asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if under present legislation evidence secured through aerial surveillance can be used in prosecutions against foreign trawlers charged with infringement of our exclusive limits; and if not, the plans, if any, to permit such evidence.

There is no specific legislation governing the use of evidence secured through aerial surveillance in prosecutions against foreign trawlers. When information obtained in this manner complies with the present requirements of evidence, such evidence will be admissible in the courts. I have no plans to alter the present position.

Is the Minister aware that such evidence is accepted in the courts of other countries?

It has not caused any practical difficulty in regard to the apprehending of these boats. The normal procedure is that the plane acts as a spotter and is able to ascertain when a boat is inside our waters. It immediately notifies a naval boat and the naval boat makes the actual arrest. I am satisfied that that procedure is effective. Planes are equipped with a global navigation system which enables them to ascertain the precise latitude and longitude of the vessel at sea. They can communicate instantly with the naval vessel. The naval vessel is the only practical way of effecting an arrest. A plane cannot arrest a boat.

Can the Minister be serious? Surely aerial surveillance would make the task of policing our waters much easier?

It is doing that. Due to my efforts we are obtaining two new boats that will be built in Cork equipped with helicopter pads to provide further aerial surveillance. This is part of the £30 million I secured and which is now being paid out of EEC funds to the Government.

Why can this evidence not be accepted in court?

The Deputy does not understand. It is part of the law of evidence and has nothing to do with me. I have to work within the laws of evidence existing in the Irish courts.

If courts in other countries can accept this evidence, and it has been unsuccessfully challenged in international courts, why can we not follow suit?

I am satisfied that the work is being done effectively. I am not concerned about the laws of evidence in other countries.

Does the Minister remember that when we were dealing with a Bill increasing fishery fines he promised he would look into this matter——

I did so.

——and if at all possible would implement it?

The courts are bound by the laws of evidence and will accept evidence as they decide to do so within the framework of the laws.

Can we change existing legislation?

Is the Minister aware of any case where a prosecution was brought against a foreign poacher where evidence of the reconnaissance plane was given?

It is not required. They make the initial spotting from the plane or, hopefully in the future, helicopter. That information is communicated to the naval vessel. The vessel makes the actual arrest and gives evidence of arrest and evidence in court. That is the way it works.

That is the way it works here, inefficiently.

That is modern Ireland.

There are too many debates.

There is a serious point and the Minister is evading the question. Would the Minister accept that it would be an improvement of our system and lead to more effective policing if evidence could be given in the courts here from the aerial reconnaissance plane in the same way as is given in other countries?

I do not accept the imputation in the Deputy's remarks that our system of apprehension, arrest and court charging is in any way inefficient or ineffective.

May we take it that the Minister does not wish to improve our system?

Order. Question No. 16.