I explained rather fully before we adjourned yesterday the purpose and effect of these two amendments. In a nutshell their effect is than anybody charged with offences under sections 22 and 23 may be prosecuted in any District Court area. The effect of the amendment is to confer the jurisdiction on a district justice in any District Court area to try, in a summary manner, offences under sections 22 and 23 wherever committed within the State. This had been sought rather strenuously by some voluntary game organisations.

It seems to be a sensible and necessary addition to the section.

What would be the position of, say, a Frenchman who would commit a breach and then returns to France?

He can be prosecuted if a summons can be served on him. Of course if he has gone off before a summons is served on him, then I am afraid he is gone.

He would be what would be regarded as a migratory sportsman or offender.

There is nothing that can be done about that. He cannot be extradited?

No.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 21, subsection (7), to insert " protected " before " wild birds " in line 22.

This amendment is for the purpose of clarification. Subsection (7) (d) of section 22 is intended to provide that the taking of nests or eggs of protected wild birds for educational, scientific or other approved purposes will be permitted only under licence from the Minister. It is not intended that the removal of nests or eggs of non-protected pest species—listed in the Third Schedule—would require a special licence. This minor amendment is to make that clear.

Anything arising on that amendment?

No. It is crystal clear.

In respect of the Minister's amendment No. 6 (a) which reads: " while engaged in ornithology . . ." is the Minister happy that he would not want to qualify that in so far as it would be an offence for anybody to say that he was so engaged?

The onus will be on the person alleging that he was engaged in ornithology to prove that he was.

I wondered if the Minister thought there might be any suitable phrase that might be used. Could we say " while lawfully engaged in ", because I could foresee anybody making the case that that was what he was doing?

This is amendment No. 6?

It is an amendment we have agreed already. I wondered if the Minister was perfectly happy with it.

I am satisfied that ornithology is a well-known line of zoology. We have provided, by an amendment, that a person who has a defence and pleads that he was engaged in ornithology will have to prove that he was. The onus would be on him to establish that he was in fact engaged in ornithology.

If the Minister is happy so am I.

I am worried about the section in general. I gather the Minister's approach is that all birds shall be protected wild birds except those which are set out in the Third Schedule. In other words, birds set out in the Third Schedule shall not be protected birds. In subsection (2) the Minister is taking power by regulation, to transfer birds out of the non-protected category, if you like.

I am taking power to take from or add to the Third Schedule.

So the Minister can take one of these species in or out of the non-protected wild bird category.

Exactly, as circumstances may require or as I may be advised.

One immediately looks at the Schedule and sees bullfinches and jays. I understand the jay can be quite destructive but is also becoming extinct.

My current advice is that they are plentiful and not in need of protection.

And bullfinches?

The same applies.

The rest of them are all self-explanatory.

We will have another opportunity when we come to that Schedule?

Certainly.