Official Report: Minutes of Evidence
Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, meeting on Thursday, 2 December 2021
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Philip McGuigan (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Clare Bailey
Mrs Rosemary Barton
Mr Tom Buchanan
Mr Harry Harvey
Mr William Irwin
Mr Patsy McGlone
Mr John Blair
Witnesses:
Mr Blair, MLA - South Antrim
Ms Kate Livingston, Alliance Party
Hunting of Wild Mammals Bill: Mr John Blair MLA
Mr John Blair (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you, Deputy Chair and Committee colleagues, for hearing me today. My Assembly researcher, Kate Livingston, who has worked extensively on the Bill, is with us also. I may refer to Kate if there are some questions at the end that I want her opinion or input on. I hope that that is OK.
I will give some of the background that has taken us to where we are now then set out how I see the Bill going forward. As I have pointed out before, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom without a ban on hunting with dogs, despite widespread public support to ban the practice, which includes fox hunting and deer hunting. It is my opinion, and, I would say, that widely of the public, that hunting with dogs is a cruel and unnecessary sport that causes immeasurable suffering for the hunted animal and, on occasion, the hunting dogs, which can sustain horrific injuries, especially during terrier work. The intention of my private Member's Bill is to reform legislation on hunting wild mammals with dogs in Northern Ireland and to bring our legislation into line with that which already exists in England, Scotland and Wales, where the practice that I am referring to has been illegal for more than 15 years.
Between December 2020 and February 2021, I conducted an eight-week consultation exercise. There were 18,425 responses to it, with an overwhelming majority of respondents — 78·16% — saying that all hunting of, searching for, coursing of, capturing of or killing of wild mammals with dogs should be banned in Northern Ireland. An even greater majority of respondents — 79·6% — said that they consider terrier work, which is the activity of using dogs to attack and cause a wild animal to flee its cover, to be unacceptable. Following the consultation and deliberation, I considered that creating primary legislation was clearly the best mechanism by which to achieve the policy objectives comprehensively and to introduce appropriate penalties for breaches of the proposed law. The Bill will require a consequential amendment to the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to ensure that a coherent statutory framework is in place for Northern Ireland.
The Bill aims to introduce a ban on hunting wild mammals to the death with dogs. Without legislation, that practice cannot be banned. I also intend for the legislation to facilitate prosecutions and to act as a deterrent to future hunting using dogs to kill wild mammals. I am also conscious of loopholes in legislation in other jurisdictions, such as trail hunting being used as cover for proscribed fox hunting. Accordingly, provision to address that has also been included in the Bill. The legislation will ensure that Northern Ireland will lead the way, with a full and comprehensive ban on hunting with dogs. It does not duplicate the exemptions and loopholes that have allowed animals to continue to be chased and killed in the rest of the UK. This is a historic opportunity to tackle the scourge of hunting with dogs once and for all in Northern Ireland. We need to end that brutally cruel activity, which has no place in a civilised, modern-day society.
I will move on to the content of the Bill and give the Committee some description of it. The 2000 report of the parliamentary inquiry into hunting with dogs, which is commonly referred to as the Burns report, established and concluded that animals suffer incredible physiological and psychological stress when chased by a hunt and that that suffering occurs whether or not they are eventually killed. The evidence eventually led to a ban in England and Wales, which we know as the Hunting Act 2004. The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 protected certain wild mammals from being hunted with dogs and placed restrictions on the practice of hunting wild mammals with dogs. Northern Ireland remains the only jurisdiction in the United Kingdom without a ban on hunting with dogs, which, as I said, includes fox hunting and deer hunting. As I also said, the Bill aims to introduce a ban on hunting wild mammals to death with dogs, with a definition broad enough to include deer, foxes, rabbits and mink.
The Bill also intends to ban trail hunting, which is defined in clause 2(2) as:
"any process in which one or more dogs are induced or permitted to follow the scent of a wild mammal (whether the trail of scent has been laid naturally or by human intervention)."
It is crucial that hunting with dogs in Northern Ireland prevent trail hunting being used as a cover for illegal hunting. Loopholes have been exposed in legislation in England, Scotland and Wales that allow hunting to continue under guises including trail hunting. Such exemptions are widely abused, making potential prosecution difficult. That cannot be justified. It is imperative that Northern Ireland eliminate such loopholes, which were highlighted in a recent court case in GB, described as a landmark case on the issue, in which the Westminster Magistrates' Court found the leading huntsman guilty and ordered him to pay £3,500 for giving advice on how to carry out hunts illegally. The court heard that, at two webinars last year, he told members of the Hunting Office to use the legal form of trail hunting as a "smokescreen" for the criminal activity.
The Bill includes a ban on terrier work, which is defined in clause 3(2) as:
"a process in which dogs are induced to enter a hole in the ground—
(a) in order to flush out or otherwise force a wild mammal to leave the hole, or
(b) in order to make it easier or quicker to dig a wild mammal out of the hole."
That is a simple description for the purposes of this briefing, but I assure you that the footage that I have seen of the activity is harrowing and makes for very uncomfortable viewing.
A secondary matter concerning terrier work of which I was made aware during my consultation is that terriers can often sustain severe injuries. It can be the case that professional veterinary care is not sought and that dogs are sometimes treated elsewhere. I heard direct reports of dogs having staples put in their jaw and superglue put on their mouth as intended fixes. Such injuries suggest that the dogs affected in such circumstances were used for activities other than simply flushing rabbits. They may have been involved in illegal activity such as badger baiting, such was the extent of their injuries.
I will move on to the specifics of clause 4, "Exempt hunting", and point out that the Bill allows for exemptions. Hunting is exempt from the prohibition in clause 1 if it is confined to hunting rats or mice or complies with the listed conditions. All of that information is contained in the Bill. Hunting that satisfies the conditions listed in the exemptions will not be deemed illegal. The exemptions cover the protection of livestock, crops and biodiversity, as well as hunting that puts food on the table or that is an established and historical practice as part of country life.
I will now cover the penalties associated with the Bill. In setting them, I followed the highest penalties found in section 31(1A) of the 2011 Act. A person who commits an offence under that Act is liable:
"(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding £20,000, or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to a fine, or both."
It is my hope, Chair, that we can scrutinise the penalties further at Committee Stage, including the potential forfeiture of any dog or hunting article that was used in the commission of the offence or was in the possession of the convicted person at the time of their arrest.
I will move on to the interpretation of the Bill in clause 6. It further defines the remit of clause 1, which states:
"It is an offence to organise or participate in the hunting of a wild mammal with a dog"
by stating that all willing participants or those otherwise involved in the pursuit of a wild mammal will have caused an offence. I have made the offences themselves ones of strict liability so that the prosecution has only to prove the organisation of or participation in the hunting. "Participation" carries within its natural language meaning sufficient indications of joint enterprise to exclude genuinely inadvertent stumbling across a hunt or, for example, the walking of a dog by an average dog walker.
Chair, I am grateful today to my Committee colleagues for the opportunity to present on the Hunting of Wild Mammals Bill and for their engagement on the matter, and I look forward to further engagement as the Bill progresses. My colleagues are already aware that I represent a largely rural constituency. They will also be aware that, before I joined the Assembly, I worked in the country sports sector for many years, ensuring that a variety of country sports and other outdoor activities were accessible to the public, so they will know that the issues matter very much to me.
The Bill is not intended to restrict in any way traditional country sports such as shooting, using gun dogs or angling. The Bill also maintains an appropriate balance, by exempting hunting from the ban in certain circumstances, including avoiding damage to livestock, crops or property and the biological diversity of an area, as I highlighted to you a few moments ago.
It is therefore not my intention to go further than the scope of the Bill, as clearly defined and outlined, and its content, as described today to the Committee. I hope that the clearly defined scope of the Bill, to which I do not intend to add, is a good reason that the Bill can be easily considered, consulted on and debated in a timely manner within the time limits of the current Assembly mandate.
I put it to you, Deputy Chair, and the Committee that we have a historic opportunity to make significant difference with the Bill. It is a real opportunity for Northern Ireland not only to catch up with the rest of the UK but to lead the way on ensuring full, robust protection for animals persecuted for human enjoyment and what some call "sport". I look forward to debating the principles of the Bill with political colleagues. I hope that they will give the legislation their backing and that we can finally consign hunting with dogs in Northern Ireland to history, where it belongs.
The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Thank you very much, John, for that presentation. I welcome Kate to the Committee proceedings. A number of members want to ask questions, so I will go straight to them.
Mr Harvey: John, it is good to see you in a different role today, and I welcome you as well, Kate.
John, can you clarify one wee thing for me? If one man with one dog is walking in the countryside, and, without the owner being aware, the dog spies a rabbit in a field and decides to investigate the movement of such, and a pursuit develops, with what would be an unstoppable outcome, what legal power does the Bill give that could lead to a prosecution taking place, whether or not that is unlikely?
Mr Blair: It is a fair question, Harry. That has been put out in correspondence to Members of the Assembly. It is a matter of concern to me, because, frankly, it misrepresents what the Bill intends to do. Let me clarify that for you, and Kate can also do so at the end, if she wishes. The Bill puts the onus on the prosecution to prove willing participation in or the organisation of a hunt. That proof cannot be reached where your average dog walker's dog runs away and does something. That is a common-sense view of the Bill, and the onus will be on the prosecution to prove willing participation. That cannot be proven where people who were walking their dog found that their dog had run away and done something. Quite simply, there is the stipulation that there has to be two or more dogs involved, and there is the necessity to prove that there was willing organisation or participation. I believe that that threshold cannot be met in those circumstances.
Mr Harvey: OK. Thank you very much. I appreciate that clarification, John. That will do.
Mr McGlone: Thank you very much for bringing the Bill before us. I am sure that none of us wants to be in a situation in which there is any association with or endorsement of cruelty to animals. We have our own pets and animals, and we do not want to see that happening on-farm, off-farm or wherever it may be. I understand and am supportive of the motivation to protect animals against any abuse. I also live in the countryside, and I am involved in different country sports organisations, although not in hunting. I have received emails for and against the Bill.
First, I want to pick up on the wider agenda. Among country sports organisations, there is a perception, which may well be because of an association with the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) and some of its activities in GB, that, whatever about hunting, the Bill is the thin edge of the wedge and that it is anti-rural and anti-country sports. That is the first thing.
My second issue relates to interpretation. Clause 6(1) states:
"the hunting of a wild mammal with a dog includes any case where a wild mammal is pursued by one or more persons and one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit."
I will take an actual case. I live very close to Lough Neagh. It is not uncommon for us to see people with shotguns walking across the fields with dogs, on their way to the lough. A dog being a dog, especially a trained dog, with a high-quality nose, will pick up a scent. I am thinking about the average police officer. Some are — how can I put it? — more industrious than others in their pursuit of such things. Indeed, I have heard of one or two cases in which the police officer has been wrong in interpreting the law. The police officer may say, "Hi. Your dog's after heading off after a couple of wild mammals, and you guys are clearly tooled up for hunting", because that is how the officer views, under clause 6, what they are doing. That officer's interpretation could be ill-informed or totally wrong. I am thinking of the unintended consequences. If that officer deems the act to be illegal, it could lead to very serious consequences for any law-abiding member of the sporting community who is a firearms certificate holder. Their guns may be scooped from them because of a report that is put in by that officer. It is that interpretation, how I am reading it and how it could be read by others that concerns me, and it clearly concerns others, John. Will you respond to that, please, and allay some of those concerns?
Mr Blair: First, I will respond to what you said earlier about this being the "thin edge of the wedge", albeit I know that you said it with good intentions. I assure the Committee, as I did in my presentation, that I have no intention of adding to the Bill. As is the case for you with Assembly business, I cannot answer for others, but it is not my intention to add to the Bill. I cannot be more clear than that.
I firmly believe that the issue of dogs being drawn in or attracted by a scent, or something else, is adequately covered by the "two or more persons and two or more dogs" provision in the interpretation of what you described. You painted a scenario of a police officer coming across something. We cannot legislate for lack of judgement, error of judgement or genuine mistake, but I genuinely believe that all of that is clearly and adequately provided for in the interpretation in the Bill. No one should be led to that misinterpretation, because the Bill clearly refers to willing participation, organisation of a hunt, and pursuit by two or more persons and two or more dogs. Kate, have you anything to add to that? I think that that covers most of it.
Ms Kate Livingston (Alliance Party): I have met some of you before, but some of you I have not. I work in John's office, and I have been working with him on the Bill for about a year. To add to what John has said, for a prosecution to take place, there has to be proof of participation and engagement in a pursuit and a hunt with dogs. That prevents there being a prosecution in cases in which a dog stumbles on a scent or a dog walker inadvertently stumbles across a hunt or a pursuit.
Mr McGlone: I want to get this absolutely clear, because such records will need to be looked at by police. Take, for instance, a police officer who is driving up a narrow country road close to Lough Neagh. The officer spots half a dozen people with shotguns going about their legitimate pursuit. They have half a dozen or more dogs with them, and the dogs chase after a mammal. In that police officer's eyes, if we take the interpretation in the Bill that is before us, it could be interpreted in one direction, but it could have serious consequences for law-abiding people who would never in a million years think of breaking the law. That is the one bit that has been expressed to me as a concern, John. None of us ever wants to create unintended consequences. We want to do the right thing for the right reasons. I am a bit concerned, however, about the interpretation and how it might play out. That is a worry for me.
Mr Blair: I understand that. There has to be evidence for prosecution, and there has to be a prosecutorial test met. We are speaking hypothetically, but I do not believe that a situation that does not look like an organised hunt, which is designed to hunt wild animals to the kill, would meet that test. I am happy to have these discussions.
Mr McGlone: To be absolutely clear, John, what happens in circumstances in which, until it is proven otherwise, an officer perceives illegal activity to have taken place? There could be unintended consequences from that. It is one thing if the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) totally and utterly dismisses the case, but it may take six or 12 months to reach the PPS. I have dealt with cases of a different type that fit into this niche. In the interim, there is a question mark over the fitness of those people who have been listed by the police officer to retain a firearm. In some cases, if a question mark is hanging over them — in a lot of cases, with good reason — their firearms are removed from them and there is a question mark on their file in the firearms and explosives (FEB) branch in PSNI headquarters. That is a concern. It is therefore down to police officers on the ground and their perception and interpretation of the legislation at that given time, because it is they who submit the report. As a consequence of that report, if there is a question mark or a query over people's fitness to retain a firearm because they have potentially broken the law, there can be ramifications for those law-abiding people and their legally held firearms certificate.
Mr Blair: I will take that on board, Patsy. You will understand that I am aware, as a Committee member as well as the Member sponsoring the Bill, that, as part of this discussion, there is a proposal from the Committee Clerk on the way in which the Committee should take forward consultation and discussion. I know that there is a list of consultees who may well bring up some of the points that you have made. I am very happy to have a conversation at Committee Stage.
Mr McGlone: Thanks for your time, John. Thanks for introducing the Bill, by the way, but those are concerns that have been raised with me. They come from genuine people who do not want any blot on their legal ability to hunt, by which I mean wildfowling and those types of things. I appreciate your listening to me. Thank you.
Ms Bailey: Thanks, John and Kate, for bringing the Bill to the Committee. I completely agree with you that legislation is long overdue and cannot believe that this brutally cruel activity is still happening. Thank you for the work that you have done to date in getting the Bill this far. I also thank you for the rationale behind why you included trail hunting in the Bill. That was very helpful. It was on my list. As you know fine rightly, there has been a lot of interest in your Bill. There has been a lot of emails and communications from all sides of the argument.
I was listening to the questions, but I want to ask you something. You pointed out that this is yet another area in which Northern Ireland is lagging behind as the only region that does not have legislation to ban this brutal animal cruelty and human behaviour.
In the work so far, have you come across any examples of unintended consequences in other regions where, for example, a dog walker has faced action under the legislation when it is applicable? Are there any other scenarios, or are you finding that common sense has prevailed?
Mr Blair: No, Clare, I have not. I understand the hypothetical situation that has been raised. It is important that we thrash out the detail at this stage and that, if there are concerns, people express them. I have not seen any evidence of inadvertent or questionable prosecution or apprehension of people, dogs, weapons or anything else. However, I am obviously not hostile to having the conversations that we have just had around the previous couple of questions. It is important that we thrash out this detail in the interests of making good legislation, and also to ensure that Northern Ireland is not lagging behind, that we can close any loopholes that have arisen elsewhere and that we can clarify any grey areas that exist. That is my position on it.
The position on trail hunting is that it apparently seems to have been invented by hunts after hunting was banned in other jurisdictions. I am not saying that there was any deliberate intention there, but it certainly has led to a situation where animals have been killed by hounds as a consequence of that. That is something that we need to seek to avoid if we are in the business of taking this seriously and preventing animal cruelty.
Ms Bailey: Thank you. I have a wee quick one, hopefully. In clause 4(6), condition 4, you set out that "reasonable steps are taken" to ensure that, if a wild mammal is found injured, it is then:
"shot dead by a competent person."
Have you given any thought as to how we would monitor how that works or what is happening?
Mr Blair: My own take on that is that existing animal welfare and wildlife legislation would have to be applied. I know that, separately to this Bill, loads of us are looking carefully at how the statutory animal welfare organisations interface, where responsibility stops and starts, how they interact, how there is out-of-hours cover and a wide variety of other things. That is worthy of examination, but it probably lies with the statutory responsibilities that already exist. It is important that we take every opportunity, outwith the Bill, to tighten up those processes.
Mrs Barton: I want to go back to clause 6(1). It talks about animals:
"pursued by one or more persons and one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit."
I live in the heart of the country, and I know a lot of local people who have two or three dogs. On a Sunday afternoon, they are roaming on their land and they have two or three dogs with them, a rabbit jumps out in front of them etc, and there is a pursuit. It is not clear whether or not that person could be accused of hunting. They have more than two dogs, as you describe in clause 6. In a farmhouse, it is quite likely that there are two or three dogs and maybe more, but generally up to three. Can you clarify what you mean?
Mr Blair: Rosemary, I will let Kate come in again at the end, should I miss any detail here or any official factor. Again, we are back to the difference where a hunt is clearly organised, structured and called together. There is no doubt that that takes a particular format and presents a very particular image. I do not think that that image is reflected in a smaller number of people out walking their dogs on a Sunday. I know very many people who will be in that situation. It presents very different imagery to any enforcement authority coming across that, and it will be clear to be seen. For that reason, it is defined clearly and explicitly in the Bill so that loopholes are closed whilst, at the same time, there is a responsibility on the law enforcement agencies to prove willing participation or organisation.
Kate, is there anything to add to that?
Ms Livingston: Yes. We are aware of the e-lobbies that have been circulated by some of the organisations that are in opposition to the Bill where they have raised those issues. We have been in direct conversations with the Bill office on the development of this Bill, particularly around this issue. It was felt that, for an offence to take place, the prosecution would have to prove participation in a hunt with dogs, and that participation in itself carries natural language that means a joint enterprise, organisation and employment in a hunt. That is to exclude people who are genuinely out in the countryside walking three or more dogs, for example, or who stumble across a hunt by accident.
Mr Blair: It is probably important that I point out that, in the course of the consultation and in the course of my work, I have met people who have been out for their Sunday walk with their children and with their dogs and have come across a hunt and found it to be a most unpleasant experience, so it works both ways. There are those who have had their country walk, and a hunt has come across them or they have come across a hunt, whichever way you look at it, and they take a very different opinion on whether, as individuals, they want to be caught up in such activity or be witness to what is going on. That is before we even address the issue of landowners. The observers/those drawn in to witness such activity have also expressed their own concerns and desire to have those issues dealt with.
Mrs Barton: John, I hear your explanation, but it still does not give much comfort to that person if they are reported for their dog having attacked a wild mammal. You then have the police or law enforcement coming out and investigating. It still gives that person very little protection. There is very little protection in your Bill from that.
Mr Blair: Yes, but it is not massively different to, for example, a situation in the current circumstances and within current legislative frameworks where a dog comes across or seeks to pursue a badger trail or sniff out, as it were, a badger sett. I do not know of anybody who has been prosecuted for such activity who appeared to be, at the outset, a dog walker, a nearby resident or a casual passer-by. I think that those two scenarios are comparable, and I think that, ultimately, this will come down to the fact that there is legislation to protect other wild mammals. It is very specific and does not cover the hunting of wild mammals with dogs where dogs are used for the kill. There are examples from where wildlife legislation applies elsewhere that could at the very least be said to be comparable to bringing in new legislation to deal with this issue and to address the issues of reasonableness and interpretation around that.
"a person participates in hunting with dogs, or in trail hunting, whether or not the person is responsible for controlling any of the dogs used in the hunting."
Again, that is not very definitive.
Mr Blair: I contend that the description of the hunt is laid down as being the organised pursuit of wild mammals using dogs, and that that will be clearly visible and identifiable as a hunt. I understand your seeking clarification — of course I do — but I think that that is covered by the definition of what a hunt is: one or more dogs, one or more people and the pursuit of a wild mammal where those dogs might be used to kill that wild mammal.
Mrs Barton: I am still not overly confident about subsections (1) and (2) of clause 6. Thank you, John.
Mr Irwin: Thank you, John. I have some concerns. There is no doubt that I am totally against cruelty to wild animals — or any animal, for that matter. I have a farm, and there are a number of farms where there is hunting with vehicles. These people have probably hunted for all of their lifetime, and maybe the generation before them did too. What would you say to people who say, "We do not go out to kill wild animals"? I am no hunter, and I have no interest in hunting, but, in my eyes, a good huntsman does not go out to see the dogs kill the prey. A true huntsman enjoys the hunt, and he runs the dogs off the scent after a period of time. Most of those huntsmen would say, "We do not want to see wild animals killed. We enjoy the sport." To them, it is a sport. For me, it is not a sport. I have no interest in it whatsoever. John, what do you say to those people who genuinely do not want to damage or kill wild animals or to be cruel to them?
Mr Blair: There are a number of issues in that line of questioning, and I understand that. That is why, when I made my presentation, I sought to make clear that I do not intend to add to the Bill. I am generally supportive of a wide range of country sports, and there is a wide range of such sports and activities out there that serve as alternatives to something that may be made illegal in Northern Ireland and that has already been made illegal in other jurisdictions on these islands. There is no attack on country sport or general intent to thwart activity.
With those who participate and who claim to be carrying out a tradition and doing what they know and enjoy, there comes a point at which we have to address, in the event that a wild mammal is caught by those dogs and torn to shreds, sometimes in front of humans, the issue of whether that is socially acceptable and should be permitted within the law. There will be — I am not shying away from it — a point at which we have to accept that there are those who will support such activity and those who will not. I clearly fall into the category of those who will not. That does not mean that I will not seek alternative pursuits for those who were previously involved in such activity. The best that I can do, William, is to give you my word that I will genuinely support people to seek other country sports and activities, but there will be a point where we have to decide whether an activity that is clearly illegal in other jurisdictions is socially acceptable and should remain legal in Northern Ireland and whether the rest of us are prepared to accept that. That is why I am taking the Bill forward.
Mr Irwin: You said that there is legislation in other parts. There is, to my knowledge, no such legislation in the Republic of Ireland, but there is in England. That legislation does not seem to be working. Hunts seem to have gone on as usual.
Mr Blair: I have sought to keep the provisions of the Bill clearly defined. That is why I stress that I do not want to add to it and that there is no thin end of the wedge. It is a clearly defined, very specific Bill that is also intended to close loopholes that have arisen elsewhere. That is my intention, and I hope that it is clear from the content of the Bill.
Mr Irwin: Harry and Patsy raised concerns that are similar to mine. We will see how this progresses. As a country person, I do not want to see cruelty to animals. I think that the example that you gave of animals being torn to shreds is very rare
[Inaudible owing to poor sound quality.]
Maybe you are dramatising that a wee bit. I do not think that it happens very often. I have never seen it in my lifetime, anyway.
Mr Blair: I could cite examples of video clips that have been posted online that are pretty sensational, but I am also fully aware that there are those who participate who have never done those things. I may disagree with their participation in principle and what the end result might be, whether it is often or seldom, but I do not make that claim against everybody, and I am prepared to clarify that.
Ms Livingston: The cases that William talks about are, I believe, suggestive of drag hunting and "clean boot" hunting, in which the pursuit is done for the sport rather than for the kill. There is no proposal in this Bill to ban either of those sports, so they will still be legal under its provisions.
Mrs Barton: Just one moment. Obviously, I live in Fermanagh. What is the concept in relation to cross-border dogs? Dogs know no boundaries sometimes, and you may have dogs coming across the border to hunt or that type of thing.
Mr Blair: The Committee has discussed transboundary issues on a number of areas. It is a valid point. Such legislation does not exist in the South. There is some pressure from various quarters to try to make that happen. It may well happen someday, but it is not for us to decide, of course. Whilst there is currently no explicit piece of legislation in that regard, it may happen at some point. The members' pack includes some explanation of the detail of the licensing regulations that exist in the Republic of Ireland. Other than that, it is fair to say that, sometimes, there are other legislative differences between the two jurisdictions, and the various enforcement agencies have to try to manage that as best they can.
Mrs Barton: Yes. For example, if dogs were to stray from the Republic into Northern Ireland and there was a case for prosecution, can that type of thing go ahead?
Mr Blair: I am guessing that if a hunt took place in this jurisdiction, it would be prosecuted in this jurisdiction.
Mr T Buchanan: Listening to the questions has been interesting. John, I have concerns with the Bill, because I see no protection at all in it for the sportsman. Patsy and others have outlined it very well. I see no protection at all. For example, if I went out for a walk with a couple of friends with our springer spaniels or whatever type of dogs, a couple of the dogs could go through the fields after the scent of a hare or rabbit. I could have a neighbour who does not like me, and they could give the police a call and report it to them, saying, "Buchanan has been out hunting on the trail with his dogs and other friends". The police will automatically land at my door, and, if I have any shotguns or whatever, they will be lifted right away. I will have no argument against that. They will be lifted right away, even if I did not have them out with me. That could create a period of six, nine or 12 months before those are put back, if ever, because that would still leave a black mark on that person's firearm certificate or against their name for future years. Under the Bill, what protection is there in a scenario like that for these types of people? Those are the people who will be affected by the Bill that you are bringing forward.
Mr Blair: Again, we are back to the threshold that has to be met to prosecute for willing organisation or participation and the duty on enforcement authorities to meet that threshold. Thomas, I am aware that the scenario that has been painted today has been illustrated before, but it is no different from the situation where someone bears a grudge and, under current legislation, they accuse someone that they do not like of badger baiting, fishing out of season or doing something else. There is a raft of activities out there that are banned or regulated by law to certain limits. Fish
[Inaudible owing to poor sound quality]
is a good example. Anybody with a grudge could report another individual for any amount of stuff within those boundaries, if they wanted to make what you might call a vexatious complaint. You cannot legislate to predict that. Such a circumstance could arise in more or less any legislation. Somebody can be reported for something that they did not do. There is no difference in a circumstance under other wildlife legislation than under this legislation.
Mr T Buchanan: Yes. The problem I see is that that scenario is going to increase, and there will be a huge knock-on effect for sporting people in rural areas.
Mr Blair: I accept your point. However, this is one aspect of country sport that I am trying to ban from Northern Ireland through this Bill, but there is no reference in the Bill to other forms of country sport. Today, I have said, as clearly as I can, that it is not my intention to address those forms of sport.2345
Mr T Buchanan: I will make it clear that I do not hunt with dogs and I do not agree with hunting with dogs to kill wild mammals. I do not agree with that whatsoever. However, I see a scenario where there will be a problem for genuine people in our rural communities.
The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): No other members wish to ask a question. I just have a couple of questions. Is it the case that all the conditions in clause 4 need to be met for hunting to be exempt?
Ms Livingston: All the conditions outlined in clause 4 need to be satisfied for it to be deemed legal.
Mr Blair: Are you referring to hounds that currently operate?
Mr Blair: I am sure that the owners love their dogs; we are a nation of animal lovers. I assume that there is a current provision to care for dogs that are injured, ill or older. We might want to get some clarification on some of that. I expect that there is already some degree of provision for those dogs. Certainly, if additional provision is required, it is probably worth looking to the Department to provide support to address the need for care and to assist people to participate in other country sports. Sometimes the Department has a role in providing that anyway.
The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): OK. Thank you. There has been a thorough interrogation of the Bill today. I thank John and Kate for presenting their evidence. No other members have indicated that they want to ask a question. Thank you, John and Kate.