We were halfway through section 29 on the last day.
SECTION 29.
Question again proposed: " That section 29, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
We discussed it at some length. It is a section which regulates the hunting of fauna in general, birds and mammals, with firearms, and makes special provision for non-resident sportsmen. There have been discussions on this section with the National Association of Regional Game Councils and we had a further discussion with them as recently as last Friday, and it is acceptable to them.
While agreeing with the fact that the Minister's Department would issue this licence, would a person applying for a licence have to show that he was a member of a gun club in order to qualify? That has already been mentioned, as far as I know, but that is not deemed necessary.
No, I think that would be an unreasonable restriction on the right of the ordinary individual. It was not pressed seriously and even if it were, I would be very slow to accept it.
I think the point was made by somebody else, but while a case for its unreasonableness might be made, the case obtains in the matter of coursing, where a coursing club is required, under the Greyhound Act, to regulate what clubs will course and the clubs regulate membership of it. I thought it was a point that might be worth looking at. It would guarantee that anybody going out with a firearm would be the type who would not abuse the position. The Game Council could act as a certifying authority.
I am told they had been pressing for it. If that were to be accepted, it would mean that a man who owned a farm, even a modest farm, who wanted to shoot game on his own farm would not be entitled to do so unless he joined a gun club. I would not accept that as reasonable.
When I discussed the position of game with the game club in my area, I understood that the position was that I ceded to them, rights which I might have in respect of my own land.
No, what you did was that you allowed them to share your land.
And also control the shoots on it?
Exactly. That is a private arrangement between the owner of the land and the Game Council. Actually, section 28 which we have dealt with covers the qualification.
Section 28 must be looked at with 29 and vice versa. It is not a major point but, as years advance maybe the wisdom of what I am saying might appeal to the Regional Game Councils and to the gun clubs.
The section as it stands is acceptable to the regional councils and to the gun clubs.
Is there anything further on section 29, as amended?
The Minister says that the game clubs are agreeable?
To be perfectly clear, I am saying that we had a number of discussions with the National Association of Regional Game Councils about this and my officials had a further discussion with them, as recently as last Friday, that is, subsequent to our last meeting here, and the section as it stands is acceptable to them.
The game councils were a bit apprehensive regarding the position that would obtain here. The licence is granted to a visitor to shoot over a set period over their preserves without consultation with them.
No. He would be a trespasser in that case.
They will still have the right to object even though the Minister grants the licence?
Exactly. A resident sportsman—I understand there are about 40,000 of them—in getting a licence to shoot birds and certain animals must declare that he has access to shooting rights. If a gun club has preserved certain land a person could not truthfully make a declaration that he had access to the land unless he had the permission of the gun club to enter on it in pursuit of game. If the Deputy's point is that under this section a Minister for Lands would have power to grant a person a right to shoot over preserved land, I can put his mind at ease and tell him that is not so.
I remember that there was once a problem in regard to visiting sportsmen getting a licence on which 31st July had an important bearing. If a person came here on a certain date he would have to get a licence up to 31st July and then get another later—is that so?
The position is that any non-residents coming here must get a hunting licence from the Minister for Lands and such licence will expire on 31st July.
Not that I have great love for, or sympathy with, visiting sportsmen but we must recognise their right to some reasonable treatment. I find it difficult to visualise somebody coming here in May or June but if he did—there was, I remember, some problem that arose at some time. A party came here in May or June and had to apply for a firearm certificate. That went to 31st July and they had to apply again for another certificate after that. What the precise circumstances were eludes me because it would be outside the season. I have some recollections of what can arise and it can cause resentment.
The Deputy hit the nail on the head when he said it would be outside the season. At the moment all firearms certificates issued to residents end on 31st July but those for visitors last for 12 months from the date of issue: we are here simply saying that hunting licences issued to visitors or residents would also expire on 31st July. The Deputy is saying that if we were to make exceptions for visitors we would be giving them preference over resident sportsmen. The hunting licence would end on 31st July irrespective of when the person gets his firearm certificate.
I recall the point now. A sportsman might come here towards the end of the season and be prepared to stay into the beginning of the next season but he could not get a licence that would span the two seasons.
He can not get a hunting licence that will straddle the two periods.
There has been a good deal of unfavourable comment from game councils since the Bill was circulated that licences issued to persons resident outside the State should not be for the duration of 12 months—that such licences granted from the commencement of the season permit a person to come back. It has been said that firearms certificates should be valid only for the duration of their stay. I heard a good deal of such comments.
That would seem to me to be the direct opposite to what Deputy Haughey said. The position has been changed for the better in so far as game conservation is concerned. Heretofore visitors came and the customs authorities were authorised to issue them with firearms certificates which enabled them to shoot game. A visitor now will have to get a hunting licence from the Minister for Lands and he will have to satisfy the Department that he has made reasonable arrangements to shoot, in other words, that he has access to shooting rights. The position heretofore has been tightened up considerably and by and large it has been welcomed by interested people.
I am not interested in tightening it up. Making facilities available to shoot is important as far as tourism is concerned but I should like an assurance from the Minister that what he has said will not give access to gun club preserves without a letter from the secretary. I agree with game councils when they say licences should cover only the duration of the visitors' stay in the country, whether that be a month or two months. A firearm certificate is one thing and a licence to hunt is another. Does such a licence continue into a second season?
The certificate extends for 12 months but not the licence. Not alone am I assuring the Deputy that the hunting licence will not confer the right on the holder to enter preserved land but I am going further that if he enters any land without permission he is a common trespasser and subject to prosecution.
I have in mind a person who comes to Donegal this year and has a licence and shoots over some of the excellent preserves there, and next year, within 12 months, comes to Kerry and nobody asks him about permission he may have got. The licence is for a year. Can he still go into any preserve in Kerry?
We are controlling that. I have told the Deputy that an applicant for a hunting licence must satisfy the Minister for Lands that he has made arrangements for his hunting holiday, that he has got permission to shoot on certain lands. The person will have to make a declaration specifying the lands over which he has been given a right to shoot.
Subsection (8) states:
Where a firearm certificate is granted to a person described in subsection (5) of this section, there shall be endorsed on the certificate the following:
" This certificate, for so long as it is in force, authorises the person to whom it is granted to hunt (and kill) with the firearm to which it relates any protected wild bird within the meaning of the Wildlife Act, 1975, or any hare, to which an order under section 24 or section 25 of that Act for the time being applies.".
What purpose will that certificate serve? Would it not be a good idea if the licence issued to visitors contained a warning to the effect that the licence was only to hunt and that it did not confer on the holder any rights to any particular territory and that he should make sure he has permission from appropriate persons to shoot? It seems to me that a visiting sportsman might in all innocence think he had a licence from the Minister for Lands——
I get the Deputy's point but I do not see any difficulty in doing this administratively. For instance, under planning and development legislation the granting of planning permission does not give the person a right to build anywhere. This can be done administratively.
Subsection (9) relates to the type of hunting licence or shooting permission that may be granted under EEC regulations and this could be of great importance in the years to come. Would the Minister elaborate on this, whether it applies in France, Germany and so on?
That is, as the Deputy has in mind, an enabling provision. It provides that under appropriate regulations made by the Minister, hunting licences of other countries will be acceptable as having the same legal status as ours where there are reciprocal arrangements. I do not know of any reciprocal arrangements at the moment, but, as the Deputy said, in years to come such arrangements may come into existence and, if they do, we will be able to reciprocate without any further legislation.
Without transcending any of the principles of this Bill?
Exactly.
As far as the EEC are concerned, the Minister would not need this kind of proviso because, under EEC legislation, he could make ministerial regulations. The wording here would not really be relevant to the EEC because it says:
Where any convention, protocol or other agreement between the State and any other country. . . .
It is to enable us to reciprocate where regulations are necessary.
That wording would not cover the EEC treaty obligations.
What is the position of a visitor with a licence who shoots a protected species here? How will that affect his licence if, say, he shoots a protected species here which is not protected in France?
He would have to comply with our laws.
As long as we can show we are not discriminating against him we are protected under EEC regulations.
Subsection (7) relates to an aggrieved person and does not arise from any legal difficulties. It shows how magnanimous we are towards the freedom of the individual and his rights.
It gives the person who has been refused a hunting licence by the Minister the right to appeal to the District Court against that decision.
It gives the district justice the right to decide contrary to the Minister?
Exactly.
Does the Minister visualise circumstances when that is likely to occur?
It would be a very rare occurrence.
I wondered if there was any hidden reason for this.
No, it is to preserve the rights of the individual.
I adverted to the certificate under subsection (8). I must confess it worries me a little. It reads:
Where a firearm certificate is granted to a person described in subsection (5) of this section, there shall be endorsed on the certificate the following:
" This certificate, for so long as it is in force, authorises the person to whom it is granted to hunt (and kill) with the firearm to which it relates any protected wild bird within the meaning of the Wildlife Act, 1975, or any hare, to which an order under section 24 or section 25 of that Act for the time being applies."
The emphasis there is to enable the licence holder to go out and shoot at large. Why is such an endorsement necessary?
That certificate applies to resident sportsmen and enables them to shoot game birds and hares. It does not apply to visiting sportsmen. Before that certificate is endorsed on a licence, the applicant will have to have made a declaration.
It is not endorsed on the licence, but on the certificate. There is a difference between a licence and a certificate.
The Deputy is right. I was calling the certificate a licence. This is endorsed on the firearms certificate and will enable the holder to shoot game birds and hares. Before that person is entitled to that endorsement on his firearms certificate he will have to have made the declaration that he has shooting rights.
That is not my point. My point is that this is the firearms certificate and is separate from the licence. It has this very sweeping and comprehensive statement that the firearm certificate shall:
. . . for so long as it is in force, operate to authorise the person to whom it is granted to hunt and kill with the firearms to which the certificate relates any protected wild bird . . .
A normal person getting a certificate with that endorsement into his hands would think there were no closed seasons and that he could shoot all round the year.
He would be wrong.
I know he would be wrong, but that is what the certificate seems to say.
So long as it is in force.
This endorsement converts the firearms certificate into a hunting licence. The explanatory memorandum states:
The resident sportsman who wishes to hunt game animals other than hares will be required to obtain a licence from the Minister—subsection (1); but the firearm certificate which he obtains from the Garda authorities under the Firearms Acts will be deemed (by means of a suitable endorsement) to be a licence to hunt game birds and hares—subsections (5) and (8).
Within the permitted season, of course.
It says here very specifically " this certificate, for so long as it is in force," it could be a full 12 months' period.
Subsection (5) reads:
Where a person applies to a Superintendent of the Garda Síochána for the grant under section 3 of the Firearms Act, 1925, of a firearm certificate or the renewal under section 9 of the Firearms Act, 1964, of such a certificate and when making the application for such certificate or renewal the person makes a declaration referred to in subsection (1) of this section, the certificate shall, if it is endorsed in the manner described in subsection (8) of this section, for the purposes of sections 22 (4) and 23 (5) of this Act be deemed to be a licence granted by the Minister under this section and, subject to section 75 (1) and to the restrictions contained in section 33 of this Act, such certificate shall, for so long as it is in force, operate to authorise the person to whom it is granted to hunt and kill with the firearms to which the certificate relates any protected wild bird or hare to which an order under section 24 or 25 of this Act for the time being applies.
Sections 24 and 25 deal with open seasons.
I think the Minister, on examination, will admit that it is not watertight. As far as the firearms certificate is concerned, with these words endorsed on it, it would seem quite specifically to indicate to the holder of the licence that for the full 12 months it is in existence, he can go out to shoot and hunt any wild bird. I know if one reads the whole Bill it does not mean that and it is quite clear that——
Within the meaning of the Wildlife Bill, 1975.
That means that the wild bird is protected within the meaning of the Bill. That makes it all the more undesirable because it specifies birds which are protected under this Bill. This certificate purports to give that man the right, as long as the licence is in existence, which is a full 12 months, to go out and kill wild birds.
Of course we are only talking about game birds here.
There is a closed season.
There is an open season.
There are 40,000 sportsmen who will not have a copy of this Act in their pockets when they go out to shoot, and therefore they will just look at the wording on this firearms certificate which they hold, which will in effect be their licence also, is that not so?
Yes, and it expires on 31st July.
That is the document they have, and they will read those words there, which specifically indicate that there is no closed season for any bird protected under this Act. We all know that that is not the position, but that is what the certificate seems to say.
The certificate will only be valid until 31st July and as of now it is a fruitless procedure because the games season will have ended in January.
The certificate as endorsed on the licence on the firearms certificate seems to indicate to the man holding that licence that he can continue to shoot these birds as long as the licence is in existence namely, right up to the 31st July.
As the Deputy will know from the last line and a half
. . . to which an order under section 24 or section 25 of that Act for the time being applies.
The orders there are open season orders. Even as it is stated there you cannot mislead a man because he can only shoot a wild bird or a hare to which an order, that is an open season order, under section 24 or 25 of the Act for the time being applies. I think that replies to the Deputy's difficulty.
I do not think it does. I do not think I can put it more clearly than I have.
I am sorry I did not refer to these words earlier. I am satisfied that nobody can be misled.
I would say that any responsible man picking up his firearms certificate with those words on it, not having a copy of the Act and section 24 and 25 of his person will argue with a garda or anybody else that he is entitled to shoot all the year round.
If the Minister takes the purely legalistic position he can say that ignorance of the law will not excuse anybody, but the technicalities will be as are feared by Deputy Haughey.
I can see a lot of fellows arguing in pubs at great length about the rights or wrongs of shooting out of season.
There used to be a sheet giving dates issued to you when you got your licence. I do not know if that still exists.
The position is exactly the same at the moment. A person is breaking the law if he shoots certain birds out of season. I am sorry that we allowed this discussion on this particular amendment to develop without clearly adverting to the last line and a half of this. The subsection says that such certificate shall for so long as it is in force, operate to authorise a person to whom it is granted to hunt and kill with the firearm to which the certificate relates, any protected wild bird or hare to which an order under section 24 or 25 of this Act for the time being applies. In other words, it is saying in plain language that the person holding the certificate can hunt or shoot any hare or any game bird during open season.
With all due respect that is not what it says. It says he can hunt as long as the licence is in existence, that he can hunt or kill any wild bird or any hare to which an order under section 24 and 25 of that Act for the time being applies. That only means, that these are birds or a hare which have closed seasons.
No, it means applying to them for the time being.
I think it is a very dangerous endorsement to put on a licence. As the Minister says, there are 40,000 resident sportsmen who will have these guns and I think the Minister is expecting every single one of them to have the insight and knowledge of the law of a Senior Counsel.
Not at all Deputy, they are doing it at the moment.
Because they know traditionally.
They understand the law at the moment and they recognise it.
I have never seen a certification like this on any licence I ever had.
It is somewhat similar to the existing gun licence or game licence. It has the effect of making a person declare that he has access to shooting rights. He will not get this certification endorsed on his licence unless he makes a declaration that he has access to the rights. At present anybody can go in and get a gun licence enabling him to shoot game, and he is not asked if he has any shooting rights.
If I indicate that I have shooting rights over your ground will the Garda accept my word for it?
The Garda will accept your word. Suppose that a person goes in and makes a declaration to the effect that he has a shooting right and within the ensuing 12 months he is found trespassing in the pursuit of game and shooting and he is prosecuted, the question can arise then as to whether he had any shooting rights at all or not and his licence can be refused the following year.
It seems to me that sections 24 and 25 merely provides that certain birds and animals will have closed seasons.
Open seasons. All birds are protected except the vermin species, but there is an open season in respect of certain game.
Wild birds or hares to which sections 24 or 25 of this Act applies simply means that they are birds which have open seasons.
It says not, " to which section 24 or 25 applies " but " to which an order under section 24 or 25 applies.
That just means that they are a category of birds which have open seasons.
And to which an open season order for the time being applies. That means that there is an open season.
This section encompasses birds which have an open season but the certificate goes on to say that you can kill these for as long as the certificate is in operation.
No, for as long as the open season lasts, during the time while the open season order is in operation.
I do not think that is what any sensible, intelligent man would take it to mean. It may be what a parliamentary draftsman would regard it as meaning but it is not what the ordinary citizen would regard it as saying.
I must say I regard it as satisfactory.
If this is something for general public consumption it should not be in parliamentary draftsman's language: it should be in straightforward language that the ordinary man can show to his neighbour in a pub and say: " That does not mean I can shoot pheasant all the year round." I think you could reasonably argue that as worded at present, it does imply that.
No. I would be prepared to argue this before any inpartial tribunal with the utmost confidence——
You could not persuade this Committee of it.
I think I have——
If this is a certificate or document for public issue, to which 40,000 people will have everyday recourse, it should be written in simple, straightforward, ordinary language.
Perhaps the Minister would have a look at it in the light of what the Deputy has said?
I will. All the points made will be carefully considered.
Subsection (10) seems to be a very cumbersome requirement. Is the Minister satisfied that whatever is intended to be achieved can be achieved?
I am. It is the section which seeks to enforce a bag count.
It is only a form at the moment?
It is. Subsection (11) makes it an offence not to comply with subsection (10). The effect of this subsection would be to make the furnishing of " bag returns ", particulars of game killed, obligatory on all licence-holders including deemed licence-holders. This would come into operation only if the Minister so requires and duly notifies the shooting fraternity. This is a normal feature of game laws in some countries and is aimed at providing valuable statistics on game populations in the interests or research, control, and so on. Failure to make a bag return if and when the requirement comes into operation will be an offence under subsection (11).
It is not an offence at the moment?
It is not.
What is the percentage of returns you get at present?
Very little; sometimes one per cent.
That is my point. Here we have something that reads very well and is very idealistic but I wondered if returns to date would indicate that the system is not one we should retain. Is there not a better way we might tackle the getting of returns which might be necessary?
It is not an offence at the moment but the very next section makes it an offence. That is the way we hope to deal with it.
The Minister thinks making it an offence will make available the data which is envisaged?
It will certainly encourage people to make a bag return.
What are the penalties?
They are in section 73 or section 74.
We all agree with the advisability of getting bag returns, but it is a bit much to make it a criminal offence not to make a return.
What other way could you do it?
It could be provided that you would not get a licence the next year unless you complied.
I am advised that there has been resistance to providing bag returns but times have changed and surely hunters should understand that it is in their own interest to make these returns.
Yes. We are not quarrelling with the purpose at all. What fines could be inflicted.
If the Deputy refers to section 74 he will see that where a person is guilty of an offence under this Act, not being an offence mentioned in subsection (2) or (3) of this section, subject to the said subsection (3), such person shall be liable on summary conviction in the case of a first offence under the particular section or subsection, to a fine not exceeding £50.
It is fairly hefty.
It is a maximum.
Maxima have a way of becoming minima.
I can see the necessity for this particularly in regard to the shooting of grouse, which has been a matter of great debate. Would the Deputy not think it would be necessary to preserve certain species?
I fully agree with the desirability of getting the fullest possible returns, but we do not want to turn an ordinary, decent sportsman, a visitor who may be forgetful or careless, into a criminal and fine him £50.
I appeal to the Committee to approach this Bill, which is non-controversial, in a reasonable manner. As I understand it, Deputy Tunney wanted to know how I would implement subsection (10) and what good was it, and when I pointed out subsection (11) to him, Deputy Haughey says that we are going to make criminals out of decent men. Subsection (11) is aimed at pressuring people into making a bag count return, giving the particulars required under subsection (10), which everybody agrees is desirable. We know that the courts, by and large, operate in a reasonable way and if a person says: " I overlooked this and I will make the count now ", there will be a nominal fine, but if he persists in his failure to make a return, say for a couple of times the penalty will be more severe. There is nothing original about this.
Could I ask how one will relate subsection (9) with subsection (10) when one has reciprocal recognition of licences outside the country and where one would have a couple of plane-loads of German, French or Italian licence-holders arriving at Dublin Airport and blasting everything in County Wexford, for example? Recently, I travelled from Paris with such a plane-load and we had difficulty in loading the plane with sufficient cartridges to keep them supplied while holidaying here. How could one ensure a return in that context?
Subsection (9) is an enabling section which will enable reciprocal agreements to be brought into force. We will be able to extend our shooting facilities here to residents of countries which extend shooting facilities to our residents. There is no such agreement in operation at the moment and I can only say that such agreements, their terms and conditions will be the subject of negotiation. I think it would be laid down in such negotiations that people coming here will obey our laws and regulations. If residents of one country habitually came here and showed complete disregard for our laws and regulations I presume we would take it up with the other country concerned and deal with it in that way.
I do not want unduly to press the matter but our own tourist authorities and promotion agents—not specifically State sponsored ones such as Bord Fáilte—but others, hoteliers and so on, people connected with tourism, are telling everybody to come here. I have seen them and they blast everything that moves.
I agree with the Deputy's general sentiments but we are tightening up all this under the Bill and visiting sportsmen coming here now must get a permit from the Minister for Lands and before they get it, they have to satisfy the Department that they have made arrangements for a shooting holiday. They must give particulars of where they are to shoot. I tightened up the procedure—by order, I think, in 1974—and the new system has been acclaimed by the shooting fraternity as a great improvement.
This is the operative section in relation to the whole question as between sportsmen and preservation. We try to do two things, to accommodate people coming in and on the other hand to enforce certain preservation regulations. There are all sorts of restrictions and although we do not want to make it too difficult for people who are attracted here to get licences to shoot, we should like that in the administration it would be made simple for people to know what they can and cannot do. We could arrange to have pamphlets handed out. They should be in simple language, unlike some of the jargon of draftsmanship. In relation to preservation, there are two areas where enforcement will be necessary. We have knowledge of two kinds of people who go out to shoot. One is a genuine type of sportsman and the other is a pot-hunter, the person who tries to take the largest possible bag home. He will stay out from dawn to dark to get a good bag. Game councils do not like to see particular preserves over-shot and they might like these restrictions to be imposed. Is the Minister empowered to make particular restrictions, limits, in respect of particular reserves?
In reply to the first point, I understand that for years back visiting sportsmen have been supplied with multilingual leaflets giving them particulars of what their rights are in this country. They are obliged to abide by our laws. That will continue. On the point about bag limits, the Minister is entitled, should the case arise, to deal with that under sections 24 and 25.
I hope the Minister does not become too aggressive about this. Here we want to get the best legislation we can so that it will not fall into disrepute or attract criticism later on. Is the Minister genuinely satisfied that the only way to get these bag returns is by making it a criminal offence not to supply them? That is what we are doing here. It is something which up to now people did not take seriously. We should all like to see the fullest possible statistics, and these returns are necessary and desirable, but we are dealing with sport and sportsmen having their relaxation and recreation, and is it reasonable to introduce this criminal element into it?
It is necessary to get this information and the only way to get it is to require it under subsection (10). We will be relying largely on cooperation, on voluntary organisations to assure their members about the reasons for this. A great many people here throughout the years associated these returns with some form of taxation returns. We are relying on the voluntary organisations to co-operate in seeing that there is compliance with the section. The only way the State or any Department has to get information is to ask for it and if it is not given to penalise the person in some way or another. In this Bill we are proposing to penalise defaulters and enabling ourselves to have them brought to court and to have fines imposed. Another way would be to withhold their licences, a much more severe form of penalty. I do not think there is anything objectionable in this. There have been prosecutions in the past.
The State used to get its agricultural statistics by just going around. Are there fines for not filling in census returns?
There are fines for not sending them in, as far as I know.
Mr. Kitt
Is there a specified period within which information must be given on bag returns? The period could be very short and a person could be brought to court and penalised because he did not have sufficient time to have returns.
I cannot see any Minister bringing in a regulation which would not provide reasonable time.
Mr. Kitt
The section does not state what the time would be.
This is not a prosecuting section. It is purely to get information.
This legislation, and the points we have been making as to the best manner to achieve the purposes set out, among other things provides that game councils will authorise people to shoot. The history of preservation has been that we have relied on the co-operation necessary from the voluntary organisations rather than State Departments. I do not see that subsection (10) has the means by which we will continue to get that co-operation because it savours of the State offence. The Minister made what I consider a debating point when he said that Deputy Tunney is saying one thing and Deputy Haughey another. There is perhaps a superficial conflict arising out of our regard to the spirit of what is required. While our view might conflict slightly, they show our interest and concern that what eventually emerges here will be the best in the interests of this legislation. The nature of the Irish people is to be unresponsive to threats that if they do not do something they will be fined.
I have the height of respect for gun and game clubs.
I thought the Minister was going to say " for the Opposition ".
Do not draw me into that. I have had considerable experience of these clubs, but they do not represent everyone.
I am glad to get that admission at last.
According to my information they represent about 50 per cent of the hunting fraternity. I am not going to impose by this legislation an obligation on people to join game clubs. We have found in the past that people are reluctant, probably careless, about complying with regulations. What we are doing here is to make that an offence. No better way has been suggested—except that of Deputy Tunney, which I am afraid I cannot accept for the reasons I have already given. I am satisfied that what we are doing here is reasonable——
The Minister may be satisfied that that is the best way, but I have said in the House and elsewhere that my interest in conservation derives from the fact that locally fair-weather neighbours are interested in it. I thought a direction from gun clubs might be more acceptable than a direction from the Minister.
I do not want to get into a discussion about game clubs. Deputy Tunney has had experience of game clubs and got on very well with them. In other parts of the country, some people do not want to join game clubs. They have their own lands or the rights to a neighbour's land.
Deputy Tunney suggested that you limit guns, but if you live in an area where the gun clubs decide to preserve the whole area, you will not be able to shoot. There is a danger in that.
I am delighted to hear that argument against my case. I want to be satisfied that what is in this Bill represents the only modus operandi there is.
That is the only way it can be dealt with. One must realise that groups referred to as gun clubs are not gun clubs as such but——
The Minister made the suggestion that a man would not get a licence next year until he had submitted returns for last year.
In spite of what the Minister says about gun clubs, this Bill must envisage voluntary organisations. I am afraid the Minister will have to rely on them in the future as in the past. The suggestion to withhold the licence to the following year would be quite ridiculous. An American might come here on holidays and might not return for 20 years, and he need not make any returns. What does he care if his licence is not granted next year? Everyone is influenced by their environment. We have very large preservations in charge of nets. In my area, we have an excellent dedicated forestry officer who has the provisions of this legislation at heart. We have a number of foreigners every year and he sends out some of his officers and they make the returns. Everything has worked out perfectly. Other areas are not preserved. The mavericks shoot in non-preserved areas and are subject only to the landowners. They shoot over a number of farms that do not come into a preservation area.
What is wrong with that?
What I am trying to say is that the Bill to be successful, and for the dual purpose of providing suitable recreation for people who want to shoot and, at the same time, exercise the necessary degree of preservation, needs to have a high degree of organisation. I hope every farmer would come under some form of local preservation organisation that would be flexible and fully co-operative, because we all know the position of the returns of shooting. Some people might shoot hen pheasants and would not admit it. Although one would be considered a bad sportsman if one did this, there are people who do it. That is why I believe voluntary organisation is necessary.
As one who has been quite critical of a number of sections in this Bill, I think the Minister is quite correct in inserting this section. That, of course, may be the kiss of death for him in terms of support, but he is used to that by now. I find it extraordinary in relation to this section that the Opposition have not adduced what I would call rational grounds—apart from the alleged traditional reluctance of Irish people to fill in forms or something obscure like that. If that were so, one should not expect the Irish people to fill in forms to get a driving licence or a passport. Therefore, it is entirely logical in this section. I hope that where specific individuals are requested to fill in forms and refuse to do so—it may well be they are the responsibility of the local Garda sergeant or something like that or a local member of the Garda Síochána—but provided they are required by the Department in a given area to issue those forms to the holders of licences, and where these returns are not made and where there is evidence to prove clearly that very extensive extermination did occur—that is in regard to what I would regard by and large in many areas as protected species—I would hope that the penalty would be quite substantial.
I think we have discussed the section enough.
Is the Minister satisfied—and we are only asking for a reasonable assurance—that it will achieve all the things that it sets out to achieve?
I am satisfied that it is the best way of achieving what we want to achieve and we are more likely to achieve it that way than any other way, but I cannot guarantee that it will.
The subsection just speaks about the newspaper advertisements asking for information. The forms will still be sent out.
I am giving the Minister the option of either doing it by advertisement or doing it by notice to the licence holder.
The Minister will not get much response to newspaper advertisements anyway.
Before the question is put, would the Minister be prepared to——
Deputy, there has been an hour's discussion on this.
I will continue to put queries on this as long as I think it is necessary to put them.
Would the Minister on Report Stage consider putting in a subsection which would enable the Chief Superintendent or Superintendent of the Garda to immediately suspend the licence if the licensee is found in breach?
In breach of what? This subsection only asks a person to give particulars of what he shot. It only requires him to tell the Department how many birds or animals he shot, and how would the Chief Superintendent know whether he was guilty of that unless I were to tell him. That would be very unreasonable procedure.
Section 29 covers much more than that.
I thought we were dealing with the subsection. I say without reservation that I would not give the Chief Superintendent any such authority.
I am inclined to agree with that.
With the right to appeal to the District Court?
No, that would be much too severe.
The provisions here are, to my mind, severe with regard to the resident licence and are not very effective with regard to the person resident outside the State.
I am satisfied that the section is a good section, and I am not going altogether on my own opinion, I am not even going on the opinion of my own Department. Subsequent to Deputy Brennan's statement on the last occasion that the Game Councils were up in arms against this section, my officials had a discussion with the representatives of the National Association of Regional Game Councils last Friday and the section as it stands is acceptable to them. I do not say that that exonerates me as Minister from making it a better section if that is possible; I do not seek to shed responsibility, but I am influenced by the opinion of people who specialise in this field.
I do not think I said they were up in arms. I said that they were apprehensive, that they generally welcome and see the need for the legislation as a whole, but they are apprehensive of certain parts of it, and after all, while we may indict them to a certain extent, as maybe those who are not genuinely interested in preservation but on the whole they are the people who did the job in the absence of legislation and the majority of those concerned are genuinely interested in preservation, and in the facilities for sportsmen that they provide.
I just made a protest, as far as I am concerned, about making this an offence.
I accept that.
Question put and agreed to.