Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Feb 1930

Vol. 33 No. 1

In Committee on Finance. - Wild Birds Protection Bill, 1929 (Seanad)—Second Stage.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

This is a Bill which has come down from the Seanad. It is not in any way a political or party measure and possibly the House will agree to the Second Reading of it. It may be that the House might consider it advisable to amend the Bill in Committee. I suggest to the House that it would be well to have the Second Reading carried. The provisions of the Bill are roughly these:—A close season is established for all wild birds and that season is from the 1st March to the 1st August. Any person who kills a wild bird during that period is subject to certain penalties set out in the statute, but if the County Council thinks there is reason to the contrary it is open to them to make application to the Minister for Justice who can make a special order dealing with each county. These penalties do not apply to the owners of land, who can shoot all classes of birds on their own land or authorise other persons to shoot all classes of birds except a number of birds the names of which are set out in the first schedule. Possibly some of these birds in the first schedule should not be protected. However, that is a question which the House could consider on the Committee Stage. In addition to that there is prohibition in regard to the export of a rather limited number of birds. The names of the birds the export of which from this country is prohibited are set out in the second schedule. They are principally birds of the song-bird type and they include other birds such as the peregrine falcon and kingfisher. Under the statute persons are prohibited from taking wild birds in a certain fashion. For instance, no one may:

(a) use as a scarecrow any live bird which is tethered, or

(b) use as a decoy any live bird which is tethered or is secured by means of braces or other similar appliances or which is blind, maimed or injured, or

(c) use bird-lime or any substance of a like nature for the purpose of taking or capturing alive or attempting to take or capture alive any wild bird, or

(d) take or attempt to take any wild bird by means of a hook or other similar instrument.

That is dealt with in Section 4, and any person doing those things shall be guilty of an offence. Under Section 5 it is made illegal to set what is known as a pole-trap; that is, a trap on the top of a stick or a mound or things of that nature which used at one time to be the ordinary method of trapping hawks. There are certain provisions as to the size of the cage in which the bird shall be carried; and, too, the eggs of wild birds cannot be destroyed. These are roughly the general principles underlying the Bill.

Mr. E. Doyle

I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, especially in regard to the protection of eggs and young birds. Section 4, however, prohibits people from doing certain things, such as using as a scarecrow any live bird which is tethered. The Minister has made no case against the tethering of birds or against securing birds by means of braces for the purposes of caging them. What is the difference between tethering a bird and tethering a goat? What cruelty is there in tethering a bird? If there were, there would be no possibility of a bird attracting others so that they might be caught. I am totally opposed to Section 4. The use of bird-lime is also forbidden, and if that section is adopted it will deprive a number of people of employment for a long period of the year. That is the main reason why I oppose that section. I am also against Section 6, which prohibits the keeping of birds in cages. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to prevent foreign birds being brought in and confined in cages, but we are not allowed to keep our own birds in cages. A number of people make a living out of cage birds. Section 9 prohibits the export of certain wild birds mentioned in the second schedule, and in that connection also a large number of people make a living. As any gardener, or other person familiar with fruit-growing will tell you, bullfinches, which are mentioned in schedule 2, have to be shot in order to prevent them from destroying fruit. Despite that, however, the Minister includes them amongst the birds which are not allowed to be exported.

The Minister will probably say that goldfinches are scarce because they are trapped and snared, but I would point out to him that it is the Minister for Agriculture who is really responsible for their scarcity. The Minister for Justice is surely aware that goldfinches feed their young on the seeds of thistles at certain portions of the year, and as they and deprived of that food under certain Acts passed here they are becoming scarce. I would be glad if the Minister and the House would agree to amend Sections 4, 6 and 9 so as to prevent a number of people, who find a livelihood in pursuit of this business, becoming unemployed.

Mr. Lemass

I have been approached by a number of people in my constituency and asked to oppose the passage of this Bill on much the same grounds as those advanced by Deputy Doyle. There are a number of unemployed persons in Dublin who make a precarious livelihood by catching and rearing song birds, and, in my opinion, the economic situation that exists here is not sufficiently good to justify our embarking upon schemes of this nature, if by doing so we are going to make it more difficult for certain human beings to subsist. I know that there are a number of individuals whose hearts bleed when they think of the hardships inflicted on little birds, but who are not in the least worried about individuals who have no employment, and who are deprived of the means of providing the necessaries of life for themselves and their families. Deputies will, I am sure, consider human needs first. Undoubtedly there are a number of individuals who are keeping the wolf from the door by catching and selling wild birds. If the Bill is going to interfere, as apparently it is, with the livelihood of these people I will oppose it. If conditions improve, and if the economic situation becomes better, so that there is a reasonable prospect for those persons finding employment in other spheres we can then afford to indulge in luxury legislation of this kind, but at present we cannot do so. We must put the necessities of human beings before those of wild birds. It is possible that the Bill may be amended in this respect in Committee, but, if not, I will be compelled to vote against it on the Report Stage.

Mr. G. Wolfe

I think that this Bill gives prospect of being a very good one. If it is amended in certain particulars, I do not see how it will be oppressive on anybody who earns a legitimate living in this connection. If it were only for the sake of getting into one Act the different Acts that deal with wild birds I think that this Bill would serve a useful purpose. Not only does it do that, but it also makes provision for a close time for wild birds, a provision which did not exist before. I think that we all want to have as many wild birds about us as we possibly can. I regret to say that I observe a great diminution in their numbers, particularly of the more beautiful and rare specimens, as contrasted with the numbers which I used to see when I was young. I do not know the reason for that, but I notice in my part of the country considerably fewer birds of the kind that are not only an ornament but of great use to the country. Many farmers think that birds are a great detriment to them, and they think that because they light on their seeds everything is going to be destroyed. I had that idea myself once. I do a good deal of farming, and nearly every year my manager complains that the oats and other crops are being destroyed by the presence of birds. As a matter of fact, with the sowing instruments which we have in these days these birds do uncommonly little harm. In fact, they do a great deal more good than harm, and if it were not for them we would have many more enemies in the insect line to contend with than we have to-day. Any little harm which they do can be easily remedied by taking proper measures against them. I do not think that anybody can really say that it is a humane thing to tether or blind birds for the purpose of using them as decoys to catch other birds. I do not think that there is anything commendable in that, nor do I think that there is anything elevating in the nature of a person who does such a thing as that. I know that some people do it because I have seen them.

Mr. E. Doyle

Very often you have human beings tethered in one room.

Mr. Wolfe

That is another question. Personally I think that the use of bird-lime is a thing that should not be allowed and I think that section is a very useful one. Of course everything is subject to alteration and it may be amended and improved if it is oppressive. I am opposed to keeping birds in cages at all, but I think if you must keep them in cages, at any rate the cages should be of decent size and nobody should be allowed to keep comparatively large birds in tiny cages in which frequently they cannot move their wings. I think it is a cruelty and an abomination. I note that the Bill also deals with the taking of eggs, particularly in regard to the lapwing. We know the benefits conferred on the country and on farmers especially by the lapwing. It even destroys the germ which produces fluke. I think Section 11 is a very good section. Anybody may ask a person, whom he knows to be committing an offence, for his name and address. I think that is an extremely good provision. Formerly you could not do it, or if you did you would be told to mind your own business. Under this Act you will have that right. I think that altogether there are great possibilities for good in this measure, and though it may be necessary to amend it—possibly some of the names of birds may be taken from the different schedules,—I hope the House will give it a Second Reading. I think it is well worthy the consideration of anybody possessed of any humane feelings at all and I hope it will be passed into law.

Mr. Anthony

I do not find myself altogether in agreement with all that has been said in opposition to the Bill. I believe if this kind of unlimited licence to destroy and kill these birds, in some cases useful and in most cases really pretty, is allowed, we ultimately will reach the stage when these birds will be decimated if not altogether annihilated. At the same time I think the Minister might consider the advisability from time to time, of allowing the killing off of birds which might be a pest in certain parts of the country.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

That is allowed by Section 2.

Mr. Anthony

I would like to see it clear. I am rather interested in one phase of the Bill, and I would ask the Minister if, at a later stage, he will consider the desirability of establishing a number of bird sanctuaries throughout the country. I have in mind a particular spot in my own area within a couple of miles of the city where a number of so-called sportsmen congregate in the evenings and frequently on Sunday mornings. The place I refer to is known as the Lough, and is situated in the south-western portion of the city of Cork. Whilst other countries are making very admirable efforts to encourage the propagation of wild fowl and other birds on artificial lakes, we have in the very near vicinity of Cork a beautiful natural lake where these wild birds—wild duck, snipe and other wild fowl— come from time to time. A number of these so-called sportsmen who very seldom soil their boots, drive along in motor cars and shoot down these wild birds. That happens while many other countries, as I have said, are making decent efforts to provide subjects for nature studies in places to which children can be brought to see birds in their wild state. I would ask the Minister if he would be prepared to include in the Bill a clause which would make these particular spots, with a radius of a quarter of a mile of the surrounding country, bird sanctuaries.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There is power in sub-section (3), Section 2.

Mr. Anthony

Would the Minister accept an amendment with that object?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It is unnecessary because it is in the Bill already.

Mr. Anthony

So far, it appears to me, the Civic Guard are powerless in matters of this kind. I know that when I was shooting—and I am still following the pastime—we always recognised that we were not allowed to shoot within forty yards of the public road. The place to which I refer is only fifteen to twenty yards off the public road, and indiscriminate shooting is carried on there. I do hope the Minister will at some future date include an amendment to preserve such places as sanctuaries and prevent birds from being shot there.

Dr. White

I have not had an opportunity of perusing this Bill as thoroughly as I would like, but during the few moments I have been reading it and listening to other speakers who have taken part in the debate, I decided to support the Bill. I think it is urgently needed. At the same time I do not agree with all the clauses in the Bill. In Section 4, clause (c), there is mention of the use of bird-lime or any substance of a like nature for the purpose of taking or capturing alive, or attempting to take or capture alive, any wild bird. I do not think it is unduly cruel to use bird-lime in capturing birds. I have never used it myself, although I have been hunting birds ever since I was able to carry a gun. I take a very deep interest both in game birds and native birds, and I do not see where hardship or pain to the birds could arise if this bird-lime is used in a humane manner. I certainly put the pleasure of humanity before the pleasure of the birds. I am now referring to song-birds. If Deputies recollect that in our Irish cities and towns, just as in cities in other countries, there are some very unhappy people and very poor people, I do not see why these song-birds cannot be utilised to bring a ray of sunshine into their lives. For that reason I do not approve of this clause. I fail to see why a singing bird cannot be captured in a humane manner, and treated in a humane manner, by the poorer classes in this country.

The title of the Bill is the "Wild Birds Protection Bill, 1929." I do not know if this Bill embraces any birds besides the birds mentioned in the Schedules but there is certainly one bird that I would show no mercy to at all and that is the gannet. The gannet, as everyone knows who takes an interest in fishing, does tremendous damage to our salmon and trout fisheries and I would give that gentleman very short shrift indeed. It is also mentioned in the Bill that no bird shall be used to scare off other birds. I should have no hesitation whatever in using the scald crow. On the Game Preservation Bill, I said that various types of hawks and magpies did incalculable damage to the young game birds. I, as an old gunman, would have great pleasure in stringing up every scald crow, most types of hawk and the majority of magpies. At the same time, I welcome this Bill. I think it is a good Bill and I certainly think that the time has come when some deterrent, such as this Bill, was introduced to put a stop to cruelty of any kind to any variety of bird. If we had not the birds, in a very short time we would have no vegetation. The amount of good which birds do to agriculture and to the land generally is incalculable. I remember reading some time ago about the thousands of flies per day the swallow catches. He lives on flies practically. With regard to various kinds of bullfinches and similar types of bird, though they may inflict some loss on the owners of orchards and possibly on the farmers, to a limited extent, still the amount of harm they do is outweighed to a great extent by the amount of good that they do to the farmer in eating up all kinds of pests in the ground. I intend to support this Bill provided certain minor changes are made in it. Taken all round, with the exception of the few points that I have spoken against, I think it is a good Bill.

Mr. Kennedy

I have great pleasure in opposing this Bill. It is splendid to hear a Deputy advocate that certain birds should be protected in order that, after a certain period, we would have the right to kill these birds, and that certain other birds should be protected not because they were not worth killing but because certain unhappy people have the right to make the birds unhappy in order that two unhappy creatures should be together, the result being happiness. It would be splendid, too, if those who advocate so tenderly the cause and the lives of the birds would be as eloquent in times of war and advocate the protection of human lives as sedulously as they advocate the protection of birds. That is the logic of the illogic of the thing.

The reason I am opposing the Bill is that you are depriving a number of human beings of their livelihood If this Bill becomes law, a number of people in the rural areas will have no way of living. The second Schedule prohibits the exportation of the goldfinch and the bullfinch. In my part of the country, there are a great number of goldfinches caught. It is a trade. They are sent by the dozen to Belfast, and shipped from there to England, and you are going to knock these men out of employment if you prohibit the exportation of these birds. With reference to Section 4, if you prevent bird-catchers catching birds by the use of the scare-crow, of a decoy which is tethered, of bird-lime, or by means of a hook or similar instrument, how are they going to catch birds? Put a grain of salt on their tails? Is that the method the advocates of the Bill put forward as the way to catch birds? These are the recognised ways of the bird-catchers who want to catch sufficient birds to pay for their day out. If you do away with all these methods it means putting up the shutters for these people.

I heard Deputy Wolfe regretting the scarcity of birds. One of the reasons for the scarcity of birds is the lack of forestry in this country. The more hedges, ditches, hollies, hazels and laurels you allow to be cut down the fewer birds you will have. Unfortunately, in the division of estates in the country, when the farms are divided up down comes the hedges and trees. The bird population of that district diminishes, and no matter what protective measures you have here, when you do away with that shrub and forest, the bird population will go.

I heard Deputy Anthony advocate bird sanctuaries. They are all right in their way, but a thorough application of the Forestry Bill will do more than ten Bills of this sort to preserve the bird population in this country. As I think Deputy Lemass said, it would be an ideal thing in an ideal State, when everything else would be put in order, to have a measure like this, but things are as they are. People are getting it very hard to live, and I think we should hesitate in passing this Bill, as it would do away with a large amount of needed employment, the employment of bird-catching for export in particular. The bird-catchers in my area make their livelihood by exporting to England and Scotland.

Mr. G. Wolfe

Would I be in order in referring to a statement which the last speaker made in regard to some thing I had said?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Wolfe

The Deputy said that no doubt the scarcity of birds in the part of the country I alluded to was caused by the want of timber and that the new Act would have the effect of setting that right. I may tell him for his information that my part of the country is one of the best timbered parts.

Mr. Kennedy

I did not refer specifically to Deputy Wolfe's part of the country, but to the whole country.

Mr. Rice

I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, leaving such amendments as it thinks necessary to a later stage. I think the House ought to refuse to be impressed by the argument about causing unemployment to a certain small number of people if the alternative is to allow the continuance of a traffic which is carried on under the most inhuman conditions. We have all seen the operations of some of those people for whom so much sympathy was expressed by Deputy Kennedy and Deputy Doyle. We have seen in a small cage, in which one bird would not have enough room to spread its wings, a dozen of these unfortunate creatures. I do not know how long they are kept in those cages. I was surprised to hear Deputy Dr. White advocate the continuance of the use of bird-lime. From my observation, I would say that one of the most inhuman things in this trade is the use of bird-lime. These bird-catchers go out and catch finches and linnets with bird-lime. They proceed to release the hen-birds, which are no use to them as marketable articles. These birds, as a rule, die a miserable and lingering death afterwards. When they perch on bushes or trees, they are stuck to the branches by the bird-lime and they die of starvation. That is the traffic that Deputy Dr. White wants to see continued. I have heard a lot from Deputies on the opposite benches about the iniquities of the Minister for Agriculture. I did not know that one of his great sins was the destruction of thistles in this country. Apparently, it is.

Deputy Doyle referred to the shortage of goldfinches. The goldfinch is one of the most beautiful of the native birds of this country. The export of goldfinches has been going on to such an extent that a goldfinch now sells at over ten times the price at which it sold a dozen years ago. I hope the House will give sympathetic consideration to this Bill. If there are matters which could be amended in the Bill to the public advantage, I hope the amendments will be made. But I do hope that the House will not repeat its action of a few years ago and refuse to give favourable consideration to a measure which the mass of humanity favours.

Mr. Fahy

With the general principles of the Bill, I am in agreement. I do not think it is right to compare the bird with the goat. The bird is a helpless, timid thing, and in all nations it has been the emblem or symbol of freedom. One cannot look on the tethering of it as one would look on the tethering of a semi-tame or domestic goat. Certain amendments may later be brought in to prevent people being driven out of employment, but I do not think it is fair that one should live on cruelty. If that were to be so, a case could be made for China or any other country in which you had official torturers. It could be said that if you did away with torture you would do away with the livelihood of certain people. I think the keeping of birds in these small cages is a disgrace to freedom. I have seen a number of birds, as Deputy Rice mentioned, cooped up in a cage which was not sufficient to hold one. Personally I would open every birdcage in the country, even in the zoo, and release every bird except the canary, which could not live if it were liberated.

Mr. Daly

There are portions of this Bill with which I agree, and there are other portions with which I do not agree. I agree with the protection of birds during the months of March, April, May, June, July and August. But I do not think it is right to make fish of a certain class of young men and flesh of another class. There is more cruelty in going out, shooting a pheasant and leaving it wounded and dying, than in putting bird-lime on a piece of a stake and capturing a bird. When I was a young fellow, I went out bird-catching with others. When releasing the hen birds, we always took very good care to clean them and to put them in such a condition that when they alighted on a tree they would not stick to it. We had an interest in the birds. We did not go out to torture them. We brought the birds we caught home. There are a good many young men who go out bird-catching for sport. I never sold a bird in my life. A lot of young men deem it a recreation to go out bird-catching on Sundays. I agree that it is a very good thing to protect thrushes and blackbirds and the other birds whose nests would be robbed in the months I have mentioned. But there are a great many men who would be lonesome if they had not a thrush in the house. How are they going to get a thrush except they rob a nest and rear one? The man I have referred to is not going to be cruel to his thrush. I think the thrush is the most respected individual in the house. I heard the Minister for Justice say the farmers would be allowed to shoot pests, such as crows and magpies. I do not know whether or not he included the jackdaw. The jackdaw is a pest in the towns. The jackdaw will go down a chimney, build his nest, and the next time you light your fire you will be smothered. I think we should be allowed to shoot him or gas him.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

He is not saved by the Bill.

Mr. Daly

You have no respect for him. There are a great many good points in the Bill. It is a good thing to see that the Government are out to protect the birds. At the same time, we must protect the amusement of a certain class of young men in the country, even the class of which Deputy Doyle is advocate. Why should not they export the birds to England or elsewhere when we import canaries? I will take a few minutes more to consider how I will vote, but I think the Minister should bring in a few amendments which would save the whole situation.

Mr. Briscoe

In introducing this Bill the Minister stated that he was prepared to accept certain amendments. I fear that the amendments that will be acceptable to the Minister will not affect those against whom this Bill is actually directed. To begin with, the Bill is entitled "The Wild Birds Protection Bill," and right away we become as inconsistent as we possibly can. We immediately define certain birds as wild and say that they may be killed, whilst stating that other wild birds shall not be killed. It would be a very good thing if we could live in the age to which Deputy Fahy referred when everything would be as we would like to have it. Deputy Fahy mentioned the age of torturers. We still have the age of torturers with us. If we are really going to try to set a headline in legislation from a humane point of view let us be humane and let us protect all wild birds, whether they are caught and kept in cages, whether they are destroyed by bird-lime, or whether they are shot by the gun of the sportsman.

I say that the person against whom this Bill is directly aimed is the person who has the greatest interest in the preservation of the very birds that this Bill covers. The bird-catchers are rather uneasy at the moment, because if this Bill goes through in its present form they will lose their means of livelihood. If they were permitted to continue catching birds I say that they would be the last to destroy in their entirety the birds out of which they make a living. It is to their own interest to see that these birds continue in existence so that they can catch a certain number of them and sell them as a means of livelihood.

I attended a meeting held in the Mansion House for the purpose of getting support for this Bill, and I listened very attentively to the case put forward by the various speakers. I also met a deputation of bird-catchers—I understand that there are over three hundred of these in the Free State—and they gave me their side of the story. They were prepared to prove that what is referred to as cruelty in this Bill is in fact not cruelty, but of course they are poor people, they are the underdogs, and I do not suppose that a deputation from them would be received to enable them to put their case. They could not hire the Mansion House. I believe they are having a meeting to-morrow night in some back street, which is the limit of their resources.

I am satisfied that Section 4 will have to be substantially amended and that so will Section 6, in the sense that some specification at least should be provided. The Bill says that a cage must be of "such a size," but the size is not specified. It should be stated that the cage should measure so many inches; otherwise if a man has a cage of a certain size anybody can say that it is not big enough. Let us specify the size of the cage. These men to whom I have referred are very anxious to facilitate us. As a matter of fact, I understand that the people who make bird cages would be better pleased if larger cages were specified because they would get more money for them. The same applies to cages in which birds are sent from one place to another when there is more than one bird in each cage. I have a letter— I presume every other Deputy has also got one—from the Dublin Conservators of Fisheries, who are making a noise because the heron is included in this Bill. They say that it should be destroyed because it kills the salmon and trout. That is how humane we are; we are only humane in a figure of speech. The whole world at present lives in opposition to everything that is humane. If we were to be really humane we would not rear cattle for the purpose of killing and cating them; but these are the conditions we live under. Let us at least be consistent and not live a kind of high-class hypocrisy. I have just as much love for a heron as for a bullfinch from the point of view that both are wild birds. The heron is not responsible for its nature because it has to live on fish; the bullfinch is not responsible for its nature because it has to live on thistle seeds.

If we are going to protect wild birds let us protect them entirely, not only from the bird-lime of the poor man who makes his living catching them, but also from the gun of the sportsman. Pheasants are specially reared for the purpose of one week's shoot, when they are shot as fast as they can be let out, so that only an odd one escapes. The Minister may laugh at that, but pheasants are bred for the purpose of being shot.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I never heard of pheasants being let out of cages. That is new to me.

Mr. Briscoe

Not being a sportsman, I will probably be excused for not knowing the exact sporting term, but they are kept in captivity in coverts, and then they are released when all the gentlemen are lined up with their guns to bang away at them. That is humanity!. But if a poor man goes out to catch a few birds to sell to people who will care for them and feed them daily, and with whom they will live as long as eight or ten years, that is against the interests of humanity and it must be stopped. If I had any hope that the amendments that will be accepted would affect the interests of these people who make a living by catching birds, I would support the Bill as it is, because it goes a certain distance in the direction of protecting wild life, from a humane point of view; but I am satisfied that the amendments that will be accepted will be either to lengthen or to shorten the close season, so that birds will be protected for shooting. I have met bird catchers, and I have heard birds sing at their request, a thing I did not believe was possible. I am satisfied that they treat birds in captivity with a great deal more humanity than a number of the great lords and the gentry who go round to big shoots and shoot thousands and thousands of wild birds for the love of destruction and for no other reason, not even with the excuse of making a living out of it.

Mr. O'Mahony

I am very much in favour of this Bill, and I sincerely hope that the House will pass its Second Reading. I went to a public meeting at the Mansion House and spoke there in favour of the Bill, but I criticised it also.

My chief criticism was in respect of some of the birds that are included in the First Schedule. At my own home I have a sanctuary for wild birds, especially wild duck. That shows that I love wild birds and that I want to try to protect them. The sanctuary has been in existence about forty-five years. It was started by my great-uncle, and it might amuse the House if I told how it was started. The duck used to come there in the winter, but not very many of them, and my great-uncle was very anxious to start a sanctuary there. One winter when the lake was frozen some oats were soaked in whiskey and scattered on it. The birds ate the oats, fluttered about, were caught, and their wings were cut. That was the start of the sanctuary. Now in the winter time there are hundreds of wild duck there. They know they are perfectly safe and that no one will ever disturb them. I also have a heronry. In the lake there were trout, and I put in a number of golden carp. I am afraid that I have not looked after the herons properly, but have let them increase too much, and the consequence is that the trout and the golden carp have gone. If I had wisely restricted these herons, shot them judiciously and kept them down I should still have the trout and the golden carp. I wonder how much damage I have done around my own district to valuable fisheries, and after all the fishing industry in this country is a very valuable asset and I hold it will increase in value every year. We must be wise in having restrictions to keep down birds which destroy a valuable asset of that nature. There is no doubt that herons do untold damage and that they must be kept within check. That is one reason why I would like to see the heron taken out of the First Schedule. We must face up to the facts.

Now I want to refer only to one or two birds mentioned in the First Schedule. Some of us may be perfectly agreeable to giving up a certain proportion of our own fruit for them to eat so that we may enjoy their song; but what we have to ask ourselves is: Have we the right to stop people from preserving their fruit who are probably dependent on it in order to balance their family exchequers? That is a point we have to face up to and a point which we have to decide.

Taking it on the whole, I think this is an excellent Bill. I think it would be a terrible thing if bird-lime provision were omitted. To my mind, that is one of the cruellest things that could be used. I do not say that in some cases it is not used carefully and that no harm is done, but there are hundreds of cases where it is used carelessly, and the birds that are not caught but get away with the bird-lime on their feet die of starvation. They leave the bird-lime in other places and they may flutter off themselves, but other birds are caught. It is the other birds you want to protect— those which get caught and die of starvation.

Mr. Nolan

Personally, I do not see any great advantage in this Bill. The Minister says the object of the Bill is to prevent cruelty to wild birds. If cruelty is practised. I am of opinion that there are sufficient laws at present in existence to prevent it and to punish culprits. I also consider that the House would be better engaged if it were dealing with some other Bill on this, the first day after the holidays, more especially when there is so much to be done and so many Bills to be dealt with between now and the summer.

I would not have intervened were it not for the fact that no other Deputy seemed to touch on the penalties that are to be inflicted on the alleged evil-doer. Section 4 has been referred to by Deputy White. He is a medical man and ought to know something about cruelty. The section reads:

(b) use as a decoy any live bird which is tethered or is secured by means of braces or other similar appliances or which is blind, maimed or injured, or

(c) use bird-lime or any substance of a like nature for the purpose of taking or capturing alive or attempting to take or capture alive any wild bird, or

(d) take or attempt to take any wild bird by means of a hook or other similar instrument,

shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding twenty-five pounds or alternately or in addition thereto to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months.

If a young fellow is out for sport and uses bird-lime to catch a bird, if he is brought up will he not do his utmost to defeat justice in such a case? Do you think he would hesitate even at perjury in order to try to get out of a penalty of £25 or three months in jail? The section says "not exceeding," but we have some Justices administering justice who sometimes inflict the full penalty that the law allows. Is it not a greater crime on the part of the State to be responsible for encouraging a youth or a man who is trying to make a living to commit perjury? My attention would not have been drawn so much to that but for the fact that recently a district justice inflicted the full penalty in a case where the offence was not really a breach of the law. A petition was got up and I was responsible for sending it to the Minister for Justice. I sympathise with the Minister for having to deal with such a case because it was a question of reducing the fine which, of course, is a bad precedent for future cases. I drew the Minister's attention to the petition and I warned him that if the full penalty was inflicted and if there was not some mitigation I would not support any Bill with such extreme penalties in future. There is as penal a clause in this Bill as was ever inflicted by any Act. It is like hanging a man for stealing a sheep, and I will not support the Bill while that section is in it. That is my chief reason for opposing the Bill, and I am as humane a person as there is in this House, but I put humanity before perjury, and this Bill encourages youths or persons trying to make a living out of birds to perjure themselves.

After all, people cannot be expected to know the law from A to Z in one or two years after centuries of tyranny and slavery. Only recently we had an instance of where an extreme penalty was inflicted in a trifling case. I will not go further than that.

Mr. Little

Really, this type of legislation is very unhealthy, I think. We have a series of Bills dealing with matters of importance, and this is a very secondary matter compared with the legislation we should be dealing with. It reflects very badly on the Government that they should be devoting time required for much more important problems, such as unemployment and matters affecting the economic condition of the people, to this sort of Bill. That has been mentioned already, and I do not want to dwell on it. I would like to impress on the Minister two points that have been made already. Surely he does not want to make criminals. He will if he is going to allow heavy penalties of this sort to be put on thoughtless boys who use bird-lime, and who may incur a penalty of three months' imprisonment. Once a boy has spent three months in prison he is on the road to be a criminal and is put into a class in which he will be turned into a criminal, so that instead of catching birds he will wind up by being a hardened criminal. That is, after all, the educational process of making a criminal.

I think that the Minister should take into very careful consideration the type of penalties that can be imposed and change them very radically. There are these 300 poor people who are going to be thrown out of employment. They are not of a very cruel type. At any rate, they serve a very good purpose. To people who live in big cities and who happen to walk through the poorer streets and hear a bird singing in the slums, it serves a certain purpose. These people have not the opportunities of people like Deputy Wolfe or Deputy O'Mahony of having large estates around them, and the only possibility they have of getting in touch with nature is by listening to a bird singing in a cage. That is another side of the question. These people who supply a certain human need in the big cities, I think, deserve some sort of consideration if they are going to be deprived of their means of livelihood. We have excellent precedents for saying that they should receive some sort of compensation. We have able-bodied judges walking about the streets with nothing to do, living on large pensions, because they have been deprived of their means of livelihood. I think if certain people are compensated in an extravagant way, having been deprived of their means of livelihood, at least some small compensation should be given to these poor people who live upon the proceeds of bird catching.

Mr. Everett

As one who opposed a similar Bill some years ago, I also intend to oppose this Bill. Although the Bill has been introduced by the Minister, I have heard no argument in its favour. The Minister himself did not seem to favour the Bill very much. Deputy Rice and Deputy O'Mahony were the only persons who really supported the Bill. Senators of all parties have plenty of scope for bringing in much more important Bills than this. They have been silent as to the conditions prevailing throughout the country. Deputy Rice referred to the conditions under which birds were kept in cages. Deputy Fahy supported Deputy Rice. Deputy Rice, as a legal gentleman, should know that there is a law to prevent cruelty to animals. When fighting a bye-election, Deputy Rice promised those people in Dublin who are living nine or ten in a small room that by elecing him to the Dáil they would help to solve the housing problem. We know what has happened since. He has asked the Dáil not to reject this Bill, like the former one. I hope the Dáil will reject the Bill. There are over 100 men in my constituency who have formed themselves into an association, and I can say that they are the best friends and protectors that the birds have. They are men who protect the birds in the close season. If a female bird happens to be caught on the bird-lime these men will not throw it away, but bring it home and clean it and let it out again. These are the men who will feed the birds in times of storm or when there is snow on the ground, not like those who have lip sympathy for them in the Seanad and other places. These are the men who educate their children in the love of birds and to place food and water outside for them. How many of the people that we see attending meetings for the protection of birds have even sympathy for human beings, much less for birds?

I ask the House to reject the Bill as there is very much more useful work to be done than discussing this question. The poor man has been deprived of the right to catch rabbits with a dog on Sunday. The only sport that the poor man has now on a Sunday is to catch birds, and that right is being taken from him under this Bill. We hear a lot of talk about liberty. There will be no liberty soon in this country, but the liberty to die of hunger. I was surprised to hear Deputy Rice referring to the sympathy he has for the poor birds. On a previous occasion here the Deputy voted to give the right to people in this country to shoot birds and to allow retrievers to bring wounded birds back to their master. The Deputy had no sympathy on that occasion for the poor birds. It was a question then of legislating for the rich. When it comes to the poor man, we have Deputy Rice supporting this Bill which comes from the Senate. Labour Senators would have been better employed trying to do something for the poor people of the country instead of supporting such a Bill as this.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

Mr. Goulding

I would not be opposed to this Bill, but I realise that if it goes through as it stands it will have the effect of depriving a considerable number of the men referred to by Deputy Everett not alone of amusement, but of a means of livelihood, or a means at least of supplementing their very meagre income. I also know quite a number of men who eke out a very meagre income by the capture of wild birds. These men are not cruel to the birds. It is to their interest not to be. Of course that does not apply in every case. You will find sportsmen wounding a bird with a gun and leaving that bird there to die. You will find a bird catcher who is careless or indifferent as to the a bird which gets off the bird-lime. But all men are not of that kind. A lot of this talk about cruelty to birds in cages has no foundation in fact. I have seen birds when let out of cages come back to them again.

Section 6 deals with the size of cages. I wonder is it realised that many wild birds if put into too large a cage will kill themselves in the cage, and that for the bird's own safety they have to be kept in a very small cage for some time. Men who are in the habit of catching birds are well aware of that and if they do keep a bird in a small cage it is because if it were put into a larger cage it would destroy itself. Then as to bird-lime, there are different forms of it. If the proper kind is used it has not at all as bad an effect as the other kind. Bird-lime made from holly bark is not at all as injurious to birds as the bird-lime imported from England which, I believe, is manufactured out of Stockholm tar and other ingredients. The experts only use the former kind. They are very careful when freeing a bird to see that it is free from bird-lime. Of course there are some who will not do this. There have been cases where birds have been found dead from the effects of bird-lime, but these cases should not be taken as an indication that all men act in this way and are indifferent to the fate of the bird. It is certainly right to make the use of hooks for the catching of birds illegal.

I notice no reference is made to nets. One man with a net would catch more goldfinches in one haul than a man who uses bird-lime would get in a week. I have known an Englishman in this country who, in one net, captured thirty goldfinches. As to licences for the export of birds, I notice that under Section 9 there is an absolute prohibition as to the export of wild birds. That should be amended. There should be some licence for the export of live birds because a man who makes a living by the capture of wild birds will find that if the birds cannot be exported his living is gone. If that were amended, and if the export of wild birds was allowed under licence, it might meet the case. Then with regard to Section 11 as to the penalty for refusing to give name and place of abode, there is a danger that it might give rise to breaches of the peace. If every busybody is allowed to walk up to a man and ask his name and address, it may be found very often that such a person would not get a very civil answer. No individual should get the right to go that far. That is a matter which should be confined to servants of the State.

Mr. Carey

In my part of the country there are a lot of bird fanciers and I have been associated with those people for years. I have never seen them harm any birds. I have often been out with these men catching finches and never saw any harm done. I should like to know from the Minister whether the local authority has any powers in enforcing the Act. Will it have to be adopted by the county council before it is put in force? Is it to be left to the local authorities to strike a rate because the local authority has to strike a rate to carry out the duties involved? If the Bill passes this House, it rests with the county councils to enforce it as I understand it.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Just before I deal with the various points made, I should like to deal with one remark made by Deputy Little to the effect that a Bill of this nature is not a very pressing Bill and therefore should not be considered. Deputy Little seems to forget that the Bill is not one introduced by the Government at all. It is a Bill that has passed the Seanad and has come down from the Seanad to this House and the question is should this House consider a Bill that has been passed by the Seanad or not? Personally, I am of opinion that if the Seanad passes a Bill and sends it on to the Dáil, then we must certainly consider that Bill.

It is very curious that Deputy Little complains of the waste of time, but he was careful to say that he was not going to make any new points, and was going only to repeat what other Deputies had said. If that is not rather defeating his own argument I do not know what is. I should like to point out to Deputy Lemass that this Bill does not destroy bird-catching at all. This Bill allows a certain amount of bird-catching, but it prohibits certain methods, and only certain methods, of catching birds, which methods, in the opinion of a great many people, are cruel. I think that the cruel method of bird-lime should not be used when other methods could be used instead. I might again point out to Deputy Lemass, as the last speaker has said, that nets are much more effective for catching birds than bird-lime, but netting is not prohibited by this Bill. I would also point out that not all wild birds, but only those whose names are set out in the second schedule cannot be exported from this country. Deputy Briscoe talked a great deal about logic, and went on to say that because you stop the destruction of one kind of wild bird you should stop the destruction of all kinds of wild birds. That is to say, you should stop the destruction of harmful birds as well as harmless birds; both should be equally protected or none should be protected. I must frankly confess that that is not an argument that I can follow at all. There are birds that I know that do a great deal of harm. The magpie is one. The woodpigeon is another. The woodpigeon does an enormous amount of harm to agriculture. More grain is consumed by one woodpigeon than any other class of bird, and more damage is done by one woodpigeon to cabbage plants in the spring than would be done by a thousand bullfinches.

There are certain classes of birds that are really pests and should not be protected and are not protected by this Bill. The landowner can shoot them or the farmer can shoot them or they can authorise other persons to shoot them at different seasons of the year. That seems to me to be quite right. As far as the other points of criticism passed on the Bill go, they were really what I would call Committee Stage points; for example, the fine that should be imposed and the maximum fine that should be fixed in the section. Deputy Carey asked whether the county councils were to have any power under this Bill. They will have. The birds under this Bill can be varied by the Minister for Justice upon the report he gets from the county councils, that is, under subsection (2) of Section 2. Dealing with the points Deputy Anthony made at considerable length about bird sanctuaries, I would like to see several bird sanctuaries established in the neighbourhood of towns. There are certain places in the neighbourhood of Dublin that might be turned into excellent bird sanctuaries. They would be safe there and the birds could be seen by people who take an interest in country life and who cannot spend their whole time nor as much of it as they would like in the country or in country places.

The speech that appealed to me most on Second Reading was the speech made by Deputy Fahy. I rather feel with Deputy Fahy when he says that wild birds in cages seem to be in the wrong place. I agree with him that that appears nowhere more painfully than in the Zoological Gardens. I think the bulk of the points made are points that can be dealt with in Committee. No doubt in Committee we will have strong expressions of opinion on one side or the other and it will be entirely a matter for the House to decide. This is not a Government measure, it is a measure upon which the House will vote just as it thinks right, but I commend the Bill to the House for Second Reading.

Question put and declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th February.