Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): I welcome Mr Dave McCullough, a representative of the Northern Ireland Deer Society. Just so you know, we are recording the meeting, and the report will appear on the Committee website in due course. In your own time, would you like to brief us on the issues? Then I will open the meeting to members for questions.

Mr Dave McCullough (Northern Ireland Deer Society): Thanks for the invitation to address the Committee. The Northern Ireland Deer Society, known locally as NIDS, is a deer welfare group. While some of our members are deerstalkers, our society does not involve itself in any form of lethal deer control or deer management. We concentrate on disseminating knowledge of deer and their ecology through public events and arranging outings at locations where deer may be observed and photographed.

The society's membership is family-based, and the membership average is around 25 to 30 families. We expect to amalgamate with the Irish Deer Society (IDS) after this year's AGM. The membership of the IDS is close to 200 families. The amalgamation is aimed at the creation of an island-wide approach to deer welfare in Ireland.

We are consultees to a number of Departments, including Forest Service in DARD, the Food Standards Agency, the PSNI and the Department of Justice. We provide advice and assistance on deer-related issues to councils, police and research students who are following deer-related projects, and information and comment to the general public and the media.

Our main purpose is to challenge any legislative changes proposed by Government or actions by any other body where we feel that deer welfare will be adversely affected.

I will get to the business. In my letter to Mr Ross, I dealt with three topics. The first was the proposed banding system. The second was the extension of the proposal to introduce an age reduction for young shooters to 12 years of age for clay target shooting and to the shooting of live quarry, under supervision, at age 16. Third was the need for fully accredited firearms training and assessment as a prerequisite to the granting of firearms certificates.

I turn first to the banding system. NIDS believes that the most recent proposals for banding firearms are reasonable, as the bands are based on matching the grouped calibres to quarry size to give the best chance of a clean kill. We consider that the five-day turnaround indicated by licensing branch for variation applications for firearms that fall outside the banding system would not represent a significant inconvenience to firearms holders. The society believes that this timescale will only be achievable if there are sufficient resources available to firearms licensing. We believe that the undertaking by the Minister to keep the banding system under review is a reasonable and measured way forward. It offers increased convenience to firearms holders and allows confidence to be established in the delegation of firearms licence-variation handling within the bands to dealers.

I now turn to the question of young shooters. The shooting organisations are proposing that the minimum age for hunting with firearms should be reduced to 12 years in line with the proposal for use of firearms for clay target shooting. Our concerns are primarily focused on the physical ability of a young person of 12 years to safely handle firearms continuously in an open-ground hunting situation. The average double-barrelled gun can weigh in excess of 3 kg and be over a metre in length. That would be heavy, unwieldy and fatiguing to the majority of 12-year-olds if they were having to carry a shotgun over such ground for any length of time. If a child is carrying a shotgun, recovery from a stumble is more difficult and this has to increase the chances of a fall and possibly an inadvertent discharge, particularly if safety drills have been overlooked. That may result in injury to the child or others present.

In open ground, we believe that it is not possible to provide the same level of supervision and safety as would be the case in a clay pigeon shooting environment, where the trainer/supervisor can be primarily focused on the shooter's firearm handling and safety skills. The young person also has the added security of shooting within a cage, which physically constrains the arc of fire.

In a hunting field, the supervisor may also be carrying his or her own gun and be looking out for a quarry and obstacles, which may result in them not being able to give their full attention to their charge or react immediately to prevent an accident.

NIDS accepts the argument that the need for muzzle awareness, use of safety catch and constant attention to safety drills can be most effectively learned in the closely supervised and controlled environment of clay or target shooting over a reasonable period of participation. The safety-orientated behaviours learned are likely to be embedded in the muscle memory and become automatic before progressing to hunting over open ground.

In my letter to the Chairman, I included two examples of shooting incidents involving young people with sporting firearms. There was adult supervision in both incidents, one of which had tragic consequences. That inclusion was to illustrate our point that supervision alone cannot guarantee safety. I will touch on supervision in more detail later when I deal with the views of NIDS on firearms training.

I return now to the latest proposal for the minimum age at which young people may engage in hunting of live quarry with firearms, which is now 16. NIDS supports that proposal and holds that very few children under 16, particularly those at the age of 12, would be expected to have the psychological maturity to appreciate the gravity of taking a life, albeit that of an animal or bird. If encouraged to do so early in their psychological development, they may not acquire the respect for the quarry, which we believe is so important in the responsible hunter. It may also be the case that a child is placed in a situation where they feel under pressure from an adult and obliged to kill, when it is not their natural inclination to do so at that early stage in their life. The society considers that, at age 16, the young person would be much more likely to have the maturity to, first, decide that they want to engage in hunting and, secondly, to be more physically capable of safe gun-handling over rough ground. They will be particularly safer if they have been well schooled in the safety drills in the environment of clay target shooting clubs. NIDS recognises that DOJ has employed risk assessment and has considered the safety of the young shooter. It has had high standards in its approach to the age changes proposed for clay shooting and live quarry shooting.

I move now to training and supervision. In the working environment, the Health and Safety Executive operates on the principle that employees must be trained and assessed as competent in the safe use of their equipment before being allowed to operate that equipment. It makes sense to us that the use of firearms should be treated no less seriously. NIDS accepts that accidents with firearms in Northern Ireland are, thankfully, rare, but it believes that it is an unjustified leap of faith to assume that the supervision of an untrained novice shooter by another "experienced" but not formally trained shooter can be relied upon to prevent firearm-related incidents. The length of time that a certificate has been held is not a reliable measure of a person's ability to adequately train and supervise a novice, in our view.

In a farming environment, youngsters as young as 13 are permitted to drive tractors under supervision but only having successfully completed a basic training course and competency test. NIDS believes that there is a danger of passing on bad habits and poor firearm-handling techniques to the novice if the supervisor has not been formally trained in safe firearm handling and use. Our society believes that formal, standard and nationally accredited training and assessment in the use of each type of firearm applied for should be a central pillar of our firearms legislation, as it is in the majority of other European countries. Of 26 states, only the UK, Bulgaria and Slovakia do not require formal training to acquire a firearms licence. We believe that it is the only way to ensure that every individual taking up the sport of shooting and hunting at the very least receives a sound, standard grounding in firearms safety and firearms handling, which they can build on throughout their supervision period.

Formal training for deerstalkers is now a de facto requirement for anyone applying for a rifle to hunt deer. That training and qualification, deer stalking level 1, was instigated and is currently promoted and marketed by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) and the British Deer Society (BDS). We believe that it is a glaring anomaly that licences for equally lethal high-velocity fox-calibre rifles are currently granted without any training or assessment requirement. NIDS believes that public safety in relation to firearms licensing would be better assured by requiring all new applicants to undergo standardised and nationally accredited firearm safety training and assessment as a prerequisite to the granting of a firearms certificate. Such training and assessment in firearms safety and, in most cases, additional training and examination for hunters in the ecology of target species, the humane dispatch of wounded animals and safe hunting techniques is the norm in all but a few European states.

Finally, I want to mention third-party insurance for shooting and hunting activity. While, as I said, shooting accidents are rare in Northern Ireland, we believe that all those who participate in shooting sports should be required by law to hold third-party insurance cover for their sporting activities to provide adequate support for anyone who is affected by a shooting accident. Many responsible NI shooters are members of the BASC, Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Association for Country Sports and target shooting clubs and associations. They are all covered by insurance provided by their membership.

Independent insurance is also available without joining the organisations, but those who are members of the organisations have the benefit of safety information and training literature that is available from those organisations. It is a legal responsibility to have third-party car insurance for reasons that can also be applied to ownership and use.

NIDS considers the consultation process to have been open, objective, focused and fair. At times, the issues raised have been complex and frustrating. The representations from the shooting organisations and the gun trade bodies in the areas of fees and dealer security have been very important to the consultation, of great benefit to the members and have resulted in clarification and the amendment of the calculation of fees and some serious rethinking by the Department of Justice and firearms licensing.

The Department of Justice confirms that licensing has, on every occasion that I am aware of, taken the views of consultees on board and allocated extra time and effort, where necessary, to consider and test those views. I have used the outcomes to inform the recommendations to the Minister. NIDS is satisfied that the current proposals for licence fees for individual firearms holders reflect an accurate cost for processing and that the proposed age reductions for participation in clay target shooting and hunting of live quarry are reasonable. We are also happy with the proposed banding system as it contributes to ensuring the humane dispatch of appropriate quarry.

We support the gun trades bodies in their continued efforts to get agreement on security arrangements that are proportionate and practical for the smaller dealers and gun repairers. We support the shooting organisations in their provision of training, education and insurance for their membership and congratulate them on their effective and detailed contribution to the consultation and licence fees. Finally, NIDS urges the Committee, the Department of Justice, the PSNI and firearms licensing to put compulsory firearm safety training and third-party insurance on their agendas for consultation and consideration in the near future.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Thank you very much. I have a couple of question before I open it up to other members. You mentioned the issue about the young shooters. We all accept that young people mature psychologically and physically at different rates, and if you are talking about some sort of training procedure, that gets round the age. It is not relevant to whether the young person is able to handle a gun and act responsibly. Who do you envisage doing your mandatory training? What would the cost be, who would bear the cost of that?

Mr McCullough: Obviously, the BASC and BDS deliver training for deer stalking. In other European countries, the training is generally delivered by national hunting associations and federations. Shooting organisations provide it, and I suggest that they could build on that. They are already doing it and they are in the business of delivering excellent training. I say that having gone through the deer stalking training myself. If that is expanded to the other areas of hunting and shooting, I would be a lot happier and a lot more confident that actions would be prevented through that training. The cost for the deer stalking course is somewhere around £250. It is a while since I have done it, so I am not sure what the current price is, but it is a question of cost against risk. If there is a cost to it, so be it. The duty of care is to ensure public safety. I believe that can only be done effectively through adequate nationally accredited training.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Do you have any idea how many people voluntarily go through that training now?

Mr McCullough: I can only speak from reading the shooting magazines, but I think that the BASC and the British Deer Society regularly put at least 20 or 30 people through a year. It is important to remember that firearms licensing, as far as I am aware, will not award you a licence for a hunting rifle unless you have that qualification. So, it is already there, and it may be de facto. I am not sure if it is completely required under the Act, but there is a de facto requirement.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): You mentioned that other European countries have models that you support. Is there a particular model elsewhere in Europe that you think we should follow?

Mr McCullough: The German model is reckoned to be the most detailed, but it is very expensive and can take a long time. Deer Management Qualifications, a company formed, I think, by the BASC and the British Deer Society, deliver courses at a very reasonable cost and in what I reckon is a realistic time to get the training across and have it absorbed. In some of those countries, you are talking about a year to complete training. I do not think that is totally necessary.

Mr Douglas: Thank you very much for your presentation. You mentioned your concerns about young shooters in Northern Ireland. Do you have you any idea how many young people we are talking about in that age bracket?

Mr McCullough: To be quite honest, I do not. I am a member of a number of shooting clubs and organisations, and, to be quite frank with you, we do not see that many young people coming through. It is generally teenagers who are coming through. They tend to be 16 or over.

Mr Douglas: Have you any idea of the average age of shooters across Northern Ireland?

Mr McCullough: I would imagine that the average age is middle age.

Mr Douglas: What is the experience in other parts of the United Kingdom in relation to the concerns about young shooters? Do you have any idea?

Mr McCullough: Some of the shooting organisations have young shots days, and I know, from reports, that the children have a wonderful time. I believe that those are quite popular and sometimes oversubscribed.

Mr Douglas: You mentioned two examples of accidents that have occurred here. Do you have any idea what the situation is in other parts of the United Kingdom in terms of young people causing accidents?

Mr McCullough: Obviously, there have been accidents, but the Department of Justice said at the meeting that it was not able to obtain accurate figures for that. My driver is reducing risk. We say that these things do not happen very often, but once is too often. My driver and that of our organisation is to reduce that risk to as low a level as possible.

Mr McGlone: First, Chair, we were promised by the departmental officials way back in March details on the centre for information on firearms and explosives (CIFEx). I do not recall that arriving. There seemed to be a wee bit of woolliness around some of the responses that we were getting, so I hope that the post is not as woolly.

Secondly, thank you very much for your presentation. A number of things arise from it. Some of it just does not square with me. I am glad to hear that you actually have knowledge of firearms. I learnt from my uncle about the use of firearms — the use of a shotgun. He learnt from his father, who was a soldier. I hope that you are not presuming that the training that I got was deficient. We learnt very stringently about the use of a shotgun in particular.

Mr McCullough: Not in the least; I am not saying that every shooter would be incapable of supervising and training. Did your training come down from military training?

Mr McGlone: No; well, maybe there was a bit of that.

Mr McCullough: I am trying to guarantee that everybody gets a standardised foundation in firearms safety. If it is standardised and you can quality assure it, that kind of normalises the situation.

Mr McGlone: I am thinking of other situations, such as people going to clay pigeon shoots. They learn very good practice there, and, if they do not, they are away. I do not know what sort of a shoot your second example happened at. Was that one that you were involved in?

Mr McCullough: Yes, that was the local one.

Mr McGlone: It concerns me that second and third chances were given to a guy to flick his safety switch and point the gun at people.

Mr McCullough: I was not in charge.

Mr McGlone: That should be drawn to the attention of whoever was in charge of supervision, and they should get rid of that boy because he is a danger.

Mr McCullough: I agree.

Mr McGlone: That is not proper supervision in my book.

I move to a few of the practicalities. You referred to young people having difficulty carrying firearms and stuff. Have you ever seen a .410 single-barrelled shotgun?

Mr McCullough: Yes, I have.

Mr McGlone: You know what weight it is then.

Mr McCullough: Yes. If we say that it is OK for 12-year-olds, you cannot guarantee that legislation would restrict the weight and the type of shotgun that they are allowed to use.

Mr McGlone: I appreciate that, but you used the generalisation there. I am sorry, but I have to go through the practicalities. You refer then — I will leave it at this — to specific concerns about deer welfare and potential adverse effects. Can you give me some examples of what you mean by that?

Mr McCullough: We were involved recently with a venison marketing company that is starting up. They were insisting on head and neck shots, and, as far as we are concerned, it is not best practice to do that routinely. There is a high likelihood of shooting a deer through its lower jaw, so that it dies from starvation, or shooting it through the windpipe, so that it dies of infection.

Mr McGlone: Was that for a commercial operation?

Mr McCullough: That was a commercial operation, yes. We saw it as a deer welfare issue, so we lobbied against it, unsuccessfully.

Mr McGlone: You lobbied against —

Mr McCullough: The use of head and neck shots to cull the deer. They were saying that they are quality assured; therefore, they do not —

Mr McGlone: You lobbied against the head and neck shots.

Mr McCullough: Yes, we did indeed.

Mr McGlone: Why was the commercial organisation insisting that it did not want body shots?

Mr McCullough: They were talking about meat wastage.

Mr McGlone: I am losing the thrust of this. You referred to a commercial organisation and its requirement for head and neck shots. That is understandable. You then went on to say that, if they are not properly shot in the head or neck, it could lead to inhumane conditions for the deer.

Mr McCullough: What I am saying is that, in taking a head or neck shot at any distance over 100 metres — in fact, even over 60 metres — there is always the likelihood of the bullet not hitting the point you are aiming at. The head or the brain is a small target. The neck can be quite thick, but if you aim at the middle you are more likely to go through the windpipe than the spinal cord. So, best practice in Scotland and now England is a heart and lung shot. That gives you a much bigger target, and you are more likely to dispatch the deer without the risk of wounding it.

Mr McGlone: You started from the point of view of the commercial interest, but obviously we are all looking for the humane dispatch of animals.

Mr McCullough: Yes.

Mr McGlone: That is OK. I just wanted to clarify that matter.

Mr McCartney: What do you think the age should be?

Mr McCullough: I think 16 is a reasonable age for young people to start hunting.

Mr McCartney: How would you standardise the training?

Mr McCullough: I refer back to the training provided by the company that I mentioned, Deer Management Qualifications. I believe that is an excellent training course, very professionally presented, very professionally run and stringently assessed. Any firearms training in any area of hunting could easily be based on that. That course could be adopted for any quarry.

Mr McCartney: Do you see any room for exemption from the age limit?

Mr McCullough: I am not totally clear, but I think there is some exemption for farmers' sons. I think that age is 16 already. You mention exemptions; I am not too clear where you are going with that.

Mr McCartney: Well, the Chair talked about maturity and a better organised club. You talked about people being on their own. What if they were in more enclosed conditions?

Mr McCullough: I would say that, at 16, they could start shooting, with a period of supervision being very sensible, obviously. If you start off on the basis of formal standardised training for everybody, which is plain, well thought out and covers every aspect, then I think that there would still be a requirement for supervision by an experienced shooter. But at least the novice now has the basics for safety and can build on that through being supervised by an experienced shot for whatever period — 12 months has been mentioned before. Then he would be allowed to go off and hunt on his own account.

Mr McCartney: Would there be an exception if they were in a confined and defined space? Say that a shooting club had a particular space —

Mr McCullough: I am talking specifically about hunting live quarry. Are you talking about someone shooting on their own farmland?

Mr McCartney: I am talking about the ability to hold the firearm in controlled circumstances.

Mr McCullough: I would think that, at 16, most, although not everybody — As the Chairman said, all children develop at different rates, and we are trying to come to what would be a reasonable starting point.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Just to clarify: age 16 is for quarry only and not for clay pigeon shooting; is that what you are advocating?

Mr McCullough: As far as I am concerned, 12 is fine, because they are going to be operating in very controlled conditions, they are going to be shooting from within a cage, they have an instructor/supervisor beside them and they are not going to be walking around with a shotgun. I think that 12 is reasonable in that environment.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much for your presentation, David, and your information. I take it from what you said that you support a banded system. Do you have an example of a banded system that you would want or prefer?

Mr McCullough: Our angle on the banded system is basically that it is the welfare of the quarry. We are told by the PSNI firearms expert that the banded system is based on calibre and muzzle energy being matched to the quarry size — small and medium quarry. That has been looked at, and somebody has decided that those calibres are the most suitable for that size of quarry to guarantee a humane kill. That is why we support it.

As a general comment from us, it is about delegating responsibility for firearms variation applications within the bands to the dealers. I think that is a benefit to firearms holders, because it will be more convenient for them. I guess that the Minister has proposed that we will go forward with that proposal and keep it under review. As I said, I think that is a measured approach and it gives time for confidence to be built up in that delegation of authority to the dealers. It seems to me that, if it is left open for review, that could be extended. As far as the shooting fraternity are concerned, they will be able to get more from this. When the shooting organisations come here to speak, I think that they would be happier if that were expanded. As far as we are concerned, we are coming at it from the humane kill point of view.

Mr Frew: There is no problem with regard to the humane kill. Looking at the banded system that the Department is proposing, is there anything there that concerns or alarms you? Does the calibre need to be something else?

Mr McCullough: The only thing that was worrying in the larger bore calibres was that there seemed to be a lever-action gun, which I would not have thought had the velocity to meet the requirements for deer stalking, but I am not sure. It is just a feeling. I understand that that is a Home Office list. The experts have looked at that, and that is what they have come up with.

Mr Frew: Again, whilst the banded system allows for swaps or exchanges one on one, there is nothing to stop a shooter or a firearms certificate holder applying for a larger calibre.

Mr McCullough: My understanding is that, if someone holds a firearm in one of those bands, the new system would require them to have a good reason for having any of the firearms or calibres within that band. As such, there is no need to refer that to the Chief Constable. It is that added convenience that, within those bands and those calibres, you can chop and change as you wish. That was the purpose of the banded system.

Mr Frew: With regard to the young shooters, you highlight a real difference between shooting quarry and clay pigeon shooting.

I understand the scenario that you present: it is in a controlled setting, you are in a cubicle or cage, and, basically, you are being taught to shout, raise the firearm and aim at the clay pigeon. You might hit it; you might not, and you then lower the weapon. Whilst you would, at a young age, be getting experience in handling that weapon, how would you ever learn the trade of hunting? Through that scenario for those years, how would you ever know when it is safe to fire, taking into consideration your footing, where you are positioned, your situation and the backdrop that you are shooting into? Perhaps there are people around you. How would you ever learn that trade?

Mr McCullough: Clay pigeon shooting at 12 covers gun handling and general safety. When you move to hunting, we advocate training specifically for hunting. That training would cover hunting techniques and safety while in the field, such as unloading before you cross an obstacle and showing clear, although that is part of clay pigeon shooting anyway. In terms of clay pigeon shooting, you will learn gun handling and you will be used to carrying a gun, using the safety catch, showing clear and making sure that a gun is unloaded if you find it closed. All that is covered by the routine of clay pigeon shooting.

When it comes to hunting live quarry, we are saying that there should be a basic training course in hunting that covers the quarry type, the quarry ecology and the whole raft of dealing with shooting animals. Basically, that would come through the initial basic training. It would also be in the company of a supervisor. We are not saying that supervision is useless. Far from it; it is very important. The key point of importance is ensuring that the supervisor is up to the job. You cannot guarantee that. The safety net is delivering the basic fundamental training for gun safety in the field initially, and you can then go off with your supervisor. I could use the example of learning to drive. The most common approach now is to pay an accredited driving instructor to take the kids out and give them six lessons. They then drive under your supervision, and you have to listen to all your bad habits that they have learned that you must not do during their training. It is a similar situation.

Mr Frew: I think that I read somewhere that you talked about a young shooter being psychologically ready to shoot and dispatch quarry. You talk about even having a lack of respect for quarry and wildlife at that point. How do you link those two? Being taught to hunt is, in my eyes, completely different from shooting clay pigeons; it is a different craft completely. Anyone I know who is interested in hunting has the utmost respect for wildlife and quarry. That can only really be generated from a very young age. Being exposed to hunting at a young age does not endanger that, but you seem to argue that it could well and that, in fact, young people may be put under pressure to kill. That is very interesting. I have never experienced that, and I do not know anybody who ever has. Do you have examples of —

Mr McCullough: I did not take my son shooting until he asked me whether he could go. He made that request when he was 28. I have been to formal shoots to which children have been brought, and it was obvious that they did not really want to be there, did not want to touch the dead bird and were appalled by the whole thing, because, at a driven shoot, the birds are just knocked out of the air. It is all very good sport if that is what you are into, but my experience was that those kids definitely were not enjoying themselves.

In decades gone by, when it was maybe necessary to hunt to live and survive, that was part of life and part of growing up. That is no longer the case. I am saying that children should be introduced to it very sensitively. I find that, for some of my shooting friends, it is a big disappointment in their lives that their children did not want to follow them into the sport. I have grandchildren now, and nothing would encourage me to take them out to watch me shoot a deer.

Mr Frew: Is that not the same in every walk of life? My two youngsters love football and I love the fact that they love playing football, but they do not play rugby; they are not interested at all. There will be young people who are not interested in shooting and do not like the idea of it. They are not the sort of people that we are talking about; we are talking about young people who are interested in shooting.

Mr McCullough: If they are interested and self-motivated to do it, I have no problem with that. None whatsoever.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): The other scenario is bad parenting more than anything else; that is, if you are forcing your child to do something that they do not want to do. You cannot legislate for bad parenting. Paul is making a point about a young person who is psychologically ready to do it and wants to do it. That is the issue that we are talking about. In the other scenario, it is purely bad parenting.

Mr Frew: I have one final question, Chair. They tell us all the time that you need to get a youngster young when it comes to languages because they take more in. Surely, with a set of good, decent standard operating procedures on checking clear or making sure you unload before you cross an obstacle such as a river crossing, that can be ingrained as quickly and as efficiently into the psyche of the young person at 12 as it can at 16, 18 or 19.

Mr McCullough: I agree. We have no issue with youngsters clay pigeon shooting. They will get that. I said in the presentation that I believe that, at 16, a young person is more ready to decide, "Yes, that is something that I want to do". I am not saying that you cannot take them along; I have no right and am in no position to do that. By all means, if children want to go along and see the spectacle, that is fine. However, that is different from putting a gun into their hands and urging them to shoot a rabbit or a bird. In their young minds, they will think, "An adult has told me to do that, so it must be OK".

My concern is that, if it is OK to shoot and nobody seems to be concerned that the animal has been killed, in their heads, they will place no value on that. Good, responsible shooters always tell me, "We will only shoot something if we take it home and eat it". There are lots of examples — they have been in the media — where bags of dead mallard that have been shot at shoots have been dumped by the side of the road. That happens all over. Those are the behaviours that I am aware of, and that must come to your mind as well. There are irresponsible people, and, if they have that disregard for the quarry that they shoot, that is a bad example to pass on to children.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Leaving the hunting aspect aside and concentrating on the clay pigeon shooting, presumably the clay pigeon shooters who practise that competitively at the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games and so on would argue that, in GB, there is no age limit at all and so, from a sporting perspective, they are getting young people much, much younger. That gives them a competitive advantage over Northern Ireland when it comes to the athletes in Team GBNI or at the Commonwealth Games. Perhaps your organisation cannot comment on it, but is it not, from a sporting perspective — maybe the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure would take more of an interest in this — better to get them younger so that we are competitive with other regions on a sporting level?

Mr McCullough: I have no issue with the age of 12. The only constraint is their physical capability to wield a gun, to swing through and hit the target. As I said, it is in a controlled environment, so I have no strong views on young shooters in that environment.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): I suppose the point that I am making is that, if there is no age limit in GB, are they at a competitive advantage to us?

Mr McCullough: It is quite possible. I am not really qualified to comment meaningfully on that.

Mr Elliott: Thank you for the presentation. My questions have broadly been answered, both around the one-off and the banded system and the young shooters. If there was a different age group for shooters of clays, as there was for hunting for quarry — or deer, like yourselves — would you see any disadvantage in that? If there was a minimum age of 12 for clays and a minimum age of 16 for quarry, would you see that as a disadvantage?

Mr McCullough: Personally, I do not see it as a disadvantage because that is what we are supporting. I do not want to go over old ground, but I do not see any disadvantage. As far as the clay pigeon shooting aspect is concerned, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association appears to be satisfied that that is a reasonable age, so I take my lead from it. On a personal level, I feel that the main constraint is the individual young person's ability to handle the firearm, although I do not know what the experience is for GB. I do not know what age they start them at, but I can certainly see that the earlier you start on that type of thing, the more skilled you will be. I accept that and agree with it.

Mr Elliott: Setting that aside, do you have any comments on the costing of the firearms certificate? That has been a big issue.

Mr McCullough: I pay tribute again to the shooting organisations, having been there and listened to their input and analysis of the figures brought forward by the business consultant. I think that they have now hammered it out and it is now validated that all the costs involved in producing and processing the individual firearm certificate are there and are defensible. I am not going to comment on the dealer side of it, but my own view is that we, in the shooting fraternity, have to accept that costs will go up. That is a given. Shooters are interested in making sure that they get value for money and that the cost is defensible. That is something that we raised at the consultation. Even after it goes through, it needs to be reviewed and revalidated any time it is to be increased. The shooters need to be satisfied that that is the cost of it and we are stuck with it, but we are not being overcharged for it and we will get a service that is fast and efficient. I think that that is the key concern, in my experience.

Mr Poots: I was not in at the start of the meeting; my apologies for that. Did we get how many people are in your organisation? I was trying to find out about —

Mr McCullough: Yes, I can answer that. It was at the very start. Our organisation has a family-based membership. The average over the years is between 25 and 30 families. For a tenner a year it is membership for all members of the family living at the same address. I went on to say that we are going to amalgamate with the Irish Deer Society, the values and aims of which are identical to ours so that we can form an all-Ireland deer welfare group.

Mr Poots: Are you a sister organisation of the British Deer Society?

Mr McCullough: No. The British Deer Society is involved in shooting; we play no part in the lethal control or management of deer.

Mr Poots: I see that it offers training in stocking and so forth.

Mr McCullough: It does, and I have done it; I have followed the course to deerstalker levels 1 and 2.

Mr Poots: But you do not do that sort of training?

Mr McCullough: No. As an organisation, we are purely for deer welfare.

Mr Poots: I am somewhat alarmed at example 2. Mr McGlone made reference to it. You suggest that this young person, who was under the age of 16, I assume, because you said —

Mr McCullough: I am sorry, which example are you referring to?

Mr Poots: Example 2.

Mr McCullough: That is the local one, where the shot missed the other person's heel?

Mr Poots: Yes, the one that you were supervising at.

Mr McCullough: Yes, I estimate that the young person would have been under 15 years. However, his age was not the point. The supervision was the point that I was trying to make.

Mr Poots: Yes, but you were a supervisor. You were not his supervisor, but did you not say that you were a supervisor at the event?

Mr McCullough: Yes, that is right.

Mr Poots: And neither you nor any of the other supervisors stepped in, at any point, to say: "This young man's handling of this gun is a bad example."?

Mr McCullough: I did step in. I spoke to him and reported it.

Mr Poots: Yes?

Mr McCullough: His father was spoken to, and everything was supposed to be all right.

Mr Poots: But he was allowed to hold onto the gun?

Mr McCullough: Yes. I was not in a senior position, by the way; I was there to help to control the line of beaters.

Mr Poots: I consider that pretty irresponsible supervision, and I would not be associated with it.

Mr McCullough: I hope that you are not trying to make me feel responsible for that situation, because that was certainly not the case.

Mr Poots: It speaks for itself.

Mr McCullough: That example raises my concerns and makes my case for ensuring that supervisors themselves be adequately trained and suitable for supervising and training a novice shooter.

Mr Poots: Anybody who had responsibility for supervision on that day should have intervened. Someone could have been killed.

Mr McCullough: Eventually, they did intervene, but it was almost too late.

Mr Poots: Precisely.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): And has the person who was the senior supervisor been appointed to be a senior supervisor —

Mr Poots: This was some time ago, but it was a very senior person who sent them off, eventually.

Mr Dickson: The world of shooting in general, and specifically shooting live quarry, is fairly alien to many people in Northern Ireland. It is not something that the vast majority of people are exposed to, and certainly not exposed to in the detail in which you have brought it to us today. That has been extremely valuable to us.

Therefore, I think that it is reasonable that, on behalf of the vast majority of the public in Northern Ireland who do not have an understanding of, or exposure to, the world of shooting and the particular niche area that you are involved in, that we have a responsibility to ensure that the highest standards are applied in those circumstances. You and others made the point about being psychologically ready to do what it is you do, which is to shoot deer. I am sure of that I believed that I was psychologically ready to drive a car at the age of 13 or 14, and probably did, along the beach in County Donegal somewhere, with my father, probably quite worried, sitting beside me in the car —

Mr McGlone: With his hand on the handbrake, Stewart? [Laughter.]

Mr Dickson: However, the state said that I was not psychologically ready, or ready in any other sense, to do that. The state has a right to legislate, and it is vital that we do. What has come out of this session has been your responsibility in telling us that as well, and I think that that is something to which, as a Committee, we need to pay due care and attention: the fact that you believe that there is an age at which someone should be responsible.

Can I ask about the standardisation of training? It seems to me that it is rather piecemeal. It ranges from very little — sitting next to Nelly — to an appropriate training course delivered by an accredited person. Therefore, there is a responsibility lying in that. So, if the person who has been trained makes an error, hopefully not a fatal one, that error can be referred to a certified trainer who will either have the appropriate sanction against them or will have the error of the training issue pointed out to them, so that it can be reinforced in future training.

Initially, how important do you believe it is that there should be across all the ranges — maybe you only want to comment on the range of shooting that you are involved in — accredited, standardised training, so that the public has confidence that, if they are out driving and they see a car parked at the side of the road and people, primarily men — I want to ask a question about just how many women are involved in the sport — setting off for a shoot across heathland, the group of people is neither going to shoot one another nor have an accident involving a member of the public who might get too close?

Mr McCullough: You have hit the nail on the head as regards training and the public perception of people who shoot. It is important that the public have the expectation that people who are granted firearms certificates are safe to let loose, and the best way to do that is a standard training course, which people see exists and is of high quality. The shooting organisations are resisting the requirement for training in all areas of shooting, while promoting it in one particular area of shooting. I think that they are missing a trick.

I am a member of a shooting club in Bangor, which the council demolished to build the Aurora, and an excellent centre it is; however, there is enormous local opposition to an alternative range there, because, I think, of the public perception of people who shoot. This is where the shooting organisations need to get their act together and convince the public that they are not dangerous. I think that the best way is to demonstrate that you cannot go shooting unless you have had thorough training and an assessment before being issued with a firearms certificate.

Mr Dickson: Who should be the certifying authority and, specifically, should the police be involved in the certification process?

Mr McCullough: In the rest of the EU, the shooting and hunting federations tend to deliver it. They are very big organisations, and we could not compete on that level. However, the Deer Management Qualifications company could easily expand, particularly if training and assessment become a legal requirement. They would be looking at an open market. Making the training mandatory would go a very long way to build public confidence.

Mr Dickson: Is it fair to say that as an organisation, and perhaps even as an individual, you recognise that the simple licensing of a firearm by the police is not the whole picture and that the certification of the individual as capable of using it in either a full or a very narrow range of circumstances is equally important and something that the public needs to be satisfied about?

Mr McCullough: Yes, I agree. Certainly, I said that I think that there is an unjustifiable leap of faith in the supervisor who, just because he has held a certificate for four or five years, may not have been out shooting regularly. He may not have the experience of a person who has held his gun for only a year but who has gone out with it every weekend.

Mr Dickson: Maybe it was just a slip of the tongue, but you said, "farmers' sons". Does that include farmers' daughters?

Mr McCullough: I beg your pardon; I do apologise for that. Thanks for the correction.

Mr Dickson: I am interested to what extent women are involved in the sport.

Mr McCullough: In shooting? I have only met three females who stalk.

Mr Dickson: That is more at the competitive end.

Mr McCullough: There are more in target shooting, but, again, they are not well represented. I mean, they are very competent shots, but there are not very many of them.

Mr Dickson: I understand.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): I also note, Stewart, that the driving offence that you admitted to happened outside the jurisdiction.

Mr McGlone: We were running the risk earlier of getting into the realm of child psychology and, unless any of us are child psychologists, you could be saying "Daddy, what do you do in the abattoir?" or "Daddy, what do you do in that Moy Park or O'Kanes?", you know? I do not think that any of us are qualified, unless some of us are qualified, to go into the realm of child psychology. I do not think that we should go there.

There is one question that I should ask you, as you are obviously endorsing the costs and we are scrutinising them, and you seem to have information that we are not privy to about CIFEx and stuff like that, but, anyway, I will take you as read. How do you feel that the introduction of additional costs will make the sport exclusivist? Everybody has participated in country sports where I come from. There is one top-shot, who is a female, who would probably stand with any of us — probably better us — whom I know very well and whose family I know very well. Shooting is "in" them, if you understand what that means.

Mr McCullough: Indeed I do.

Mr McGlone: From day dot, there are families who are just traditionally that way. Country sports, hunting and shooting: you do not have to go through any psychology tests or anything; you just know that if they are of that family, that is what they do. They enjoy doing it and they enjoy it with care for the countryside, and they contribute hugely to stocking the countryside and to various sports and, in turn, to environmental stuff. Often they are involved in a range of stuff. So, back to that, how do you feel that additional costs would add to it being seen as exclusivist? That is with the greatest of respect to the guys with the tweedy coats and the caps and all that, but where I come from that is not the sort of person who is associated with country sports.

Mr McCullough: My aim is not to drive or price people out of the sport. My driver is that training is required, and that if shooting organisations can deliver the training cheaply, at a rate that their members can afford, that is what they should be aiming at. It cannot be dealt with by saying that we will not do it because it will cost too much, meaning that they cannot participate in the sport. The key driver has to be whether it is safe; it has to be safe. It can only be made safe, I believe, through training. Training on the continent can be very protracted and prohibitively expensive. I recognise that. However, I believe that the way it is being delivered by Deer Management Qualifications is at a reasonable cost and is very good value. It delivers the training in short order. It is intense, but it is thorough and well researched. That would give me confidence that a similar organisation could deliver similar training at a reasonable cost.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. It is always valuable to get a slightly different take on these things.

Mr McCullough: Thank you all very much.