Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1929

Vol. 13 No. 5

Wild Birds Protection Bill, 1929—Committee Stage.

I move:

Section 1. To add at the end of the section the words "other than game birds within the meaning of the Game Preservation Act, 1929."

The definition of wild birds in the first section of the present Bill includes all wild birds. A certain number of wild birds are now within the provisions of the Game Preservation Bill, and therefore the two measures are going to overlap. The trouble about overlapping Bills is that where for the same subject matter there are different penalties it is very difficult to make up your mind under which to go. There ought not to be different penalties for the same matter in two Bills. If the amendment is accepted it will include pheasants, partridge, woodcock, etc., which are mentioned and which are more amply protected by the Game Preservation Bill than by this Bill.

I think the Senator is a bit previous in this matter, as the Game Preservation Bill is not yet an Act, and it is possible that it may be altered in some details.

It cannot be helped while two Bills are going forward together.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sub-section (1). It shall not be lawful for any person during the period between the 1st day of March and the 1st day of August, both days inclusive (in this Act referred to as the close time) in any year—
(a) knowingly and wilfully to shoot or attempt to shoot any wild bird, or
(b) to use any boat for the purpose of shooting or causing to be shot any wild bird, or
(c) to use any trap, snare, net or any other instrument for the purpose of taking alive or killing or attempting to take alive or kill any wild bird, or
(d) except during the first fifteen days of the close time, to sell or expose or offer for sale or have in his possession or control any wild bird recently killed.
Sub-section (6). This section shall not apply to the owner or occupier of any land or any person authorised by him taking alive or killing on such land any wild birds not mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act.

I move:—

Section 2, sub-section (1). Before the word "killed" in line 27 to insert the words "taken alive or".

This is only to add two words that were omitted. They are used in the earlier part of the section and should be used in this line.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

Section 2, sub-section (6). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—

"(6) This section shall not apply to the owner or occupier of any land or to any person authorised by him taking alive or killing on such land or in the vicinity of such land any wild bird injuring or likely to injure any agricultural crop on such land."

The object of the sub-section, I take it, is to allow farmers to preserve their crops from destruction. I bring forward the amendment in order that there may be no mistake that the farmers shall have the right to protect their crops from birds.

The sub-section as it stands in the Bill only prevents the farmer killing birds which are mentioned in the First Schedule. There are no birds mentioned in the First Schedule which are really harmful. If you pass the amendment you leave the question of the destruction of every bird, whether the amendment is in the First Section, or no matter where it is, at the discretion and mercy of the farmers. The existing law in this country is and has been for forty-nine years that the farmer should not during the close time, that is between the 1st March and 1st August, shoot any bird named in the First Schedule. I strongly urge the Seanad to leave the law on that subject as it stands.

There are birds mentioned in the First Schedule that, from my experience, are harmful to agriculture.

They are two which are the subject of a subsequent amendment by the Senator if he wants them knocked out.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided:
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 26.

  • Sir Edward Bellingham.
  • R. A. Butler.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • Thomas Linehan.
  • James MacKean.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • M. F. O'Hanlon.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • Thomas Toal.


  • John Bagwell.
  • William Barrington.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • Joseph Connolly.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • The Countess of Desart.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • The Earl of Granard.
  • Sir John Purser Griffith.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
  • Francis MacGuinness.
  • John MacLoughlin.
  • Joseph O'Doherty.
  • Dr. William O'Sullivan.
  • Séumas Robinson.
  • Richard Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.
Every person who shall do any of the following things, that is to say:—
(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 or attempting to capture or take 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 alternatively or in addition thereto to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months.

I move:

"To delete paragraph (c)."

The section imposes a very drastic penalty on persons who act contrary to its terms, a penalty of £25, and in addition a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months.

Not necessarily in addition. It may be.

There is a possibility of it. I think that a very drastic penalty for the new offence created by this section. If wild birds are to be captured at all—and I am not quite sure that it might be better to prevent their capture than to keep them in cages—I know of no more humane system of capturing them than with bird-lime. It was alleged on a previous occasion that it is a very cruel practice, as the birds sometimes escape off the bird-lime and spend a miserable time. That may happen, if the bird-lime is not of the proper quality. There is no more cruelty in using bird-lime than in fishing with a hook where a defective line is used. In that case the fish will escape with the hook tied in it, and some people do not regard that as cruelty at all, but think it quite legitimate. I am not going to say whether it is or not, but the very fact that that happens should not be a reason for preventing the use of rod fishing. The capture of birds is regarded as a pastime with some people. I know several people who spend half-holidays and Sundays in the country, and their amusement is the capture of birds.

They are not in a position to become members of golf clubs, or to take part in other amusements which would keep them in the open air. The chief benefit of all these amendments is that city people who have to spend their time in the smoky and vitiated atmosphere of the city get an opportunity to spend some hours in the open air. I daresay that is the chief object of golf. It is a mistake to object to poor people who cannot afford this luxury spending their time in the open air. There are others who make a living out of capturing birds, but as a result of this section a number of them will lose their employment. I do not see any provision in the Bill for securing other means of livelihood for them. They may possibly be thrown on the rates at a time when we are all grumbling about the rates being high. It is very inopportune to add to the unemployed at the present time. All forms of sport involving the chasing of animals, birds, and fish might be regarded as cruelty to some extent, either in a mild or in an aggravated form. In fox hunting the animal is chased by 40 or 50 hounds and is sometimes captured and his body rent asunder by his pursuers. Some who follow fox hunting do not consider that cruel, while others do.

Then there is the coursing of hares, several of which are killed at each meeting. That might be regarded as cruelty. There is horse racing where sometimes the whip and the spur are used. I daresay that many of the supporters of this clause enjoy one or other of the sports I have mentioned, where cruelty is certainly involved, but who consider themselves doing great good by preventing cruelty to birds. I would ask them to look at this matter from the point of view of others. Those who engage in the pastime cannot very well take up other forms of amusement, and I hope the Seanad, before agreeing to the section and throwing many people out of employment, will seriously consider the matter.

I very much regret that an amendment to this effect should have appeared on the paper at all, but I still more deeply regret that the House has had to listen to the arguments by which the Senator who has just spoken recommended his amendment to it. He told us that if good bird-lime is used there will be no cruelty, because the birds will certainly be caught. I will take him at his word. But it is not only the birds that will be caught which are being sought for by these sporting gentlemen who are out on Sundays for open-air amusement; it is not only the birds that are being caught. Unfortunately there are thousands of other small birds caught by bird-lime that will not let them get away. It cannot be got off their feet and their necks are wrung. I can hardly imagine the attitude of mind of the Senator when he recommends his amendment by saying that if the section is carried in the form in which it is it will prevent the youth of this country, who cannot afford to join golf clubs, going out in the open air, and will deprive them of their Sunday amusement. Well, if they cannot amuse themselves in the open air without this horrible cruelty to birds. I think they had better stay at home. The Senator was also very perturbed over the fact that we will be destroying the livelihood of a certain number of people. I do not believe we will, but we will be destroying the mode by which a number of very idle people make a certain amount of money by catching birds for export. I admit that you are going to put an end to that. It is not a business that ought to be protected, and I strongly urge the House to scout this amendment.

I am against bird-lime because I am against the capture of birds at all, but I do not know how birds can be captured if they are not captured by bird-lime. Putting salt on their tails will not catch them.

I must support Senator Brown in this matter. I think this clause against the use of bird-lime is the most useful one in the Bill. I have seen horrible cruelty practised on birds. The cock birds which are the songsters are wanted but the hens are not wanted. They are thrown aside to die and they are very lucky if their necks are wrung. With regard to the suggestion that people will be deprived of living, my experience is that the people who go in for this practice never did an honest day's work in their lives, and never will. They are idle people who live by this horrible trade, if I might call it a trade. I join with Senator Brown in regretting that such an amendment should come before the House. I hope it will not be agreed to.

For the first time I have to disagree with Senator Linehan. I have seen this practice of catching birds and I look upon it as the height of cruelty. It is one that should be put down. I agree with what Senator Miss Browne said about those who spend their time in, and make a trade of bird catching as idlers. I know that if they were asked to do a solid day's work they would not do it, and would not know how to do it. I think it is nothing short of a disgrace that linnets and goldfinches should be caught in country districts with bird-lime and taken away and sold. It is looked upon as a source of revenue by the idlers who indulge in it. I think that that practice should be put down and that birds which are natural ornaments and assets to the country should be preserved.

Amendment put and declared lost.
(1) Any person who shall keep or confine a bird in any cage or other receptacle which shall not measure sufficient in height, length and breadth to permit such bird freely to stretch its wings and exercise itself shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.
(2) This section shall not apply to poultry within the meaning of the Poultry Act, 1911, or to any bird kept or contained in a cage or other receptacle—
(a) while being conveyed by land or water, or
(b) while being shown for the purpose of public exhibition or competition, if the time during which it is so kept or confined for the purpose of being so shown does not in the whole exceed seventy-two hours.

I move:

Section 6. To delete the section and to substitute therefor a new section as follows:—

"(6) Any person who shall keep or confine a native wild bird in any cage or other receptacle shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding five pounds."

I object entirely to any native wild bird being confined in a cage. I feel that the arguments I used at the last meeting of the Seanad cover the matter adequately. This practice is, I believe, one of the cruellest in this country. Whatever may be said about shooting a bird, to me that is much more preferable than keeping it all its life in a cage. Since the amendment was put down it has been argued that there are bird fanciers, people interested in birds, and others who get a certain amount of pleasure by keeping birds as pets or domestic friends. I never could see that, and I cannot understand it now. I suppose it is a question of a particular point of view, and that one is either for or against it. Personally, I am in favour of every native wild bird being allowed free, whatever may be said for caging canaries or birds not native of this country. I feel somewhat similarly in regard to them, but the difficulty might be that foreign birds that are caged might die by being released, as they would not be able to survive in this climate. I am not in a position to speak on that, but in many cases it would be better if their necks were wrung than to keep them imprisoned in cages.

I agree with Senator Connolly, but I would like to suggest to him that he should postpone the amendment and put it down on the Report Stage, for the reason that a great many people have these native wild birds as friends. If the amendment were passed a tremendous amount of argument would be raised, and it would be a hardship to these birds if they were released. Possibly, if he reconsiders the matter he might put down a date, say, five years or three years hence, after which these birds could not be kept.

I think this is too sentimental and grandmotherly altogether. Has it occurred to the Senator what is to happen in the case of birds in the Zoological Gardens? I think there must be birds there that would come within this definition. Is it intended that they should be let free? I think this amendment is going too far.

I would be very glad if we could successfully carry an amendment like this, that is carry it without getting the opinion of the public up against us, and perhaps affecting the fate of the Bill in the other House. I very much object to seeing wild birds in cages, but the cruelty is very largely mitigated by the fact that they are taken when very young, and are confined all their lives. If you let them out now they could not fend for themselves and would die. If this amendment were carried there ought to be a clause put in the Bill that the owner of these birds should be obliged to destroy them painlessly. It is asking too much and even in the time limit that Senator The McGillycuddy suggests would be difficult to carry out. It could not be carried out because at the end of five or six years, or whatever period would be put in the Bill, you would have the same difficulty. People would still have these pet friends, which are all kindly treated. They do not suffer, and are well fed. Except for the fact that they cannot get out they are not in any way cruelly treated.

My superficial sentiment tends to support this amendment, but I really feel that it is far in advance of any public opinion that can be rallied, and that the reasons for it are not quite convincing. It confines the prohibition to native wild birds, and while Senator Connolly would like to make it a general prohibition, he feels that there may be reasons for allowing foreign wild birds to be caged. His sympathy prevails in respect of the native wild bird, but it does not extend to the foreign wild bird. But a bird in a cage is just as much hurt if it had been hatched in the Canary Islands, as if it had been hatched in Ireland, so that from that point of view there is no reason for confining it to native birds. The argument put forward by Senator Linehan on another amendment, has a very definite appeal to me, and when we talk of cruelty to birds and yet encourage all kinds of torture of other animals in the name of sport, there is a contradiction of minds. But if we are thinking not merely of the effect upon the bird but of the effect upon the human who captures and imprisons it, against that I put the very evident fact that in the towns and cities, particularly in the cities, there are many thousands of children who do not ever hear a bird sing except when it is caged and hanging out of a bedroom window. Undoubtedly you have to put the pleasure that so many thousands derive from the song of the caged bird against the effect upon the character, the mentality and the feelings of the person who does the caging. I am leaving out of account the sentimental regard for the bird's own feelings. But I think that it will go a long way towards preventing the remainder of the Bill from passing if you insert this amendment. Undoubtedly this provision, if passed, will raise the active protest of a very large number of people, and in that way I think that feeling against the Bill as a whole will be engendered. Therefore, I think it would be inadvisable to press this amendment.

I agree with Senator Johnson's arguments with regard to people who wish to keep singing birds in their houses. I am sure that it is quite well known to everybody here that it is the wish of a great many tradesmen and people who are working in shops to keep birds in cages in order to hear them singing. I object to the wholesale way in which wild birds are caught with bird-lime and exported. I have seen hundreds of birds taken in Kildare for that purpose, and I look upon it as a downright act of brigandage to deprive any district of its birds. But I would be very sorry if anybody who wished to keep a bird should be deprived from doing so. I know a great many people who like to keep singing birds and who breed them in cages in their own homes. As has been stated, if these birds were liberated they would not be able to live, especially those which are bred by people in their own homes. I know one friend of mine who puts a piece of sod in a lark's cage. I do not know whether the lark is foolish enough to imagine he is at liberty or not, but he treats his owner to as much singing as he would hear in the open. I think it would be very hard on these people if they were deprived of keeping birds in their houses.

The mover of the amendment may not know that in canary breeding people often use linnets, and the produce of this combination is called a mule. I am told that these are very musical birds. If Senator Connolly's amendment passes who will determine what a mule is, whether it is a native or a foreigner, or whether it is a wild bird or not? Will an inspector have to go in and analyse the pedigree and the associations of the mule? I think that the amendment is entirely unworkable.

I am afraid that the sense of the House is against me. I would be quite willing to put any time limit or period into the amendment if that would help to meet the wishes of the House. My point is that by allowing the caging of birds in my opinion you justify the capture of birds by bird-lime or some other means. The criticisms I have heard of the amendment have not convinced me that it is a right or a desirable thing to cage birds. My reason for limiting the amendment to native wild birds was, as I stated, that we can control native wild birds; the others are not indigenous to this country and are usually born in captivity. Arguments have been used about the sports of fishing, hunting, and shooting, but we are not arguing about these at the moment. If we were I would have a very definite opinion with regard to them too. Senator Sir John Keane mentioned the Zoological Gardens. In my opinion they are the greatest exhibition of cruelty to animals that I know of. I will withdraw the amendment until the Report Stage, and I will consult with Senator Brown to see how the spirit of it could be embodied in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 put and agreed to.
Every person who shall take or destroy any egg of the lapwing (also commonly called the green plover, the peewit and thepilibin) shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall on summary conviction thereof be liable to a penalty not exceeding one pound for every such egg so taken or destroyed.

I move that this section be deleted. It is the principal case of overlapping in the two Bills, that is, the Game Bill and this. All game birds' eggs are to be absolutely protected by the Game Bill; you will not be allowed to take any game birds' eggs at all under that Bill. The penalties in that are heavier than those proposed in this Bill, and therefore I move to delete this section altogether and leave the protection of the lapwing, which is a most valuable bird, to the other Bill.

Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION 8 (1).
The Minister may by order made on the application of the council of a county or a county borough prohibit, for reasons stated in such application, the taking or destroying either generally or in any particular years or year in such county or county borough of any particular parts or part thereof of the eggs of any wild bird whatsoever or any particular kinds or kind of wild bird, and the Minister may by any subsequent order made on the like application revoke or amend any such first-mentioned order.

I move:—

Section 8, sub-section (1). To delete in line 35 the word "whatsoever" and after the word "bird" in line 36 to insert in brackets the words "(with the exception of the wild birds mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act)."

Section 8 gives the Minister power to prohibit the taking or destroying of eggs. My amendment would exclude from that the eggs of certain birds which are harmful to agriculture. I am thinking particularly of the house sparrow. He is a very destructive bird on corn, and the only effective way of getting rid of him is by destroying the eggs. I do not think that Senator Brown will have any objection to this amendment.

I ask the House not to agree to this amendment. In order to put Section 8 in force, that is, in order to get protection for the eggs of any bird, you have to get the county council to apply to the Minister and to state the reasons why they want protection for the eggs which they mention in their application. It has, therefore, to go through the county council. I do not think that there are any county councils in the Free State which will not take very good care of the farmers. There are very few of them where the majority of the members are not themselves farmers, and they may be trusted to take care that an application to prevent the taking of eggs will not include the eggs of birds of a destructive nature like the poor house sparrow. This has been the law for more than twenty years; it is not a new provision but has been in operation since 1904. Therefore I ask the House not to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 put and agreed to.
SECTION 12 (3).
Every public notice required by this section to be given shall be given—
(a) in the case of a notice relating to an order applying to the whole of the county or county borough, by advertising such order in two newspapers circulating in such county or county borough.
(b) in the case of a notice relating to an order applying to part only of the county or county borough, by advertising such order in two newspapers circulating in or near such part of such county or county borough and fixing notices of such order in conspicuous places in or near such part;
(c) in every case, in such other manner as the council shall think expedient or the Minister shall direct with a view to making the order known to the public.

I move:—

After the word "borough," in line 28, to insert the words "and published in Ireland."

This section requires that public notices under the Bill shall be published in two newspapers circulating in the county or county borough. I think that such newspapers should be printed and published in Ireland.

They certainly should be published in Ireland, but it should be "Saorstát Eireann" and not "Ireland." With that alteration in the amendment I would gladly accept it.

I agree to that change.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move:—

After the word "borough" in line 32, to insert the words "and published in Ireland."

This amendment is to the same effect, but I suggest that it should be amended like the last one.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Question:—"That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Any expenses incurred by the council of a county borough in carrying this Act into effect shall be raised by means of the poor rate and, in the case of a county, as a county-at-large charge.

I move:—

To delete the section and to substitute therefor a new section as follows:—

"Any expenses incurred by the council of a county borough in publishing the notices required for the carrying of this Act into effect shall be raised by means of a poor rate and in the case of a county as a county-at-large charge."

I am not quite sure what expenses county councils will have under this section, but I think they have enough expenses to meet at present. I do not know if they have power to appoint inspectors under the Bill, but there should be a limit to their expenses.

There is no power under the Bill to appoint inspectors. Whatever expenses may be legitimately incurred by a county council in carrying out the provisions of the Bill under the section as it stands are to be taken from the ordinary county-at-large poor rate, and in a borough are also to be taken from the poor rate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 13, 14 and 15, put and agreed to.



Dunlin or Sea-lark








Black Cap



Black Guillemot

Golden Oriole



Golden Plover


Bustard (all kinds)



Californian Quail

Grebe (all kinds)

Owl (all kinds)


Green Plover or Lapwing (otherwise Peewit or Pilibin)

Oyster-catcher or Seapie



Petrel (all kinds)





Guillemot (all kinds)

Pied Flycatcher

Dipper or Water-Ousel






Puffin or Sea-Parrot

Sandpiper (all kinds)

Tern (all kinds)





Shearwater or Mackerel-Cock

Tufted Duck


Turtle Dove



Wagtail (all kinds)

Red-throated Diver









Ringed Plover

Spotted Crake










I move:

To delete at the appropriate places the following:—





Golden Plover


Green Plover or Lapwing (otherwise Peewit or Pilibin)




Tufted Duck



This is another case of overlapping, because the birds which are mentioned in the First Schedule as it stands comprise thirteen which are game under the Game Bill. This amendment is to exclude those, so as to prevent overlapping.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:

To delete at the appropriate places the following:—

Guillemot (all kinds)



I put in the guillemot because they may be taken to include the kittiwake also. Senator Brown does not agree with me, but as a farmer of practical experience I know that the guillemot, the kittiwake, and the lark do great damage to corn in some seasons. I have not the slightest doubt about that. Of course I live near the seashore, and the experience of farmers who live inland may not be the same. I see no reason whatever why a farmer should not be allowed to protect his crops from injury by these birds. As the Bill stands he will not be allowed to do so.

I support this amendment. While everybody in the Seanad will give the greatest possible credit to Senator Brown for his Bill, I think the farmer ought to be the best judge of what affects his position as a farmer.

Senator Brown must know that all the laws on the Statute Book are not necessarily effective.

I cannot understand why larks are included.

I have seen larks doing a great deal of damage to crops. I have had practical experience of that, and other farmers have had the same experience. I do not suggest that farmers should be allowed to shoot larks at any time.

I am also a farmer who lives near the sea and who is familiar with the habits of sea birds. I am sorry to differ from Senator Butler, who is also a farmer, but as far as my experience goes all kinds of guillemot are perfectly harmless to crops, as also is the kittiwake. We have very large numbers of these birds in county Wexford, on account of the large areas of slob-lands there, lands reclaimed from the sea. I have consulted people in my own part of the country, and their experience is that neither the guillemot nor the kittiwake eats corn. However, I am only speaking for my own part of the country. I do not wish to differ from another farmer. I know what the farmers' troubles are and I do not want to increase them in any way, but as far as my experience goes neither of these birds does any harm.

Senator Butler hears the song of the lark as well as everybody else, and I am sure he appreciates it very much. I suppose the lark does eat a few of the seeds as they come up, but it also eats the grubs that destroy the corn. I think if Senator Butler would put the credit down against the debit he would find that the balance is very much in favour of the lark, and I think he ought to leave the lark in the Schedule. The guillemot and the kittiwake are just gulls. We have a large number of gulls, both on the wing and on foot, and I would not be inclined to say much in favour of them. But I certainly would be very much in favour of the lark.

I would ask the Seanad not to accept this amendment either. As far as the lark is concerned it is true that at certain seasons of the year the wild larks flock—not native larks as much as those that come from other places— and about the month of September or October they do infest the stubble fields, but they really only eat grain that has been shaken out of the corn already, and they do not do any harm. Until last week I never heard the kittiwake charged with the crime of eating crops. I have since consulted the highest authority on birds in this country and he assured me that the kittiwake is an absolutely marine bird, that it does all its feeding on the shore in salt water, and that it really never touches the farmers' crops. As to the guillemot I am not so sure. I think it is very likely that he and a number of his fellow gulls do in the autumn get a meal off the farmer's corn occasionally. But the farmer forgets that these gulls attend his ploughing in myriads in the spring and gobble up quantities of noxious grubs that would otherwise damage his crops. They are his friends in the spring but his enemies in the autumn.


Amendment, put and declared lost.

I move:—

First Schedule. To insert at the appropriate places the following:—




This is a different type of amendment. I propose to add to the First Schedule certain birds, and I suppose there are a number of others which might be added, the names of which I am not very familiar with.

I do not object at all. I am very glad to get anything into the First Schedule.

Would it be possible on the Report Stage to have the names of other birds inserted?


You could try, Senator.

Amendment, put and agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules and the Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for next Wednesday.