Game Preservation Bill, 1929—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move Amendment 1:—
Section 3. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) It shall not be lawful for the Master or owner of a pack of harriers or beagles or for the owner of a harrier or beagle hound to permit such pack or hound to hunt (either in the pursuit of game or for drag-hunting) during the annual close season over any meadow or cornfield or other land frequented by game, and any person who acts in contravention of this sub-section shall be guilty of an offence under this part of this Act and shall be punishable accordingly."
Section 3 relates to the annual close season for various classes of game. I ask the permission of the House to make a slight addition to my amendment. The addition that I seek is to insert after the words "annual close season" the words "for hares." I do not intend to interfere with the close season for birds at all. It is quite clear that the object of the amendment is in relation to the hunting of hares.
Cathaoirleach
Is the House agreeable to give Senator Linehan permission to amend his amendment in the manner he has indicated?
Agreed.
As I explained on the Second Reading of the Bill it is usual in certain parts of the country to have what are known as drag hunts during the summer period, that is the racing of hounds or beagles over the country. For several miles over the country they follow a line of scent laid by some person. Farmers as a rule have no objection to this, provided they keep to the pasture land and avoid tilled land where meadow or corn are growing. It very often happens, however, that a meadow or a corn field comes within their line. The result is that very great damage is done to the crops. The adoption of this amendment will in no way interfere with sport in the country. Farmers as a rule are quite agreeable that this sport should be carried on, provided it is carried on under such conditions that no serious damage will be done to their crops. I submit the amendment for the consideration of the House.
I hope the amendment will not pass. I have seen excellent sport for many years with a pack of harriers which is over two centuries old. Many people consider that March is the best month of the year for the harrier packs. They also consider that the close time for hares should not begin until 1st April. I would like to point out that harriers are particularly useful for the training of horses, more so, perhaps, than fox hounds. I come from a part of the country which is an important horse-breeding centre. The people who keep packs of harriers there would be very much against any such arrangement as is proposed in this amendment, which I hope will not pass, for I believe it would seriously interfere with sport in the country. So far as I know, no farmer objects to hounds going over his land. With few exceptions hunting people are always very careful to avoid doing damage in any way. In the advertisements of meets there is generally a notice inserted asking the hunt followers to be careful. I do not think there is any need for the amendment.
I do not understand the mentality of the Senator who has moved this amendment. Last week he advocated the use of bird lime for the catching and destruction of small birds. To-day he shows great concern for game, such as hares, etc. The amendment, if passed, will seriously affect the horse-breeding industry, and curtail hunting for a month or six weeks. As Senator Miss Browne has pointed out, the month of March is the best month for harriers. I agree with her that generally speaking little damage is done to farmers by hounds passing over their lands. I think every consideration should be shown to farmers for their kindness in allowing hunts to pass over their lands. I am inclined to think that the Senator who has moved the amendment has done so because he objects to hounds going over his land. In my opinion the amendment has nothing to recommend it, and I hope neither the Seanad nor the Minister will show any regard for it.
There is something more to be said for the amendment than has been so far stated. In former times there was a great difference of opinion in Ireland as regards the close season. The Grand Jury used to fix the dates for the close season, and there were different dates for different counties. Some included March and some did not. I think that March is a good hunting season, and much harm is not done by hunting during that month.
I think I could satisfy Senator The Earl of Granard about the mentality of Senator Linehan when I draw attention to the fact that it is the March hare he was discussing, and the amendment is in sympathy with the mentality of the March hare. Everybody here knows that any steps that would in the slightest way curtail hunting would be very harmful by allowing it to get abroad that hunting was obstructed by law in Ireland. That would further tend to the desolation of the country mansions which are at present in a ruinous condition. As long as we are going to consider that the salt of the earth lives in the Gaeltacht it may be possible to allow a number of gentlemen's houses in the country to fall into ruins to further our patriotism, but even the Gaeltacht to some extent depends on the circulation of money. I do not think it is independent of that. It behoves us not to allow further misrepresentation about the difficulty of sport in this country. There is an immense amount of money brought into circulation through the number of establishments that are occupied throughout the country during the hunting season. This country provides exceptional facilities for hunting. Urban extension into the countryside in England has developed so much that the pheasants have become so tame that they would almost shunt a railway train. I do not think the Senator was anything more serious than perhaps a March hare. I leave it at that.
If the salt of the earth comes from the Gaeltacht Senator Gogarty must be a little brackish himself.
On a point of explanation, as to Senator Comyn's description of the Gaeltacht being the salt of the earth, I do not happen to come from the Gaeltacht.
Certainly, but the Senator is brackish all the same. In regard to the amendment, I would like to say that in my opinion the mover of it is in favour of sport and hunting in Ireland. He is a sportsman himself, and he is a good judge and a good breeder of horses, and, therefore, he would be anxious for the development of the horse breeding industry. I would be in favour of the amendment if I could see how you are going to direct the way in which a hare is to run. Once you start the hare you do not know where he is going to run and finish. With regard to drag hunting, I think it is wrong that a drag should be drawn across the cultivated land of a farmer. I am not for the amendment, for the reason that I do not see how it is going to be carried out, but I am going to support the sentiment it expressed. It is wrong, if it could be avoided, for a hunt to go over a corn field or a meadow.
I come from a well-known hunting county, Kildare. I do not think the Senator need be so very anxious about the question of trespassing on a corn field. The people connected with drag hunting generally acquaint the farmers of the direction in which they are to go. Generally it is the local farmers' sons who lay the drag, and they can easily do that so as to avoid damage to tilled fields or new meadows. I agree that people who run drag hunts should avoid causing loss or annoyance to farmers.
There seems to be an idea in the Seanad that hunting by packs cannot do any harm. Senator O'Connor has given us to understand that in his part of the country no corn field is ever crossed and no harm done. If that is the case, what is his objection to the amendment?
The use of it is to provide that at the season of the year where a permit was issued by the Ministry to certain people that these packs shall not be allowed across corn fields. Tillage has been advocated for this country. When the winter oats are in and the meadows are there are they to be run across just to please certain people in some parts of the country, for it is not in every area these hunts are carried on? I am in favour of hunting, and were it not that there is so much of what I might call a tendency to treat the matter as a joke I would not have spoken at all. I intend to support the amendment.
These drag hunts are an old form of sport in the country, and they provide the only amusement for the people in some districts. The farmers have no objection to packs running over their lands. I think it would be a great mistake to curtail the hunting season by a month. March is generally the month in which the hunting season is would up, and hunt meets in March are looked upon as the great hunting days of the year. I hope the Seanad will do nothing that will interfere with this sport.
I consider the amendment unnecessary. Everyone knows that the masters of hunts call attention to new-growing grass and warn the field against riding over it. To suggest that where such warning is given people wilfully ride over new grass is ridiculous.
I am of the same opinion as Senator Linehan, that it is extremely undesirable anybody should run a drag across fields when the season is so far advanced. I hope the members of the Seanad will agree with him on that. I would not vote for the amendment on that account, for there is more in the amendment than that. I cannot believe that drag hunts are wilfully run over land where obviously harm can be done to any great extent. One part of the amendment would mean that the hunting season would be curtailed by a month, and that would be great harm to hunting and horse-breeding, and for that reason I could not support the amendment.
Would I be in order in moving an amendment to the amendment?
Cathaoirleach
Yes, if the House permits. I would like to know what the amendment is.
The amendment is to prohibit drag hunts from going over young meadows.
Are we discussing a Bill for the restriction of drag hunts or a Bill for the preservation of game?
I think that interruption is quite uncalled for. It is for the Cathaoirleach to call me to order if I am out of order and not the Minister for Justice, who is here to conduct the Bill through this House and to reply to any criticism to be made with regard to the Bill.
Cathaoirleach
I have allowed the amendment on drag hunting to appear on the Order Paper, and you are quite justified, Senator, in discussing it.
It would be well for some people to learn manners as well as law. My amendment seeks to secure that crops of the kind outlined by Senator Linehan shall not be injured by drag hunts. I suggest to Senator Linehan to withdraw his amendment and submit a new amendment on Report.
I wish to remove the idea prevailing in the House that I am against hunting. As a matter of fact it is quite the other way. I have been always in favour of hunting. My amendment deals with the part of the year in which there is no hunting, that is the close season.
Cathaoirleach
March is a close season for hares.
I would be quite satisfied to have it started on the 1st May, for the meadows and corn crops would not have grown high by then.
Cathaoirleach
It would be illegal to disturb hares at that period.
They could lay drag-hunts.
Cathaoirleach
There is nothing about drag-hunts in the Bill.
The Bill is for the protection of game. When you have hounds running across land which is frequented by game the game are apt to be endangered or destroyed.
Cathaoirleach
Would you agree, Senator, to accept Senator Dowdall's suggestion and withdraw the amendment and then draft something which would deal with this danger arising from drag-hunts?
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Sub-section (4) When a game bird protection order has been made under this section, it shall not be lawful for any person while such order continues in force to kill or take any game bird of the species to which such order relates in any part of Saorstát Eireann to which such order applies without or otherwise than in accordance with the permission of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána for the district in which such game bird is killed or taken: Provided always that if the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána unreasonably objects or refuses to grant such permission the person so applying may appeal to the Minister against such neglect or refusal of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána to grant such permission and the Minister may grant permission to kill or take such game bird.
I move:—
Section 6, sub-section (4). To delete all after the word "applies" in line 60 down to the end of the sub-section.
The amendment refers to the power given to the Minister by protection orders to prevent the killing of certain birds during certain periods. Sub-section (4) of the section provides that the order may be modified if permission is granted by the superintendent of the Civic Guards. I object entirely to bringing the Civic Guards into this matter. Their duties are onerous enough at present. I am afraid the suggested legislation would put duties on them entirely foreign to those for which they were originally appointed. I do not think Civic Guards should act as gamekeepers. In my opinion it is the duty of the owner of the game rights to appoint caretakers, and the most they can expect from the Civic Guards is protection. We have recently had examples of the very sad results of the attempt of the Civic Guards to protect game rights in the County of Cork and the County of Kerry, when two valuable lives were lost as the result of shooting by members of the Civic Guards who had taken up the duties of gamekeepers and bailiffs on certain estates. I think as far as possible we should keep the Civic Guards out of this section, and leave it to the Minister to decide whether he should withdraw the order or not as he thinks fit.
I hope the Seanad will accept the amendment for the reason stated by Senator Linehan. The Civic Guards have very onerous duties to perform in connection with the preservation of the public peace. It is not right that their functions should be extended so as to bring them into conflict with or in opposition to the farmers of the country. Senator Linehan referred to two regrettable incidents that occurred some time ago in the province of Munster. I think this is the place in which those incidents should be referred to in calm, temperate and measured language. In the County of Cork a farmer's son was shot during the night by a police officer. I am not going further into the circumstances of that incident, save to say that the man who was killed was apparently engaged in the poaching of fish in the river. When that regrettable incident happened we all hoped that it would be the last, but in the County of Kerry some time ago another farmer's son was shot dead at night by a police officer, who apparently went alone, armed, while the poacher was not armed. This poacher was also a farmer's son, and he was taking fish in a river that passed through his father's farm, a river in respect of which the sporting rights were reserved to the Congested Districts Board, on the understanding that they would be held in trust for the tenants.
I do not wish to say anything more about that, but this is the moral, I think, to be drawn from it, that the members of the Gárda Síochána, who have responsible duties to discharge in the preservation of the public peace in a time which some people may say is a difficult time, ought to be confined to their own duties and ought not to have imposed on them duties of this description. I am sure that they do not desire them; I am sure that they are not trained for these duties. If there is to be any preservation of game under this Bill or under any other Act, it should be the work of regular gamekeepers, who would be under the protection of the police if necessary. I think that this is a very wise amendment, and I ask the Seanad, without any question of party or anything else, to accept it.
I do not know on what grounds Senator Comyn has come to the conclusion that this is a very wise amendment, because it must be perfectly obvious to every Senator that Senator Comyn has not read the section and has not got the remotest idea of what it is about. What is the use of talking about this section making the Civic Guards gamekeepers? It does nothing of the kind.
There is a further amendment——
And what is the reason for deliberately and wantonly attacking the Civic Guards, as Senator Comyn has done?
I beg your pardon. I put it to the House——
What is the meaning of it? Here is a section which puts certain duties upon an officer of the Civic Guard. Here is a section which allows an exemption from a protection order for certain purposes. It does not make the officer of the Civic Guard a gamekeeper; it is the very opposite. Senator Comyn has failed either to read the section and the amendment or to understand it, and he then proceeds wantonly, as I put it, to attack the Civic Guards for what they have done in the preservation of fishery rights. What has that got to do with this amendment? What the section means is that in certain cases an order may be made that no game can be shot; but for the real preservation of game, there must be exceptions to that, that is to say, as I explained on the Second Reading and as I think anybody who knows anything about shooting will agree, old cock birds must be shot. That is necessary, and permission must be given to gamekeepers or to the owners of shooting shoot off these birds.
Who is to give permission? This Bill suggests that the local superintendent is the most likely person to give that permission. He will see that it is necessary in certain circumstances, that even though the general shooting of birds is prohibited in a certain area, there must be exceptions. Who is to decide whether there is to be an exception, as to whether a moor is overstocked, whether there are too many pheasants in a wood, or something of that kind? The Bill suggests that it is to be the local superintendent, and if he unreasonably withholds that permission, there can be an appeal from him. That is what the section provides. The effect of the amendment would be this, that where a prohibition order on shooting has been made, that never in that area, under any circumstances and no matter how much it might be necessary, could there be any exemption.
The Minister could give leave, not the police.
Cathaoirleach
Nobody could give leave if this amendment were carried.
There is a proposal down in the name of Senator the McGillicuddy of the Reeks with regard to a consultative council—
Cathaoirleach
But if such a council is established, there will be no necessity for this.
Cathaoirleach
That is a later amendment. We cannot discuss it on this.
The superintendent of the Gárda is not the proper person in a case of this nature. You could hold this amendment over until the other amendment comes up, and if the consultative council is agreed upon you can leave the Gárda out.
Cathaoirleach
If the amendment that we are discussing is accepted, there will be nobody who will be empowered to allow the shooting of any game where an order has been made.
Would it be possible to modify this by inserting instead of the words "superintendent of the Gárda Síochána," the words "the Minister"?
The only way in which the Minister could possibly act would be if application were made to the Minister, and the only source of information to the Minister would be the superintendent of the Guards.
Cathaoirleach
I would allow the amendment to stand over to a later stage if that were desired.
Who is to instruct the Superintendent of the Civic Guards, or even the Minister, in a matter of this kind? Will the protection order stipulate the conditions under which a permission may be given for the taking or shooting? Because otherwise each superintendent would have to act on his own judgment and initiative, and he might not know any game outside of the ordinary farmyard kind or the conditions governing them. It seems rather unwise to place in the hands of various people the power to make decisions as to whether game shall be taken or not.
Of course instructions will be issued to the superintendents of the Civic Guards that where a prohibition order has been made, before there will be any relaxation the owner or the lessee of the shooting, as the case may be, will have to make out an affirmative case that his shooting will be benefited by the shooting of the birds. He will not be given leave to shoot them indiscriminately; he will be allowed to shoot only the old birds.
Would not this be the most reasonable way to deal with it? Could not the person who wants a permit to shoot an old cock grouse apply through the Civic Guards to the Minister? The posts are pretty rapid nowadays, and the Minister could send down permission if he liked. Would not that be the proper way?
Cathaoirleach
It might be, but the amendment would prevent that course.
Perhaps Senator Linehan would accept that modification.
Surely there is a close season for Senators speaking. I think twice is the limit.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think that Senator Comyn has exceeded the limit. Do you wish to press the amendment, Senator Linehan?
In case my amendment is carried, if the Minister finds that the protection order which he has made is unnecessary he could withdraw it.
That would allow indiscriminate shooting.
I will let the House decide on the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 6 and 7 put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) When a hares protection order has been made under this Act, the Minister on the application of the master or other person having charge of a pack of harriers or of beagle hounds, may at any time while such order remains in force issue to such person a permit (in this Act referred to as a hunting permit) to hunt hares in the area or any particular part of the area to which such order relates with the said pack of harriers or of beagle hounds and to take and kill hares by means of such hunting.
(2) Every hunting permit issued under this section shall be transferable with the pack of harriers or of beagle hounds to which it relates and shall accordingly (unless revoked or surrendered under this section) continue in force notwithstanding any change in the ownership or in the mastership or custody of such pack and in particular notwithstanding that the person to whom such permit was issued ceases to be the master or person having charge of such pack.
(3) A hunting permit issued under this section may be revoked at any time by the Minister and may be surrendered at any time by the master or other person for the time being having charge of the pack of harriers or of beagle hounds to which the permit relates.
I move: To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) The possession of a hunting permit under this section shall not entitle the person holding the same to hunt over any land without the consent of the occupier of such land."
I think it is necessary that that should be put into the Bill because, through the lapse of time and the abuse of the privilege of hunting over some lands certain clubs may think they have a prescriptive right to hunt over the land, and I think it would be well to make it clear that unless they have the consent of the occupiers they will be acting illegally in hunting over their lands.
Why, when the law of the land deals with it, should it be necessary to have an amendment to do what the law at present does? There is no such thing as hunting against the consent of the owner.
It would be ridiculous if the master of a pack of hounds had to go to every farmer over whose land he proposes to hunt and ask his consent for the hounds to go over his land. It would be absolutely unworkable.
The amendment is entirely unnecessary. No such right as the amendment is directed against exists in Ireland.
I cannot agree with Senator Miss Browne that it would be ridiculous if the master of a hunt had to ask the permission of the farmers to go over their lands.
No, I do not think it would be before every hunt.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 8 put and agreed to.
SECTION 9 (1).
I move:—
To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) to shoot any hare."
This section deals with the methods by which game may be taken or killed. My amendment seeks to prevent the shooting of hares.
I cannot understand the reason underlying this amendment. We do not preserve hares as things of beauty; we preserve them for sport. The shooting of hares is sport: it may not be as sporting a form of sport as other forms of shooting: but it is sport. Also if no hares were allowed to be shot anywhere, they would become a plague. There are a great many parts of the country in which there is no coursing whatever, and there is no need to preserve hares for that purpose. If hares are absolutely and entirely protected, they will be exceedingly detrimental to people's gardens and exceedingly detrimental to young trees. In fact it would be necessary to shoot hares where there are young trees, and this would be an absolute protection for them. I do not follow the amendment.
In Kildare there are two coursing clubs which have been in existence for some time, one of them in Newbridge and the other in Naas, where there was coursing last week. In my district, there is a game preserve of about 5,000 acres. The farmers there have agreed to have their lands protected by the game protection association. After this year, unless the hares are either shot or taken, they will become a great nuisance to the young trees and to the crops. Last week, some friends of mine got on order for 150 hares, at 15s. each, to be sent to a Western district where there are no hares, and they had them caught by nets, which is the only humane way of catching them. I think what underlies the amendment is that a great number of years ago when hares were very scarce they were afraid of everything; they were the most timid animals of all. There is a fable told about them that they were so timid that they made up their minds at one time to drown themselves, but in going towards the river they ran into a flock of sheep which ran away. They then came to the conclusion that there were animals more cowardly than themselves and they stayed on. Unless hares are killed by shooting they will become a plague. There were thirty-eight hares caught on a farm of ours last week and we were very glad to have them taken away.
I have already considered the point raised by Senator Bagwell. It is possible that hares might become so numerous that they would be very injurious, but I see that Section 7 (3) states "The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, on the application of the occupier of any land in a county or part of a county to which a hares protection order relates, exempt by writing under his hand for such time and on such conditions as he thinks fit such land or any part thereof from such order, and upon such exemption being so granted, such order shall not apply or relate to the land the subject of such exemption so long as such exemption continues in force." I take it that by that sub-section the occupier of land who finds that hares are too numerous on his land has only to apply to the Minister to get permission to destroy them or to reduce their number in any way which he wishes. But I think that in the ordinary course of sport the shooting of a hare is an unmanly and unsportsmanlike proceeding.
To a certain extent Senator Linehan is right. Where there is a protection order made for hares, there may be an exemption from that for the purpose of protecting gardens or young plantations. But if the amendment were carried it would prevent in those circumstances a hare being shot at all. In other words, if you were going to protect your garden you would have to protect it by trapping hares, or by some means other than shooting them, and most people would probably find that rather difficult. In addition to that, there are certain places where there are a very large number of hares reared only for shooting purposes. I myself knew at one time a very large demesne in my own county of Mayo where you could see hares running about by the score, I might almost say by the hundred, and where no dog was ever allowed in. These hares had to be reduced in numbers from time to time, and the way in which they were reduced was by shooting. If a person does rear hares for the purpose of shooting them, I think it would be rather unfair to prevent him from doing so. Coursing people strongly object to the shooting of hares; they think it very bad form, but I think you must leave that to public opinion. Let public opinion get to work in counties in which there is coursing. In counties or parts of counties where coursing is not carried on, I think owners ought to be able to shoot hares if there interests require it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 9 put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other section of this Act, it shall be lawful for any member, agent, or servant of a recognised coursing club who is duly authorised in this behalf in writing by a responsible officer of such club to take hares alive by means of nets at any time (other than during the annual close season) solely for the purposes of such club or to take hares alive by means of nets at any time between the 15th day of August in any year and the last day of February in the next following year (both days inclusive) in any year solely for use by such club in coursing matches.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other section of this Act, it shall be lawful for any person, with the permission in writing of the superintendent of the Gárda S£ochána for the district in which he takes or proposes to take hares, to take hares alive by means of nets between the 15th day of August in any year and the last day of February in the next following year (both days inclusive) in any year solely for sale to a recognised coursing club for the purposes of such club and it shall be lawful for a responsible officer of a recognised coursing club to purchase hares so taken for such purposes.
(3) Any person who, having taken or claiming to have taken hares by virtue of an exemption conferred by this section, uses such hares for any purpose other than the purpose for which such exemption is so conferred shall be guilty of an offence under this part of this Act and shall be punishable accordingly.
I move: After the word "alive" in line 20 to insert the words "on land over which such club possesses the exclusive sporting rights." I think it is desirable that it should be made clear that hares cannot be netted on land over which these people have not the full rights. I do not know whether it is intended that that should be the case or not, but it does not seem to be very clear from the wording of the section.
This Bill does not authorise any species of trespass; it does not allow anybody to go on anybody else's land and deal with it as if it were his own. Persons authorised by a coursing club cannot go upon anyone's land unless they have permission from the owner of the land. That has already been pointed out. The wording of it—"on land over which such club possesses the exclusive sporting rights"—would not do either, because they might have the right to take hares and not have the right to shoot grouse, let us say. In any case, as far as the spirit of it is concerned it is not necessary, because persons who belong to coursing clubs cannot trespass on anybody else's land under the provisions of this Bill.
Does the Minister not think that the wording of this section as it stands appears to give to these people the right to go on these lands? I do not say that it does, but it states: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other section of this Act, it shall be lawful" to go on the land. I suggest for the consideration of the Minister that making the thing lawful will certainly lead these people to the conclusion that they have a right to go. I do not press that.
It is notwithstanding anything in this Act. Of course it has to be lawful outside this Bill. This Bill does not make it unlawful.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) A superintendent of the Gárda Síochána may grant to any owner or occupier of land in the district for which he is such superintendent or to any person having the exclusive right of shooting on any such land permission in writing to take alive on such land, pheasants, partridge, or grouse at any time by means of nets solely for the purpose of increasing the number or improving the quality of the pheasants, partridge, or grouse (as the case may be) on such land or on any other land in Saorstát Eireann.
(2) A superintendent of the Gárda Síochána giving any such permission as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section may attach to such permission such conditions (whether as to the duration of such permission, the land to which it relates, the number of birds to be taken thereunder or any other matter) as he shall think fit and shall specify therein.
(3) When any such permission as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-sections of this section has been duly given to any person nothing in this Act shall render unlawful the taking of pheasants, partridge or grouse (as the case may be) by such person under and in accordance with such permit nor shall such taking of pheasants, partridge, or grouse (as the case may be) by such person be an offence under this part of this Act.
I move:
To delete the words "partridge or grouse" wherever they occur and to substitute therefor the words "or partridge."
I do not know whether the House is aware that there has been a campaign in progress for several years past in England to get rid of the netting of grouse, for two reasons. First of all, because the netting of grouse brings with it a small troupe of people who settle themselves down in between different grouse moors and make their living out of the netting of birds which fly across the grounds. That is not so likely to happen in this country because it will be a long time before grouse increase sufficiently. But my main reason is that the netting of grouse is an extraordinarily difficult thing to carry out. You need very high nets; you can only net grouse when they are flying from part of the moor to another or from their feeding grounds, in the early autumn when the corn is in stooks, back to the moor. That must be done with very high nets, and in the process of netting, even when it is done by the most expert people, in many cases as many as five birds are injured to the one that is fit to take away, while at the best about thirty per cent. are injured. There is no particular reason in this country to have netting for re-stocking, and if we want to re-stock we should get our birds from somewhere else. I think netting is very undesirable and that we should delete the words "or grouse" from this section.
I support the amendment. I do not think there is any real need for the netting of grouse in the interests of the shooting of grouse generally, and it is a very cruel thing. I think there is very little to be said in favour of it.
I have no strong views on the subject at all. Of course the object of the section is pretty plain—to encourage the breeding of grouse, but if the view of the Seanad is that the netting of grouse would not really benefit grouse breeding here I certainly will not oppose the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:
To delete the words "or grouse" wherever they occur in the section and to substitute therefor the words "grouse or hares."
I have brought forward this amendment in the interests of those persons in the Saorstát who breed hares in large numbers commercially for the supply of coursing clubs and for re-stocking. There is no animal that needs more careful management when re-stocking than the hare. This can only be affected by netting. There are few people that this could affect, and I think we could confidently leave it to the superintendent of the Gárda to discriminate as to the right people who would have permission to net hares.
Cathaoirleach
Does the Minister accept this amendment?
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:
Sub-section (2). After the word "birds" in line 54 to insert the words "or hares." This is the same.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 12, 13, and 14 put and agreed to.
SECTION 15 (2)
Where any lands, have, with the consent of the occupier thereof, been reserved by a recognised association for the purpose of killing, taking, or preserving game thereon and notice of such reservation has been published on two separate occasions in a newspaper circulating in the district in which such lands are situate, then and in every such case any prosecution in the District Court in respect of trespass on such lands for the purpose or in the course of the pursuit of game may be instituted at the suit and in the name of the secretary of such recognised association, and it shall not be a defence to any such prosecution (whether instituted in the name of such secretary or in the name of some other person) or to any prosecution for an offence under this part of this Act in relation to the killing or taking of game on such lands for the defendant to prove that he was authorised by the occupier of such lands to kill or take game thereon.
I move:—
After the word "thereof" in line 56 to insert in brackets the words "(given in writing after the passing of this Act)."
My amendment seeks to provide that the consent referred to in the sub-section shall be given after the passing of this Bill and that the consent shall not be that which had previously been given. In some cases occupiers of land were waited upon by people who requested their signatures to certain legal documents by which the game rights on their holdings were given to these people. To my knowledge these consents in many cases were signed without any consideration being given for them and when the occupiers had not the benefit of any legal advice. I think it is desirable, in order to ensure that the consents were given willingly by the occupiers, that they should be given after the passing of this Bill.
I would be willing to accept part of the amendment, that is to say, "given in writing." This section gives power where a game protection association have acquired shooting rights over land, for them to prosecute in the name of the secretary. That is all that it does. It sets up a form of legal procedure. I agree with the Senator that it would probably be better that that permit should be given in writing so that the writing could be produced in court. I could not agree with the Senator that it ought to be after the passing of the Bill, because these game associations may have acquired rights before the passing of the Bill, may have got signatures in writing and deeds of assignment, and I do not think it would be fair to make them go to that trouble and expense again. If anyone has got the worse of the bargain in that way with a game protection association, he has got his own remedy. It is a voluntary licence, and he can probably revoke the licence. If he has been tricked into it he can get it set aside.
I think that Senator Linehan has secured in the amendment which the Minister has accepted everything that he desires.
I accept the Minister's suggestion.
Cathaoirleach
Then the words "given in writing" will come in after the word "thereof" in line 56.
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 16, 17 and 18 put and agreed to.
SECTION 19 (2).
(2) Where any lands have with the consent of the occupier thereof been reserved by a recognised coursing club for the purpose of killing and taking hares thereon, and notice of such reservation has been published on two separate occasions in a newspaper circulating in the district in which such lands are situate, then and in every such case any prosecution in the District Court in respect of trespass on such lands for the purpose or in the course of the pursuit of hares may be instituted at the suit and in the name of the secretary for the time being of the organisation commonly called and known as the Irish Coursing Club, and it shall not be a defence to any such prosecution (whether instituted in the name of the said secretary or in the name of some other persons) or to any prosecution for an offence under this part of this Act in relation to the killing or taking of hares on such lands for the defendant to prove that he was authorised by the occupier of such lands to kill or take hares thereon.
I move:—
After the word "thereof" in line 56 to insert in brackets the words "(given in writing)."
This is consequential, and is practically the same as the last amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 put and agreed to.
SECTION 28 (1).
It shall not be lawful for any person to burn or otherwise destroy between the 1st day of April and the 14th day of July (both days inclusive) in any year any gorse, furze, whin, heath, fern or greg-ling growing on any lands not then cultivated or in course of cultivation.
I move:
Section 28, sub-section (1). After the word "person" in line 51 to insert the words "save with the permission in writing of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána for the District."
I ask the leave of the House to add certain words to the amendment which I originally sent to the Clerk. I am afraid he was not able to read some of my writing. He wrote to me to Kerry but I did not receive the letter in time to send on the words "between the 15th of April and the 1st day of September." That is what I originally intended, and I regret I did not get them in in time. My reasons for moving the amendment are that the present burning period is from the 1st of April to the 14th of July. The 1st of April is slightly unnecessarily early because unless the weather is very fine in April I do not think you could have many grouse breeding then. That date would give the farmer a chance of burning the heather in possibly the only dry time there is before the close season. On the other hand the 14th of July is very early to start burning a grouse mountain, because if you have a wet summer you will find a great many of the broods are lost, the grouse will pair again and even as late as the 12th August you will find birds so small that they are not fit to shoot, and people let them go. A great many people do not shoot grouse in any quantity until the 1st of September. I think the close season for burning would be very much better if these dates were adopted. As to the question of burning, at present no burning whatever is allowed, but I have always been brought up in a school which believes that you should never issue an order which you are not quite certain you can have obeyed, and I do not think you will get this order obeyed in the mountainous districts where very few grouse breed. Practically no grouse breed in the higher parts of my own county, and I think it would be advisable in the interests of public order if someone had power to give leave to burn in proper places. Presumably under Section 31 the Minister will make orders explaining to the superintendents of the Civic Guards under what conditions they would give permission and where it would be done. The actual practice of giving permission would also help the tenant purchasers to realize how, when, and where to burn mountains, and the result would be that you would have many more grouse than there are to-day. I think permission to burn should be given in places where grouse do not breed as a rule, and also that the burning period should be altered as I suggest.
Cathaoirleach
What are the dates that you suggest to put into the amendment?
The 15th day of April to the 12th day of August.
I hope the House will not accept this amendment. To change the date from the 1st to the 15th day of April shows that Senator the McGillycuddy has some notion of the difficulties and the loss which would be imposed on farmers in Kerry if they are prohibited from preparing their land for sheep. I am also opposed to the date, the 1st of September.
Cathaoirleach
Is it not to be the 1st of September now?
Cathaoirleach
From the 15th day of April to the 12th day of August. That gives a longer period.
Apart altogether from these dates, I am opposed to the amendment. As Senator Linehan pointed out some days ago, the game rights in one half of this country are vested in the tenant purchasers; the game rights in the other half of the land of Ireland are vested in the landlords, but the grass and the heather belong to the tenant purchasers who bought the land and who are now the owners. The section says:
It shall not be lawful for any person to burn or otherwise destroy between the first day of April and the fourteenth day of July (both days inclusive) in any year any gorse, furze, whin, heath, ferns, or greg-ling growing on any lands not then cultivated or in course of cultivation.
I rise to a point of order. May I suggest that it is rather unwise to discuss two amendments, both of which deal with different matters, at the same time, that is to say, there is an issue which is raised when one brings in words "permission of the Gárda Síochána." There is another issue with regard to the change of dates. One person might be in favour of one and not the other. I think these propositions should be discussed separately.
Cathaoirleach
The Senator desires to move them together and it is for him and the House to decide.
I am putting my suggestion to the House, including the Senator.
I suggest to the House that it would be more satisfactory to take the next amendment standing in my name first.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think we could do that. We must deal with the amendment of Senator the McGillycuddy now.
I am agreeable to take the proposals separately.
Cathaoirleach
Then we will take the one on the Order Paper first.
The Senator's amendment proposes to insert the words "save with the permission in writing of the superintendent of the Gárda Síochána for the district." I ask the House not to accept this amendment. Whoever owns the sporting rights throughout this country, the grazing rights belong to the farmer. I have in my mind a part of the county Kerry, from Tralee to Ballyferriter, a distance of 30 miles, the Dingle Peninsula, where there are 20,000 sheep which are the main support of three or four hundred families. These sheep cannot be sustained on the mountains unless the heather is burned periodically. The farmers understand the method of burning the heather. It appears that when heather grows for three or four years it is quite useless for sheep and for grouse. It is necessary to burn it so that young grass will shoot up through the ashes in the patches which are burned, and that is the grass which provides nourishment for the sheep.
Cathaoirleach
Remember that the amendment would give greater powers of burning.
The amendment would give greater powers of burning, but why should a Kerry farmer who owns the land and who owns the heather be compelled to ask any person for permission to burn on his own land?
Cathaoirleach
The section has already provided that and you have no amendment down to it.
Cathaoirleach
Not to what we are now dealing with.
On the present amendment all I can say is that it would make it infinitely more difficult——
Cathaoirleach
The amendment would make it easier for the farmer. Under the section as it stands it is absolutely forbidden. The amendment will make it possible for him by applying to the Gárda Síochána to get permission to burn in the close season.
I am opposed to any amendment which gives the Gárda Síochána any sort of control over farmers in respect of their own land. I leave it at that.
There should not be any real conflict between what I might call the man interested in the grazing of sheep and the man interested in the protection of game.
Cathaoirleach
There is. I managed three grouse moors in Scotland and there were always conflicts between the shepherds and the gamekeepers.
There ought not to be. It is just as important for the preservation of game that the heather should be burned. Grouse cannot live in old heather. Therefore there ought not to be any difficulty in making an arrangement which would work out to the benefit of both. I am inclined to think, knowing what I know—which is certainly not as much as Senator the McGillycuddy knows—that the provision he seeks is one that would work out satisfactorily.
To a very large extent I agree that a certain amount of judicious heather burning is as necessary for grouse as for sheep. I think there is this difference however, that grouse require two classes of heather, big heather for shelter and young heather for food, whereas sheep do not require big heather at all. I think the judicious burning of heather from year to year would rather work both in the interests of the sheep and the grouse in the long run. The only difficulty is one of time. These are the dates I finally arrived at after consultation with a great number of persons who I understood were skilful in all respects, both as farmers and as persons interested in game. But I must honestly say that I have seen the greatest divergence of opinion. As to the dates for burning, I do not think you can get any two persons to agree. The only thing is to try to get a date that appears to meet with the views of the largest number. From enquiries I have made it appears to me that the 1st of April would be about the best. Though it may not be to some extent germane to this issue, it must be remembered that grouse are not the only birds that nest in the heather. The section deals not only with heather but with gorse, furze, whin, heath and rushes, so that as well as the aristocratic grouse the sky-lark, wild duck or various other birds may have their nests destroyed. I would like the House to consider that. I have a perfectly open mind in the matter.
Cathaoirleach
We are not discussing the question of the dates on this amendment.
On the question of the Guards coming in I have no objection. If there is a place where it is clear there are no birds and where it can do no harm there might be permission given. That would not be interfering with anyone else's right.
I am in a difficulty about the proposal in the sub-section and the amendment. Taking Senator Comyn's view, that the rights over the land are owned by the tenant or occupier, I would wait for some sort of general law which would allow a superintendent of the Guards to come in and tell the farmer, no matter whether his land is growing whin, grass or corn, whether he should allow it to remain under grass, strikes me as being a rather revolutionary proposition.
Cathaoirleach
That is not what is intended.
The principle of the Bill more or less incidentally is depriving the farmer of certain rights over his property, and the amendment proposes to deprive him of those rights, provided that the permission of the Superintendent of the Guards can revoke the section. Surely that is a rather revolutionary change, and for it to be brought in, incidentally in a Bill of this kind, strikes me as rather a tall order. I wonder whether the Minister for Agriculture, for instance, was consulted, and whether the representative of the peasant proprietors was consulted as to whether they are generally agreeable to the proposition that there should be a prohibition as to what they shall be allowed to grow on their lands.
What about the Act dealing with the cutting down of trees?
I am not in principle adverse to this, but I am a little doubtful whether decisions as to whether there should be exceptions to the general rule should be left to the Gárda Síochána. That seems to me to be a rather doubtful proposition. Perhaps the Minister for Agriculture might be brought in, but I doubt if the Gárda Síochána is the body to determine whether exemption should be allowed or not.
There are two sets of people with rights over the same ground. The man interested in grazing has not absolute rights. His rights are subject to the rights of the other person interested, and I want to reconcile them for the good of each, if possible.
But what are their rights under this section, which says:
It shall not be lawful for any person to burn or otherwise destroy between the 1st day of April and the 14th day of July (both days included) in any year any gorse, furze, whin, heath, fern or greg-ling growing on any land not then cultivated.
That is right and that is the law already. It is the close time we are dealing with.
Amendment agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
Senator the McGillycuddy also asked for permission to have the dates changed to read "the 15th day of April to the 12th day of August."
In view of what the Minister said about the earlier part of the date, I am quite agreeable to go back to the 1st of April, and not to press that point. At the other end there is no doubt that a very large majority of the grouse are not fit to shoot on 12th August; they are still cheepers.
Here again I think there is a good deal of difference, because I believe the scientific burning of heather should be done some time in the early autumn, in order to have nice feeding stuff in the spring. There is a good deal of difference about this matter.
You cannot burn before the 12th August.
It is a matter on which people differ very considerably. My dates were carefully considered, after long discussion in the Dáil.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
I move:
Section 28, sub-section (1). After the word "person" in line 51 to insert the words "other than the owner or his agent."
I think this amendment will bring out the issue in a very clear form. The object of my amendment is to secure that the owner of the heather shall have the right to burn it whenever he likes. There is a great difficulty about the burning of heather. Owing to the moisture of the climate in the South and West of Ireland it is not possible to burn it whenever one chooses. There must be ten or fifteen days of perfectly dry weather before the heather will take fire. It is very difficult to get a dry week or fortnight in March, April or May. It is frequently difficult to get it any time during the year, and in these Kerry mountains where there are no grouse and 20,000 sheep I suggest to the Senate that the small farmers who have to make a living by grazing sheep should not be hampered. Senator Brown said there were two persons interested. Where the sporting rights are vested in the tenant purchasers there is no person interested except the tenant purchasers.
On their own holdings, but the way the mountains are arranged is that nine, ten, fifteen or twenty tenants on the lowlands have the grazing on a mountain. The grazing of the mountain is worthless to them unless they can burn the heather.
They do own it. If they do not own it I do not cover them. My submission is that they do own it. Where the sporting rights are vested in the tenants no person can interfere with them. There is the other case put up by Senator Brown, which perhaps Senator Johnson did not consider; that is the case where the tenant purchaser owns the land in fee-simple. From the centre of the earth to the highest point in the sky the heather and all belongs to the tenant. In that case the former landlord may have sporting rights, but these sporting rights are subject to the rights of the tenant and these are the rights I wish to preserve. The place I have in mind is a stretch of country from 20 to 30 miles long, where there are no grouse. Are you to prevent the farmers of Kerry from burning heather on the Dingle mountain and the Brandon mountain in order to provide feeding for sheep?
I suggest for the consideration of the House that the amendment which I now propose is a reasonable one. This matter escaped notice in the Dáil, but Senators now have the opportunity of making this amendment to the Bill. I suggest it is a reasonable amendment, and that it will do no harm to anybody.
Senator Comyn's amendment would make this section absolutely nugatory, because nobody could ever burn heather lawfully except the owner or his agent. Senator Comyn says that always, in all circumstances and in all periods of the year, the owner or his agent ought to be able to burn heather. That would make this section absolutely nugatory and would mean the complete destruction of this Game Bill.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment 17:
Section 28, sub-section (1). To delete in line 52 the word "April" and substitute therefor the word "May."
I think that the point dealt with in this amendment has already been covered by the decision of the House on the amendment moved by Senator the McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think it has. His amendment left the words stand as they are in the Bill, and I take it you desire to change them.
The reason that I want the 1st May is that the seasons are frequently very wet. Grouse pair about the 1st April, but they do not nest in certain parts of the country at least until about the 1st May. In order that as little inconvenience as possible may be caused to farmers, I suggest it would be advisable to have the date the 1st May. I am as much in favour of the preservation of game as anybody, but I see that in an earlier part of the Bill the Minister has power to issue a prohibition order against the destruction of nests. Therefore this amendment of mine would not in any way interfere with the nesting of grouse. It would simply provide for cases where you have stretches of mountains where there are no grouse, where there are no nests of grouse or of any other wild birds. The adoption of the amendment would, I think, afford facilities to the farmer for farming his land to the best advantage, and I leave the matter at that.
It would appear to me that there is an inconsistency between this amendment and a previous amendment moved by the Senator. As I understood it, the Senator, in his first amendment, made the claim that the owner or his agent was entitled to burn at any time they liked. Now he wants to prevent them from burning until the 1st May. It appears to me that there is an inconsistency between the two amendments.
The first amendment was defeated, and I submit that this amendment, coming in here, is quite in order.
Cathaoirleach
You are moving this on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread?
I was just dealing with what seemed to me to be an inconsistency in the amendment moved by Senator Comyn. Under his first amendment he claims that the owner or his agent is entitled to burn before the 1st April, but in this amendment he seems to be debarring them from burning until the 1st May. I would like to know if that is right?
Cathaoirleach
No. He can burn up to the 1st May.
Amendment put and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
I move amendment 18:
Section 28, sub-section (1). After the word "lands" in line 54 to insert the words "where grouse usually nest."
I hope that this amendment will not be lost. The object of it is to secure that grouse and other wild birds shall be absolutely protected, and at the same time that farmers shall not be injured. The section, if amended by the insertion of these words, will then read:
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to burn or otherwise destroy between the 1st day of April and the 14th day of July (both days inclusive) in any year any gorse, furze, whin, heath, fern or greg-ling growing on any lands where grouse usually nest not then cultivated or in course of cultivation.
If the object of the Bill is to protect grouse and game generally, then I should say that the only game that nests in heather are grouse. The amendment, I think, would meet what I have in mind, namely, the protection of the interests of the farmers and the protection of the interests of sportsmen. The amendment would protect both sets of people. They seem to be in conflict, but I do not know why they should be. My idea is that the farmers, if they are properly treated, will be the best preservers of game, and I think something should be done to avoid any resentment which farmers might feel by reason of the provisions of this Bill. This resentment can possibly be avoided if the Bill itself is reasonable. It will prevent, if you like, the burning of heather or gorse or anything else where grouse usually nest, but why should you prevent that on mountains where a grouse has not been seen for twenty years and will not, I presume, be seen for the next twenty years? Why should a farmer be handicapped in a case like that? I put the amendment to the wisdom of the House without any further comment.
I think this is a dangerous amendment, because it starts by giving permission to burn in the close season. Senator Comyn told the House a great deal about the rights of the farmer and the rights of the game owner, but I think that the State has a concern in both. As the State has a concern in both, I think it should make quite sure that the permission given by the Gárda Síochána will be sufficient. I do not think there should be any burning, as suggested, in the close season. It is very difficult to find where grouse usually nest. If one asks a man who wants to burn he will be assured that, in the memory of man, no grouse has ever been seen within twenty miles of that particular place, and I think that is where the danger comes in in the case of this amendment.
As I have already pointed out, there are a great many other game birds besides grouse, but grouse is put in a state of great prominence in Senator Comyn's amendment. The amendment says "where grouse usually nest." I am afraid that would be altogether too vague. You could possibly never go into court and prove that birds usually nest in a particular place. I am afraid you could never produce anybody in court who could say that he found ten or fifteen nests on a particular mountain, and therefore you could never succeed in a prosecution. I am afraid the amendment is not practicable.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 28, 29 and 30 agreed to.
I move amendment 19:
New section. Before Section 31 to insert a new section as follows:
31.—(1) The Minister may establish by order a Consultative Council for the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister in connection with any matter in relation to the making of regulations under, or otherwise carrying into execution, the provisions of this Act, or any other matter affecting the preservation and propagation of game or any other matter affecting the game industry.
(2) The said Consultative Council, if and when appointed, shall consist of such persons (being persons having experience or special knowledge in relation to the matters on which the Council may give advice or assistance to the Minister) as the Minister shall from time to time nominate to be members thereof, and shall include representatives of both Houses of the Oireachtas and of the General Council of Country Councils.
(3) Each member of the said Consultative Council shall, unless he previously dies or resigns, retain his membership for two years only from the date of his nomination, but shall be eligible for renomination.
(4) The said Consultative Council shall meet whenever summoned by the Minister and also on such occasions as the Council may from time to time determine.
(5) Payments may be made by the Minister out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas to the members of the said Consultative Council and Committees thereof to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance in respect of repayment of travelling expenses and payment of subsistence allowance.
I think that on the Second Reading of the Bill I made my reasons clear for the acceptance of an amendment of this nature, and therefore I do not propose to repeat what I said then. With regard to what I said on that occasion there was some criticism made which I desire to dispute. The Minister, speaking presumably for the Executive Council, and Senator Bagwell, speaking for himself, deprecated the suggestion that I made on that occasion, that this was a nascent and struggling industry, and that it should be given some sort of State assistance. I think that both the Minister and Senator Bagwell must be taken as putting forward the view that this was a matter for individual enterprise only and not one in which the State should ever interfere. I think if we review the general trend of the policy followed by the Government with regard to other industries it will be seen that the Minister's view on this particular question is only his own and Senator Bagwell's laissez faire idea of national development cannot, I believe, appeal to the House. We are a struggling community with a small national income. I believe that we should examine every possible means in the direction of increasing and improving our national income. I feel that until some co-operative body, such as I suggest in this amendment, is available for the purpose of examining ways and means that progress in the development of the game industry will be very slow indeed. I think that the tendency of the age is towards co-operative work on the part of experts rather than that of individual effort, and that it requires in these days supermen to succeed.
I wish the House to bear in mind that I am not asking for the return of the money which has been taken out of the game industry in the last eight years, but simply for the setting up of a consultative body which will form the necessary link with our present legislation, a body that will examine the efficiency of that legislation, will receive reports as to its working and devote its energies to devising improvements in the Act itself, in the light of the working of the Act and of the operation of game laws elsewhere. The Minister assured us that this Bill was not the last word in the matter of game preservation. I would like to remind the House that the Fishery Act passed in 1925 called for an amending measure almost immediately. The drafting of that Bill has been under consideration for the last two years, but it has not yet seen the light in the other House. There was one other point, I think, that exercised the mind of the Minister, and that was as regards the composition of the committee which I propose. The committee, no matter how constituted, will not satisfy everybody. I do not suggest that a committee composed on the lines that I have outlined in my amendment will go as far as it is possible to go in the direction of getting together a suitable one, or towards advancing the interests of the large man and the small man. The wording of the amendment before the House is somewhat similar to that contained in the Live Stock Breeding Act, except that I have somewhat weakly substituted the word "may" for the word "shall." I do not see how the insertion of this amendment can in any way harm the Bill. I believe that a committee like this may be of the greatest possible assistance, and I hope that no honeyed words from the Minister will persuade the House to do anything except record an opinion in its favour.
May I ask whether paragraph 5 is in order, or is it governed by Section 32 of the Bill? The paragraph says payments may be made by the Minister for travelling and subsistence allowances to the members of this Committee. Have we the power to legislate in that way?
Cathaoirleach
I would like to support the amendment. I do not wish to suggest that it is necessary to bring about the requirements by payment except, perhaps, that it arises from gun licences or other such source of income. Even so, a committee is a longer-lived thing than an individual who tries personally to develop the game resources of the country. This committee will not cut across the efforts of the Executive Council. It will be more or less an aid to them. It can do no harm, but it would do a certain amount of good, and as it has the opportunity of proving its enthusiasm without payment I would support it if it does not put a tax on the Central Fund, or any other moneys arising. I think a committee of sportsmen would do much for sport. When we consider the lack of support for carrying out the Censorship Act we find there is very little enthusiasm as regards that, but this is a matter for sportsmen, and they are in a position to do work which is very necessary. I think that with the proviso that it does not cost the country anything the Minister will have little difficulty in accepting the amendment. The attention of the Executive Council cannot be focussed on small enterprises, whereas a consultative committee would constantly interest itself and do much good in the preservation of game. Such a committee would be drawn from different parts of the country, and would have an interest in the matter that could not be expected from the Executive Council.
The virtue of the amendment is that it is purely discretionary on the part of the Minister. It is an enabling section, and the Minister need not do it except he thinks it is wise and right to do it, but he cannot do it unless he is given power under the Act.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the general scope of this Bill is an amendment of the game laws, by which we will enable the preservation of game to be carried out in the Free State. It is primarily, and in fact altogether, an amendment of the game laws. Here you have got two entirely new principles, and this section is going to be a dead letter or it is going to do some work. You have come to a new principle, that is a direct fostering of the game industry by the State. Senator McGillycuddy of the Reeks seemed to put forward the view that I had expressed myself as being against fostering by the State of a struggling industry, or the development by the State of State resources. I think you will find it very hard to get any statement of that nature by me, but I did say, and I still am of opinion, that this question of the fostering of the game industry, if I might put it in that way, in this country is one which will want to be considered.
The attitude that I think any Government will take up must be greatly influenced by the way in which this Game Bill works, and by the efforts which are made by persons in this country to really develop the breeding of game, but if a Government grant were given to develop game I would point out to the House that the work in connection with that could not be done by my Department with the assistance of the consultative council. It would have to be done by a Department which has experience of the development of industrial resources. It would have to go under the Department of Agriculture, or a Department of that kind. My Department has not got the outdoor staff, to begin with, and it is not at all germane to the work carried out by my Department that we should set to work to develop a particular industry. That would have to be done by one of the departments which is cognisant with such work and in the habit of developing industries. I do not think a consultative committee would be any good, and in fact it might prove harmful.
According to the title of the Bill the amendment is germane to the question. The Bill is entitled "an Act to make better provision for the pre servation of game and for that purpose to make provision for the control of game dealers and for other matters incidental or conducive to the preservation of game." The suggestion is not a new principle. It is applied in connection with the National Monuments and the Live Stock Breeding Act. Why not allow it here? There will undoubtedly be some little cost in connection with meetings of the Committee, and, as I said, expenses of a similar kind have been allowed in other directions. The Minister used the word "grant." I said as clearly as I could that I am not looking for a grant. I want to disabuse the minds of the House of the idea that I make any such claim. With regard to the work being assigned to a particular department, surely we find the Minister for Fisheries asking for advice elsewhere when he is in a particular difficulty? I think the Minister for Justice is not so ignorant as he would have us believe of the shooting of game, and he would be perfectly qualified to carry out this particular proposal. I press the amendment on the House.
I suggest to meet the Minister's point about departmental control that certain words such as that "the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture" be added to the amendment.
Or the Executive Council.
I was going to suggest "any member of the Executive Council," instead of the Minister.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move:
New section. Before Section 31 to insert a new section as follows:
"31.—Fees, the amount of which shall be prescribed by the Minister, shall be payable for hunting permits and for recognition of coursing clubs and game preservation societies and when received shall be paid into the Exchequer."
On a point of order, is the amendment in order? It is imposing a tax, and it would have to be in a Finance Act.
Cathaoirleach
The amendment is in order. Under Article 37 of the Constitution money shall not be appropriated by vote, resolution or law unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by a message from the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council. There is no distinction between the powers of the Seanad and the Dáil in relation to the insertion of a money clause in non-money Bills, provided that there had been the necessary message. The Seanad could insert an amendment of the kind in the Bill. If the Executive Council accept the amendment, and so advise the Dáil, they can advise the Governor-General to send an appropriate message, or, if necessary, an amended message. This is in accordance with a ruling by my predecessor, and I agree with it, and it has never been challenged.
Would it be possible to read to us the message that has already been communicated to the Dáil, for the terms of that message will cover the point in this amendment, that is to say, certain payments authorised in this message which has been already communicated may cover this amendment?
Cathaoirleach
I have already ruled upon the point the Minister made; I think it is within our power to insert this amendment.
Section 32 states:—
"All expenses of carrying this Act into effect shall, to such extent as shall be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas."
It is in order to lessen the amount that will have to be drawn for the purposes of this section that I move the insertion of this new section. In providing for the issue of hunting permits and giving recognition to the societies named, the Minister will have to incur some expense in his office. He probably will have to keep a register of the people to whom he has issued permits and lists of recognised coursing clubs. I think it is only right that they should pay a small sum to cover the expense that might be incurred, and in that way reduce the expenditure under Section 32.
I am not concerned with coursing clubs, but there are a good many small hunts throughout the country which find it very difficult to carry on and to collect subscriptions. I think that small packs of harriers would be injured seriously by this. Hunting is not the sport of kings now; it is the sport of the farmers. The farmers in my part of the country regard hunting as their own sport, and I have some little packs in mind which would be affected if they had to pay fees.
Cathaoirleach
It would depend on the amount of the fee, would it not?
It would, of course. I think that this is altogether unnecessary.
I would ask the House not to accept this amendment. If there was to be taxation of this kind I think that it is not a good principle that the amount of the tax should be fixed by any individual Minister; I think it should be in a Finance Bill.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 31, 32, and 33 put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
ANNUAL CLOSE SEASONS.
|
Classes of Game
|
Annual Close Season
|
|
Pheasant and partridge.
|
From the 1st day of February to the 30th day of September, both days inclusive.
|
|
Plover and mallard, teal, widgeon and other species of wild duck.
|
From the 1st day of March to the 11th day of August, both days inclusive.
|
|
Hares
|
From the 1st day of March to the 25th day of September, both days inclusive.
|
|
Grouse
|
From the 10th day of December to the 11th day of August, both days inclusive.
|
|
Snipe and Woodcock.
|
From the 1st day of March to the 31st day of August, both days inclusive.
|
|
Quail and Landrail.
|
From the 1st day of March to the 11th day of August, both days inclusive.
|
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move:—
After the words "wild duck" in column 1 to insert the words "and brent goose, barnacle goose, and other species of wild goose."
This affects very much the part of the country from which I come, particularly on account of the huge sloblands which there are in County Wexford, and I suppose that it affects other parts of the country as well. It is most necessary to have these species of wild goose included for the reason that if they are not it will be impossible to protect other game which are now game birds, such as teal and widgeon. If you allow people to go into these slobs and shoot geese you will not be able to protect the other birds, and the people in these particular places who are most concerned are anxious that geese shall be included in the Game Bill.
Geese are now included in the Game Bill, and I think it would be very illogical if they were not to have a close season, that is, if we were to have them as game, if they were not to have the protection of the Wild Birds Act and not to have them mentioned in this Bill.
Are these geese here at all after the 1st of March?
Even if they are not, it will do no harm to have a close season for them. I am told that some of them occasionally do breed in this country.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
After the words "snipe and woodcock" to delete the words "from the 1st day of March to the 31st day of August, both days inclusive," and to substitute therefor the words "from the 15th day of February to the 15th day of October, both days inclusive."
There are two dates with which my amendment is concerned, and I propose, with your permission, to take them separately.
The first date is that upon which the close season should commence. Woodcock begin to pair about the second week in February and snipe very little later, and it is both cruel and unfair to shoot them after the middle of the month. I therefore propose that the date for the commencement of the close season should be February 15th. I can assure anybody that after February 15th you will constantly see the birds together in pairs. Will you take the first portion of the amendment now, sir?
Cathaoirleach
You have put them both together, Senator.
But I might succeed on the 15th of February and I might fail on the 15th of October.
Cathaoirleach
With the permission of the House, you may divide your amendment into two parts.
I have rather an open mind on this matter. It is rather news to me that snipe start to pair as early as the 15th of February. I have not heard the view put forward by the Senator put forward by any other person up to this.
I think it is rather an accident that woodcock and snipe come together. I am really fighting for the woodcock, but people have told me that snipe do pair very early.
As far as my experience goes, I have not known snipe to pair as early as that, but I have no doubt about it as regards woodcock. Personally, I never shoot woodcock after the 1st of February. The Senator suggests the 15th of February; I do not quarrel with that, although I would prefer the 1st. But as regards the end of the close season, I can see no reason why he should make it the 15th of October. I think it should be the 1st of October, as with pheasants.
Cathaoirleach
We had better decide first whether the first date is to be the 1st of March or the 15th of February.
Amendment put and agreed to.
As regards the second part of the amendment, I know that the Minister has given this consideration. It was argued in the Dáil, and the Minister told us last week that the reason why it was fixed at the 15th of October was in deference to the wishes of certain snipe-shooters who live in the Eastern counties. But I am positively certain that I am voicing the opinion of a great number of snipe-shooters who live both in the West and in the East when I say that snipe are not fit to shoot, and certainly not fit to eat, until the 15th of October. Therefore, I am proposing that the date shall be the 15th of October.
I should prefer the 1st of October.
I would ask the House to keep to the 31st of August, as in the Bill at present. I think that is a fair compromise.
I will accept the 1st of October.
Cathaoirleach
You cannot change it now like that. The 31st of August is now in the Bill, and your amendment is to make it the 15th of October.
Amendment put and declared carried.
First Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.
Second Schedule and Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported to the House. Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 17th December.
