No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. The Deputy Chairperson of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee has expressed a wish to speak to schedule 1. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group the eight clauses, followed by schedule 1, schedules 2 to 4 and the long title.

Question proposed, That schedule 1 be agreed.

The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has not tabled any amendments and is therefore supporting the Bill. I thank the Minister, his officials, Committee members and staff for their contribution to the production of the report.

The Committee had some concerns about the system of appointments to the board. Many public appointments fall outside the scope of anti-discrimination legislation because they are made by, or under the authority of, Ministers. That problem is not unique to the board of Invest Northern Ireland. Anyone holding a statutory office — that includes many public appointments, such as those proposed in the Bill — is not protected by the employment provisions in the current employment legislation. That means that such people could not, for example, bring any action alleging religious, political or other unlawful discrimination in relation to appointment or non-appointment, treatment during service, termination of appointment or victimisation.

Many public appointments or statutory offices involve a considerable amount of work and carry appropriate levels of remuneration. They are usually advertised in employment listings, and appointments follow a competitive procedure. They often involve working to a set job description. Salaries are paid and are subject to tax and national insurance, and in many other ways such posts are comparable to ordinary employment. The Committee believes that it is right that people holding public service posts of that type should not be given a lesser degree of protection from discrimination.

It would be preferable — to enhance public confidence and having regard to the duties imposed by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — if Ministers and Departments were able to offer a full and public defence against any accusation of unlawful discrimination. There should be no need for Ministers to shelter behind special protection. It is to be hoped that Members will have the opportunity to debate the issue in more detail when the single equality Bill comes before the House.

I thank the Member and the Committee for their support for the Bill, for their significant work during the Committee Stage and for their help in getting us to the Consideration Stage today.

We are committed to establishing Invest Northern Ireland as soon as possible, and it is my intention that it should be established on 1 April 2002. I acknowledge the Committee’s concern on the issue raised by schedule 1, but the Committee, and its Chairperson, has acknowledged that it is a matter for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy Minister to consider, given that Department’s responsibility for anti-discrimination legislation and public appointments. I will draw the Member’s comments, and those of the Committee, to the attention of that Department.

TOP

Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill: Consideration Stage

A number of amendments have been tabled, and I trust that Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments. I trust that they also have my three revised groups of amendments. For the first group of amendments, it will be convenient to debate amendments 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 together.

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 5, at end insert —

No 5: In page 1, line 11, at end insert—

No 6: In page 1, line 1, leave out all from ‘or’ to end of line 19. — [Mr Ford.]

No 7: In page 1, line 19, at end insert—

No 8: In page 1, line 19, at end insert—

"(4) It shall not be lawful for any person to take a hare alive by trap or net for the purpose of coursing or hunting." — [Mr Ford.]

No 10: In the proposed new schedule, in line 9, at the end insert —

(Northern Ireland) 1928 (c. 25) In section 7(4), the words from "provided that" to the end.’— [Mr Ford.]

The amendments, all of which I will speak to now, relate to the conservation — or "preservation" in the language of 1928 — of the Irish hare. I am not putting a case against blood sports or putting a case for country sports. My amendments make the case for the conservation of a mammal that is severely under threat from numerous quarters.

This morning, many Members will have received an e-mail from the League Against Cruel Sports. I wish to quote one section from that:

‘There is understandable concern that the seasons for hare coursing and hunting are too long in relation to the hare’s breeding season. In the absence of a ban on hunting, an option would be to introduce a closed season.’ "

That is what I seek to do.

Before I outline the general case and discuss the detail of each amendment, it is perhaps necessary to restate what my amendments are not concerned with. Last Friday, several Members received an e-mail — I believe that a copy was addressed to you, Mr Speaker — from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) that fundamentally misinterpreted two of the amendments tabled in my name and that of Mrs Eileen Bell. I must refer to that. It appears that BASC, in suggesting that amendment No.1 relates to the shooting of partridge and snipe, has failed to distinguish between the amendment Bill and the Act that it will amend. Amendment No.1 relates solely to section 7(1)(a) of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928, which is solely concerned with hares. It does not refer to partridge or snipe.

BASC made similar erroneous comments about amendment No. 6. I am happy to confirm that after I pointed that out, I received an apology by e-mail this morning. Sadly, the apology appears to have come to me alone, even though the initial allegations were sent to several Members.

It is appropriate that I should read to the House an e-mail from Mr Gorman of BASC:

I suspect that Members who received that e-mail on Friday can now ignore it. It has been shown to be inaccurate as far as it refers to my amendments, as opposed to Mr Leslie’s.

There is no doubt that the Irish hare is under severe threat. In the biodiversity strategy for Northern Ireland, which was drawn up by the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group and supported by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of the Department of the Environment, the Irish hare is one of only three species that have been selected for a specific Northern Ireland action plan. The others are the chough and the curlew. The Irish hare is the only mammal that is seen as needing its own plan.

The species action plans were published in October. Although they included numerous recommendations, no action has been taken by the Department of the Environment. There is no doubt that field survey was delayed by foot-and-mouth disease — a convenient excuse but, nonetheless, valid in this case. The best information available is now at least five or six years out of date, as it is derived from data collected in a survey between 1994 and 1996. I understand that the Department is due to start the next survey of hare numbers in the spring of 2002.

I will quote three paragraphs from ‘Northern Ireland Species Action Plans’. Paragraph 1.2 says:

Paragraph 1.3 says:

What is a favourable conservation status?

Paragraph 5.1.3 refers to the intention to

Action was expected on that from the Department of the Environment, but, unfortunately, that has not happened.

The Environment and Heritage Service’s web site lists two papers concerned with the current status of Irish hares. One paper examines the distribution of hares in five areas of County Antrim and County Down and is incidental to a survey being conducted on foxes. The other paper is the PhD thesis and associated literature compiled by Dr Karina Dingerkus, under the supervision of Dr Ian Montgomery of Queen’s University, completed in 1997 and published in the academic journal ‘Game and Wildlife’ in September 1997. The thesis examined the distribution of hares in 150 areas of 1 sq km throughout Northern Ireland — rather greater than the areas considered by the more recent paper covering the winter and spring of 1994-95 and 1995-96. Dr Dingerkus wrote to the Environment Committee in January 2001, and I have also had a conversation with her. In ‘Game and Wildlife’, the inadequacies of the Department of the Environment’s approach are highlighted:

a study conducted some years ago —

In other words, the only in-depth study is being disowned and discarded by the Department, which is working on anecdotal evidence, and other anecdotal evidence appears to confirm the statements made by Dr Dingerkus and Dr Montgomery.

In her letter sent to the Committee in January, Dr Dingerkus said that the only thing that the Department had done since 1997 was to produce the biodiversity action plan. She said that of the 150 sq kms examined, 36% had no evidence of hares. Many farmers have spoken of a dramatic decrease in numbers, and that was confirmed by the recording of hares as locally extinct in over 11% of the areas surveyed. Dr Dingerkus also said that game bag records from a century ago showed much higher densities of hares and that estimates for Northern Ireland suggested that hare numbers could be as low as 8,250. In Dr Dingerkus’s opinion, the Irish hare could become extinct in 20 to 30 years. The possible extinction of a mammal that is, supposedly, on a protected list should be of concern to the Department. However, the matter does not seem to have attracted much attention so far. Dr Dingerkus also referred to important issues such as habitat management. Those issues can be — and are — addressed elsewhere. The final paragraph of the letter reads:

Everyone in the Chamber should listen to that this morning.

The Committee has asked numerous questions of the Department in the past year. Departmental staff have appeared before the Committee and written numerous responses, although it would be difficult to suggest that they replied to the questions asked or answered them properly in many cases. I will give the House a brief sample. On 2 January 2001, a question was asked regarding the returning of hares to the area from which they had been taken, which is a Department of the Environment requirement under a licence to net for coursing. It was admitted that two hares had been taken from Rathlin Island in September 2000. The Department subsequently requested that neither of them be released on Rathlin, because the two animals could not be identified individually and because releasing non-Rathlin hares might cause genetic contamination of the local stock. That is a wonderful example of how the licences are enforced. The Department makes a condition and then asks that it not be enforced, because there are further problems.

Does the Member accept that, at the time, there were concerns about diseases coming onto Rathlin Island and that, for the safety of the island, it was sensible to diverge from the rule?

I accept that there were good reasons why the hares should not have been released back to Rathlin Island when their identities were unknown. However, the story suggests that the Department cannot enforce the conditions of its own licences.

On 5 September, the Environment Committee was told that the Minister had decided that the issue of permits to net hares could not be resisted on conservation grounds, because the current legislation was inadequate. If that is the case, I presume that the Minister will accept the stiffening of the legislation by our amendments. If he argues that the legislation is inadequate, but does not accept our amendments, there will be serious questions about what the Department is up to.

On 4 October, the Committee received information from the Department on the status of the second, more recent hare survey. The precise phrase used was that the data was "collected opportunistically" when a PhD student from Queen’s University was surveying the population of foxes. The word "opportunistic" may mean "fortunate", but it also suggests that the data was not collected because of deliberate action by the Department. Nonetheless, the data seems to have been given the same importance as the detailed survey conducted some years before.

On 26 October, the Committee received further correspondence from the Department, including the following choice paragraph:

If there were a natural expansion, that would appear to be a logical statement. However, since everybody seems to accept that there is actually a decrease in the number of hares, the Department’s reference to natural expansion clouds the issue.

Most recently, on 21 November, the Department responded to concerns about the damage that might be done to hares if they were coursed and then released. The Department had raised the concern that the hares’ fecundity might be impaired — in other words, they might be unable to breed. The Department now seems to be concentrating on the effects of stress on the reproduction of the snowshoe hare in North America. The simple fact is that the Department cannot say how many hares it expects to be affected.

In the same letter, there is a reference to the Dingerkus and Montgomery study, which, it says, gave the Department cause for concern. The final paragraph of the letter says that

I suggest that there is no valid evidence of the numbers and no evidence of the effects of coursing or, more particularly, of the attempts to snare hares which then escape, perhaps damaged and unable to breed. Typically, the Department has failed to follow through on its concerns. It is entirely appropriate that the Assembly should give the hare much higher conservation status than the Department has been willing to do. I will explain the detail of the amendments.

I remind the Member that he has been on his feet for some time.

I was not aware that there were time limits.

There are not, but there may be limits to the House’s patience.

I will endeavour to ensure that I cover all the amendments in the remaining time, Mr Speaker.

Amendment No 1 is a simple matter of extending the close season, taking account of the breeding season for hares. It seeks to ensure that if the Act cannot be amended in order to provide total protection for hares, maximum protection possible, consistent with the seasons, will be applied.

For the sake of clarity, will the Member explain what the season would be if amendment No 1 were agreed to?

The season would exist from 26 December to 31 December.

That is too long.

I look forward to a further amendment from my colleague at the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Amendment No 5 crucially removes the specific exemption that allows coursing to take place during the close season. It is illogical to have a close season and then allow coursing to take place within that period.

Amendments Nos 6 and 7 are purely consequential to amendment No 5. Amendment No 8 is a key amendment that relates to the Department’s current powers to authorise snaring or netting for coursing. The amendment removes the Department’s power to authorise such activity. Amendment No 10 is an amendment to the schedule consequential to amendments Nos 5 and 7 being agreed.

I trust that giving an explanation for the amendments has not detained the House too long. I draw the attention of the House to a superb cartoon by Ian Knox that appeared in ‘The Irish News’ in January 2001, which shows a hare being pursued by two dogs across the front lawn of Parliament Buildings. The caption reads:

There is a man hiding in the shrubbery, and the caption continues:

The House should present a happy new year to the hares and the Environment Minister by passing the amendments and ensuring that the present situation does not continue.

Before addressing the group of amendments, I will refer briefly to the work of the Environment Committee during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

The Committee ordered its report on the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill to be printed on 18 October 2001 after consideration of the Bill at its four meetings during September and three in October. The Committee received evidence from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) and the Countryside Alliance Northern Ireland. I particularly thank Ronan Gorman of BASC and Will Chambré of the Countryside Alliance Northern Ireland for their assistance to the Committee in the preparation of its report and for their significant contribution to the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 that will be considered later.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their willingness to listen to the views expressed during Committee Stage and for their efficiency in reflecting those views in the Minister’s proposed amendments. I stress to the House that — as recorded in the Committee’s report — the Committee did not propose to bring forward amendments to the clauses of the Bill, and it has not done so.

Amendments No 1, No 5, No 6, No 7, No 8 and No 10 proposed by Mr Ford principally address the lawful taking and killing, or destroying, of hares for hunting and coursing under the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928.

As Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment I want to put on record the following: the Committee has, for over 12 months, been questioning and opposing the Department of the Environment’s practice of issuing licences to capture live hares for hare coursing. The Committee has serious concerns about the acknowledged decrease in the hare population throughout Northern Ireland. However, these specific amendments to the Bill before the House, with the exception of the Minister’s amendments, were not considered by the Committee, so I cannot give the Committee’s views on them.

In conclusion, the Committee received clear information to the effect that the Irish hare is an endangered species. I have made my concern clear, as other Members of the Committee have done, at the lack of up-to-date data in the Department. Every protection should be given to this endangered species, and it should be made unlawful to trap or net hares for coursing.

I want to address Mr Ford’s amendments briefly. I share the concerns that he and Dr McCrea have about the low number of hares on the evidence of my own eyes. I see far fewer over the winter than I would have done 15 years ago.

Very few people would shoot a hare nowadays because the numbers are scarce. I know a considerable number of landowners who will not permit the shooting of hares. A considerable effort is being made within shooting to acknowledge the position of hares, and a case could be made for shortening the season, which currently runs from 12 August to 31 January. I will not propose any amendments during the next Stage on this. However, if the season were to be shortened, it should be by the December/January part, as this is closer to the pairing off and breeding season in March and April.

I do not agree with Mr Ford’s contention that trapping hares for coursing contributes significantly to their decline, as almost all go back into the wild. The practices of hare coursing here are exemplary; I regret to say that in England they do not muzzle dogs, and hares are killed during coursing. That is not the case here, although sometimes things go wrong for other reasons.

A healthy interest in coursing means a healthy interest in hares, and people engaged in the sport have more reason than anyone to ensure that the Irish hare increases in number. Likely changes in agricultural practices, such as a move away from intensive farming, would be the best possible tonic for the hare population. I am hopeful that over coming years we will be able, largely because of that, to reverse its decline. However, I oppose this group of amendments.

I enjoy watching wildlife programmes on television. It is impossible not to marvel at the amazing variety and beauty of mammals, birds, fish and insects in their natural habitats. It is also impossible not to be struck by the fact that almost every species survives by hunting, killing and eating other living creatures — nature red in tooth and claw.

Of course, humans are different: we are humane. When someone carries out a particularly vicious or nasty act, we say that they are beastly, or that they are no better than animals. We have got it wrong. Animals must hunt and kill to survive; they have no choice.

They do not carry out these acts for fun or sport, except now and again. A cat will sometimes toy with, or torment, a mouse before killing it. I have seen a school of killer whales play, with apparent enjoyment, "pass the parcel" with an unfortunate seal — good hunting. The irony is that we recoil from such sights, not because those creatures are being beastly, but because their behaviour is almost human. The victim is no longer food; it is "game".

It should be obvious by now that I find it difficult to feel enthusiasm for legislation that deals with hunting and killing, even when the title of the Bill includes the word "preservation". The Bill has little to do with the preservation of partridges, snipe or hares so that they can live happily in the wild and be eaten by foxes. It deals with those creatures as "game", and they are described as being

I received a letter from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which stated that

That must be a great comfort to the partridges as they are lined up to be shot by our local sporting heroes and by visitors from other lands.

I am privileged to live in a truly beautiful rural area. At times, I have to stop my car a few hundred yards from my home to avoid running over a dozen or so newly released young pheasants, milling about forlornly in the middle of the road. As I shepherd them into a field, they cluster around me as if I were their long-lost father. If I were a sportsman, I could easily break a record by despatching 10 or 12 pheasants with a single shot, although they come so close that I might also damage my toes.

The enlightened code of good shooting practice seems to dictate that birds must not be hunted until they are sufficiently mature. It is reassuring that they are given a good sporting chance to fight back with their vicious, animal ferocity: hell hath no fury like a mature partridge.

It has been said that man is a hunter who will hunt in any circumstances. If that is the case, it is preferable that he hunt animals rather than other men, and it is preferable that his hunting exploits be controlled by legislation.

As a meat eater, and a conscience-stricken member of the Committee for the Environment, I shall not oppose the Minister’s Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill and shall give due consideration to the other amendments, but I am not a happy bunny.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. My party supports the broad intention of the Bill. However, some serious issues with regard to hare coursing have not been considered. The Minister advised the Committee for the Environment that he would address the issue, and we look forward to a speedy response.

There are many competing claims and concerns, including animal cruelty and the depletion of the hare population. The hare population is decreasing, but that is largely due to their loss of habitat, which is an important matter in itself. Agriculture takes its toll also — for example, combine harvesters destroy the habitat of the young hare.

Since 1993, dogs involved in hare coursing have been muzzled, and veterinarians who are on hand during coursing have assured me that all precautions are taken to promote the safety of the hare.

The issue of the rural economy is also important. As coursing is an important part of the greyhound industry, it has an economic aspect. Those involved in the industry have taken many precautions, such as muzzling dogs, to ensure that the sport is more humane. The netting of hares is carried out under licence and is supervised by the Department of the Environment’s Environment and Heritage Service.

I do not support Mr Ford’s amendments, which go beyond the intentions of the Bill and have not been subject to any public consultation. At present, many land managers who are interested in shooting carry out positive action for hare conservation. This practice might not continue if the season were to last for only six days. It should also be noted that Christmas Day is not one of the six days for hare coursing.

Bodies with interests in shooting game are the only ones who are carrying out positive action for hare conservation, such as habitat management and the control of predators that have a profound effect on young hares. The current level of hare shooting is sustainable. This amendment would mean the unjustifiable loss of opportunity, as it is widely accepted that it is changes in agricultural practices that have led directly to the decline in the hare population.

Mr Leslie has raised concerns at Committee level. However, Mr Ford has signed off the report. He produced his amendment at the last minute. I support the Bill but not the amendment. Go raibh maith agat.

I am concerned about the amendments that we are debating today. I do not deny that the Member has a right to have his say. However, the consultation process on party shooting took three years.

As one who has pursued hares as part of the country sport of rough shooting, I have some knowledge of the subject. I have not shot a hare on our land for at least ten years. We do not shoot hares any more, because there are not as many of them as there used to be. We used any hares that we took, and there was no waste.

These amendments affect the shooting fraternity, which is self-regulating. Its regulations have been effective. Those who have an interest in the hare will ensure that the population increases. There are approximately two or three hares on our land on the Ards Peninsula. They are completely protected, nobody chases them, and they are left alone. Their numbers have remained the same for the last few years, but we hope that they will increase.

I do not know how many hares there are in Northern Ireland, and a survey should be carried out across the Province to ascertain their numbers. As far as I am aware, the only two places in the Province where the hare population is large and increasing are Rathlin Island and the Belfast International Airport at Aldergrove. People who have flown into Aldergrove may have seen the hares on the grass by the runway, and visitors to Rathlin may have seen large numbers of hares.

Farming practices have changed; more pesticides are used, and the hedges have been removed. These things have changed the habitat, and they are contributing factors to the decrease in hare populations. That has to be taken into consideration when discussing the amendments.

There has also been a large increase in the number of foxes, which has led to a decrease in the number of hares. That is one reason why hares are under threat. If the number of hares has decreased, and information indicates that that is so, it is time for action to be taken. We are aiming for maximum protection of the Irish hare. Landowners, farmers and those involved in leisure activities in the countryside are clearly protective of the hare. Protection is already in place through self-regulation, which shows the remarkable contribution from those involved in countryside activities.

TOP

Next >>