I move amendment No. 49:

In page 58, subsection (2), lines 5 and 6, to delete "or a designation order" and substitute ", a designation order or an agreement under section 18 of this Act".

Section 74 lays down the penalties for offences under the Bill and subsection (2) provides for stiffer penalties where an offence is committed in a nature reserve or a refuge for fauna. This amendment is consequential on the amendments to section 39 which have been adopted earlier. Its effect will be to extend the stiffer penalties provisions of section 74 (2) to lands which are the subject of special management agreements under section 18 of the Bill.

As I said when discussing amendments Nos. 17 and 18 to section 39, lands the subject of such special agreements are as worthy of special protection provisions as our nature reserves and refuges for fauna.

This section sets out the money penalties for conviction of offences under the Bill. The amounts set out are the maxima for first, second, third and subsequent offences. On summary conviction the maximum penalty for an ordinary offence will be £200. In the case of offences relating to nature reserves, sections 15 and 16, and refuges for fauna, section 17, or to fauna or flora in danger of extinction, the maximum penalty for conviction on indictment will be £500.

Would it not be better to have a minimum and a maximum penalty?

General advice is against minimum penalties. There was a suggestion that minimum penalties should be fixed. It was also suggested that the confiscation of weapons should be provided for. In discussions with interested sportsmen and conservation bodies we have pointed out that minimum penalties should be at the discretion of the courts; otherwise we would put the courts in situations where they would be reluctant to convict for lesser offences. That attitude appears to have been accepted generally.

If it is, that is all right.

The minimum fine set down was actually usurping the functions of the district justice and would preclude him from using his discretion.

You could still have a discretion between £10 and £50. Now he has a discretion between a shilling and 10p, depending perhaps upon how interested he is himself.

Some of the recent appointees would not know the difference.

Some in the past did not either.

I hope the stenographer has a note of that.

Oh, I do not mind. Some of them are no great credit to the Bench.

The Minister will accept the ever-diminishing value of the £. We can accept also that there will be an ever-increasing value on gain. Does the Minister think it wise to stipulate maxima in legislation that will be there for many years to come? I noticed that in other legislation going through the House a Minister decided in respect of financial matters to allow him to do this by order.

I imagine that open-ended penalties would not be accepted. Indeed, I doubt whether open-ended penalties would be produced. As of now I think the penalties provided are reasonable. Of course, it will be open to legislators to change them from time to time as required.

On the other hand, the case would be made that we would not have the time to bring in legislation for the purpose solely of amending a penalty. Is the Minister convinced that this is the best way? Even since this Bill was first drafted I am sure that the disrespect one would have for £50 has changed a lot.

The maximum penalty for the smallest offence under the Bill is £200. As of now I consider that reasonable. I do not think there is any way out of it.

There is the same thing regarding the catch, regarding confiscation of the bag.

Mr. Chairman, when do you propose rising?

Six o'clock.

As we have only a few sections to go, if the Committee agree we might finish it.

I want to argue some things with the Minister on the Schedules. I think another meeting would be necessary.

I think we should rise now and have another meeting next week.

I suggest we continue until 6 o'clock anyway.

We promised the Minister we would give it to him today, but I think another meeting would be desirable.

Could we have another meeting this week?

Certainly not for me.

A short meeting would do.

A short meeting would do either tomorrow or Thursday.

There remain sections 75, 76, 77, 78 and then there are the Schedules.

I suggest that the Committee might sit one other day this week and finish it; an hour should do it.

For my part, no. As far as I am concerned, at a meeting, I see myself having been tied here for two to two and a half hours. If I could see myself in a position to put in a substitute, I would not have any difficulty at all about agreeing to a meeting every day of the week. Certainly, I am not free this week.

As long as Deputy Haughey is here, the Deputy may rest.

The Deputy can speak for himself much better than I can. That is my position stated. I am not free for the rest of the week.

If I can be given a strong assurance that the Committee are prepared to finish today, I am prepared to sit and finish today.

Thursday morning?

We have the Committee of Public Accounts on Thursday morning.

And Wednesday afternoon there is a meeting of the EEC Legislation Committee.

Thursday afternoon, 3 o'clock?

We would be able to facilitate the Minister if he waited until next Tuesday. Will we get the Report Stage any quicker? Probably not.

We might not, but I would like to get rid of the Bill.

Let us make a final promise to get rid of it on Tuesday next.

The Committee adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until 3.45 p.m. on Tuesday, 9th November, 1976.