I move amendment No. 19:

In page 35, subsection (4), line 36, to delete "An" and substitute " Summary proceedings for an ".

This amendment affects section 44, subsection (4), which deals with prosecutions for offences constituting trespass in pursuit of wild fauna. The amendment is necessary in order to remove a doubt. Summary offences under section 44, subsection (4) relating to trespass, may be prosecuted by the owner or occupier of the land, or by the person or recognised game association that has the sporting rights over the land. The prosecution of indictable offences however, is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and, therefore, it is necessary to make this minor amendment to section 44, subsection (4), to make it absolutely clear that the powers of prosecutions under those sections relate only to summary offences. It is for the purpose of clarification and removing doubt.

The onus is on the defendant.

The basic purpose of this section is to repeal existing laws dealing with trespass in pursuit of game—these date back to the Deer Protection Act, 1698—and to replace them and extend their scope. This section is the main " body blow " aimed at the poacher, but other provisions in the Bill, sections 28, 31, 36, 37 and 38, complement it in that they prohibit or restrict practices and use of equipment usually associated with poaching. Broadly speaking that is the purpose of the section.

I do not think there is any conflict here with regard to the persons who may confront anybody they see suspiciously on the land with a firearm. I am glad the owner or occupier of the land was the first mentioned. It is the first time in the Bill that the owner or occupier has been recognised as having some rights to confront people who enter on his lands. I am not too sure whether there could be a conflict in the case of persons who enjoy sporting rights over the land. What about members of gun clubs?

If the owner of the land gave permission to the gun club to preserve it, he would have by his own voluntary action conferred on the gun club sporting rights. He would have abdicated his sporting rights in favour of the gun club.

It says at line 48 " shall only be prosecuted by the secretary of a recognised body . . .".

" . . . and in the name of the person who at the relevant time is the secretary of a recognised body . . .". That would be the body who would have acquired the sporting rights from the owner in a voluntary manner.

Subsection (4) (c) says that such an offence shall only be prosecuted by the secretary of a recognised body.

You have to take the whole sub-section together. Summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be prosecuted by a person who at the time at which the offence is alleged to have been committed is the owner. ". . . any individual who as regards the relevant land is at the relevant time entitled to enjoy sporting rights over such land . . ." can prosecute. ". . . and in the name of the person who at the relevant time is the secretary of a recognised body which at such time is entitled to enjoy sporting rights over the relevant land."

Could members of a board prosecute?

This does not deal with boards at all. This deals with the gun club who had got the sporting rights.

That is necessary because they are an unincorporated body. It is very hard to find out who has the authority to do something.

It is largely a repeat of the provisions in the 1930 Game Preservation Act.

This may be an extreme case. Subsection (3) says: " A person who refuses or who fails to give his correct name and address . . .". Take the case of a non-Irish language man in a Gaeltacht area who is approached, or a continental visitor. There would be linguistic problems. Has thought been given to the case where there is nobody to interpret what is being said?

This is a case where actions speak louder than words.

That is the odd case which would crop up. If a person can only speak in German he can only give his name in German.

If he is asked in English for his name he will not know what he is being asked for. By refusing to give his name he will be guilty of an offence.

This would be a very rare occurrence.

Most internationals understand the phrase which ends with " off " and has only two words.

It is internationally understood.

I am not familiar with Deputy Brennan's esperanto.

Common sense will have to prevail. If you meet a person who cannot understand you, what can you do?

If everybody had common sense, there would be no need for any of this.

I do not think in a lot of these cases where a man wants to shoot over land that he will make a formal application to the land owners. If a dispute arises as to whether——

He will not be prosecuted, Deputy, unless the owner of the land objects to him being there, the owner of the sporting rights objects to him being there or the owner of the gun club who has preserved the land objects to him being there.

It is not correct to say that a man has to apply in writing?

Not in writing, but he would have to have the permission of the owner to be there. It would be a defence for him to say: " I am there by virtue of permission received from the owner". It does not have to be written permission.

If for instance, a man goes to a particular member of the gun club and says: " Can I shoot on your preserves ", I assume he goes in with his permission——

If he has got permission from somebody entitled to give permission on behalf of the gun club, he is all right.