Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

There was no great uproar at that time and the Minister has implemented the conditions set down then. It was all fine until the Minister needed a new programme for Government. It was the first time in the history of the State there had to be a renewed programme for Government to keep a party in Government. The contents of the programme were all about show and nothing to do with substance. This is one such measure.

Such an ill-thought out and unconsidered approach, with a lack of consultation with stakeholders from different sectors of the community and different sides, has led to unintended consequences with which the Minister must now deal. These relate to the introduction of deer stalking provisions. There would be no need to introduce these amendments if the deer stalking provisions had not been introduced. There would be no need for them save the Bill had unintended consequences. This is a direct result of the failure of the Minster to consult and bring on board the stakeholders and to ensure the legislation is thought through and based on evidence, monitoring and consultation.

There is a good deal of evidence that the approach heretofore has brought about great improvements. Departmental reports have assessed the welfare of the animals. As it stands, the system seems to work well and the Minister could do much to build on this. He could examine whether further conditions are needed. He could legislate to include the conditions in the licences in law. The Minister could examine many ways to protect the animals in this hunt but he is not prepared to do so because he wants to put through his trophy legislation.

One concern raised by Wild Deer Ireland is the culling of females during May and June. Fawns are born during these months and up until August. The organisation maintains that legislation should restrict the culling of female deer during that season when fawns need their mothers to survive. The Minister has done nothing about this issue because he does not care about it. Such a measure could have emerged from consultation with the stakeholders. It is an improvement the Minister could have introduced for the welfare of animals but he did not want to do so. He simply sought an all-out, unilateral ban which is divisive of communities and which will have far-reaching, unintended consequences. The Minister will do anything to get his trophy legislation. It is the same as the case of the light bulbs, in which he ended up rowing back because he did not consult properly with the European Union. He ended up having to legislate in a more considered and thoughtful way because the European Union made him. I fully stand over the point that this is trophy legislation.

See this speech in context