Northern Ireland Assembly, 26 November 2001

97 contributions from 30 members. The official report.

Assembly Business: Suspect Package

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I advise Members that the sitting commenced later than usual today due to a health alert over a package that was received this morning at the rear of the Building. Safety procedures have been put into operation. The area has been sealed off, and the matter is being attended to.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development expressed a wish to make a statement to the Assembly about the non-prosecution of persons allegedly guilty of making fraudulent sheep subsidy claims?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have not received a request from the Minister, or from any Member, to make a statement on that issue.

Pauline Armitage (Independent, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to inform the House that I received a package similar to the aforementioned package at my home on Saturday morning. I called out the police and the Fire Brigade. I have also received 10 anonymous letters. Since 2 November, the police have been at my house more times than in my entire life. I ask whoever is responsible to leave me alone.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The House is concerned about harassment of any of its Members. Although the Member says that she has received a similar package, that may not be the case. It is not clear what the package received here contains. The package raised health concerns rather than security concerns.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I condemn attacks on Members. The House expresses its abhorrence of the attacks on Ms Armitage.

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you consider the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development’s non-attendance and the absence of a statement on the non-prosecution of fraudulent sheep subsidy claimants to be a matter of contempt?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member will resume his seat. He is not making a point of order; he already knows the answer. It is for Ministers to decide whether they wish to speak. The Member is making a point of politics. He ought not to enter into matters of that kind. Points of order are not to be used to raise points of politics, although that is frequently the case.

Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill: First Stage

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Iarraim cead an Bille seo a leanas a leagan faoi bhráid an Tionóil. Is é sin Bille do dhéanamh socrú faoi mheasúnuithe ar riachtanais cúrámóirí, faoi sheirbhísí tacaíochta do chúrámóirí agus faoi nithe gaolmhara.

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 1/01] to make provision for the assessment of carers’ needs; to provide for services to help carers; to provide for the making of direct payments to persons in lieu of the provision of personal social services or carers’ services; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Industrial Development Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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.

Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 (Invest Northern Ireland)

Question proposed

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

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.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

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.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 4 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

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

‘(a) in paragraph (a) for "February" substitute "January" and for "eleventh day of August" substitute "twenty fifth day of December";’.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

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

‘(2A) In section 7, subsection (2) shall be omitted.’ — [Mr Ford.]

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—

‘(3A) In section 7(4), the words from "Provided that" to the end shall be omitted.’— [Mr Ford.]

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

‘(3B) In section 7D, for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—

"(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 —

‘The Game Preservation Act Section 7(2).

(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:

"The Burns Inquiry, set up in England and Wales, to examine the question of hunting with dogs, said:

‘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:

"Thank you for clarification of your amendment to Clause 1. I am pleased that it doesn’t relate to the shooting season for partridges and snipe."

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:

"populations are thought to have undergone a substantial decline in the last 10-20 years. … Population levels may have fallen to critical levels in some areas."

Paragraph 1.3 says:

"The Irish hare is a quarry species … It is listed in Annex V (a) of the EU Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive), which determines that such species may be exploited provided that this is compatible with their maintenance at a favourable conservation status."

What is a favourable conservation status?

Paragraph 5.1.3 refers to the intention to

"review and, if necessary, increase the level of protection given to the Irish hare in the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985."

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:

"Again records do appear to be relatively similar to the present study" —

a study conducted some years ago —

"however, the present study engaged a higher level of effort in the field while both Arnold’s and Ni Lamhna’s early efforts were only based on incidental records."

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:

"I would like to urge you and your colleagues to do what you can to protect this wonderful species."

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.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

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?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

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:

"Moreover, ecological evidence indicates that the main factors limiting the hare population are the availability and quality of habitat. This suggests that the loss of some hares would soon be compensated for by the natural expansion of the population to reoccupy the habitat vacated."

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

"In the Department’s opinion, the precautionary principle does not apply here, as we have evidence of the probable hare population and evidence that this is not threatened by legal hare coursing."

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.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I was not aware that there were time limits.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

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.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

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

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The season would exist from 26 December to 31 December.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

That is too long.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

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:

"A happy new year to the rare and beautiful Irish hare, officially an endangered species but still legally trapped and hunted to the verge of extinction".

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

"and a happy new year to that other most timid of mammals — the Environment Minister who issues the licences!".

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.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

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.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

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.

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

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

"vitally important components in the rural economy".

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

"Shooting provides a major incentive for the management of land — its conservation achievements are recognised by the Environment and Heritage Service through a joint statement of common interest with BASC".

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.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

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.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

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.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank all Members who participated in the debate for their undoubted interest and the intensity of their arguments. I also thank Mr Ford for his comments. He has certainly read up on the subject, although I refute his attempt to castigate the Department and his references to inadequacies within it. Those are entirely unjustifiable.

I thank David Ford for his clarification of amendment No 1, which, taken with other amendments in that Member’s name, would shorten the open season for the hare. The amendments would remove section 7(2) of the Game Preservation (Northern Ireland) Act 1928. It would reduce, by two months, the open season for pursuing or killing hares by hunting with dogs, or by coursing. The amendments would also replace the provisions of section 7D, subsection 4, of the 1928 Act, which would ban the organised coursing of Irish hares which have been trapped or netted in Northern Ireland throughout the remaining open season from 12 August to 31 January.

The amendment would not prevent imported live hares from being used in organised coursing during the open season. The remaining amendments are consequential to those two proposals. I am aware of the need to keep the hare population in Northern Ireland under review. I am also aware of the many concerns expressed by Members and by the Committee for the Environment. I pay tribute to the Committee for its help and co-operation in this matter.

As part of the wider biodiversity process, the Department has drawn up a species action plan for the Irish hare. The Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) is drawing up an implementation plan for a range of biodiversity actions. The EHS intends to publish the plan by March 2002. The plan will cover a wide variety of measures, some of which will contribute to the conservation of habitats used by the Irish hare, such as semi- natural grasslands and upland heath. Those will in turn benefit the hare and other species that share its habitats.

The Department will also undertake a repeat survey of hares to ascertain what further steps, if any, need to be taken to protect the species. However, a survey was also carried out between 1997 and 1999 in County Antrim and County Down, which was extrapolated to all Northern Ireland, that estimated that the hare population was 16,500. That figure is similar to the median hare population estimated by the Dingerkus study, which was undertaken between 1994 and 1996.

The proportion of the hare population that is affected by hunting or organised coursing is very small and is of negligible importance to both the current size of the population here and to the normal fluctuations in populations of small mammals such as the hare. Mr Ford has already mentioned ecological evidence. Such evidence indicates that the main factors limiting the hare population are the availability, non-availability and quality of habitat. That suggests that the loss of some hares would soon be compensated by the natural expansion of the population to reoccupy the vacated habitat. The amendment would encourage the undesirable practice of bringing in live hares from outside Northern Ireland.

In the light of that, and because the conservation status of the species and the issues affecting it are still under investigation, I am not in a position to support the amendment.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank some of the Members who spoke, and in particular Dr McCrea, to whom I should apologise. Forming these amendments depended to some extent upon the Minister’s changing the long title of the Bill and, given their late timing, I was unable to mention them at the Committee meeting last week.

I thank Mr Arthur Doherty in particular for his support. I would ask on what basis Mr Mick Murphy’s talk about economic benefits should be considered. If we are facing the serious and potential destruction of a mammal in the next 20 or 30 years, some minor economic benefits seem rather less important.

Mr Shannon said that hares are common on Rathlin Island and at Aldergrove. When did he last see hares in any number at Aldergrove?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

In August.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I represent Aldergrove, and anyone who travels regularly through the airport knows that there are now far fewer hares than there were 10 or 20 years ago. It is deeply regrettable that, despite his having no evidence to show that the status of hares is acceptable at the moment, the Minister is unwilling to apply the precautionary principle. I will persist in promoting this amendment.

Question put

The Assembly divided: Ayes 24; Noes 43

Ayes

Mrs E Bell, Mr Berry, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Close, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Ervine, Mr Ford, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr B Hutchinson, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr McCarthy, Rev Dr William McCrea, Ms McWilliams, Ms Morrice, Mr Morrow, Mr Poots, Mr M Robinson, Mr Watson, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson.

Noes

Mr Adams, Mr Attwood, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mr Byrne, Mr Cobain, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Mr A Doherty, Mr Fee, Mr Foster, Ms Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Ms Hanna, Dr Hendron, Mr Hussey, Mr J Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maskey, Mr McClarty, Dr McDonnell, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Mr Savage, Mr Tierney, Mr Trimble, Mr Weir, Mr J Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 2: In page 1, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—

‘"(bb) any snipe during the period commencing on 1st February in any year and ending with 31st August next following;

(bbb) any partridge during the period commencing on 1st February in any year and ending with 14th September next following;"; and’

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 3: In page 1, line 7, leave out from "any" to the end of line 9 and insert—

‘any partridge during the period commencing on 1st February in any year and ending with 14th September next following;"; and’ — [Mr Leslie.]

No 4: In page 1, line 7, leave out "or snipe". — [Mr Leslie.]

I was not expecting to address a full House on the amendment, but I shall make the most of the opportunity.

The three amendments that I have tabled relate to the main substance of the Bill, which is concerned with changing the partridge season. They also refer to snipe. I wish to speak separately about partridges and snipe because the two are — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

The two birds are completely different. Partridges are reared; their numbers can be replaced and augmented by rearing. Without rearing, there would be no partridges in Northern Ireland and without shooting there would be no rearing of partridges. That situation is created by, and for, the shooting fraternity. Snipe, about which I shall say more later, are completely different. A snipe is a wild bird, and different considerations apply to wild birds. Some of those considerations are almost contradictory to those that apply to reared birds. I expressed reservations about those matters at Second Stage. Unfortunately, I missed the key Committee meetings, but, I expressed my reservations to the Committee and advised it of my intention to table amendments.

As regards partridges, the thrust of the first two amendments is that, instead of moving the season from its current start of 1 October to 1 September — thereby extending the season by one month — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Members who wish to have conversations should do so in the Lobby, so that those who wish their education to be enlarged may hear what Mr Leslie has to say.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I suggest that, instead of extending the partridge season by one month, we should compromise on two weeks, starting the season in the middle of September. The reason is that it is difficult to be sure of producing fully mature partridges by 1 September. I cite as evidence for that the fact that few shoots, even in the south of England, would start shooting partridges on 1 September even though they are entitled to do so under the Regulations. There is no question but that mature partridges can be produced quickly. It would involve a bit of interfering with the breeding cycle, but modern genetics has no difficulty with that. It would involve stuffing a lot of antibiotics into the partridges.

There is another reason why it is a bad idea. My hope is that we can re-introduce the grey partridge into Northern Ireland and introduce the red-legged, or French, partridge as a wild bird. However, birds stuffed full of antibiotics will not make it in the wild. They will just about last out the shooting season, and are unlikely to form wild breeding stock. That is another reason why we are not proceeding by the optimum means.

At Second Stage, and in subsequent discussions, I was concerned to hear that the main argument advanced was that there were important commercial considerations and that increasing the partridge season by a month would be of great commercial value. That is not a good argument for shooting. The preservation of wildlife, the enhancement of its habitat and caring for that wildlife — matters discussed earlier in the debate about hares — are the arguments that I would advance in favour of shooting. I am uncomfortable with the commercial argument. As I said, I acknowledge that, as agricultural practices change and the areas of cultivated land in Northern Ireland are likely to decline, people will seek other uses for that land. A reasonable use would be more widespread shooting, most of which would be commercial.

The people best placed to judge whether partridges are fit to shoot on 1 September would be those who rear them or the people in charge of the shoot. I entirely accept that. Unfortunately, that is where we bump into a problem with advancing the commercial argument for partridge shooting. Someone may have booked a group of people from abroad — Italy, for example, which is typically a place where they would come from — to come and shoot partridges in Northern Ireland during the first week of September. If it is discovered in early or mid-August that the partridges will not be ready, it is unlikely that people will be able to re-arrange their plans. Judgements about the state of the partridges will be made after the bookings have been made. If groups of foreign visitors come to Northern Ireland to shoot partridges during the first two weeks of September, those partridges will be shot whether they are ready or not. Therefore, despite the best intentions, there is the potential for shooting — perhaps inadvertently — to get itself a bad name. The commercial arguments are flawed.

It is safe to start the season on 1 October. However, people with long experience of rearing partridges without genetic modification have told me that they would be unsure about the strength of their birds by that date. If compromise is reached and the season begins in mid- September, shooting will take place in a proper and sporting manner.

Shooting has another value for partridges. Partridges live in family groups called covies. One of the benefits of shooting is that it breaks up those covies. Partridges then mix and breed with other covies in the wild. One reason why native grey partridges died out in Northern Ireland was that they remained in their own covies and interbred and, as a result, weakened their own stock. That was quite apart from their other problems, such as loss of habitat and predators. There are some grey partridges left in the Republic of Ireland. With the current enthusiasm for the reintroduction of the grey partridge, it may be possible to reinstate the breed. The enthusiasm of the shooting fraternity would be essential to that.

Those are the reasons why I believe that the House should extend the partridge season by, at most, a fortnight, and not by a month as is proposed in the Bill.

The snipe season starts on 1 September and ends on 31 January. That was set by a 1954 amendment to the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928, consolidating into the main legislation the current practice of shooting snipe. The House should consider whether it is appropriate to consolidate the season on those dates, rather than shorten it by a month. If the snipe season were to start on 1 October, it would be set on the same basis as the woodcock season. The woodcock is the other principal wild bird shot in Northern Ireland. Snipe numbers, having fallen to a worryingly low level a few years ago, seem to have revived recently. There is no argument that numbers are falling; they appear to be rising. However, I repeat my dissatisfaction with the commercial argument. Unfortunately, some commercial shooting of snipe is taking place. We must be cautious about that, because wild birds that are shot commercially cannot be replaced by breeding. It is likely that if the season for the commercial shooting of partridges is extended, visiting sportsmen will be tempted to have another couple of days’ sport by increasing the shooting of wild snipe. It would, therefore, be prudent to reduce the snipe season by a month and start it from 1 October.

Currently, self-regulation within shooting preserves the snipe population. However, there is always the danger that commercial interests can occasionally intervene to overcome the best instincts of self-regulation. It would be sensible to amend that rule and to remove some of that temptation. The biggest self-regulator of the shooting of snipe in September is the snipe. There are few of them to be found in Northern Ireland at that time, unlike in Scotland.

Amendment No 2 would confirm the snipe season as it is, and it would vary the proposal on the partridge season to the compromise position of having the season start in the middle of September. Amendment No 3 would also compromise on the partridge season at mid-September, but it would shorten the snipe season, starting it on the same day as the woodcock season, which is 1 October.

Amendment No 4 is a saver, in that it accepts that the partridge season should start on 1 September, but leaves out the words "or snipe". That would put snipe into the "any other game bird" category, the result being that the snipe season would start on 1 October.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I am a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), the voice of the shooting fraternity, which has a degree of professionalism that is the envy of many other bodies representing sporting interests and other outdoor recreational pursuits. BASC has approximately 6,000 subscribing members and is recognised as an authoritative voice by statutory and voluntary agencies in Northern Ireland. The association, together with participants in the sport of shooting, contributes an estimated £15 million to the Northern Ireland economy annually.

The principal objective of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill is to extend the annual shooting season for partridge so that it commences on 1 September. That change will bring the shooting season for partridges into line with Scotland, England and Wales.

A public consultation exercise showed that a majority was in favour of commencing the shooting season for partridge on 1 September. The Committee for the Environment considered the matter in detail and supported the extension to the shooting season. I draw Members’ attention to paragraph 10 of the explanatory and financial memorandum, which shows the wide variety of opinion that supported the Bill.

The concern that partridges are immature by 1 September is unfounded. It is close to suggesting that there is a level of irresponsibility in the management of shoots across the Province. BASC is widely accepted as the foremost authority on the management of shooting in Northern Ireland. It is the view of the organisation — I share the view — that with appropriate management partridges can be fully mature by 1 September. Many factors have a direct effect on the maturity of game birds that are reared and released. Dates of release, stocking densities, habitat type, weather conditions, diet and the prevalence of disease and its treatment, among other factors, will determine how partridges develop.

The shoot manager is the appropriate person to decide whether partridge are sufficiently mature to present a sporting opportunity. The code of good shooting practice, which is supported by all the major shooting organisations, makes specific provision for the rearing and release of game birds, including partridge. It is widely accepted that there is a high level of self-regulation in shooting sports, and there is no evidence of bad practice in game management.

The amendments are unnecessary and will defeat the principal purpose of the Bill, which is to bring shooting practices in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I oppose the amendments put forward by Mr Leslie for several reasons. The consultation process has taken upwards of three years to complete. It involved individuals and the shooting organisations — the BASC and the Countryside Alliance in Northern Ireland. It also involved game conservation interests, individual farmers and shoot owners. The consultation was wide and far- reaching.

Like many others, I believe that the proposal put forward by Mr Leslie to change the date from 1 to 15 September does not add up. Indeed, his arguments are suspect. Shooting sports are already self-regulating. I said that in the last debate. The contribution of countryside sports cannot be ignored. The people involved in countryside sports have been actively involved in conservation. Conservation is high on their agenda. They are the ones who have planted the trees, created the ponds and maintained the hedgerows; they have reared and released the birds. We must underline the contribution that they have made.

I also want to consider tourism. There is potential for greater tourism, which can be realised and which will be to the benefit of many people. One example — not in my constituency but in the constituency of my Colleagues from North Antrim — is Rathlin Island. A very successful partridge shoot takes place there. The islanders have tried to bring people in specifically to take advantage of the opportunities for partridge shooting.

In Strangford, we have various shoots — Portaferry, Greyabbey and Ballywalter to name but three. There are many others involving the release of partridge for shooting on the Ards Peninsula. Again, those have shown the potential to create employment — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

They give an economic boost to people who live in the area. There are benefits for the owners of bed and breakfast accommodation, hotels and restaurants — indeed, for many of the people who live in that area. Our agriculture industry and our countryside need that economic benefit, they need it quickly. The amendments put forward by Mr Leslie have not addressed those issues.

Pheasant shooting takes place on 1 October. In most cases, people do not shoot the pheasants until the end of October, primarily because the birds are not mature enough. However, there are occasions in early October when it would be suitable to go out and take advantage of mature pheasant shooting. The same thing applies to partridge shooting. Partridge mature more quickly than pheasant, mallard or any other bird. They are ready for thriving in the countryside, they are healthy enough to live in the wilds, and they are ready for pursuit at 1 September. It does not matter whether it is at 15 September, as suggested by Mr Leslie. It does not make any difference — the birds are mature on 1 September. The climate here suits them. Indeed, it ensures that those birds are — [Interruption].

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Is that why they became extinct?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Reared partridge are not extinct, but perhaps the Member did not know that. We need a system — [Interruption].

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Would the Member confirm that his party is split on the early release of partridges?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Given where the Member is now seated in the House, it ill becomes him to judge whether other parties are split or not. I would, however, say that while I understand that the House may not have an intimate interest in the question of partridge, I would have thought that the issue of snipe was one to which Members could have paid at least some attention.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your comments. We must take all the important issues into consideration. The climate here suits the early release of partridge. It is down to the gamekeepers, to the shoot organisers and to the syndicates — they know whether the partridge are sufficiently mature and ready to pursue as rough shooting.

The organisations have supported the change in the legislation, which will bring us in line with England, Scotland and Wales, and also with Éire. It makes sense to have the same legislation here as across the water.

The amendments put forward by Mr Leslie are unnecessary and unworkable and do not address the issue. I had the pleasure of being in Mr Leslie’s company at a shoot at Ballydugan just over a year ago. I suspect that his amendments are similar to his shooting — way off target.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I know nothing whatsoever about this subject, other than — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

— other than the advice that has been offered from the opposite side of the House. However, I found the work of the Committee interesting. Mr Leslie said that he had concerns and reserved the right to bring them to the attention of the Assembly. I remain unconvinced that his amendment would have any appreciable benefit in relation to the concerns that he addressed. Advancing the season by a fortnight would have a negligible effect.

I am more concerned about endangered species — and I acknowledge that the Minister responded when these matters were raised. If there is the ability under statutory regulation to monitor and respond in order to provide the necessary protections, then I will be interested to hear the proposals or policy that the Minister will announce.

I have no interest in the sport of hunting — I have an instinct against it. However, I recognise that there is a legitimate constituency of people who derive pleasure from the sport. The efficacy of self-regulation will always be subject to debate between those who oppose and those who support. No evidence has been produced to support the amendments before us today. Therefore I support the view taken by the Environment Committee.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I am not a member of the Environment Committee — I wish I were — although I sometimes go along and listen. Some of the subjects discussed, including this one, are extremely interesting. I have not heard the full debate on this issue in the Committee, and many points have been made behind closed doors that I am not aware of. I understand that Mr Leslie raised these matters at the Committee, and they were debated. However, he was unsuccessful.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I draw to the House’s attention and that of my hon Friend the fact that our Committee is 99% open, and not behind closed doors.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I accept the hon Member’s point. He is the very wise Chairperson of that Committee, and I have seen him in action. He has always tolerated my coming along to listen as the unofficial member of the Environment Committee, and I stand corrected.

I am conscious that I have not heard the various arguments. Some of Mr Leslie’s arguments have considerable merit, but — as I will clarify later on — I will not be supporting them.

I was formerly employed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in monitoring wildfowling activity in the Lough Neagh area. If what I saw of the self- regulation of the shooting fraternity is anything to go by, then it is no regulation whatsoever. There are many instances of young birds, which are barely capable of flapping along the surface of Lough Neagh, being shot on 1 September. There does not seem to be any regard in the shooting fraternity for the age of the bird or its ability to escape. Assurances given by the partridge- shooting fraternity that they will ensure through self- regulation that young birds that cannot escape are not shot are frankly — [Interruption].

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Has the Member informed any of the shooting organisations, or the police, about these incidents? Does anyone else know about them apart from himself?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The incidents that I referred to are not illegal, because 1 September is recognised in law as the start of the wildfowling season. For instance, it is not unusual for tufted duck to produce young out of the nest by 16 August. The ducklings are in no position to escape being shot, but are shot nonetheless. I am not alleging anything improper or illegal — [Interruption].

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Has the Member seen any of these incidents?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I certainly have. Undoubtedly there will be those on the opposite Benches who will leap upon this as a split — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member who was speaking from a sedentary position to communicate in the normal fashion through the Chair.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Stop sniping.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Stop sniping, indeed. I can say to the Members on my left that this is the only split that they will ever see in the DUP. It is an indication of how united we are. Had they been with us on Saturday they would have seen a very united party indeed.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Is the Member telling us that he is in favour of the early release of partridges; the harmonisation of legislation with the Irish Republic, and the non-decommissioning of weapons?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Some of that was so deep that I missed it completely. It obviously escaped the entire House also. I am not in favour of harmonisation with any foreign state, including the Irish Republic. However, I am favour of actions being taken to ensure that young birds cannot be shot.

I will be totally honest and frank. How anyone could find entertainment and amusement from going out on a Saturday morning to shoot a wild bird totally escapes me. That is my personal opinion. However, I understand that there are others, in the House and in the community, who have a totally different view, to which they are entitled, as long as they remain within the law. I could not shoot a wild bird for sport.

Various points were made earlier about the so-called need for this. Mr Shannon, for instance, is a tall, well-built gentleman. No one can tell me that he needs to shoot for food to maintain his welfare, or that of his three children. I suspect that they may well be able to maintain a sensible lifestyle without the need for game birds.

This is being done entirely for enjoyment. I find that very difficult to accept, but there are others who have a different opinion. There are enormous pressures, however, on the managers of shooting estates to ensure that when parties arrive either from Northern Ireland or other parts of the United Kingdom, the birds are available to be shot. Those groups may be paying several thousand pounds. How can the manager tell them that they cannot shoot on a particular day because the birds are not mature enough? The economics are such that that is simply not possible. We have to establish in statute a date on which we can be fairly certain that the birds will be, by the natural way of things, ready to be shot and able to escape.

I disagree with Mr Leslie on the point about snipe. Snipe are currently under enormous pressure in Northern Ireland and throughout western Europe. The evidence from surveys in Britain has shown that the snipe population has fallen by 80% since 1970. In Northern Ireland, between 1987 and 1995, it has fallen by 22%. I took part in the survey in 1987 that established the baseline population figure.

The difficulty is that in winter, there is a large influx of Continental snipe into Northern Ireland, as well as jacksnipe. There are two species — jacksnipe, which is protected, and common snipe, which is not. Whilst the Continental population has remained fairly stable, the British — and by that I mean including Northern Ireland — population has declined quite dramatically. The difficulty is that the shooter cannot distinguish between British-bred snipe and Continental snipe. They are identical, so the Northern Ireland snipe population is shot along with the Continental immigrants. We should be restricting the shooting season for snipe to as short a period as possible because of the impact on the local snipe population. Therefore there is some merit in what Mr Leslie says. However, I was not at the Committee session to hear the counter- arguments, so I shall not be voting for the amendment.

I must nail the false view that shooters are the great supporters of conservation and that it is in their interest to maintain healthy stocks of wild birds for shooting. If only that were true. However, there has been a dramatic decline in many prey species in the past 30 years, and it has not been the shooting fraternity that has introduced conservation measures to protect them. Organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the National Trust, the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT) and similar organisations have acquired refuges to protect populations of endangered species.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I wish to correct the fallacy that the Member is trying to put about that the shooting fraternity plays little or no part in conservation. Were it not for the shooting fraternity, the cock pheasant — indeed, all pheasants — would probably be extinct in Northern Ireland. It is wrong for Mr Wells to suggest that the shooting fraternity is a selfish, indulgent crowd of people. It is the greatest conservationist of wildlife in Northern Ireland. I accept that other organisations, some of whom the Member has mentioned, play a significant part in conservation. I would like Mr Wells to withdraw his suggestion that the shooting fraternity has no concern for the preservation of wildlife.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

There is a slight divergence of emphasis between myself and the DUP’s Chief Whip. I suspect that there is a grey area that needs to be examined. I accept that Mr Morrow is an expert on shooting and I am not; I derive no enjoyment from killing wild animals.

However, Mr Morrow’s point is not borne out by the facts. Mr Leslie said that the shooting fraternity had preserved the partridge and that it was its aim to preserve the partridge for shooting. If that were so, why did the partridge become extinct in Northern Ireland in 1978? Granted, it was reintroduced by shooting interests, but if they had been protecting that species in the wild for shooting, why did it disappear? Why has the Irish hare population collapsed if those individuals protect and conserve its habitat?

Wildlife in Northern Ireland is under enormous pressure as a result of the intensification of agriculture. Hedges are being uprooted, and wetlands are being drained.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I need to keep some kind of control over this debate. There is obviously an element of control within the party that is properly the role of the Chief Whip. However, when it comes to debates in the House it moves to another place. If the Member wishes to speak, I am happy to call him to do so, but repeated interventions are not appropriate.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Are you protecting — [Interruption].

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I shall continue with my winding-up speech, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There is the question of endangered species.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The factors that I have mentioned are leading to the dramatic decline of wildlife in Northern Ireland. The shooting fraternity, whether it is conserving or otherwise, has little or no impact on that situation. Nobody can do anything about it. However, I shall bow to greater knowledge on the issue. I was not at the Committee session; I did not hear the debate. Therefore it would be unfair of me to make a judgement having heard only one side of the story. I shall abstain on the motion.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I commend Members for showing such interest in the debate. There is a feeling of concern, not TLC — tender loving care — for the subject. Much sniping has also been going on, so much so that I feel like a lion among a den of Daniels.

Amendment No 2, which was tabled by Mr Leslie, proposes that the close season for snipe end on 31 August, as detailed in clause 1 of the Bill, and that the close season for partridge end on 14 September and not 31 August, as detailed in the same clause.

Amendment No 3, tabled by Mr Leslie, reiterates the proposal contained in the second part of amendment No 2 pertaining to the close season for partridge, as contained in clause 1 of the Bill. Amendment No 4, tabled by Mr Leslie, proposes that snipe should be deleted from the provisions of clause 1 of the Bill.

The proposals contained in amendments No 2 and No 3 pertaining to partridges would reduce the new September season to two weeks, considerably eroding the prime purpose of the Bill. It would also run counter to the overwhelming support received for the measure generally, and particularly from sporting interests.

The advice given to the Assembly at the Second Stage of the Bill, and consequently to the Committee for the Environment, is that normally the birds are fully mature in September and — and I must emphasise this — that no responsible manager would wish to bring the sport into disrepute by releasing birds that were not fully mature. Such action would not be considered good sporting practice. I am confident that game managers will act responsibly in this.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance, Northern Ireland, supported this view in their evidence to the Committee for the Environment. The Committee indicated that in its report on the Bill and said that it was content with the proposal as contained in clause 1. The proposed extension will bring the legislation here into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the maturity of the birds has not been an issue.

With regard to amendment No 4 tabled by Mr Leslie, a statutory rule specifying the close season for snipe from 1 February to 31 August has been in force since 1 September 1954, which is, coincidentally, the same as the close season now being proposed for partridge in clause 1. As Mr Leslie has already said, the purpose of including snipe in clause 1 is to clarify the position within the context of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928. Its inclusion in the Bill will mean no change in the law for shooting snipe.

There is some reference to the numbers of snipe, and contrary to what Mr Wells has said, there is no evidence to suggest that the numbers of snipe are affected by shooting. The 1999-00 survey showed that there are more snipe in Northern Ireland since 1996, when the number was exceptionally high. I know Mr Leslie and others have considerable experience, and I fully recognise their concerns. However, for the reasons I have given I have decided not to accept these three amendments.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Members who have contributed. We have had a worthwhile discussion on this.

There are two matters here. Most Members addressed the matter of partridges, which is the main issue in the Bill. Less was said on the subject of snipe, which, as I said earlier, are different, being wild birds. I can see that snipe numbers could be an issue for a long time. My observation is that numbers have increased over the past four or five years. I would not be able to dispute with Mr Wells how numbers compare with numbers in 1970 — I see that Mr Wells has left us. They are probably lower now than they were then, but they are higher now than they were five years ago. It is difficult to count snipe — almost as difficult as it is to shoot them.

Mr Jim Wilson declared his membership of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. I am a member of the Countryside Alliance, which does not have any bearing on this. I said in the Second Stage debate that I rear, shoot and eat partridges.

It is wrong to make absolute declarations on the maturity of partridges. They are capable of being mature by 1 September, and if you seek that, you can achieve it, but not always. I know people who rear partridges and gamekeepers who keep them and arrange for them to be shot. Those people do not believe that it is realistic to have them mature by 1 September — some think it is quite difficult to do even by 1 October. It depends on how natural or unnatural the methods are. It also depends on the region. The chances of getting the birds ready early are better in the southern area. People are wrong to declare that it is a matter of absolutes. If self-regulation of the industry is used, I trust that it will work properly.

It has been amusing to watch the contortions that Mr Wells went through to avoid any idea that there might be a split in his party while at the same time supporting and enhancing all my arguments. It is a relief to Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches that all Members are free to argue their point of view, declare their intentions and vote accordingly despite the fact that they may not have the same view as their party Colleagues.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I point out to the House that if amendment No 2 is made, amendments No 3 and No 4 automatically fall. Should amendment No 2 fall, the mover will decide if he wishes to move amendment No 3. If so, it will be put to the House, and so on.

Question

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Noes have it, as Mr Byrne said, "just by a hair".

Amendment No 3 proposed

"any partridge during the period commencing on 1st February in any year and ending with 14th September next following;’; and" — [Mr Leslie.]

Question

Amendment No 4 proposed

Question

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I point out to the House that if amendment No 5 falls, amendments No 6 and No 7 also fall.

Amendment No 5 proposed

"(2A) In section 7, subsection (2) shall be omitted." — [Mr Ford.]

Question put

The Assembly divided: Ayes 29; Noes 33.

Ayes

Mr Attwood, Mrs E Bell, Mr Berry, Mr Byrne, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Mr Dodds, Mr A Doherty, Mr Fee, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mr Gibson, Ms Hanna, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Maginness, Mr McCarthy, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Poots, Mr M Robinson, Mr Shannon, Mr Tierney, Mr Watson, Mr Wells.

Noes

Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Dr Birnie, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Ms de Brún, Mr Foster, Ms Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hussey, Mr J Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr Maskey, Mr McClarty, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Mr Savage, Mr Trimble, Mr J Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment No 6 not moved.

Amendment No 7 not moved.

Amendment No 8 proposed

‘(3B) In section 7D, for subsection (4) there shall be substituted —

"(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.]

Question put

The Assembly divided: Ayes 21; Noes 33.

Ayes

Mrs E Bell, Mr Berry, Mr Byrne, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dallat, Mr Dodds, Mr A Doherty, Mr Ford, Mr Gibson, Ms Hanna, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Maginness, Mr McCarthy, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr M Robinson, Mr Tierney, Mr Watson, Mr Wells.

Noes

Mr B Bell, Rev Robert Coulter, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Ms de Brún, Mr Fee, Mr Foster, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr J Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maskey, Mr McClarty, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Mr Savage, Mr J Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members may not be aware that if tellers are not provided by one side or the other, the side that does not produce tellers loses the vote without a count. I draw that to the attention of the House.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Shooting of rabbits on agricultural land)

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move amendment No 9: In page 2, line 1, leave out clause 2 and insert

‘Protection of game and rabbits

2.— (1) For section 7A of the 1928 Act there shall be substituted—

"Protection of game and rabbits

7A—(1) Any person who kills, takes or destroys any game—

(a) on a Sunday; or

(b) during the period commencing one hour after sunset on any day and ending one hour before sunrise on the next day, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

(2) Any person who—

(a) at any time kills, takes or destroys any rabbit by means of a firearm on any land; and

(b) is not an authorised person in relation to that land, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.".

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the killing, taking or destroying of any rabbit in pursuance of any power conferred by or under—

(a) the Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (c.2); or

(b) the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (NI 22).

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) a person is an authorised person in relation to any land if he is, or is authorised by—

(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or

(b) a person who has a right of shooting on the land.".

(2) In section 9 of the Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (c.2) (right of occupier to kill rabbits, hares or deer damaging trees) in subsections (1) and (2) the word "rabbits,", wherever it occurs, shall be omitted.

(3) In section 10 of that Act (prevention of damage caused by rabbits, etc.) subsection (3) shall be omitted.

(4) In the Ground Game Act 1880 (c.47) (right of occupier to kill and take hares and rabbits) —

(a) in section 1, in subsection (1) —

(i) for the words "duly authorised by him in writing" there shall be substituted "authorised by him"; and

(ii) paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) shall be omitted;

(b) in section 1, subsection (3) shall be omitted; and

(c) section 10 shall be omitted.

(5) In the Miscellaneous Transferred Excise Duties Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c. 11) —

(a) in section 29(3) (persons not required to have game licence) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted—

"(c) any occupier of any land, or any person authorised by him, engaged in the killing or taking of ground game on that land;";

(b) in section 35(4) (sale by occupier of ground game killed or taken on his land) for the words from "duly authorised" to the end there shall be substituted "authorised by him to kill and take ground game";

(c) in section 37(1) (restriction on sales to licensed game dealers) the words "in accordance with the Ground Game Acts" shall be omitted;

(d) in section 41(b) (saving for rights of occupier under Ground Game Acts) for "Acts" there shall be substituted "Act 1880";

(e) in section 42 (interpretation) the definition of "the Ground Game Acts" shall be omitted.

(6) The statutory provisions set out in the Schedule are repealed to the extent specified in the second column of the Schedule.’

I propose the amendment as a result of representations made to me by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance in Northern Ireland to control pest rabbits. The amendment will regularise current practice, which has existed for some time. During its consideration of the Bill, the Committee for the Environment was made aware of the amendment, and it is content with it. I am grateful for its support.

The amendment will relax the existing controls on where and when rabbits can be shot, allowing for pest rabbits to be shot on any land at any time. However, it is subject to the requirement that the person must hold a valid gun licence and be legally authorised to shoot rabbits on the land in question.

Rabbits are defined as ground game for the purposes of the Ground Game Acts, the purpose of which is to allow farmers to control rabbits that damage their crops, without requiring a game licence. It will remain an offence to kill, take or destroy any game on a Sunday or at night or to take game or rabbits by cruel methods, as stipulated in article 12 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

The amendment necessitates several consequential amendments to related legislation. It retains the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s existing rights to allow duly authorised departmental officials, including vets, to kill, take for veterinary testing or destroy any rabbit, under the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, in the event of a risk of rabbits transmitting disease to livestock. It protects the existing rights of the Forest Service to prevent damage as a result of infestation in the vicinity of tree-planted land, after prior notice to the owner-occupier.

The provisions of amendment No 11 are consequential to amendment No 9 and necessitate the repeal of section 1(1)(a),(b), and (c), section 1(3) and section 10 of the Ground Game Act 1880. The amendment will also repeal in full the provisions of the Ground Game (Amendment) Act 1906, and I have detailed the reasons for that. Amendment No 12 takes account of the fact that the previous amendments require a change in the long title of the Bill.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I support the Minister’s proposed amendment to clause 2 and the associated amendments to the repeals schedule and long title. The amendments will bring the Bill into line with current practice and with the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. It will also allow for effective pest control on land types that are not covered by current legislation. The proposed amendment was put forward as a result of representations made to the Committee by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, with support from the Countryside Alliance in Northern Ireland. Representatives from those organisations agreed the terms of the Minister’s amendments on the protection of game and rabbits, the repeals schedule and the long title. The Committee for the Environment commends the amendments to the House.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I support the amendment. I compliment the Committee for the Environment on its support for the amendment — it is simply common sense. The amendments bring the regulations into line with what is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom and improve a system that has been outdated for far too long.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have listened with interest to both Members’ comments, which have been informative and supportive. I am grateful to the Committee for the Environment for its support and advice on the amendments, and on the Bill as a whole, at Committee Stage. I am satisfied that there are no conservation objections to the relaxation of the restriction. The change will regularise current practice.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New schedule

Amendment No 10 not moved.

Amendment No 11 made

‘SCHEDULE REPEALS

Short Title

Extent of repeal

5

The Ground Game Act 1880 (c.47)

In Section 1(1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Section 1(3). Section 10.

The Ground Game (Amendment) Act 1906 (c.21)

The whole Act.

10

The Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (c.2).

In Section (1) and (2), the word "rabbits" wherever it occurs. Section 10(3).

15

The Miscellaneous Transferred Excise Duties

Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c.22).

In section 37(1), the words "in accordance with the Ground Game Acts". In section 42, the definition of "the Ground Game Acts".’

— [The Minister of the Environment.]

New schedule agreed to.

Long Title

Amendment No 12 made

‘;and to amend the law relating to the killing, taking or destroying of rabbits and hares.’ — [The Minister of the Environment.]

Long title, as amended, agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Bill. The Bill now stands referred to the Speaker.

Committee Business: Salary of Comptroller and Auditor General

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I beg to move

That the annual salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General (NI) shall be increased to £105,893 with effect from 26 November 2001.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Following devolution of power to the Assembly, the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. These provisions provide that the salary payable to the Comptroller and Auditor General (NI) shall be determined by, or in pursuance of, a resolution of the Assembly and that the Assembly does not have power to reduce the salary payable to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Following correspondence with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Audit Committee agreed that until an agreed procedure was put in place for determining the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland with the appropriate level of scrutiny, the Audit Committee would carry out such functions in relation to its determination that it considered necessary. Over the past months, the Committee has examined the options for putting in place a formal procedure for doing so and will put forward proposals for approval by the Assembly in due course.

Under present arrangements, the annual pay award for the Comptroller and Auditor General is calculated using a formula linked to the judiciary group 5 spot rate and the salary payable to permanent secretaries of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That reflects an agreement between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Public Accounts Commission at Westminster prior to devolution. That agreement stipulated that the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland should be progressed along a scale, over a five-year period, that would align it with the judiciary group 5 by the time he reached 60. However, to prevent the C & AG’s salary from overtaking immediately that of a permanent secretary, a mechanism was incorporated into the formula to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General’s salary remained within 5% of that of a permanent secretary. The Audit Committee agreed that that arrangement should remain in place until proper procedures were in place, whereupon the formula could be reviewed.

At its meeting on 12 November, the Audit Committee considered the advice of the Department of Finance and Personnel for this year’s pay award, which was due to the Comptroller and Auditor General from 1 April. The Committee agreed with the Department’s recommendation that the salary should be raised to £105,893 and that the Minister of Finance and Personnel may pay arrears owing to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the annual salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General (NI) shall be increased to £105,893 with effect from 26 November 2001.

The sitting was suspended at 2.24 pm and resumed at 2.30 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Injuries Compensation

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Injuries Compensation, (1/01/R) established by resolution on 10 September 2001, and agrees that it be submitted to the Secretary of State as a Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Following the resolution of the Assembly on 10 September, the Ad Hoc Committee established to consider the proposal for a draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and its associated scheme met on 17 September, and I was elected as Chairperson. As Chairperson, it is my responsibility to present a report to the Assembly for its endorsement.

I shall give a brief overview of the background of the draft proposals and the work that the Committee undertook. In October 1997, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Rt Hon Dr Marjorie Mowlam MP, established the Northern Ireland’s Victims Commission to consider possible ways to recognise the pain and suffering felt by victims of violence associated with the troubles. That commission, chaired by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, reported in April 1998, and one of its recommendations was for the Government to establish an objective, independent and wide-ranging review of the fitness for purpose of the compensation system as it operated in Northern Ireland.

On 12 August 1998, the then Minister for Victims, Adam Ingram, announced the Government’s intention to establish such a review as part of the Victims Liaison Unit’s package of measures. That review was established, and, in July 1999, a report was issued for consultation, prior to the final recommendations being submitted to the Government.

I will list some of its recommendations for a fairer, more equitable, open and transparent system. Compensation should continue to be decided by the Compensation Agency, with a right of appeal to the courts; there should be a simpler method of deciding how much compensation is paid for less serious injuries; victims who suffer more serious injuries should continue to have their claims assessed as at present; where a person has died as a result of violent crime, an enhanced bereavement support payment should be payable up to a maximum for any one family of £50,000; compensation for psychiatric illness should be paid in a wider range of cases; there should be more flexibility in the time limit for making an application; and cases should be capable of being reopened in particular circumstances.

The Government’s response to those proposals was contained in the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and the draft Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2002. The Government did not accept all the review’s recommendations.

Over the past few weeks, the Ad Hoc Committee has heard evidence from various interested bodies — the Compensation Agency, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office and Victim Support Northern Ireland. During those meetings, many issues were raised, and the Committee considered each in detail.

The proposals are being taken forward by the Northern Ireland Office, and the Committee welcomed the opportunity to comment on them in their draft form. The key features of the proposed new arrangements are the introduction of a tariff of injuries, setting out the value of specific injuries; the hearing of appeals by an independent appeals panel; and the removal of paid legal assistance from the scheme, to be replaced by support and help from Victim Support Northern Ireland. There should also be wider eligibility criteria and other changes to eradicate anomalies; the removal of specific terrorist exclusion provisions; and provisions for past victims of child sex abuse, who cannot claim because of the current statutory time limits, to make a fresh claim.

The Committee had reservations about the proposed legislation. The assumption that a tariff system is in the best interests of victims of crime is erroneous. All the evidence suggests that it is a cost-saving exercise that will reduce the compensation paid to victims of crime, while removing paid legal assistance. The Committee felt that the removal of the right of appeal to the courts as part of the due process of law is fundamentally flawed and may be subject to challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Committee recognised the role played by Victim Support Northern Ireland over many years in supporting and counselling victims. However, the proposal to use Victim Support Northern Ireland in a quasi-legal support role is inappropriate, given the reservations outlined in its submission.

The Committee noted the core recommendations set out in the Law Society of Northern Ireland’s supplementary memorandum of evidence. It called for the establishment of a working party with a general remit to examine the compensation process. The key objective would be to bring about systematic improvement by addressing the problems of delay and ensuring transparency, communication and closer liaison among agencies in the system. The Committee encouraged the Northern Ireland Office to engage with the Law Society and give due consideration to its proposals.

In light of the Committee’s reservations about the proposed new arrangements, the Committee recommended that the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its current form. Despite a tight timescale, the Committee considered all the proposals, and, although some of them would be welcome, the Assembly should send a strong message to the Northern Ireland Office that the proposals should not be implemented as they stand in the draft Order and scheme. I recommend that all Members lend their support to our report and its recommendations.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Committee Clerk and his staff and those who gave evidence to the Committee or made written submissions that helped us in our consideration of the proposals. We were charged by the Assembly to produce a report by 27 November, and we have fulfilled that duty, albeit with just a day to spare. We held six Committee meetings, took oral evidence from four bodies and received submissions from another six. The record of that evidence is in annexes three and four of the report.

The Ad Hoc Committee took its scrutiny role seriously. Given the central importance of victims in our society, we were guided by a shared desire to recognise their trauma and continuing suffering. As far as possible, we also wished to ensure that society understood why victims deserved to have their suffering considered sensitively and practically. In that context, I welcome the proposal referred to in paragraph 66 on page 17 of the report, which seeks to introduce a "bereavement support payment". Victim Support Northern Ireland and many other bodies also welcome that proposal, which not only acknowledges the grief and sorrow caused by the death of the victim but ensures that there will be no further misinterpretation of the purpose of the payment. The proposed extension of the cohabitation definition, as noted in paragraph 67 on page 17 of the report, together with the two-year residential time frame, are also viewed as positive indications of a desire to reduce the trauma for victims and their families.

For those claiming compensation for psychological injuries, the proposal is to widen the eligibility criteria, and that is also viewed as a positive step towards recognising the suffering of many in our society. I welcome the removal of the stipulation requiring a person "to be present at the scene of the crime". Anyone who reads the case submitted by Victim Support Northern Ireland on page 108, paragraph 3i, will concur. That case concerns a lady who was confronted by a harrowing scene at the end of her lane, following a heinous crime perpetrated by terrorists. As any good Samaritan would, she responded to the need of that fellow human being, who died in her arms. She was subsequently denied compensation for the trauma that she had experienced, as she was deemed not to have been present at the scene of the horrific crime.

I welcome the inclusion of the proposal to define a disabling mental illness, rather than the previous reference to serious and disabling mental disorder and to have that confirmed by psychiatric diagnosis. That is a step forward in recognising the different forms of trauma experienced by victims.

So far, I have welcomed the proposals in the draft Order, but I must now express some serious concerns. The proposals purport to address the needs of the victim regarding time scales, transparency and reduction of trauma. One could be forgiven, however, for drawing the conclusion that the tariff system is a device for reducing compensatory payments. The wisdom of removing the assessment of compensation from the judiciary and placing it in the hands of the executive arm of Government is to be questioned. On page 19 paragraph 3c of the report it states that the Law Society of Northern Ireland proposes the establishment of a working party that would include representatives of the professions, agencies and victims in order to prevent such a contingency. I welcome that proposal. The working party would consider the present system, identify measures to reduce delays, improve inter-agency communication and seek to increase transparency.

The Committee considered that the proposals in the draft Order exacerbated the claimant’s distress by constraining his or her ability to have needs individually assessed, even more than the present arrangements. The example submitted by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers — the details are on page 69 — concerning the individual impact that the loss of an eye would have on a pilot as opposed to an elderly person highlights the need for each case to be assessed individually.

I am in serious conflict with the proposal to withdraw paid legal assistance from claimants. We recommend that, in the interests of fairness, paid legal assistance should continue. The tariff system will seriously erode the ability of a claimant to receive adequate or equitable settlement. The stipulations concerning multiple injuries, as commented upon in paragraphs 78 and 79 on page 19 of the report, illustrate the point that the tariff system’s inflexibility will cause claimants to lose out. We also noted that the scale of tariffs is significantly lower than that currently available under the 1996 Northern Ireland "Green Book" formula.

Victims will be penalised by any proposals that are designed to deduct payments from private healthcare insurance towards medical expenses or healthcare arrangements. That situation would be further exacerbated by the proposed removal of compensation for the loss of earnings for the first 28 weeks following an injury and the removal of compensation for special expenses, such as the adaptation of accommodation, unless earnings capacity had been lost. Both proposals appear punitive and are not in keeping with the Northern Ireland Victims Commission’s remit to recognise the pain and suffering felt by victims of violence. After all, that was what led to the 1998 review of criminal injuries compensation, 64 recommendations of which laid the basis for many of the current proposals.

I subscribe fully to recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 and to the conclusion in recommendation 10 that the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its present form.

Finally, the role envisaged for Victim Support Northern Ireland is grossly unfair to that highly respected body. How can it be expected to assemble on a Province- wide basis the number of highly skilled personnel needed to deal with thousands of extremely complicated cases? That defies all logic, as the Committee of the Centre highlighted in its submission, reproduced on page 79 of the report.

The withdrawal of legal aid will save an estimated £7 million, yet additional funding of only £400,000 will be provided for Victim Support. Surely, there is cause for concern that, if the level of support to claimants that is envisaged in paragraph 50 on page 14 is introduced, applicants will not receive the representation that is currently provided by geographically well dispersed, long-standing legal firms with expertise in the field. That fact cannot be ignored.

Victim Support should be given an enhanced, proactive role that reflects its specific expertise in providing support and counselling for the victims of crime. I support the recommendation made by the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee that the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its present form.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

We have all become sensitised to the need to recognise the position of victims. One of the outstanding success stories is that, since the agreement, we have built a consensus that recognises the special needs and place of victims. I wish that that recognition were reflected in the draft legislation. It seems that the Government have not learnt the lesson that victims in Northern Ireland deserve special attention, sensitivity and care. Not only are the proposals presented to the Assembly inadequate, they are antipathetic to the interests of victims. The Ad Hoc Committee’s report reflects the concern that we, as legislators, have for victims of violent crime in Northern Ireland. This is probably the worst piece of draft legislation that the British Government have presented to the Assembly for consideration.

The Ad Hoc Committee’s robust critique of the Government’s proposals has done a great service to the cause of victims. It has highlighted the gross deficiencies in the proposed legislation. The draft Order purports to reflect the Bloomfield report; it does not do that. The proposed legislation departs materially from the Bloomfield report, which did not recommend that all injuries should be governed by a tariff scheme. The Bloomfield report proposed that minor injuries should be considered by a tariff scheme.

Along with other members of the Committee, I have misgivings about adjudging even minor injuries on a tariff basis. However, serious injuries should surely not be adjudged on a tariff basis. Ken Bloomfield made it clear that he excluded serious injuries from any tariff scheme. He also said that he would retain the right of appeal to the county court for victims of violent crime. That is an important provision, because the right of appeal to the courts is a safeguard for everyone, particularly for the victims of violent crime.

If there is no right of appeal to a court, a victim’s position with the statutory agency —the Compensation Agency — is seriously weakened. As Ken Robinson suggested, that hands over adjudication of compensation for victims to the executive. In the Western World at least, the separation of powers is regarded as a fundamental part of constitutional politics. In other words, the executive is separate from the judiciary. It is important that that separation is maintained, because it is a safeguard for everyone. The proposed legislation fuses the executive and the judiciary. There is no effective appeal to a judicial body. That is fundamentally wrong.

The Ad Hoc Committee considered the tariff scheme carefully and unanimously opposed it. The Committee believes that a tariff system is inadequate for safeguarding the interests of victims, as there is no individual assessment of the pain and suffering that someone has endured. As Bloomfield said:

"there is no objectively ‘right’ sum of money that can compensate an individual for the pain and suffering he or she has endured as a result of an injury".

Furthermore, the Judicial Studies Board, in its ‘Guidelines for the Assessment of Damages in Personal Injuries’, 3rd edition, 1996, states:

"there is no right or exact figure for all cases involving the same injury, because no two victims suffer in exactly the same way".

The proposed tariff system implies that everyone who breaks a leg endures the same pain and suffering. That is wrong, and that proposition should not be adopted into our law. A tariff system cannot properly compensate the victim of violent crime; it cannot compensate a person at all. The absence of individual consideration of pain and suffering goes to the heart of the proposals. We should not embrace the tariff system.

The tariff system is an invention of the civil servant mind. It attempts to bar code pain and suffering, and that cannot be done. Suffering is an individual experience, and it requires individual assessment. If one were to canvass opinion among victims who have suffered grievously, one would hear exactly that. Many victims have had misgivings about our judicial system and about their treatment by lawyers and others. Nonetheless, given the choice, they would opt for the court rather than for an anonymous system that would not, in my view and in the view of the Committee, compensate the individual.

The proposals remove the right of appeal to the courts. Instead, a board will consider the cases of victims who have been dealt with by the Compensation Agency. The board will act as a court of appeal. We know from experience what such boards are like. We know the difficulties encountered by people who appeal decisions on disability living allowance. We know that honest citizens who appeal to such boards go through severe trauma. We must not be fooled: the boards are not judicial bodies, and they will not bring the same judgement and discretion to the cases of victims as the courts do.

The amounts given in the proposed scheme do not reflect the current level of awards in Northern Ireland; they are grossly undervalued. They are supposed to reflect pain and suffering, but they do not. The evidence from the Law Society shows that victims’ pain and suffering are being greatly undervalued.

The green book — the guide to personal injuries that lawyers and judges use — shows that quite plainly.

However, it gets worse. In cases of multiple major injuries, it is proposed that people should be compensated in full only for their worst injury. The compensation for the second most serious injury, even if it should be £50,000, can be reduced to 30% of that amount. The compensation for the third most serious injury is reduced to 15% of the possible amount payable. Therefore, a person is awarded 145% out of a possible 300%.

People’s compensation is being deliberately undervalued according to this scheme, and the Government make no bones about it. That is the formula. Worse still, no compensation whatsoever is payable for the fourth and subsequent injuries. How can that be regarded as equitable or just? I ask anyone who is reasonable and objective to say that the scheme is fair and equitable. It clearly is not.

The scheme also compensates for minor injuries. In order to qualify for minor injury compensation, the claimant must jump over three hurdles. He or she must have three separate injuries; a black eye is not enough, a claimant must have other injuries as well. There must also be significant residual effects that last for more than six weeks, and the injured party must have made two visits to a medical person. There are three different hurdles to jump over, and that is unjust. The test is wrong and unfair.

On examining the system in more detail, it becomes obvious that people will not be compensated for pecuniary losses such as loss of earnings. Claimants must be out of work for 28 weeks before they can receive one penny of compensation for loss of earnings. That is clearly unjust — a child could tell you that that is unjust.

How does that square up with the Government’s view that it is a new and wonderful system that will help victims? How could it possibly help a victim to lose half a year’s earnings through no fault of their own and not receive compensation? How could that possibly be just, right or fair? And yet, the Government have the cheek to present these proposals to us and dress them up by saying that they are trying to produce a new system that is fair to victims and will help them. How can that possibly be, in present circumstances?

Although we received assurance to the contrary, this fact must be highlighted: the proposals suggest that private insurance and private pension awards, as a result of injuries, should be deducted from any pecuniary loss. People would not — despite the fact that they paid into their pension fund or insurance fund — be able to enjoy that money. Instead, it would be deducted from any pecuniary loss. Surely that is wrong and unfair. We received a letter from the NIO in which it explains somehow that that does not form the substance of its proposal. If that is the case, let us hold the NIO to that commitment. It is important to highlight that today, in case the Government should back-pedal.

The Government have turned off the tap of legal assistance to victims of violent crime by refusing to pay reasonable legal or medical costs. How can that be just? How does that advance the interests or status of victims? Victims who need legal assistance in this complex area of law will not receive it. Surely that is wrong, given that at present we are trying to help victims of violent crime.

The Government say plainly that they aim to save £7 million. Is that not a cruel assertion? That £7 million is important to victims of crime who require legal advice. It is wrong that the Government should refuse to continue to provide legal assistance. As Ken Robinson said, the Government are putting back only £400,000 to Victim Support Northern Ireland. Its staff have done a tremendous job in giving practical care and counselling to the victims of crime here. That is their role; their job is not to act as surrogate lawyers. Victims seeking compensation through this complicated process will be deprived of practical legal assistance. If people seek legal advice, they will have to pay for it themselves. That is wrong.

The Government then go even further to disadvantage victims by proposing that the limitation period for claims be reduced from three years to two. How can they justify that? They have included what they would call a "safety net" whereby, in the interests of justice, that limitation period can be altered. However, those boards will act as tribunals, and it will be difficult to argue for an extension of the time period. It is already difficult to gain an extension in the ordinary courts, which apply a three-year time limit, but it will be even more difficult to argue to a tribunal for an extension to the two-year limitation period.

Several parts of the proposed legislation would further disadvantage victims. However, there are some good aspects. For example, applicants for criminal injury compensation who have a criminal conviction will be given more flexibility. Madam Deputy Speaker, do you wish me to bring my remarks to a close?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

A number of Members still wish to speak, so I invite you to draw your remarks to a conclusion.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I will finish by saying that those who are excluded from compensation because of previous convictions, particularly for scheduled offences, will be treated with greater discretion. One only has to look at the Creighton case, which has been foremost in our minds in considering this. If somebody has fully rehabilitated himself, it is surely fair and just that he be compensated.

My final point on this is that the Government have said that they sought certainty and simplicity for victims and sought to be transparent in dealing with them. Quite clearly, these proposals, in my view and in the view of the Committee, will provide greater uncertainty and frustration for victims of violent crime. This system will be much more complicated than the present one, and the House should send a clear message to the Government that it unanimously adopts this report to stop this bad legislation in its tracks.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I assure Members that my speech will not be as long as that of the last Member. First, I want to record my appreciation and thanks to the Committee and research staff for all the work and help that they give to the Committee.

There are probably a number of points in this that could be welcomed. I agreed with Mr Ken Robinson when he talked about bereavement support payment and the less restrictive method of determining psychological injuries. However, overall I believe that NIO cynically used the Kenneth Bloomfield review on victims, which reported in July 1999, as an opportunity for a cost- cutting exercise on the criminal injuries system.

The introduction of the tariff system for injuries received cross-party and unanimous opposition in the Committee. It is unfair and inflexible, as it does not take into consideration an individual’s particular circumstances. In most cases it would have the effect of reducing the amount of compensation to a fixed level. There is a sliding downward scale of compensation for multiple injuries, and the whole system is not index-linked but subject to a review in three years. The tariff system is already in place in Britain. It has been a source of controversy there, and there is general unhappiness with it. Indeed, the appeals panel has overturned in the region of 70% of the original decisions, which shows just how flawed the original process was. We should not take the view that because a system is in place in Britain, we must slavishly follow it here.

NIO then went on to argue that the introduction of a tariff-based scheme will so simplify the process that it will not require the services of a legal professional. Instead, Victim Support can do the job previously done by solicitors. I am sure that everyone here will agree that Victim Support does an excellent job helping victims of crime and the trauma that entails. However, I do not believe that it has the resources, the capacity, or the required legal background to fulfil the role that solicitors do. Victim Support has eight offices throughout the North of Ireland, with three full-time staff in each, and in the region of 200 volunteers whose hours vary from a few per week upwards. The intention is to recruit nine extra advice workers and about 100 extra volunteers. None of the people who work for Victim Support has legal qualifications, so compare that with the number of solicitors throughout the North of Ireland.

There are over 600 practising solicitors in the North of Ireland, who are easily accessible and have offices in all towns. If someone is a victim of crime, he or she can go to a solicitor for help and advice.

In tandem with these proposals, the NIO intends to make paid legal assistance unavailable to victims of crime. The Ad Hoc Committee objects strongly to that. The NIO is not saying that a solicitor cannot be consulted. However, it is removing any financial help to do so. Victims must, therefore, pay for legal advice, which discriminates against those who are less well off and those who are statistically more likely to be the victims of crime. It seems that the Government want to pay only lip service to equality obligations.

The Human Rights Commission and other organisations that gave evidence to the Committee raised concerns that that may be in breach of international human rights norms for the right to legal representation. It appears to be a cynical cost-cutting exercise by the British Government and the NIO. It is estimated that money will be saved in the long term because of reduced compensation costs. It is also estimated that in the removal of paid assistance the Government will save £7 million, while the cost of enlisting Victim Support would be only £0·4 million.

There was some improvement in the draft legislation on ex-prisoners, particularly those who were imprisoned for political reasons, through the removal of the explicit and discriminatory block to compensation for those convicted under the provisions of emergency law. However, considering that the majority of ex-political prisoners were sentenced to more than two and a half years’ imprisonment, the proposed scheme will make no tangible difference to their situation.

The Secretary of State may also make a decision on the basis of other evidence that is available to him or her, which raises the prospect of intelligence reports that cannot be challenged. Paragraph 38 of the draft legislation, which deals with compensation in fatal cases, shows that while the explicit disqualification has been removed, implicit disqualification will remain. That is contrary to the search for a new, inclusive society, particularly when those who were caught up in the conflict, and their families, are still being discriminated against and punished.

Under the current legislation, and also under the proposed legislation, no distinction is made between people convicted of ordinary crime and people with political convictions. That is wrong. The majority of people who were in jail for political reasons would not have seen the inside of a prison but for the abnormal political conditions in the North of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement recognises that the conflict was political and that it required a political solution. The British Government and the NIO should follow that through to its logical conclusion and distinguish between political and non-political convictions.

There should be compensation for loss of earnings. Awards should not be subject to reductions that take social security, healthcare and insurance benefits into account. There are problems in the current system with delay, transparency, communication and liaison. The legal profession recognises that. The Law Society of Northern Ireland has recommended that a working party, representing the judiciary, the legal profession, agencies and professionals working within the current system, and representatives of victims, should be set up to examine ways of improving the current system. That is a sensible approach.

I want to draw attention to wrongful action by the NIO in its treatment of the Ad Hoc Committee. When NIO representatives were invited to give evidence, the NIO initially tried to set the parameters of the debate. It attempted to rap the Committee over the knuckles when Committee members raised legitimate concerns, as is their right. That behaviour is unacceptable.

Recommendation 10 of the Committee’s report states

"That the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its current form."

Sinn Féin supports the report, and that recommendation in particular. I hope that the British Government and the NIO take heed of the Assembly’s strong message. It should not use the new political dispensation to ride roughshod over the rights of people who are the victims of crime.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

As Deputy Chairperson of the Committee I support the conclusions and recommendations contained i`n the report. The Committee considered all the evidence brought before it, bearing in mind that compensation for people who have suffered extreme pain and deaths because of violence from whatever source is a sensitive issue.

The Committee took evidence from people who are experienced in the problems associated with criminal injuries compensation, and I thank them for their contributions. I also thank the staff who serviced the Committee and the Members from all parties who played a constructive and valuable role as we reached our conclusions. It was a pleasure and a privilege for me to act as Chairperson on several occasions.

I consider the report to be fair and reasonable, covering all aspects, and I hope the Secretary of State, the British Government and our Government will abide by its recommendations.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the recommendations and congratulate the Committee on the extensive evidence taken. I concur with the comments of my learned Friend, the Member for North Belfast, Mr Maginness. He is correct that the fundamental principle is whether a tariff system should be used at all.

The use of a tariff system is fundamentally inequitable, because it treats individuals as a number each time and implies that every person’s injury can be treated in the same way. That is absurd, and the Government should look at the comments of the House again. This is not an acceptable piece of legislation in its current form.

There is a caveat to that. I disagree with the Committee to some extent with regard to recommendation 5 in which the Committee suggests that the Secretary of State should not regard a person’s criminal record when determining a reward when that person’s actions, which may be indicative of that record, cannot be shown to be responsible for the act of criminal violence that resulted in the injuries for which compensation is sought.

I disagree. A person’s past behaviour — in particular criminal convictions for serious offences — should be taken into consideration. If a person’s behaviour in the past is indicative of a particular lifestyle which results in serious criminal injury, I am not comfortable with the concept that taxpayers should have to compensate him for having placed himself in that position.

However, I can see the problem with that. Having to demonstrate that a person is responsible for the act of criminal violence that resulted in the injuries is almost impossible unless it is somebody with a record of grievous bodily harm who starts a fight, gets injured and tries to claim compensation. Clearly that person is responsible.

However, a serial burglar’s house may be burgled. He goes downstairs to confront the intruder and is injured, but the test should not apply, because he did not ask to be burgled. However, I do have a difficulty with saying that taxpayers should be forced to compensate somebody whose activities in the past were clearly antisocial and who does not deserve compensation, so I have some difference with the Committee.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

What would the Member say if a person were involved in some petty crime in his youth then lived a normal life, but after 20 years something happened, and he submitted a claim for compensation? Would that person, in the Member’s opinion, have disqualified himself twenty years ago?

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

No, I would not suggest to the House that any conviction of any sort should automatically disbar a person from receiving some form of compensation. Obviously it is something that must be taken into account; the individual circumstances of each person must be taken into account.

However, it is right that the Secretary of State should retain a degree of discretion. Where a person’s behaviour and criminal convictions demonstrate a particular type of lifestyle — where that person is clearly involved in criminal activity on a constant and ongoing basis — they should not be eligible for criminal compensation. If a drug-dealing gangster such as Johnny Adair gets beaten over the head, there is no way that honest, decent taxpayers should have to foot the bill for compensation for someone like that. That is the position that I would take. It should not necessarily be applied to a person who, for instance, commits a minor offence as a youth. We can all perform indiscretions in our youth, and I do not see that that should have such a serious and deleterious effect on a person’s entire life.

I would, however, make some distinction in relation to very serious offences, even those committed at an early age. I have a huge amount of sympathy for Mr Creighton’s position, but I have some difficulty with the idea of somebody who was convicted of so serious an offence as throwing a petrol bomb at age 18 receiving compensation. When one looks at the devastation, mayhem and death that has been caused by petrol bombs in our society, one should realise that the consequences of throwing that petrol bomb — for the thrower, as well as those on the receiving end — could be life-altering. For that person, it is life-altering in the sense that they place themselves outside a particular category of our society. Where someone performs an act that is so damaging to society in general — an act that can cause death — that person should not receive compensation at a later stage. However, I broadly support the recommendations of the Committee.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

For the Member’s information, the Committee makes the distinction that he refers to at paragraph 73 of the report.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

In recommendation 5, the Committee clearly suggests that

"the Secretary of State should not, in determining an award, have regard to a person’s criminal record".

That is the recommendation with which I am taking issue.

I broadly agree with the rest of the report. The comments that I made earlier on tariffs were correct. You cannot treat injuries of a similar nature caused to different people in the same way. It is completely unreasonable to accept that the loss of an eye for one person is the same as the loss of an eye for another. If I were to have my legs injured, it probably would not be that deleterious to my lifestyle, but if Joe Brolly were to have his legs broken, it would probably be severely deleterious to his lifestyle — and probably also to his team’s performance. Obviously, you must take into account the individual’s circumstances and their lifestyle. That cannot be done under a tariff system, so for that reason I agree with the general thrust of the report.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I commend the work done by the Committee staff, the Committee members and those who attended all the meetings. Considerable effort was needed to complete the work by the date that was given. I commend that and welcome the report, its findings and its proposals to Government.

Most of the points have already been covered. The purpose of the Bloomfield Report was to deal with criminal injuries in a normal situation — or "normality", as it is often called — and not the kind of situation that we have had here over the last long number of years. Therefore, I take issue with the point that you cannot make distinctions between particular injuries.

The purpose of injuries compensation is to allow a person, injured through any situation, to get his or her life back on track again. The abnormal situation that we have lived through here must be taken into account. It is different to what would generally be covered by such a scheme. The Committee recommended a fairer, more equitable, open and transparent system. However, that is not what the Government are offering us. The introduction of the tariff system, and the independent appeals panel, has been mentioned, and the role of the panel and the people who are likely to have recourse to it have been outlined.

The removal of paid legal assistance is of particular concern; it is to be replaced by help from Victim Support. Support from a local solicitor was always something that people could depend on, whether they were facing a tribunal, an independent panel or anything else. The solicitor is usually on the side of the applicant or the person defending himself. That does not always happen in tribunals. Those dealing with appeals or tribunals in relation to disability living allowance, or other such allowances, become desensitised to the interests of the individual. That could happen in criminal injuries appeals. The whole system would therefore work against the individual and the individual’s ability to defend himself. People who have gone through trauma are not in a strong position to defend themselves. You would need to bring a couple of barristers with you to most tribunals just to survive and get through them or to get any compensation. I am not sure that that is the way to go.

There are positive aspects, and they have been mentioned. The Committee seemed to be almost totally opposed to the recommendations by the Government from the start. The Government are looking for a back-door method of cost saving and cost cutting, and they are using the Bloomfield report as a way of doing that. My Colleague Dara O’Hagan mentioned that we should not have to rigidly adhere to what they do across the water. That system was not right for us. I see no reason why we cannot have a system of our own, or why we cannot improve on the system that is already there and that is of benefit to individuals. We should take a proper look at that, rather than have a straightforward cost-saving exercise, which seems to be the sole intent of the Government.

The individual is losing out in cases involving trauma and physical or psychological injury. Cases should be dealt with on an individual basis, and, as has been mentioned, they should not be given bar codes. For example, a rape attack could impact on a person’s future career and whether she could continue with that career. The consequential loss of earnings over the next few years, or damage to career prospects, is not compensated for. The person could lose a huge amount of money under the proposed system. We have been told that there is no upper limit, but I do not believe that, and solicitors do not believe it either. People will lose out badly.

We have agreed that paid legal assistance should continue to be available to people who wish to make application for compensation. The large number of people applying was mentioned. Often it is those who are most in need who are least able to pay for assistance. They probably are the majority of those applying. The Secretary of State, despite having some arbitrary powers, has not dealt with very many cases. That can hardly be considered an extra benefit.

There is also the question of deductions from the compensation to those who receive benefits or who have received a payment for health or other insurance. That poses the question of whether those on benefits enjoy equality with those who are in full-time employment.

I agree with recommendation 10 that the proposed legislation should not be introduced at this time. That is the key message for the Government. They must reconsider the situation.

It must be recognised that Victim Support Northern Ireland’s original role was an important one. However, I am not sure that it can fulfil this role. In practice, it may be very difficult. That is for Victim Support Northern Ireland to sort out for itself.

The issue of prisoners is very important to us. Submissions that we received show that in a fair and just compensation system singling out people with convictions is unfair, unjust and a denial of basic human rights. For years, ex-prisoners have suffered discrimination and have had claims denied solely because they were ex-prisoners. Whether or not the victim of a criminal injury has a previous conviction should not be taken into account when his or her claim is being assessed.

Various types of crimes have been mentioned. I know of one person whose house was burned but who received no compensation because that person had a conviction for a traffic offence. Members may check the statistics if they so wish, but this is not simply about political prisoners: it affects people at all levels. Many people who have previous convictions have gone on to lead constructive lives. Should they be victims of criminal injury in future they will also be denied compensation. That is wrong. We should have a system that is different and that does not simply follow what has gone before. Go raibh maith agat.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Several useful points were made about the anomalies in the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. Indeed, various victims’ organisations made those same points in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield’s first report, ‘We Will Remember Them’. That was taken up when the compensation payments were reviewed. Some of those points concerned the use of language. The bereavement payment was always seen as offensive to victims and was misunderstood as a consequence. Therefore it was crucial that the word "support" was introduced. The extension of the bereavement support payment to those who are considered to be partners is extremely important.

There was unanimous support in the Committee for updating our legislation. There are anomalies in the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, and the victims themselves are best able to point them out. One anomaly that is constantly highlighted is the treatment of those who suffer trauma and psychological injury as a result of witnessing a traumatic incident or who are present at the scene of a crime. They may not have been compensated but may endure a great deal of pain and mental illness as a consequence of what they have seen.

Over the years, survivors in Northern Ireland have made that point. Many have said that they should have been compensated for what they had observed and endured because it took an enormous toll on their ability to continue with work and on their ability to remain as they had been before.

Any new legislation is a concern, and, as other Members have said, there is no need to abolish something that only needed to be amended. The current legislation should be amended in a way that takes cognisance of the fact that those who are present at the scene of a crime should be eligible for compensation.

In a country such as Northern Ireland, where mental illness has been treated as so insignificant in the past, it is even more important that the terms "mental illness" and "psychological injury" are to be extended and moved beyond the simple descriptions of "disorders". Therefore psychological symptoms such as anxiety, tension, insomnia, irritability, loss of confidence, agoraphobia and preoccupation with thoughts of guilt and self- harm will be included under the terms of compensation.

Anyone who has spoken to a survivor of a terrible incident will have observed the guilt that that victim suffers because he or she has survived while others have died or been terribly injured. Therefore it is important that feelings of guilt that lead to mental illness, depression and loss of confidence are acknowledged as a cause of psychological injury and that such injury be included under the terms of compensation.

The third anomaly to be addressed — and which should have been addressed before now — is time limitations, particularly in child sex abuse cases. That is also a welcome change. The legislation should have been amended, and it is good that that point was picked up. Members must remember that the terms of reference are concerned not only with victims of the troubles, but also with victims in other areas. In many cases child sex abuse victims want to lock away the memory of what they endured, and it is only in their adolescence or as they approach the years beyond 18 that the memory of those events returns to them. Because of the time limitations in place, those victims were prohibited from claiming. Therefore it is good that that statutory limitation has been lifted.

However, it is possible to amend the legislation to take on board all of those changes. As other Members have said, the Assembly should not be abolishing access to legal aid, the appeals to the courts and compensation based on individual cases.

An example from current English case law will illustrate exactly what would happen here if the Assembly were to introduce the new scheme. Tariffs will be introduced under the schemes that are currently operating in England. The Northern Ireland criminal injuries compensation scheme 2002, which was presented to the Committee, lays out exactly how much a victim would receive for a finger injury, a broken arm, rape, sex assault, or any other injury.

Caroline Fairfax was raped at knifepoint by a serial rapist called Stefan Molliere. In the attack she was punched and badly beaten. Under the criminal injury compensation scheme of tariffs, she was awarded £7,500. She believed that that was an insult to all rape victims. She said that the attack almost ruined her life; it caused her to give up work; she had to move house; and, similar to many victims, she required counselling. The price put on a rape at knifepoint — by which she was also severely injured — was £7,500. There are many other similar cases in England where the tariff system is operating.

I urge Members not to let such a system be introduced to Northern Ireland. This afternoon I tried to compare what tariffs different injuries would equate to.

Under the proposed system the loss of a finger in an attack would cost the Northern Ireland Office up to £18,000. However, victims of severe sexual abuse lasting over three years — as there is a stipulation about how long the abuse may have lasted — with all the associated distress and mental illness would receive exactly the same amount. How can anyone decide that the loss of a single finger is the equivalent to sexual abuse that took place over three years? It is important to point out that each case should be decided on its individual merit. Therefore there is a reason for good legal advice.

Herein lies the criticism of the current system and why it needed to be changed. The current system is not transparent, and it is not sufficiently accountable. Therefore victims made an enormous number of complaints about that system. It could be made much more transparent and could be amended so that those victims understand what their rights may be.

Victims should also be entitled to appeal to the courts, so the loss of legal assistance is a concern. Undoubtedly, and other Members have mentioned this, there is the right to receive support from Victim Support Northern Ireland. However, that organisation made the point that one should look at what Kenneth Bloomfield referred to as less serious injuries and those that are more serious. Victim Support Northern Ireland is on record in Committee as saying that it would be in a position to look at the less serious injuries and assist people in that category. There is more legal complexity when one is addressing multiple injuries and more serious injuries.

Considering these serious points of view regarding compensation for criminal injury, the Committee was unanimous that this particular piece of legislation should not go forward. Members have addressed other issues that would lead to inequity. The withdrawal of benefits and the paying back of some benefits are two such issues. Currently, that is not that the case. However, if it were, it would be seen as a step backwards and not as an improvement.

These are the major points, and ultimately I would argue that discretion and flexibility should always be seen positively, not negatively. It is not too difficult to take cases individually. As we make the transformation from conflict into, we hope, a more peaceful society it would be nothing short of a disgrace if the Assembly were to support the current proposals.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have had a relatively easy job today in that all of the Members who spoke were in support of the recommendations that the Committee has made. Therefore there are no questions that I need to answer, except perhaps the one that my Colleague from South Antrim, Mr Dalton, raised in his address to the Assembly. It is only fair to point out that the Committee’s recommendation that he spoke about only extends to cases where the actions of the victim in no way contribute to his or her injuries. It was the Committee’s view that if the perpetrator of a crime were injured then it is right that he or she should not be compensated for those injuries.

I thank everyone who took part in the debate for their contributions. I thank the members of the Ad Hoc Committee for their input during the weeks that we met. There has been a fair amount of unity in what we have said, what we have done and the work we have produced. I want to thank the Assembly Research and Library Services for its assistance, and I owe a debt of gratitude to the Committee Clerks who assisted us in our meetings over the past weeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Injuries Compensation, (1/01/R) established by resolution on 10 September 2001, and agrees that it be submitted to the Secretary of State as a Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Adjourned at 5.20 pm.