Ivana Bacik

Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2010: Second Stage

Wednesday 30^th June 2010

Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mary White, to the House. I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. It has become obligatory to say at the outset that one did not grow up in a city. I grew up in rural Cork where many people in the village followed the fox hunt on foot. I hope when I speak it is not perceived to be from a position of urban sentimentality or an attractivist-type of argument, as outlined by Senator O’Toole who suggested that some of those who support the ban are coming from that perspective.

This is not an urban-rural issue. Many people from rural backgrounds are very much against the idea of stag hunting. I am very much against it. Like Senator Ó Brolcháin, I believe we should not treat animals with cruelty. I am not a vegetarian. I accept that animals must be killed for all sorts of reasons but where necessary we should kill them in a humane manner that is not purely for sport without regard to the effect on animals, particularly domesticated or farmed animals. A strong issue of animal welfare arises but it goes beyond that. As a criminologist, I am conscious of a great deal of research on the treatment of animals as a measure of the way in which people treat other people. For example, children who carry out cruel practices on animals are more likely, in certain cases, to be cruel to humans later in life. How we treat animals and other humans is a measure of human decency.

Other issues are involved in any debate on hunting, be it fox hunting or stag hunting. There are class issues, which are perhaps more relevant in England than here where that has really been a dominant focus of debate. There are public safety issues, to which the Minister, in introducing the Bill in both Houses, referred. I have friends and colleagues from the Meath area who have had their lands trampled upon and their livestock scared by the Ward Union Hunt. I accept that is an issue but perhaps a lesser one. I do not like the tactics of RISE and find them scare-mongering. The organisation has whipped up a certain reaction to the Bill that is unwarranted and suggests it goes beyond its actual scope.

I have worked for some years with groups and individuals opposed to stag hunting. I have provided assistance for them and have a long record on this issue. For that reason, I cannot vote against the Bill. The arguments made against the ban suggest there is only one hunt involved. Perhaps that is all the more reason to be supportive in tackling the issue. There is a clear distinction to be made between the Ward Union Hunt and the much more widespread practice of fox hunting. The fox is a wild animal and very different issues are at stake.

I have read much of the background information on the legislation, including the report of veterinary inspector Kane in 1997. He described domesticated red deer as being completely unfit for a prolonged chase by hounds. He also described the handling of the stag as terrifying and stressful to the animal. He stated the stag became distressed and was exhausted towards the end of hunts and described various aspects of hunts as inhumane. At the same time, he pointed out in a balanced way that there was no intention to engage in cruelty and that most people involved in hunting did not have such a conception. He outlined fairly the issue of disturbance to farmers and others tended to be exaggerated. The report is fair. I accept that since 1997 some of the criticisms of the hunt have been addressed.

I am conscious that my good friend and colleague from the law school in Trinity College, Professor William Binchy, has taken a public stance on this issue. He stated recently the hunting of carted stags was a gratuitous act causing unnecessary suffering. He and a colleague have written on the interpretation of the Wildlife Acts and whether the deer is a wild animal. That issue is being addressed in the Bill. For these reasons, I will not be voting against the Bill. Having said that, I will not take lectures from the Green Party which is taking the moral high ground over the Labour Party on this matter because the Labour Party has a strong record on animal welfare.

Dan Boyle: The Senator should be consistent. Her party is behaving shamefully.

Ivana Bacik: The Kane report of 1997 was produced on behalf of the then Minister, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, who introduced the licensing regime that controlled the Ward Union Hunt for many years and which the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has been operating. The Green Party is the party which has been propping up Fianna Fáil for the past three years. Fianna Fáil is the party whose unholy alliance with builders, speculators and developers brought the country to its knees.

Dan Boyle: The Senator was doing so well. That is sad.

Ivana Bacik: The Green Party needs to be asked about the political context of this legislation, which I find troubling. It was not included in the original programme for Government but the revised one. It is clear to one who examines the political context that the Bill, perhaps together with the one on dog breeding, represents the price we are paying for NAMA. It is the price of Green Party support for the NAMA legislation.

Niall Ó Brolcháin: That is not true.

Ivana Bacik: To anyone observing from the outside, it looks very much like Green Party Members signed up to NAMA on the promise of legislation on animal welfare.

Dan Boyle: Is the Senator going to back up NAMA?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Coghlan): We are discussing the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2010 and must listen to Senator Bacik.

Ivana Bacik: The Labour Party is the only party which took a stance against the bank guarantee scheme.

Dan Boyle: The Senator was very wrong.

(Interruptions).

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Coghlan): Order, please, Senator Boyle.

Ivana Bacik: It has been proved that the wrong decision was introducing the unconditional guarantee of the dodgy transactions engaged in by persons such as Mr. Seán FitzPatrick.

Niall Ó Brolcháin: Such as the Bailey brothers.

Ivana Bacik: Yes, the Bailey brothers.

Dan Boyle: I hope the Senator holds onto the Whip after this.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Coghlan): There are to be no interruptions.

Ivana Bacik: If this Bill is the price to be paid for supporting NAMA, it is extremely high—–

Dan Boyle: The Senator knows it is not.

Ivana Bacik: —–considering the billions of euro our children and their children will most likely have to pay for NAMA and propping up zombie banks such as Anglo Irish Bank.

Dan Boyle: All the NAMA money will be put back, as the Senator knows.

Ivana Bacik: That is wishful thinking. One should think of the thousands who are unemployed, including the many thousands of young people who have just gone on the live register. People are in negative equity and having trouble paying mortgages and debts.

Niall Ó Brolcháin: This is the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill.

Ivana Bacik: For all those people in debt and affected by NAMA, this legislation will be regarded as a price that is too high.

There is a parallel to be drawn, perhaps flippantly, in that Fianna Fáil is like the Ward Union Hunt in this matter, while Green Party Members are like the domesticated deer, the farmed animals that have been very much brought along by Fianna Fáil. They have bought into economic policies that are deeply damaging and destructive to the economy and society.