This is a long section dealing with definitions. There is an amendment which is by way of inserting an addition to subsection (3).

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, subsection (3), to insert " and includes engaging in taxidermy in respect of such birds or animals " after " animals " in line 49.

This section contains definitions for the purposes of the Bill. Subsection (3) defines the business of wildlife dealing. Section 45 provides that, with certain reasonable exceptions, a person may not sell, keep for sale, purchase for resale or be in possession of protected wild birds or animals unless he is a licensed wildlife dealer. The intention in section 45 is to replace section 20 of the Game Preservation Act, 1930 by extending its game dealer licensing provisions to all species of wild birds and wild animals protected under the Bill. This explains the change from game dealer to wildlife dealer. The latter expression was also intended to embrace taxidermists. Because taxidermy can provide an outlet for private collections of specimens of wildlife, including rare or threatened species, it is most desirable that it should be controlled by licence as in other countries. However, on a further reading of section 45, I am not satisfied that it adequately covers taxidermy. This then is the reason for this, what could be called, drafting amendment. The effect of the amendment is to control taxidermy, just as other wildlife dealing is controlled and to put it beyond doubt that taxidermy is controlled.

I welcome this amendment. It is a very important one in so far as it puts this matter beyond doubt, because there is no doubt that the practice of taxidermy can be very detrimental in this whole area. I understand for some of those interested, particularly on the question of the preservation of rare species of birds, that the offering of awards and prices for rare species by taxidermists can be a very serious matter. Indeed, I understand the situation is that did not the taxidermists' profession exist in the business of taxidermy, there would not be the same danger threatening many of these rare species. I do not want in any way to condemn all taxidermists as being villains. But I do understand that it is very necessary indeed—to put it at its simplest—that persons should not be encouraged to go out, take or kill rare species of birds simply because there are taxidermists prepared to offer a good price for them. It is as simple as that. It is a very important aspect of this legislation.

Can the Minister tell me what he has in mind in relation to " authorised person "?

"‘ Authorised person " means a person authorised in writing by the Minister under section 72 to perform certain functions under the Bill. These persons will include wardens and other personnel with duties relating to the enforcement of the Bill. Normally they will be officers or servants of the Minister but it will be open to him to select outsiders also from voluntary organisations in the wildlife and game sectors.

Would they include persons appointed by the boards under section 14?

When we come to section 14 we will be saying that it is not envisaged that that section will be brought into operation in the foreseeable future. Persons in that category of " authorised person " are persons authorised in writing by the Minister to operate the Bill.

What would be the position of people in registered gun clubs?

They would not be authorised persons unless the Minister decided to avail of them and to authorise them in writing to carry out the functions of the Bill.

I do not see anything wrong with allowing the definition section to pass. My comment is that it is a most unusual set of definitions, in that it is tremendously long. We will have occasion to refer to it in the context of the various other sections. I am not too sure that it makes it any easier to have such an unusually long set of definitions.

Lawyers would probably tell one it is more satisfactory to have all of the definitions in one section, where one can refer to them, rather than having them scattered here and there throughout the Bill.

I have one question on the definition of the word " conservation " which we all accept is a very important word. I note that it is defined on page 6, line 5, and there is provision for the inclusion of what might be regarded as physical considerations. Would the Minister think it necessary to provide also in that for what might be regarded as academic considerations? Does the Minister envisage in that that " conservation " would provide for the carrying out of special surveys, the provision of certain research that would be necessary, apart from the provision made here for the physical?

The definition as given is sufficiently wide to cover what the Deputy has in mind. It says:

" conservation " includes management and regulation of the use of land in relation to the interests of wildlife and, where appropriate, development and improvement of land having regard to those interests;

The emphasis there is on land. I am envisaging a situation in which it would be necessary, in the interests of the conservation of wildlife, to carry out certain surveys, to have people involved in certain studies, the carrying out of certain inventories which would be necessary. I wonder if the Minister is satisfied that the definition is so all-embracing as to allow him to do that?

I am. If the Deputy takes another look at the definition he will see that it includes management and regulation of the use of land in relation to the interests of wildlife. When we come to section 11 (1) the Deputy will see that there we spell out in detail what the Minister is authorised to do.

I have been looking at section 11 (1). I was still not sufficiently happy that the Minister has given himself all the powers necessary in the matter of what might be described as the academic side of the operation.

If the Deputy would continue and take a look at section 11 (2) he will see that it says that without prejudice to the general terms of subsection (1) what it is envisaged the powers of the Minister should be, and they are extremely wide. They make provision for research, study and so on.

And the carrying out of surveys.

May I make a general comment as a follow-up to what Deputy Brennan said? The definition section of this Bill makes use of definitions laid down in other Acts. I know it is common practice but we are dealing here with new legislation, a unique piece of legislation. I just want to make the comment that I would have preferred that the definitions in this legislation would have been particular to this piece of legislation. In other words, instead of having to define " building operation " by reference to section 2 of the Factories Act, 1955, it would have been defined in this section.

In order to interpret this Bill we will have to go by the definitions to a number of other acts—the planning Acts, the factories Acts, the greyhound industry Act, the foreshore Act and so on. Would it not have been simpler just to repeat these particular definitions in this definitions section rather than referring us to other Acts just to find those definitions?

In proceeding as we did we have followed well established practice and procedure. While what Deputy Haughey suggests is perfect in theory, in practice he would end up with a very voluminous measure that would be so bulky that it would be unmanageable. The Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, must be relied on as the machinery for assessing compensation in regard to certain matters which may occur under this Act. If we were to spell out the Act of 1919, which has been referred to in innumerable Local Government, and other Acts since 1919, it would be going beyond the beyond.

That is not my point.

It is unusual to have this long set of definitions as a sort of preamble at the beginning of a Bill. We usually have a few—" The Minister " means the Minister for Finance and so on. Otherwise definitions are included, within the context of the sections to which they refer. This is supposed to be a tremendous matter of research—some of the definitions have been taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica. It says here that “ wild bird ” includes the unflown young of a wild bird. A “wild mammal” includes both aquatic and terrestrial wild mammals and their young. I think an aquatic mammal is also a terrestrial mammal.

It is not uncommon to have extensive definitions given in the opening section of a Bill. It would be unusual to find a Bill without a comprehensive section of definitions. Section 2 of the local Government (Planning and Developing) Act, 1963, which is the definition section, commences half way down on page 15 and goes on to the bottom of page 25. It is very common and it is invariable practice to have a comprehensive set of definitions.

That was an unusual Bill. It repealed a lot of sections in other Acts and, therefore, it was essential to have a long list of definitions. The Minister will agree that it is usual to have definitions in the context of the sections to which they refer.

Yes, sometimes. That will occur here too.

When you have it here in a general way, it could sometimes mean that the section to which it pertains can be miscontrued.

This practice has stood the test of time. It stood it reasonably well in so far as the courts and the people who practice in the courts and who have to interpret and enforce these Bills are concerned.

I think that we are really getting a kind of absurdity of definitions, for instance, in regard to protected wild animals.

I respectfully suggest that I have no objection at all to taking definition by definition and going through each of them if the Deputy so desires but there is not much point in getting into a long discussion on whether we should adopt this procedure or whether we should not.

A definition is very important because the whole piece of legislation will depend on the way in which things are defined. In line 15, page 7 we find that the words " protected wild animal " has the meaning assigned to it by section 23 (4) of this Act. When you go to section 23 (4) of this Act you find that "an animal to which this section for the time being applies is in this Act referred to as a protected wild animal".

The Deputy will find a complete definition in Section 23 (4). The Deputy will also find that the term " protected wild animal " occurs on innumerable occasions throughout this Bill and if we do not adopt this procedure in the definition section, we would have to define it every time it appeared throughout the Bill.

With all due respects, it is not defined in the definitions section. That is my point.

It is.

It says that a " protected wild animal " has the meaning assigned to it by section 23 (4) of this Act and when you come to section 23 (4) you find the words: " An animal to which this section for the time being applies is in this Act referred to as a protected wild animal."

Exactly.

Then you go to subsection 1.

Exactly. Section 23 will have to be taken as a whole.

Where are you going with the definitions?

" Protected wild animal " is fully and adequately defined in section 23 (4) which says it is " an animal to which this section for the time being applies is in this Act referred to as a protected wild animal". Therefore, we have it that a protected wild animal is a wild animal to which this section applies. Therefore, you read the section and you find out what sort of an animal the section refers to. This is a protected wild animal and when you come across the term throughout the Bill you know that that is the animal that is meant.

With all due respect, it is the wording of the madhouse. We have section 2 purporting to be a definition section. I can only take the words as I find them. I look underneath the definition section to see what protected wild animal is, and I am told that it has the meaning assigned to it by section 23 (4). Dutifully I turn to section 23 (4) and I am afraid I am in no way enlightened. It says: " An animal to which this section for the time being applies is in this Act referred to as a protected wild animal."

Yes, to which this section applies. Then you read the section.

It is a very peculiar way of giving a definition by referring us to a section to find what the definition is. Normally, a definition section gives you the definition which is used throughout the sections from then on. Quite frankly, I am not being difficult, I just do not follow the procedure.

Otherwise, you would have to repeat section 23 every time you spoke of a protected wild animal. Surely there is no point in doing that. If this procedure had not been adopted every time there was a reference to " protected wild animal ", the phrase would have to be defined. That would be very cumbersome. It would entail repeating practically all of section 23 each time throughout the Bill that there was reference to this phrase.

In the definition section, line 15 of page 7, there is reference to section 23, subsection (4) for a definition of " protected wild animal ". When I read that subsection I do not find the definition but something totally different. It reads:

An animal to which this section for the time being applies is in this Act referred to as a protected wild animal.

That is not a definition.

Of course it is. A protected wild animal is a wild animal to which section 23 applies. Subsection (1) of section 23 reads:

Subject to subsection (2) hereof, this section applies to any animal which is of a species of fauna specified in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.

That is the most cumbersome piece of definition I have ever seen. Is the Minister satisfied that it achieves the purpose of the legislation? If so, I shall not pursue the matter further except to say that it is a most cumbersome way of defining an unfortunate wild animal. You refer it from a definition section to an operative section and from an operative section to a schedule.

The whole point in having the definition in the Schedule is that the wild animal may find himself in the Schedule one year and out of it the next year.

But why have a definition section to the Schedule?

It is an elastic Schedule which gives authority to the Minister to include or exclude as conservation requires.

Will the unicorn be included?

Can the Minister say if estuaries, such as the Shannon Estuary, which is tidal, are included in inland waters?

I intended raising this question, too. Here again we have a definition defining inland waters as meaning any waters comprised in internal or inland waters.

Deputy Daly wishes to know whether tidal waters are included.

The Shannon is tidal as far as Limerick city which is very far inland.

The definition of inland waters is on page 6, line 49.

It is clear that inland waters mean any waters comprised in the internal or inland waters of the State as distinct from tidal waters.

Can the Minister define inland waters?

Waters comprised in the internal or inland waters of the State.

Are tidal waters or estuaries included?

This is a very important question so far as wildlife is concerned.

My view is that if the waters are inland, they are included.

Are estuary waters regarded as inland waters?

Must they be surrounded by land?

If they are not inland waters they are the territorial seas of the State. These are defined further on.

In the Bill one finds the term " inland waters " and Deputy Daly takes the definition given to include estuaries.

There is a definition of territorial seas as being portion of the seas which for the purpose of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, is the territorial seas of the State.

Would inland waters include inlets?

They include any waters comprising internal or inland waters of the State.

Is the Shannon Estuary opposite Tarbert, for instance, included in inland waters?

In my opinion it is.

Could the Minister be a bit more specific?

It is inland.

At what point does it become part of the territorial seas and where does it cease to be inland?

As I have said, the territorial seas are defined in the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959.

We are asking a simple question. In regard to the Shannon and other estuaries where do inland waters end and territorial seas begin?

I have referred the Deputies to the Act in which is contained a definition of territorial seas.

Since we have been referred to the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, we can assume that there would be no difficulty in the event of amendments to that Act.

It means that Act, as amended.

In this connection, while the Minister is looking up the question of where inland waters end and territorial seas begin, would he ascertain also whether the definition of inland waters would include inland reservoirs, such as Poulaphouca?

Reservoirs would be included.

I am sure inland waters are defined in the Inland Fisheries Acts. Would the Minister look up the definition there?

It would not necessarily be relevant to this.

Surely the legislation dealing with inland fisheries would have to define inland waters.

Take, for instance, the stretch of water between Kilconly in Kerry and Kilcredaune on the Clare side. It is still a good distance inside Loop Head.

I do not think there is any problem here. Deputies are seeing problems that do not exist.

It is a real problem. We want to know where it ceases and becomes a sea.

When we come to the section we will see the position more clearly.

I should like to refer the Minister to " fauna ". Wildlife is defined by reference to fauna and flora. Does " fauna " include lepidoctic species?

Fauna means all wild animals, whether protected or not and whether native or not. The Bill is concerned largely with indigenous protected and non-protected species of wild animals and wild birds. However there are some specific references to " fauna " and this embraces land animals and aquatic mammals as well as wild birds and their eggs and young. In relation to fish or aquatic invertebrate animals—for example, sea-urchins—however it extends only to such extent as these species may later be specified in regulations to be made by the Minister under section 23 with the concurrence of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Such regulations would have the effect of adding to or taking from the list of protected animals in the Fifth Schedule. It will be noted that the definition of fauna is such as to include imported wild animals.

It includes insects, every wild species?

It includes the butterfly before its metamorphosis?

Every living wild species.

Is there any objection to inserting the word " insect " to make it clear? The Minister might look at the definition again and see if it is clear that it includes insects.

I am told that nonaquatic vertebrate animals are included.

What about aquatic insects? There are many insects who live at the bottom of lakes for the greater part of their lives.

I am told they also are included.

There is a definition of "land" at line 51. The section states " land covered by water ". In relation to the seashore, where certain marine life is of interest, I notice we do not cover it by " land ". " Land " again appears in later sections of the Bill in relation to the location of various species.

I am advised that foreshore is covered by " land ".

How? This has been a matter for legal dispute for some time.

" Foreshore " is defined but it does not mean it includes land.

I am advised that " land " covers foreshore.

I know it covers fresh water but I have never heard it extended to cover marine waters.

If " land " includes foreshore why is it necessary to define " foreshore " separately?

We have to define what we mean—to define where foreshore begins and ends.

Why not just call it " land "?

We may appear to be unduly holding up the section but we have numerous definitions and future problems will depend very much on definitions. The chairman has told us there is a great deal of legal argument about " foreshore ".

"Foreshore" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the 1933 Foreshore Act. I am advised that when we are speaking about " land " we are speaking about foreshore.

There is reference to land held by the Minister for Lands but I did not know that foreshore could be vested in the Minister for Lands. If foreshore is included in lands, why not mention that in the definition?

It used to be a question for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

It is now a function of the Minister for Transport and Power.

Why cannot " foreshore " be included in the definition of " land ", if it is there. This is an unhappy position.

I understand it is a well-known principle of draughtsmanship that it is bad to overdefine or overexplain anything.

The definition of land includes land covered by water. That suggests land permanently covered by water. Foreshore is not permanently covered by water, only temporarily. The Minister has told us the definition of " land " includes foreshore.

The definition of " land " here is for clarification and it goes on to state that land includes land permanently covered.

The fact that it says that would seem to suggest that it excludes foreshore.

I have told Deputies it includes foreshore. My advisers have told me that the definition of " land " includes foreshore.

Would it not be safer, as the Chairman said, to put that in?

I am told it would be bad draughtsmanship.

There is a certain interest taken by marine botanists in certain areas of foreshore and they are areas that are bound to be covered by sea water. Is that included in the definition of either " foreshore " or " land "?

That is covered by " the territorial seas of the State ".

I am sorry for asking these questions but they are relevant to the definitions section. On the question of " sporting rights " I notice that that definition does not include fishing rights. What is the reason for that?

This Bill deals only marginally with fish. Fishing, in general, comes under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

I want to ask a general question in this regard. The Bill keeps referring to aquatic and terrestrial which I gather means land and water.

The other way round, Deputy.

Not to air my knowledge of the classics too much, Mr. Chairman, may I ask does " terrestrial " there include the air as well?

Yes, I think it does. It is to distinguish from water.

What I am getting at is that it is something in the water, something on the land, and then there are birds in the air. Does " terrestrial "" include the air? It is just the general principle here I want clarified.

Yes; they come down to earth now and again.

Some of them might.

As I would hope to bring the Committee down to earth.

I think what the Deputy is geting at is a situation in which somebody is in breach of a preservation order or something of that nature and shoots a preserved species over either sea water, fresh water or over land—that that is included.

We normally say land, sea and air. I just want to make sure that " acquatic " and " terrestrial " has the same meaning.

It has. The Deputy has a very valid point, and one I can easily understand him making but I am advised that " terrestrial " includes birds as well.

On "falconry" the Bill says that it means hunting by means of birds of the order Falconi-formes which are trained to hawk for sport. Could somebody possibly get out there if the bird was not trained? Suppose one was using a hawk or falcon which had not been trained?

If he had not been trained, I would suggest he would be in the wild.

I am visualising here somebody being prosecuted for using a falcon for some nefarious purpose, a young falcon, perhaps and he says: " Well, he was not trained." I am just wondering is the word " trained " necessary there.

He could be in the process of training.

Would the word " use " not be better, which would read : " which are used to hawk for sport". I am not making an issue of it.

The Deputy has a point there. I will look at it again before Report Stage.

I am more than a little surprised that the definition of " hunt " does not include injuring in the course of hunting. The definition reads:

" hunt " means stalk, pursue, chase, drive, flush, capture, course. . . .

It also includes killing in the course of hunting. I feel it should also include injuring in the course of hunting.

The Deputy will find that sections 22 and 23 which are the sections enforcing the protection of wild birds and animals, do, in fact, deal with the point very properly raised by the Deputy and do extend to injury and that sort of thing.

What word are we using for the operation concerned with digging out of an animal?

Flushing.

That would be " drive, flush ".

They go to ground and you dig them out.

Is that the word appropriate to that operation?

I think it would be included.

"Bolting" is the word I would use, to bolt; put a terrier or a ferret in.

If Deputies will refer to section 23, subsection (5) (d) they will see that it reads:

wilfully interferes with or destroys the breeding place of any protected wild animal.

He would be pursuing the animal; he digs it out.

Yes, but he would be interfering with the breeding place if he did that.

It might not be the normal breeding place of the animal at all. It might be the place where the animal has gone in hiding.

May I suggest, again in order to try to make progress, that if Deputies have a difficulty there, possibly the appropriate way to deal with it would be to suggest an amendment to section 23, subsection (5) (d)?

My anxiety was to ascertain whether or not, in the definition of the word " hunt " provision had been made for the exercise of the operation which is concerned with the digging out of an animal from a hole or burrow, not necessarily his own home.

I would suggest to Deputy Tunney that the word " hunt " is defined in the most exhaustive way. It means " stalk, pursue . . ." If you dig him out, you will be pursuing him; " chase, drive, flush, capture, course, attract, follow, search for"—if you get in——

With all due respect——

Wait now—" lie in wait for, take, trap or shoot by any means whether with or without dogs, and, except in section 28 and 29, includes killing in the course of hunting . . ."

I was referring to the Minister's comment earlier on as to the wisdom of not defining or not going too broad in a definition. In that context I was looking at a situation here in which, for whatever reason, the Minister has gone beyond that tended to him as being good advice. In so far as there are so many words there indicating so many operations on the theme, I wondered whether or not the question of digging out was included.

When I referred to the use of unnecessary words before I suggested that it was bad draftsmanship to unnecessarily define and I stand over that. But when one comes to a word like " hunt ", it is necessary to define all the ways and means of hunting, and that is what we have done in this section. I think " hunt " covers the points Deputy Tunney has in mind.

In my part of the country the normal way foxes are hunted is by digging them out—a crowd of chaps go out with spades and terriers and dig them out. Deputy Tunney wants to make sure that that is covered in this definition. I suggest it is not.

I would put it to the Committee that " search for " is ample to cover that.

No, " search for " is looking for. This is a physical digging-out operation.

You know he is there and you want to get him.

" Hunt " means stalk, pursue, chase, drive, flush, capture, course, attract, follow, search for, lie in wait for, take, . . . " Take " is sufficiently wide to cover it. I put it to the Committee that " search for " or " take " are wide enough.

Then the Minister need only put in " take " and it covers everything.

No, not necessarily. If you search for and do not take it you are guilty of an offence, and if you take it you are guilty of an offence. So there are two to be dealt with.

This is an important point because in many parts of the country the only way badgers and others are hunted is by digging them out. It is important that it would be covered.

There is a problem there because people are going to rule out hunting when they dig. You are getting into a lot of difficulty. I think we will have to wait for that particular section to deal with that. It might be a better way. We have had a full discussion on the definitions.

There is some confusion about the inland waters and the territorial seas.

I undertake to do further research. The only difficulty that we could have here is to find out where the foreshore begins and ends.

What about the definition of land?

I undertake to deal with that on the Report Stage.