing of the level of fines, such as laying down new procedures whereby poaching boats can be brought before our courts and the sort of evidence that has to be produced? Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is not simply a matter of increasing the fines but of reviewing and improving the whole catching and prosecuting procedures?

That is being taken into account and if there are any loopholes in the present legislation they will be closed.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that to a large extent the existing mechanism of catching and prosecuting is out of date? In this new context would he not consider introducing methods whereby it will not be necessary for one ship to actually arrest the other ship before a prosecution can take place? In other words, that different methods of instituting prosecutions will be able to be undertaken. In this respect will the Parliamentary Secretary have particular regard to the very efficient methods now operated by the Icelanders?

It is rather difficult. Under the present system the skipper is brought to a district court and if the justice finds the case proved he imposes a penalty and orders the forfeiture of the gear and catch. The trawler owner or skipper are entitled to appeal. I do not know how that procedure could be overcome because we must allow the right of appeal. I do not think that can be done away with. An appellant must set down a bond equal to the value of the fish and gear before an appeal.

I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary understands what I am getting at. Is he satisfied that the existing procedure whereby a foreign poaching vessel must be arrested by one of our boats and brought to court is out of date and that other methods of bringing these offending poaching vessels to justice should be invoked?

That part of the procedure is being dealt with and, if we can devise more successful methods, naturally we will adopt them. I thought the Deputy was referring to court procedure.

I was, and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to consider other ways whereby in court the guilt of the poaching vessel can be established. At the moment the ship must be arrested by another ship and the ship's captain brought to court, but other countries are now employing other methods of instituting proceeding against poaching trawlers, such as the taking of photographs from aeroplanes or helicopters which can be produced as evidence in court.

We must take into account what happens in other countries and have some regard for international standards. We cannot just make laws on our own.

We can. What is evidence in our courts is decided by us.

That is a matter to which I should like to give further thought.