I propose to take Questions Nos. 467 to 471, inclusive, together.
The substantive reasons for continuing the prohibition of game-shooting on State lands used for conservation purposes have been set out fully in reply to Question No. 4 of 4 March 2004 and to Questions Nos. 264, 272 and 273 of the same date.
As explained in those replies, these reasons extend beyond the considerations of species sustainability addressed by the report of the scientific group and involve issues of amenity for the wider public, conservation of habitat for other, non-quarry species, and public safety. On the same basis, the reasons for the continued ban on hunting on lands managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of my Department go beyond the species sustainability criteria to which open seasons orders have regard.
It is clear that my predecessor, in agreeing to the establishment of a scientific working group, did so without prejudice to the ultimate and wider determination of policy on the matter. This is borne out by my Department's record of the meeting of 4 January 2002 with the National Association of Regional Game Councils, a copy of which is being sent to the Deputy.
There has been no reversal of policy at any stage in the consideration of this matter. The decision which I have recently communicated about continuing the ban on hunting in State conservation lands is consistent with long-standing policy. Information was erroneously supplied from my Department to a Deputy in October 2003 indicating that consideration could be given to permitting some hunting on State lands on a pilot basis. This information preceded my consideration of, and decision on, this matter which was assisted by senior officials of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and was concluded in January 2004.