Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Minister, thank you for attending. This is a slightly unusual meeting in that it is happening during recess. I thank you and your officials for attending. You have issued a public statement: I offer you an opportunity to refer to that and add any information that you want.

Mr T Buchanan: Chair, prior to the Minister's coming in, may I ask why the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), Brian Dooher, is not here today? He may be on holiday, but other people have, despite being on holiday, been able to take an hour to come in and join us online. Surely it would not have been a big thing for the Chief Veterinary Officer to do the same. Given the importance of today's meeting, he should be here or online.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is slightly unusual for a member to ask a question right at the start like that, but it is a good point, Tom. I am sure that the Minister will address it. If you do not mind, Minister, please pick up on that in your address.

Members, I ask that we now create the space to treat this as a normal Committee meeting. Thank you.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Chair. I will address that point.

I thank you and members for the opportunity to brief the Committee on the actions taken by my Department in complying with an animal deprivation order issued by the court in June this year. I am acutely aware of the public interest in and concern at what has been reported about the developments in what is a deeply distressing and sensitive issue. I will therefore use the opportunity to brief the Committee, set out the facts and outline the next steps that my Department will progress at pace.

I am joined today by Gemma Daly, Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer, and Elsie McGarvey, senior principal veterinary officer, the two professional veterinary officials who are closest to the events that the Committee wishes to discuss. They, along with me, will seek to answer any questions that Committee members may have after I have made these brief opening remarks. Members have received a detailed briefing through my written ministerial statement, which was issued to all MLAs last Thursday, so I will endeavour to keep my remarks short and to the point.

As Minister, I have the distinct privilege of regularly meeting many farm businesses and the wider industry. I cannot fail to be impressed by their dedication, expertise, care for their animals and ambitions for our agriculture and agri-food industries. As with any sector, the vast majority of our farmers seek to implement the highest standards of care and husbandry for their livestock. That cannot but be appreciated by me and by wider society, which benefits from the world-renowned, highest-quality product that they produce. However, as with any sector, when individuals are judged by a court process to fall short of the standards expected under law, the court may intervene to protect livestock, food security and the wider industry from any negative consequences.

It is a matter of public record that, on 8 May 2026, the farmer whose cattle are the subject of today's discussion was convicted on a wide range of charges, including six charges of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal; 13 charges of failure to dispose of an animal carcass; failure to comply with an animal by-products notice; and failure to produce medicine records. He was sentenced on 8 June of this year, receiving a custodial sentence and a fine. It is important to clarify that the improper use of medicines in animals presents a real risk to human health. All keepers of animals that are destined for the food chain are therefore legally obliged to maintain robust records pertaining to the use of medicines in the animals under their care.

The case arose from numerous welfare inspections carried out by DAERA staff between 28 January 2022 and 30 January 2024. During those inspections, conditions on the farm were very poor. The photos that were published, including that of emaciated animals, will never leave my mind. The situation on the farm that led to the prosecutions was, frankly, grotesque. The land was severely poached; housing was poorly maintained, with dirty bedding; and there was insufficient access to feed and water — the limited feed that was available was contaminated with urine and dung. A large number of animals were caused unnecessary suffering. Approximately 33 animal carcasses and a number of animal bones were found. The individual was rightly disqualified for life from keeping, owning or participating in the keeping of animals; from being party to an arrangement under which animals are kept; and from transporting or arranging the transport of all animals.

A deprivation order was issued by the court, and action was therefore required. I have asked for a copy of the deprivation order be placed in the Assembly Library. The Committee received a copy on Friday. The order legally required the Department to deprive the individual of any livestock. The Department had no choice, and so my officials took the necessary steps to fulfil that legal obligation.

As a first step, my Department sought to work constructively with the individual, providing an extended period of three weeks for him to sell, give away or transfer his stock and offering advice and guidance. Unfortunately, only a small number of animals were moved out of the herd, so DAERA had to act on the legal order placed on it by the court. In such situations, officials need to consider the best way forward to divest the owner of their remaining animals, taking account of factors including animal welfare, animal health, disease control, traceability, the integrity of the food chain and public health. By their nature, the options will always vary according to the particular circumstances that apply, and decision-making must balance all the factors that I have referenced as well as the cost to the public purse. In this case, the deemed professional judgement of veterinary officials was that dispatch of the cattle was the only viable option.

Normally, dispatch of the cattle away from the farm is preferable, but veterinary officials assessed that that was not feasible in this case. It is important to note that that was a professional veterinary assessment based on several factors that were specific to the case and site, including the lack of suitable facilities for safely gathering and containing the animals; the temperament of the animals; the stress that additional handling would have created; transport-related welfare and safety concerns, including those related to horned cattle; and the practical inability to move all animals from the site. That is critical to the case. On that professional advice from fully qualified veterinarians, the culling of the cattle on-site was, sadly, considered to be the only viable option. In this case, therefore, 51 animals were removed from the disqualified keeper via dispatch by shooting on 29 and 30 June.

I fully and entirely appreciate the distressing nature of the case. In carrying out such court orders, DAERA veterinary officials will always prioritise the welfare of the animals involved alongside the health and safety implications of the operation. The staff in that team are highly trained in line with best practice and legislative requirements and are highly respected across these islands for their expertise in following procedures that provide for a humane death; in fact, they are often called on to support colleagues in other jurisdictions.

As Minister, I have already sought, via my urgent ministerial statement last Thursday, to address the misinformation that has circulated in recent days, but it seems that some wish to wilfully ignore the facts that have been set out and have already finalised their conclusions on the matter rather than waiting for the external review report. As Minister, I urge everyone to take a step back, recognise the complexities and sensitivities of the case and give the independent external review time and space to examine and report.

Given some of the misinformation suggesting that I sanctioned the operation or ordered the cull, it is important to set out what I knew and when I knew it. I was notified on the day of the operation by officials that they would be acting on a deprivation order for a disqualified keeper and that the action was taking place on that date and would involve euthanasia of the remaining animals on the farm. My permanent secretary was informed at the same time. Across the public service, operational decisions taken by those closest to the operation are the reality. We encourage our staff to exercise their judgement and deploy their knowledge and expertise to ensure the best possible outcome in any circumstances. Precise details of operations are not normally shared with Ministers, nor would it be appropriate for a Minister to interfere and start to dictate how such operations should be conducted. In setting that out, I am not shirking accountability or responsibility but simply stating the facts.

I repeat, from last Thursday's statement, that there were three sites subject to DAERA activities. Two of the sites were remote, with limited public access, and cattle were dispatched on those sites by approximately 1.30 pm on 29 June, with no issues arising. The conduct of the operation was dynamically assessed by the team on-site. That assessment included consideration of public visibility. Operations were conducted in the most suitable areas available in the fields to minimise exposure to public view and maximise operational safety. Although complete screening from all possible vantage points could not be guaranteed, efforts were made to keep the operation out of public view.

On the last of the three fields in which the cattle were dispatched, commentary has centred around a farmer who was seeking to buy cattle, the activities that ensued and the public view of those activities. As I detailed last Thursday, when a farmer approached, expressing an interest in purchasing some cattle, operations ceased immediately, and it was agreed that some of the cattle could be moved to a lorry for transfer. The animals were then chased for a period in an attempt to gather them, demonstrating the real challenges of gathering the animals on the site. They were then released on to a public road, at which stage, conscious of wider public safety, DAERA staff intervened, with the help, thankfully, of some local farmers, to move the animals off the road, where they were humanely euthanised. At that juncture, a small number of protesters had gathered at the site, and no operations took place until they had dispersed.

Police officers attended the location on the morning of 29 June due to advance notice that was given by my Department. They had no concerns in relation to the operation and offered advice on how to contact them in the event of any emerging concerns.

As Minister and as an individual in Northern Ireland, I entirely appreciate that this is a sensitive, complex and distressing case. I fully and completely acknowledge the genuine and legitimate concerns that have been expressed. When I saw the photos and videos of animal carcasses in open fields and learned of the range of allegations that were circulating, I, too, had concerns. In recognition of those concerns, it is my view that we need a full and thorough independent examination of the case. I have decided that the independent review should be carried out by someone external to the Department. The arrangements for conducting it are close to finalisation. My Department will shortly publish the terms of reference for the review, and a copy of those will be placed in the Assembly Library. I commit to publishing the findings and recommendations from the review once it has been concluded, and I am content to return to the Committee with officials to discuss those when they are published. I am determined that the review will be thorough but not prolonged. I want to see it completed promptly — by early autumn — so that any learning can be identified and implemented quickly. Time is of the essence, but the desire for a quick report should not come at the expense of a full and robust independent review.

I must address the real impact of some of the misleading and inaccurate reporting and commentary that has surrounded the case. The wave of misogynistic, sectarian and homophobic hate, threats and intimidation against officials and me is despicable and deeply concerning. The fact that I have now received a death threat is nothing short of a disgrace. It is unacceptable at any time and in any Department. Officials, like Ministers, are there to serve the public and are bound by the principles of objectivity, accountability and transparency. If lessons are to be learned on this or any other occasion, the process must be fair and balanced. The fact that I have had to discuss the matter with the police and that officials have had to consider security measures and personal safety is unacceptable and seriously troubling. The misogynistic, sectarian and homophobic abuse does not reflect the majority of farmers, who are respectful and kind, nor does it reflect the new Northern Ireland that we saw showcased across Belfast over the past week with the fleadh. It is vital that everyone in this room joins me not just in condemning the threats and abuse that continue to flow but in a commitment to root that out from their organisations where and when it is identified.

I care deeply about animal welfare and find animal cruelty abhorrent, as do the officials in my Department. The infliction of suffering or harm on any animal is detested and despised by me and by those whom I sit with today. I have found the grotesque facts of the animal welfare prosecution that led to the deprivation order and the commentary since then deeply upsetting. Animal cruelty is vile and evil. Animal welfare is a top priority for me, my Department and my officials.

As I have said, I fully and completely acknowledge the genuine concerns that have been expressed. The photos and videos of the case are deeply distressing. Given the range of allegations and concerns, coupled with the complexities of the case and my ongoing commitment to openness and transparency, I have directed that an independent external review be conducted at pace. It would be wrong and improper for me to pre-empt the outcomes of the review, but let me be clear: where any lessons to be learned are identified and recommendations for change are made, I will ensure that they are not just published but acted on.

As I have outlined, my officials and I welcome the opportunity to attend the Committee today and take questions on the issue, whilst recognising the importance of giving the independent external review its place to examine, review and report at pace. We are happy to take any questions. I hope that it will be a respectful and constructive engagement that recognises the complexities and sensitivities of the case and the need for us all to bring calm to the issue.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you, Minister. On behalf of the Committee, I would like to demonstrate our absolute disgust at any death threat or intimidation that has taken place over the ensuing days. Death threats are abysmal. They are a sad legacy of our past in this country, and they should be fundamentally rejected by everybody.

Minister, you have already answered one of the questions that I wanted to get to, which was whether you knew and how far up the chain this went. The answer stimulates a further question: is it unusual for you to be informed about a deprivation order? Do you normally and routinely find out about them, or did you find out about this because of the scale of the event?

Mr Muir: Everyone in the room will be aware of a deprivation order when it is granted, because deprivation orders are published in the press. We issue a press release about deprivation orders, and, in this case, a press release was published on the departmental website and it was covered in the media.

Sadly, deprivation orders occur. They are issued for the welfare of the animals, which is at the heart of this matter. We have to follow through on the legal direction of the court. There is openness and transparency when deprivation orders are issued, and there will be openness and transparency if they need to be issued in the months and years ahead.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): With respect, going back to my question, you said that you and the permanent secretary were alerted on that date — I think that it was 29 June — because action was going to be taken: is it in order that you are alerted on the day of action? Is it unusual for you to receive notification that action is about to be taken?

Mr Muir: Elsie, do you want to come in?

Ms Elsie McGarvey (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): We always notify the Minister when there is a disqualification or a deprivation order. He will get a sub on the morning of it, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. We received a copy of this deprivation order late on Friday night. It has been redacted, so I will not read out anything that is not in the public domain. I am seeking some clarity. It states:

Is that for the entirety of the 51 animals that were killed, or was it at the discretion of the person or unit to make the determination?

Mr Muir: I am grateful to officials for coming here to discuss the matter. It has been a difficult week for the Department. We are seeking openness and transparency, so I am grateful to the officials for coming along.

Ms Gemma Daly (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): If a court demands that the Department deprive any individual of his or her livestock, the Department has discretion when it comes to the manner of that disposal. The court order gives the direction that disposal shall be taken to include destruction. Destruction is a possibility, but the Department has discretion when it comes to how it will dispose.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is discretion: destruction is not an inevitability.

Ms Daly: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That leads me to my biggest question. Before that, could I get clarification of why the permanent secretary and the Chief Veterinary Officer are not here? Tom asked that question, but I seek full clarity.

Mr Muir: Yes, no problem. The officials who are closest to the issue are here with me. They are across the detail of the case, and we are happy to answer any questions about it. If the Committee wants to engage with us further on it — the permanent secretary and I were with the Committee just a number of weeks ago — we will be happy to do that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Going back to the animals in question, it is a discretionary move by the Department and a decision is made. We are led to believe that it was 51 animals: were any of those cattle on the Northern Ireland food animal information system (NIFAIS)? Did the Department have a record of those cattle when it comes to tuberculosis (TB) testing, tags, numbers and identification?

Mr Muir: Those are important questions, Robbie. For legal reasons, we have to respect the individual case. We want to have the external review undertaken so that it can examine that situation and report on it. Officials will seek to answer your question, but we have to be conscious of the confidentiality around each case. Hopefully, you understand that.

Ms McGarvey: That is private information about a person, but the public interest may dictate that we can divulge it. Yes, it was 51 animals, 50 of which were on NIFAIS. One was not registered. There was a TB testing history for those 50, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): When was the most recent TB test carried out?

Ms McGarvey: I can go into the whole story around that, if you want me to frame it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The reason that I want to know —.

Ms McGarvey: It was done in the wintertime.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I am interested in that because of the risk assessment that was made to cull them on the farm and not move them. People had had hands on those animals previously.

Mr Muir: The external review will consider the TB testing history, because there are complexities associated with that. The fundamental that we have to get back to is that the big challenge was in gathering up the livestock. That was the biggest issue. It is probably best to focus on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I will stay in that lane, if you do not mind. I cannot get my head around why time was not taken. As you have rightly pointed out, there was a lengthy court case, and the issue was a number of years in the making. The deprivation order was issued, and the court signed it off on the morning of 29 June, I think. Action took place on that day.

Mr Muir: The deprivation order —.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Sorry, it was 8 June, so there was three weeks for the owner to divest himself of the animals.

Ms McGarvey: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): At the end of those three weeks, which is a reasonable amount of time, could the Department not have divested the owner of those animals through farm transfer or through the sale of animals that, it was confident, met the criteria for sale?

Ms Daly: First, Chair, you are right about the three weeks. There is a two-week grace period to allow for appeal. During that time, staff were in touch with the herd keeper in question, encouraging, helping and assisting them by telling them what they had to do with all the cattle in the herd book to divest of them as soon as possible. At the end of the two weeks, we had not had —. We gave him a three-week period in order to be reasonable and give more time to allow the cattle to be sold, to go to slaughter etc. That time frame finished. Understandably, the court order is immediate, and DAERA has to be seen to take action, because there is a disqualified keeper, and the argument is about cattle staying with a person who is banned for life from keeping farm animals.

The Department had to look at the case — that is done on a case-by-case basis — and at all the stock on the farm and what potential routes there were for them. That was worked through: I will let Elsie cover the detail. A big issue on the farm was gathering the animals up in the first place. No matter what the outcome was to be, it was about the stress involved in gathering in the cattle from three sites on extensive open ground that is rough terrain and has no fencing. The animals had been handled by one keeper and were semi-feral, so, when strangers appeared, trying to round them up —. Our staff had experience from years of dealing with that welfare case of trying to handle those cattle and having real difficulties. That adds to the stress of the animals — we could not get them gathered up — and was a fundamental issue on the site. Under other deprivation orders in the past, we have gathered animals up to bring them to a separate site and euthanise them away from public view. Euthanising them in the field is not our first preference, but it was our only option in this case.

Elsie will talk about the stock.

Ms McGarvey: I can confirm what Gemma has said. Over the three-week period, we gave that man the opportunity to sell the animals and to slaughter any of them that were eligible for that: he did not take it. I have it documented. Staff went out on the farm, and there were numerous phone calls not only with the herd keeper but with others whom I will not name to facilitate that. In that period, he was able to gather up only 15 animals and six animals: those were the animals that he divested himself of.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The owner had three weeks to take action: why did the Department not take three weeks from 29 June, even given the terrain difficulties, in the interests of animal welfare and in the public interest to —?

Ms McGarvey: We would have been in breach of our court order. The court order said that we must remove the animals. One of the conditions of the court order is that we must allow the two-week period. With anything over two weeks, we would have been technically in breach of our court order.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): But my reading of the order — it is a little redacted — is that it does not confer finality as to what the Department does but gives it a set of options. Would it not be fair to say that the court would understand —?

Ms McGarvey: No. I will not get into specific court talk, because I do not want and do not have —. We have had the issue before and have always been told that the order needs to be acted on immediately. That is the direction that we have always been given.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I come back to the point: "acted on immediately".

Ms McGarvey: We will have to go back to the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) for the answer, but that is what we have always been told.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The order states:

The "manner of disposal" could be moving the animals, but, obviously, the decision was taken to cull. On what date was the decision taken to cull the animals?

Ms McGarvey: We knew the situation on the farm. We have been going out to it for a number of years, and, to be totally honest, this was always our concern. We knew — we were always prepared — that there was going to be a disqualification of the farmer. Our concern was always how we were going to divest the farm of the animals.

We have documented numerous times over the years when we have tried to get that man to sell animals — we tried to do it — so we knew that that would be an issue. In those three weeks, we again did everything in our power to get him to divest himself of the animals. We have always known that, if this were to happen with that farm, we would face significant issues. In the back of our minds — I cannot go into this in detail because of GDPR — was the fact that there was a significant number of animals that were not suitable for the food chain: approximately 50% of them. That was a big consideration. A number of the animals were too young for the food chain, so that was not a consideration for us. That was our consideration as well.

Ultimately, what we have to come back to is this: we could not gather the animals up. We have evidence from years of trying to gather the animals up of why we could not do it.

If the farmer is on his own with his cattle, he can get his animals in on his own: he did not. He had a lot of issues in those three-week periods — we will not get into the detail of that — with gathering animals up, but anyway. The farmer was not going to comply with us. We have numerous examples of when we have tried. Once somebody else arrives, it is literally impossible. For my staff's health and safety —. There are three out farms here. There is a lack of facilities. The cattle were travelling over and had access to numerous acres of rough ground. How were we going to get those animals gathered up? Ultimately, we were going to compromise the welfare of those animals for public perception. If we are going to be judged on the basis that we should have gathered all the animals up —. The determination of the vets and the welfare people involved in the case was that to put those animals through that just to try to make them eligible for the food chain so that the Department could recoup some of the money —.

I must stress that the welfare of the animals was our main priority. Those animals could not be gathered up. What we would have put them through —. The Minister explained the situation. When the local farmer was given the opportunity to gather the animals up, they were running around completely wild and were distressed. My staff called the vet onto the scene, and she landed and said that the operation had to finish and that he could not have any further opportunity because we were compromising the welfare of the animals. They were then let out on to the road.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Is there a record of a paper on options for divesting through —?

Ms McGarvey: All of that will be part of the review — all of our records and all. I do not want to pre-empt the review — what records there are and FOI and all of that. That will all be subject to review. I presume that the reviewer will look into that to see what records we have.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I assume that a suite of options will have been considered, because that is how risk assessments are established.

Ms McGarvey: We could not gather those animals up. In a way, that was about the health and safety of our staff. We have health and safety reports about that farm stretching back I do not know how many years.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You will understand that there are conflicting reports.

Ms McGarvey: I am well aware of that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is a report this morning there are cattle-handling facilities on the farm.

Ms McGarvey: Yes, on the home farm, there is one potential —. For my staff to risk-assess it —. You are back to your question about the TB test. That facility was risk-assessed after a prolonged period during which no testing was able to take place on that farm because of the risk assessments that were done. There was one facility on one out farm, potentially, but, when it came to the health and safety of my staff, how were we going to get the animals on the other two sites? You heard of us on the one site when the farmer tried to gather them up himself. Why did he not use the facility on the site to gather them up to put them into his trailer? He could not do it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I do not want to pre-empt the review, but I have spoken to a lot of farmers over the last number of years. In an incident like this, I kind of get the perspective from the farmer where the emotion and feeling will not be conducive to them being able to carry out those operations. However, I understand the health and safety implications. I still struggle to see why more time could not have been taken to do it.

Mr Muir: That is exactly why we are doing an external review. I heard what you said on the radio this morning, and that is exactly why the review needs to be undertaken at pace. The external reviewer will no doubt want to speak to you about this to examine all the situations around the case and to report on it. We want to make sure that it is a full and thorough review. I know that some people want it to report by the end of this month or the beginning of September, but we want to make sure that we are able to speak to the relevant people and consider everything. It is a complex case, and it is extremely sensitive. Dealing with this is distressing, and for there to be an implication that animal welfare was not a priority — . That is a fundamental focus of the veterinary service staff with whom I am privileged to work. To see them threatened — sorry, I am finding this difficult.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I will bring other members in shortly, but I will finish with two quick questions, Minister, if that is OK.

I will move on to the legislation around firearms and the discharge of firearms in public. Is the Department absolutely confident that it has operated in conjunction with the legislation? I am aware that there are various pieces of overlapping legislation and that it can sometimes get complex.

For instance, I have been made aware that firing a rifle in an area such as that should be done into somewhere there is a bank or a hill. The rifle should not be discharged anywhere close to 18 metres from the centre of a road. What applied in this instance, and was full application achieved?

Ms McGarvey: Our humane slaughter team is fully trained in line with all the legislative requirements. Team members train with the PSNI; they assist in operations all over the island of Ireland; and they have assisted in other operations which I will not go into the detail of. They are fully trained in line with the requirements. I will not go into the exact detail of humane slaughter activities because of the sensitivity of the operations. All of that will be subject to the review. There is only so much that we can say in the public domain about the use of firearms. All that I can tell you is that they are fully trained in line with all the requirements, and they comply with those requirements.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I am sure that someone else will pick up on the PSNI's role in the matter.

My final question, Minister. This is not a stand-alone event. There have been such instances over the years. I was made aware of a significant cattle cull a number of years ago in which over 100 animals were culled, although not in a field — they were captured. Farmers were told then that lessons would be learned. This morning I was told that the Department will often say that lessons have been learned and changes will be made, but there is no confidence that any lessons have been learned in the past and that any changes have been made. For instance, on public view, there were farmers on-site, watching and being distressed by these things being carried out and all the rules that apply. Minister, how can you restore confidence that the Department is listening and that lessons learned will lead to change where it is appropriate?

Mr Muir: I would be grateful if you would contact us about that case so that I can consider it. It is probably best not to allude to it. If we get the details from you, we can engage on it.

What I can say is that, in the days after the cull, there was a clear understanding that we needed to do a lessons-learned exercise, and that is being taken forward internally. I get the public concern about this. As I said, I have been concerned to see some of the photos and videos that have been circulating on social media. That is why the external review is being undertaken. Its findings and recommendations will be published, and I am happy to come back to the Committee alongside officials to discuss those findings and recommendations and give you assurances about the implementation of any lessons learned.

In life, Chair, there are always things that can be reviewed to see what can be done better, such as having more formalised protocols and engagement with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has been very helpful, and I appreciate its support of the Department. There are opportunities to strengthen the relationship with the police with regard to this, and there are other areas that we want to look at. I assure you that there will be an open and transparent process and that any lessons learned will be implemented. We will keep the Committee apprised of that.

Ms McGarvey: If I may make one point about the photographs circulating online, there have been numerous photographs that we have not been able to verify. Numerous claims have been made about photographs online that are not true, as far as we can see. That is the context around photographs and things that are being posted online. We have not been able to verify them, and that is the dangerous situation that we are in. Do you know what I mean?

Mr Muir: That is why the external review is really important. It will be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. There is concern about this, which I get, but we are conscious that, on social media, facts are not being played out in many cases.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): To be fair to other people, a lot of the emotion that I have seen being poured out is justified, because it is hard for people to wrap their head around 51 animals being killed in public.

Mr Muir: I totally appreciate that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is reasonable.

Ms Daly: I reiterate that the cull happening outdoors in public view is the last resort for us. With other deprivation orders when a large proportion of animals were not fit for human consumption, we have gathered up the animals and brought them elsewhere to be euthanised. This is a last resort for us. In this instance, as the Minister said in his opening statement, every step was taken to minimise what was in public view, not only from a public perception point of view but to ensure the safety of the operation, for which our trained team had to move the cattle into a certain area as the backstop for firearms to be used. Precautions were taken to get the cattle to an area that would be as out of sight as possible. Again, it was a last resort for us.

Mr McAleer: I identify with condemning any threats made to staff. That is totally and absolutely unacceptable.

I have a couple of points, and Robbie has covered a good bit of it already. The cattle have been described as "semi-feral", yet we have been told there is a TB testing history. Fifty out of the 51 cattle are on the animal and public heath information system (APHIS} database, so they have been presented for statutory identification. Also, during the operation, there was an agreement to move the cattle onto a lorry for transfer. I feel that there is a contradiction there. On one hand, the cattle have been described as "semi-feral", yet they have been presented for statutory identification and TB testing, and even on that day there was an agreement to transfer them to a lorry.

Ms McGarvey: I can talk a bit about that, and I will clarify my point. On the day, not every animal was registered. There were a number of calves, so calves were tagged and registered coming up to it. The herd list we went out with on the day will be specific to the review, and I do not want to get into the details. However, by the end of the operation, the 51 animals — the question was not whether the 51 animals were registered on APHIS. One of them was not registered, and the rest were. I am not saying that, when we landed on the farm, every animal —. We went out expecting to find more animals than were actually presented, because of the nature of the registration on that farm. I want to clarify that point.

The question was about whether I could stand over 51 animals, and we can. However, there was one animal that was not on any herd list. When we went out, the herd list was not what we thought it would be. We went out looking for more animals than were there, and I want to clarify that.

Mr Muir: You have to remember, Deputy Chair, there was a prosecution for animal carcasses, and there were bones lying around. You can get a sense that it was not an orderly arrangement. Sorry, Elsie.

Ms McGarvey: On your second question, we gave the man three weeks to gather up the animals. I saw a video online of those six animals, I think it was. I do not know whether they were the six animals being released from a trailer. Yes, he was given the opportunity. My interpretation is that, in the three weeks, those were the only animals that he could get gathered up for sale. He was given that opportunity.

We assessed the health and safety for our staff and the welfare of the animals that remained on the farm. Going back to your point, the farmer was given the opportunity to gather the animals. We have always given the farmer, at every stage of those three weeks, the opportunity to divest himself of the animals until the last stage of the process, and that is an example. At the last stage of the process, there were only four animals in the field, and he approached us to ask whether he could attempt to gather them up. We gave him every opportunity, and he still could not gather them up, which goes back to my point. He was given every opportunity until the last animal was found. He was given every opportunity to divest himself of those animals.

Mr Muir: The animals got quite distressed, Elsie, did they not?

Ms McGarvey: Yes. That is why our staff called our vet, who was off-site, and she landed and made the decision that the herd owner could no longer get any further opportunities to gather up the animals because of their distressed state. So we had to — yes. Sorry.

Mr McAleer: The 51 animals were spread over three sites.

Ms McGarvey: Yes.

Mr McAleer: Surely the Department has personnel with moving and handling experience, and there are mobile crushes and other infrastructure that can be brought on-site to deal with that. Why could the Department not do that?

Ms McGarvey: We assessed that. Our assessment was about whether we could do that. I have an example of when we went onto that farm with a mobile crush and gates and there was a near miss involving a member of staff. We have that experience from the two years when we tried to do that.

We made an assessment. A number of people have worked on the case for years and have tried everything to get this man to divest himself of cattle, and he was not able to do that. The specifics of the TB test being allowed —. We were out there trying to get this man to divest himself of animals in the two years leading up to the case.

We could not authorise a TB test because of the health and safety concerns. Then the farmer decided that he wanted to test and that he would make a facility available on one farm. The vet made a health and safety judgement that he could carry out. I go back to the point: the farmer was on his own. I will not go into the details of the test and how it was carried out, because I do not know whether it will come up in the review. I am sure that there are people whom the reviewer will want to speak to. I can document the numerous times; it is all documented.

We went out to try to get this man —. He was closed for two years because he would not test, and we were trying to get him to test so that we could get him to get cattle away. I cannot get that across clearly enough. When that happened, local people were asking, "How are you going to get those animals off that farm?". We struggled with that. We have expert reviews and expert opinion, and there are numerous European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reports and peer-review reports that talk about cattle being in semi-feral states and the best way to euthanise them. The best way to euthanise them is in their environment with their comrades. That is published, and anybody who wants to look up the EFSA report will see it. That is what we use to determine what we do.

People have been emotionally involved in the case. On the morning of the deprivation, one of my staff, who had been involved in the case for two years, was devastated. We had to have a staff debrief afterwards because staff were so upset. They had worked to get those animals off the farm for years and had worked with that man for years. That was not where we wanted to be, but that is where we were. I hope that the reviewer will come in and see it documented. He will see those people's testimonies and hear all of this.

That is all that I can say on that. Do you have any more questions?

Mr McAleer: I have one more question, Chair. One of the last messages that I got last night was from a lady who works in the poultry sector. She is concerned about whether the Department knows whether the animals died immediately. She is involved in culls in the poultry sector for welfare purposes. She says that she checks for eye reflexes, non-rhythmic breathing and neck dislocation, for example. Has an assessment been carried out to ensure that those animals died immediately?

Ms McGarvey: Absolutely. Our staff have to follow a standard operating procedure (SOP). As I have said, the staff are very well trained. They were employed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) recently in relation to a cull, so they are very well trained. We have SOPs through which the staff know exactly what they have to check and what they have to do. Those are absolutely the grounds under which a humane slaughter team can act. As Gemma will tell you, the humane slaughter team is an outcome of an external review that was done by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2002 following the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. The outcome of that review was that, in future, the Department needed to have a humane slaughter team if there were ever to be a future incursion of an exotic disease such as foot-and-mouth disease. It was at that time that the team was stood up.

My fear from all of this, as I said to the Minister this morning, is that the staff in that team are going to stand down. That is what I was getting over the weekend. We could end up with no humane slaughter team. If we have avian influenza (AI) in turkeys, as we had last October, or an incursion of an exotic disease, we will be in trouble. That is my fear.

Ms Daly: The team is expertly trained with the police. It consists of vets and technical staff and is managed by a vet. There is complete assurance that checks for death are clear. That is part of the training of the team. There is assurance on that front. As Elsie said, the team plays a critical role. It came out of the independent review in 2002. Some of the members have been involved in our culling teams for AI as well, so they are multi-species experts in animal euthanasia. They perform a critical role. I reiterate the point that Northern Ireland needs those people to be available. If they find the roles hazardous or find that a toxic culture is developing, maybe through online comments, and step away from that role, we could be in a precarious position if we had an incursion of exotic disease.

Miss McIlveen: Minister, as a consequence of this operation, your Department has lost all credibility in the eyes of the public where animal welfare is concerned. That is really concerning to me and should be concerning to you. There is anger across the farming community. That anger is coming from decent, hard-working farmers who are just trying to make a living from the land. What happened at the end of June appears to have been brutal and inhumane. Ironically, what was meant to be an animal welfare intervention has become an animal welfare scandal at the hands of the Department. That is totally regrettable, as is how this is being portrayed in the public.

A huge amount of work needs to be done to regain trust. After Fivemiletown, simply saying that lessons need to be learned will not be enough. It will not cut it. Lessons are not learned when the Department rocks up to a yard, does an inspection and a farmer fails that inspection. It is likely that he could end up in court. What I need to know from you today, Minister, is what you will do to regain the confidence of the wider public, because this is not about DAERA retaining confidence in DAERA and being satisfied with a report. How will you retain and renew confidence in your Department?

Mr Muir: I have already set out in my opening statement that I recognise that it is a sensitive and deeply distressing case. It is important that the concerns that have been expressed are examined objectively through an independent process. That is why an independent external review is being set up. We will be open and transparent about the findings of that review. I have made a commitment to come back to the Committee to engage with you, alongside my officials, on the findings and recommendations from the review and to keep the Committee apprised of the implementation of anything that arises from it. All of us in political life have a role of leadership, facts and understanding. We need to give the review time and space to do its work. That review needs to be full and thorough, and we need to fully examine the findings and recommendations that arise from it.

I will be clear that this case has been really difficult for me and for officials in the Department. The animal welfare prosecution that led to the deprivation order involved grotesque scenes. There were carcasses piled up, animal bones lying around and emaciated animals on the farm. I reassure everyone on the Committee that the professional judgement of officials in my Department was very much that this action was a last resort. People were distressed by having to go there and by some of the subsequent commentary. We need to make sure that we bring down the tone and calm things down. I have real concern for the welfare of officials in my Department. We need to give a bit of time and space for the review to be undertaken.

Miss McIlveen: Can you set out a timeline for when we will see the terms of reference of the review and whom you will consult? I go back to the point that there is clearly little confidence in the Department at this juncture.

Mr Muir: The pressure that I am under is to get the review undertaken and report as soon as possible but also to have it be full and thorough. We are engaging with an individual to undertake the review and hope to announce more about them and about the terms of reference for the review. I have made it clear that it will be for the reviewer to decide whom they will engage with, but I would be surprised if there were not engagement with individuals such as yourselves and key stakeholders to ensure that the review has the confidence of individuals when it reports. I do not want to pre-empt that and say who it is, because that is being finalised and there are discussions with that individual and about the terms of reference.

Miss McIlveen: Has that type of enforcement been suspended while the review is ongoing?

Ms Daly: We have no deprivation order in the system at the moment. As regards enforcement action or action that we have to take on a farm, if there are welfare issues and cattle might have to be euthanised by being shot on a farm, if it is out on a field in public view, that will still happen for animals that are in distress or suffering. There are actions that we will have to take. We cannot say, "Stop all enforcement", and we cannot say that we will stop the ability to shoot an animal in public if that is required. To confirm, there are no deprivation orders in our system at the moment.

Mr Muir: If any deprivation orders are issued by a court, as is standard practice, we will publish that on the departmental website and issue a press release in that regard. We are conscious of our obligations on animal welfare, but, as ever, there will be full openness and transparency around it. I am happy to discuss any further matters with the Committee if and when those situations arise.

Ms McGarvey: The point needs to be made that we cannot let public opinion influence us in making animal welfare decisions. The fact that somebody does not like seeing something does not mean that we should not do it. If we felt that we would compromise the animals' welfare by gathering them up just so that people did not see it —. We have to be able to carry out our duties in the best interests of the welfare of the animals and the health and safety of our staff.

Miss McIlveen: Are you content that the operation complied with all statutory regulations and requirements?

Ms McGarvey: Yes, and that is what the independent review —.

Mr Muir: That is why it is important that we give space for the review. The review will be undertaken by an expert. There will be a transcript of this Committee hearing for the reviewer to go through and consider and report on.

Miss McIlveen: In the public's view, the primary focus did not appear to be the welfare of animals. Rather than a nurture approach, it appeared to basically be a shoot-to-kill approach.

Mr Muir: Michelle, I urge calm, and I urge people to temper their language. I have received threats that someone wants me shot, so we need to lower the tone on this.

Miss McIlveen: I absolutely condemn any such threat to you.

Mr Muir: We have a responsibility with our use of language.

Miss McIlveen: That is the terminology that was being used, and I want to ensure that, when we are talking about the welfare of animals, we take that into consideration when it comes to the approach that was taken.

Mr Blair: The years of neglect as well, maybe.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Have you finished, Michelle?

Miss McIlveen: I will come back, if that is appropriate.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Before I move on, Michelle's point opened up an avenue that I was on regarding animal welfare. I understand that this is part of a two- or three-year protracted court order, but I still cannot get my head around the fact that there seemed to be no animal welfare issues on the day that meant that there had to be an expedited cull and slaughter. We are at a time of the year when there is no shortage of food or grass. I do not think that there was any shortage of water, unless you can demonstrate that there was. The animal welfare issues did not necessarily exist on the day. I am not saying that they did not or that they would not have existed in the future. Most reasonable people will understand the need to take action. To me, it still looks like haste.

Ms McGarvey: We had to comply with the court order. That is our line: we had to comply with the court order. We could not gather those animals up. We carried this out in the best interests of those animals' welfare. I will have to keep going back to saying this: we complied with the court order.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You are within your rights to retract, but I am still computing this. Can you come in briefly, Michelle?

Miss McIlveen: The statement says that no animal was shot multiple times. Are you able to tell us how many rounds were fired and where all those bullets ended up?

Ms Daly: The appliance of protocol is an expected practice in relation to the use of firearms. It is subject to the review. We are cautious about revealing details related to the use of firearms.

Miss McIlveen: So, we will not get any more information about that.

Can you explain why an animal was killed on 30 June? Can you also give some explanation for the wounds on the neck of the calf that was found several days later?

Ms McGarvey: Unfortunately, that is what we deal with in such situations. The Chair referred to the deprivation order, which states:

It was the herd keeper's responsibility to present to us the animal that was found the next day. I have explained to you the conditions on the farm. I have explained to you the difficulty that we had in gathering up the animals. I have explained all the issues to you. In such cases, we have to go out the next day and subsequently. We might go out again in two weeks’ time, because we cannot be sure that every animal was got on the day.

As I said to you, there were three out farms, each of which was about 30 acres. There was no fencing. There were tall reeds on parts of the land. That is what we face. Even if we take the animals off a farm, we face the potential that there is an unregistered animal, an animal 20 acres down the road or an escaped animal on the road. That is what we deal with in such situations. That is the explanation in response to your first question. Do you want me to go on to talk about the calf, or would you like to ask a further question on that first issue?

Miss McIlveen: Go on.

Ms McGarvey: OK. On Saturday 4 July, one of my staff was contacted by the herd keeper to say that he had found another animal with a wound. That was reported to our vet, and she contacted the private veterinary practitioner (PVP) who was said to have treated the animal. He said, "Yes. I have the calf. It's in my care". Our vet enquired about the condition of the calf. The PVP provided the information to her: it was a calf that had been found with a wound on its neck, and he had treated it. On the Monday, my staff went out, examined the calf and saw the wound on its neck. They saw that the calf was lively and had no issues.

There were subsequent media reports that a local farmer had found that calf. I do not know — we were not told that at the time — but, apparently, a local farmer found the calf three miles away, and that was reported in a newspaper. I am not sure how it got there, but, yes, apparently, the calf was found three miles away with a wound on its neck. We saw the calf and were happy that it had been treated. The vet saw it. The vet's records have been published by a social media influencer for everybody to see how the calf was treated and what he wrote. There is no dispute about that.

We were contacted by a neighbour who told us that they would take the calf and rehome it, and we facilitated that. It goes back to the point that, at every stage of the process, we wanted the animals to be rehomed if possible. The calf was treated, and my staff went out a week later to check that the calf was with that person and not back on the farm. The staff were content that the calf was doing well, with that lady having taken it on. The lady presented herself to me in the veterinary office before we allowed the calf to be rehomed. That is the story.

Ms Daly: Michelle, neither the local vet nor the departmental vet could verify what caused the neck wound on the calf.

Miss McIlveen: They could not?

Ms McGarvey: No. They both just said that the calf had a wound on its neck. That is what was recorded.

Miss McIlveen: So we do not know whether it was caused by a bullet or —.

Ms McGarvey: It could have been anything. We do not know.

Mr Muir: We do not whether it was caused by a shot.

Ms McGarvey: We cannot confirm or deny that.

Mr Muir: That is why there will be a review.

Ms Murphy: First, I associate myself with the condemnation of any threats that have been made against DAERA staff and the Minister.

I am an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The incident has caused significant concern not only across the Fivemiletown and Clogher Valley area but across the North. That is the public perception that many of us have heard and seen. I dealt with a number of totally unrelated constituency issues last week, and this case was flagged nine times out of 10. I also record my deep frustration that the permanent secretary and the Chief Veterinary Officer are not here today. That adds to the questions about accountability and transparency. I do not know why they are not here. Granted, other senior officials are here, but there are questions for the perm sec and CVO in their respective roles about who knew what and when.

I will try to be as concise as possible, Chair, because a lot of questions have been asked and a lot of ground has been covered. Minister, the external review is coming up. Will all the physical and digital records of the cattle that the Department has kept over the period leading up to, during and after the cull be presented to the external reviewer? Will the Committee be able to feed into the setting of the terms of reference of the review or to work with you on setting them?

Mr Muir: There is no issue with making documentation available to the person undertaking the external review. There will be full transparency. Any information that is requested will be provided to that person.

I am getting calls for the review to be completed before the end of the summer recess, which, for those who are not aware, is only weeks away, so there is a desire for it to be undertaken at pace. I will publish the terms of reference. We have engaged on the terms of reference with the person who is to undertake the external review to make sure that they are content with the task, and we will share them with the Committee. I want to get the review under way in order to have the report's findings and recommendations as soon as possible. That is why we will proceed with appointing the person and will share the terms of reference with the Committee later this week.

Ms Murphy: The terms of reference will be shared with us ahead of —.

Mr Muir: They will be shared with you. Ultimately, I need to move forward with the process, so we will publish the terms of reference. They will take into account the feedback received on the case in recent weeks. That has helped to form the terms of reference.

Ms Murphy: OK. There has been speculation on the whereabouts of the farmer in question on the day of the cull, specifically in relation to the third site. Was he on-site when the cull at the third site was begun?

Ms McGarvey: Was he on the site with a gun?

Ms Murphy: No: when it was begun.

Ms McGarvey: We tell people that they have a certain length of time to comply with the deprivation order. We do not announce the day on which we will carry out the operations, because, as you will understand, they are so sensitive and extremely difficult. It is about staff security and safety — confrontation — so the exact day is never announced. The person knows that they have a two- or three-week period. There was communication throughout, and it is documented as to when he was told, "Right. This is going to happen now".

On the morning — this is the standard procedure — we contact the herd keeper. The official landed at the farm and knocked the door — nobody was there — and then rang the phone but could not get anybody. No operation started until the herd keeper rang her back, maybe about 10 or 15 minutes later; I am not sure of the exact timings, so do not take them as such. Operations did not start until he was notified. He was told on the phone, and he said, "Right. That's OK". He was in the veterinary office at the time, completing the move for the 15 animals. He told my inspector, on the phone, that those 15 animals were contained in a shed and that they were not to be touched. The move of the 15 animals was processed. The herd keeper then returned to the farm at some stage, but he did not interfere in any way. On the third site, he tried to assist the men to gather up the cattle — the cattle that we had given him the opportunity to sell. It is my understanding that he was there at that stage.

Ms Murphy: OK. Those 15 animals had been transferred.

Ms McGarvey: They were transferred. I will clarify that, because it was in the public domain and there has been a question about it. Of the 15 animals, the buyer took only 14. They were contained in a shed, and one animal escaped from the shed into the field. That happened during the other events. The farmer notified us at the time that there had been an issue and that the shed door had opened and an animal had escaped. Only 14 of the 15 animals were taken. The story was widely reported in the media, so I wanted to explain that. There were 15 animals in the shed, and one escaped. When the farmer realised and we were told that it had escaped, it was too late.

Ms Murphy: The transfer of those 15, subsequently 14, animals was his business for —.

Ms McGarvey: Yes. That was facilitated. They moved off-farm and are away.

Ms Murphy: That was the reason for his being in your Dungannon office that day.

Ms McGarvey: The veterinary office. Yes.

Ms Murphy: OK. I will go back to the TB testing. A TB test was carried out last winter. There are slight contradictions in some of that that Declan touched on. What condition were the cattle in during that winter period? What was their temperament? What facilities were there at that stage?

Ms McGarvey: I explained all that. We went out numerous times to try to facilitate a TB test. On one site, for whatever reason — I do not know why — the farmer decided to facilitate the test. He made a facility available for that, but, as I said, I do not want to go into the ins and outs of the TB test. I have heard about it, but I do not want to go into it, because it probably needs to be looked at as part of the review. However, he made a facility available.

Another thing to add is that the case closed in 2024. We took the case from 2022 to 2024. That is not to say that there were no significant welfare issues on that farm last winter. You asked about the condition of the animals on the farm at that time. I will not go into the detail, but we know what the story was on the farm at the time.

Mr Muir: We have seen the photographs that the local media asked about. The animals were emaciated. There were a number of carcasses there. That situation arose because the animals were not able to get food in the winter. Essentially, we had animals starving to death on that farm.

Ms McGarvey: It was the same last winter.

Ms Murphy: I assume that the facilities that the farmer made available at that time were not available at the third location.

Ms McGarvey: No, they were not. There was one site.

Ms Murphy: Minister, another issue that has been raised constantly with me in my constituency is the sound of gunfire. It was reported in local newspapers that one constituent heard gunfire from his farm in Augher, which is not too far away from Fivemiletown. Your ministerial statement states that silencers were used. There is a direct contradiction, not a slight one, between those accounts. Is the Department and any of its vets who were on-site that day totally confident that silencers were used?

Mr Muir: Gemma, do you want to cover that? It is precisely why the review is being undertaken.

Ms Daly: Yes. It is standard practice to use silencers on DAERA-issued weapons. However, it is important to point out that, even with the use of silencers, there can be some noise. It depends on the calibre of the gun used. Compliance with our protocols on the expected use of firearms will be looked at as part of the review, but it is worth saying that, even when silencers are used on guns, the noise will not be completely removed. It will be reduced to a certain level. We will look at that as part of the review.

Ms Murphy: I have one final question, Chair, on the PSNI input into all this. Last week, 'The Irish News', I think, asked the PSNI for a statement, and the PSNI told the 'The Irish News' that it was doing its own follow-up. Obviously, I assume, the number of rounds fired and everything else will be included in the inquiry. I am concerned about public safety and about what took place when cattle were let out on to a public road. Did the shooting stop at that stage? What risk assessment was subsequently carried out to allow shooting to resume?

There is another important point. I can see what the Department is saying about the area being very rural, but it is my understanding that, on the day, close to the time at which the operation began at the third site, there was increased vehicular traffic due to a lot of locals attending a wake in Fintona. I do not know if that is correct, but that is the rationale that I have been given. That resulted in a lot more people using that road than normal. What assessment of risk and managing public safety took place when the shooting had stopped?

Mr Muir: There are two questions in that question. One is on our engagement and relationship with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and the other relates to risk assessments, which, I am sure, will be considered as part of the review. On the first part, we are grateful for the constructive working relationship that we have with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. At the beginning, I was open in saying that it has already been identified internally that one of the lessons to be learned is on having designated contact points in the PSNI. Officials have been doing work on a memorandum of understanding (MOU).

Do you want to say more about that, Elsie?

Ms McGarvey: We have great relations. I am conscious of the fact that the PSNI has been very supportive to us on this, as it always is. In any such situations, we contact the PSNI in advance, because they are generally difficult situations to deal with. The PSNI had been contacted in advance — on the Friday. On the morning, the police came out. We had done our risk assessment; obviously, we do a dynamic risk assessment. The police presented, and, again, we explained to them the operations. At that time, the police said that they had no concerns, and they gave us a contact number on which to contact them if there were concerns. When the issue that we are talking about arose — the release of the animals on to the road and the arrival of the protesters — we tried to contact them but, unfortunately, could not establish contact through the established contact number.

We have been in contact with the PSNI. The Minister has given us great assistance, and I thank him for that. We have a meeting set up and an MOU proposed for September so that, hopefully, we will have in place a written agreement on how we can get support. The PSNI has been and is so helpful to us, so I am reluctant to say anything against the police.

Your most important question is about health and safety on the site. I go back to this point: all of the officers are trained. This is what they do, and this is what they are trained in. They are part of the humane slaughter team. The specific incident that you are talking about is the animals being released on to the road. The other two sites were clear at 1.30 pm. I am not sure of the exact time when this started to happen, but the other two sites were clear, so there was just this one site, and there were only four animals left.

When we were approached by the farmer to see whether he could get the opportunity to buy the animals, operations were suspended. They tried to gather up the animals but, for a significant period, could not get them on to the lorry. Our vet arrived and said, "End of operations". The animals were released on to the road by a person. The immediate neighbours in that area know the story. They were so helpful to our staff on that day, and I thank them for that. Those neighbours have been looking at the situation and dealing with it for years. The animals were made secure off the road, and then three protesters arrived on the site. At that stage, we attempted to contact the PSNI again but were unsuccessful. The senior vet who had arrived to make the assessment in relation to the four animals stepped in and talked to the three protesters and, thankfully, they left the site — we were afraid that they would not — until the PSNI arrived.

When the site was completely cleared, our staff did the dynamic risk assessment, as we always do, and determined when it was safe. Operations were commenced only when it was safe to do so. According to reports from my staff, the animals were moved to the back of the field to try to make sure, as Gemma said, that there was as little visibility of what was going on as possible. That is what my staff are telling me, but I know that there are different reports in the media — whether they are confirmed I do not know. The aim of the team was to get the animals away from the road and out of public sight before operations were started again. That should give clarity.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I will make two points, both of which are off the back of a couple of things that Áine raised. One is that the Committee has obviously not had a chance to discuss the independent review, its terms of reference and who will take responsibility for it. I am speaking for myself only, because we have not had a meeting. For the public's confidence, I see the Committee's role as being incredibly important when it comes to the due diligence of the independent review. The Committee needs to be separate to that. We must be able to offer a critique of that review. That is really important. It is the role of the Committee to do that. We have a limited time frame for the review, Minister, because we have legislation, and that takes precedence. It is also a shortened mandate — there are only seven months left in the mandate. There is, therefore, a time pressure on having a qualitative piece that is also timely in its reporting. Will you speak to that briefly before I bring Tom in?

I will also reaffirm what Áine said: I understand that it is the summertime, but I would have expected the permanent secretary and chief vet to have attended the meeting, even if they joined online. I accept and appreciate that you have senior officials with you and I thank them for their attendance, but, given the public interest in the matter, I would genuinely have expected the permanent secretary and chief vet to be here unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Mr Muir: I have addressed that point. I am here as Minister of the Department with the two senior officials who are closest to the issue answering questions on it.

I get the need for the review to be undertaken at speed. We hope to announce the person who will undertake it and the terms of reference. The Committee can decide how it wants to engage with that. My desire is that the review will report in early autumn — September, ideally, but, if necessary, it will go into October. I want to make sure that it is a full and thorough review. We have to strike a balance.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, we are disputing not the court order that was issued to the individual but the way in which the Department dealt with it over the few days that its staff were out on-site. In my 30-plus years in politics, I have never witnessed anything that has caused such anger and outrage among the farming community and the general public. As my colleague said, there is a huge job of work to be done for the Department to get back the confidence of the farming community, if that can be restored. That is to come in due course.

In press statements over the past few days, you have said — you said it again today — that there was no alternative to what took place. Why not?

Mr Muir: I am happy to answer your question, but I would say, Chair, that I addressed some of these questions in my opening statement and that officials addressed some of them earlier in the meeting. The officials have been clear that it was the last option. The review will consider those issues, Tom, and report. That is why it is important that the review is undertaken at pace.

Do you want to say any more on that, Elsie? I am conscious that we have already addressed some of those points.

Ms McGarvey: Yes. I will say the same thing again. We had a court order. The man was given three weeks to divest himself of the stock. Every attempt was made to help him to divest himself of the stock. We made that attempt. Then, ultimately, because of the need to protect the welfare of the animals and the health and safety of staff, that decision was made. We gave him every opportunity up until the day after, when a calf was found, to get animals away from him and to sell animals. We gave him every opportunity. I just have to go back and back around, because that is the truth of the case. That is the truth of it.

Mr T Buchanan: My concern prior to the meeting was that, on some of the things that would be asked, the Minister and his officials would hide behind the external review and say, "We can't answer these questions, because it might jeopardise the review". We can already see that coming through.

Take as long as you need to find this, but can you point the Committee to the specific statutory provision that required that the animals be disposed of by a particular date? You say that the animals had to be disposed of by a particular date: can you point the Committee to where that statutory provision is?

Ms Daly: A court order is immediate, but it gives the defendant a two-week grace period for appeal. After that two-week period is up, the Department needs to act on the court order. We gave the discretion of an additional week because the herd keeper made us aware that he had other potential opportunities for sale coming up. We tried to facilitate that as much as possible. As we have heard, even on the day, he had a sale arranged, and we facilitated that as well.

Ms McGarvey: The order states "immediate"; that is the wording of the order. One of the conditions at the bottom of the order is that he must be allowed a two-week grace period to appeal. We do not want to challenge it with the courts. It is "immediate". That is in black and white in the court order, so I do not know what more we can give you.

Mr Muir: Tom, I genuinely acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed, and I have already said that some of the photos and videos circulating and the slew of allegations about the case online are concerning to me and the Department. I have acted and set up the independent external review in recognition of that. It is important that people are supportive, and I think that most people in the room have welcomed the fact that we have set up the independent review. We should let it do its job and report, because that is the way to take forward the issues and have them properly examined; I genuinely accept that. No one is hiding from anything.

We are here for a significant period, and I am happy to engage with the Committee on this. I fully and totally understand the anxiety, but we also have to dial it down a bit, because the threats and intimidation against officials from the Department are like nothing that I have seen before, and that brings shame on Northern Ireland.

Mr T Buchanan: I said in my opening statement that, in my 30-plus years in politics, I have never seen anything like it. There is anxiety among the farming community —

Mr Muir: I get that.

Mr T Buchanan: — and the general public. We can understand that, given the deplorable way in which this was carried out.

Can you point to where in the court papers it says that the animals should be slaughtered?

Ms McGarvey: You have the wording of the order there. It says in the order that the Department has discretion and that that includes destruction.

Mr T Buchanan: It was at the discretion of the Department.

Ms McGarvey: Yes.

Mr T Buchanan: It was not laid down by the court.

Ms McGarvey: No. That is what we have said. That is why we give him the opportunity to sell animals. Even after the event, he was given an opportunity to sell those calves. It gives the Department the discretion to make the decision, yes.

Mr T Buchanan: In the assessment that the Department carried out prior to the slaughter of those animals, what was the health condition of the animals?

Ms McGarvey: That is irrelevant, because we still —

Mr T Buchanan: It is relevant. It is.

Ms McGarvey: — had to carry out the deprivation order. Whatever condition the animals were in, the court order had to be complied with.

Mr T Buchanan: So you do not know what condition the animals were in, yet you said that you carried out an assessment prior to the slaughter of the animals.

Ms McGarvey: What does the condition of the animals have to do with the decision that we made?

Mr T Buchanan: There was always an alternative, and that was —.

Ms McGarvey: No, I explained to you —.

Mr Muir: Questions should go through the Chair. I am conscious that we are here for the purposes of scrutiny and to answer questions. I am happy to do that.

Ms McGarvey: We had to comply with the court order. We have explained that we could not gather the animals up. Regardless of the situation, our main aim was —. The decision was made that the most humane thing to do for those animals, because of the welfare and health and safety considerations, was for them to be euthanised.

Mr T Buchanan: Can I seek clarity, Chair? Were some of the animals that were shot permitted into another farmer's herd?

Ms McGarvey: Yes. We have explained that. In the three-week period that he was given, he sold 14 animals, as we have clarified, and then six animals, so, yes, he was permitted to sell those animals to another herd.

Mr T Buchanan: Why were they shot?

Ms McGarvey: They were not shot.

Mr T Buchanan: They were not shot?

Ms McGarvey: No. He got that opportunity. He divested himself of those animals. I will go back to my point. On the day, we gave him another opportunity to gather up the other four animals, and he could not gather them up, because he said on the day that he had a sale. He was given that opportunity. He was given those two weeks to do it. He was given the day of it. The day after the calf was found, he was given the opportunity to find a home for that calf as well.

Throughout the process, we gave the farmer every opportunity for an alternative means of disposal of those animals.

Mr T Buchanan: OK. What calibre of rifle was used to shoot the cattle? How many people were involved in the shooting?

Mr Muir: Gemma, do you want to answer that question? I am conscious of the issues regarding the use of firearms and the role of the external review.

Ms Daly: I do not have the detail of the calibre of the guns. There will have been a range of weapons.

Mr T Buchanan: Is that not part of the assessment?

Ms McGarvey: It is, by the humane slaughter team, but we cannot release the information. There are a load of issues in relation to the handling of firearms and possession of firearms. That is why, for the security of the firearms, the Department cannot publicise that information. All of that will be subject to the review.

I go back to the same point: the team was fully trained. It was fully trained in the use of firearms; all the members have firearm licences and Crown immunity; and they are all completely licensed and trained. They make an assessment before this takes place of the nature of the animals and what firearms they need for the operation. All of that will be looked at by the reviewer to see whether the right firearm was used for the nature of the animal. I am sure that he will look into all of that. I hope that he can give out all of the information — he will, I am sure — but I cannot give you specific information on firearms that are held by the Department, because it would pose a security risk for the staff and the Department. We have been advised that that information cannot be given. All of that will be subject to the review to see whether the correct guns were used for the type of animal.

I go back to my point: these are trained individuals. They are used by another competent authority on this island on the basis of the assessment of their competence. They are trained.

Mr T Buchanan: I have a final question, Chair. You said that animal welfare was your top priority: you will know that, when a farmer takes an animal to the abattoir, the animal is put down with a shot —

Ms McGarvey: A captive bolt at close range.

Mr T Buchanan: — at close range. It will not be so many metres or hundreds of metres away. That is for the welfare of that animal. Were the animals running round the field when the people were taking shots at them?

Ms McGarvey: Absolutely not. I will go back to your point: it is different in a factory. It is not a firearm that is used; it is a captive bolt. It has to make direct contact with the animal's head. It is not a gun. That is why you have to be in such close proximity to an animal in a meat plant when you are shooting it.

The animals were not being chased around the field. It is a trained team, and that is what it does. They are trained individuals. There are all sorts of protocols that they have to follow — this will be subject to the review as well — in relation to the humane shooting of animals in such situations. The team has to follow those protocols, and that is what it does. That is what it is trained in.

Mr T Buchanan: Does one shot kill every animal?

Ms McGarvey: Again, that will be subject to the review. We are afraid to put information on any questions to do with firearms, bullets, guns and all of that into the public domain, especially considering the rhetoric and everything around this. Hopefully, that will come out as part of the public review.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Obviously, the Committee will be meeting in a couple of weeks' time. I am sure that we will talk about those things then.

Mr Blair: I begin by adding to the condemnation of the threats received by the Minister and some of the atrocious attacks that have been levelled at public officials. I am happy for the Department to decide what senior officials are appropriate to come here and present to me. I am interested in the responsibilities rather than the grade.

As well as condemning those attacks, I appeal, as best I can here, to public representatives in particular to take a look at some of their social media, especially the content that might be perceived as going on the attack politically, and perhaps removing some of the hate-filled comments on their social media platforms. None of us is responsible for what goes on there, but we can take responsibility for trying to remove abusive, threatening and derogatory comments. If they are as responsible as they think they are, I hope that they take their time to do that.

We are two hours and more since the scheduled start of the meeting. I hope that you do not mind me saying that we have kept to a pretty narrow definition of animal welfare in our two-hour conversation so far. We have returned — more than once in some cases — to questions that were answered when we started.

I will try to move on to a different area. On 8 June, the 'Belfast Telegraph', a widely read newspaper, reported that the judge:

The defence barrister in the case apparently said:

of the farm. There was no political commentary on that outcome that I am aware of.

I will try to move on from that in the interests of animal welfare. I say this sincerely to officials: it is easy for politicians to claim to represent all public opinion and all public trust, but, in fact, there are varying thoughts on animal welfare among the wider public, including on farmed animal welfare. That is simply a fact. No one at this table or in this Building speaks for everyone. There are alternative opinions. I can look anyone in the eye when I try to represent the opinion of those who will be — not "might be" — absolutely concerned to hear that a Committee has narrowed its discussion to a period of two or three weeks of a deprivation order when it is aware from the presentations given to it today that there was a four-year process around the situation in which there was knee-high slurry, contaminated feeding areas and dead animals lying around the place willy-nilly. That leads to this question: at this stage, do we know whether the review is intended, when it is set up, to look at the wider areas of animal neglect and cruelty that can take years to come to a conclusion before the Department and the Committee are asked to consider a period of two to three weeks?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. To be clear, the review will look at the specifics of this operation. However, you have raised the issue of farmed animal welfare. The officials who are with me and those in the rest of the Department care deeply about farmed animal welfare. Elsie has said that some of the officials were very distressed that the situation came to this because of the suffering. You have seen the prosecution photos: the farmer incurred a lifetime ban from owning animals. In essence, animals were being starved to death. They were emaciated. There were piles of carcasses and bones. There was no proper record of the livestock that were on the farm. The medicine book was not being properly kept.

What happened at that farm that led to the deprivation order was grotesque. It was disgraceful. The farmer was given a custodial sentence, and officials were left having to implement the court order. In the past week, I have spoken to officials who have been close to tears because of the implication that they do not care about animal welfare. We care deeply about it. Any animal suffering cruelty is wrong. We get the concern about the images, which are deeply distressing. That is why the external review has been set up and, hopefully, will report back. We need to change the dialogue on this, calm things down, understand the focus and let the review report.

Mr Blair: Chair, I will ask a follow-up question. I accept all that. I do not doubt the sincerity of the answers given about the stress caused to officials who visited the site or other, similar sites, nor do I doubt for a moment the sincerity of some of the public concern at some of the imagery that was shared widely.

Mr Muir: One hundred per cent.

Mr Blair: I get all that, but I am keen that we do not claim to represent everybody in one conversation when there are known to be varying levels of interest in and differences of opinion on all these matters. To be more succinct, can the review look at the wider issues that can lead to a four-year period or, who knows, in some cases, a longer period of serious animal neglect before there is a court outcome, while the person guilty of that neglect and cruelty retains the right to be responsible for those animals? Does that require a separate review at a later stage?

Mr Muir: The points that you make are precisely the points that I expect you and other people to make as representations to the reviewer. The Department's focus is always on bringing people into compliance; it is never about enforcement first. It is always to bring people into compliance, and there is a prolonged period of inspections. However, the situation that developed over those years is something of —.

Ms McGarvey: We also have no control over the court process and how long that takes, unfortunately. That is a big factor in a lot of cases. We would like them to go much more quickly, but we have no control over that.

Mr Blair: Chair, we need to acknowledge in any Committee representation that there has to be a wider consideration, because there is a body of public opinion that would be utterly appalled if it thought that those conditions existed in circumstances where a person was being helped along the way or assisted. There is a balance to be struck, and it should be taken very seriously.

That leads on to my second question. I say this respectfully, because I understand that there have been difficulties in communications and perhaps, at times, in getting clarity from individuals. We have touched on veterinary testing a couple of times today: can the review look at the determinations around that and whether time frames around conclusions to the lack of veterinary testing can be determined as a result of this review, or, likewise, will that require a separate review?

Mr Muir: The external reviewer will want to hear from people on that. Those are all the wider issues regarding the case that will need to be considered.

Mr Blair: OK. Chair, with a view to looking at how the investigation/review can look at the issues, as long as I can be convinced that the Committee will look at and reflect the wider issues, I have no further questions.

Ms McGarvey: I have a point of clarity, in case there is any confusion. During the period when that farm was not testing, the herd was completely closed, so he could not sell animals. I say that just in case there are any concerns.

Mr Blair: Yes, but they were on-site.

Ms McGarvey: Yes. I say that just in case there are any concerns that he was not testing for TB for a number of years. The herd was closed at that time because he could not [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): For clarity, for anyone who has never been at a Committee before, John is obviously putting out his perspective and speaking as a member, not necessarily on behalf of the Committee. I do not necessarily agree, John, with your summation of the narrow questioning; I think that it has been reasonable, and the witnesses have been given every opportunity to make the case. The Department has responsibility for scrutinising farmers and animal welfare. Our job as a Committee is to scrutinise the Department, not necessarily the farmers. We have been robust, but it has been open. I am not taking exception, because we operate as a Committee in a free forum, and I want to encourage that.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you for coming here today to answer these questions. At the outset, I add to the condemnation of the death threats, misogyny and homophobic comments — any of the above — because, in fact, that is counterproductive. We need to ask the hard questions, and it is regrettable that those things have happened.

Nobody on the Committee is seeking to diminish the seriousness of animal welfare offences, but protecting animal welfare and recognising the human consequences of enforcement are not mutually exclusive. I have heard many times, including in your opening remarks, Minister, about how distressing this is. It is clear from today's session that it is distressing for you, but not once have I heard about the distress of the farmer — not a single comment about the distress of the farmer.

Minister, you have previously acknowledged the enormous pressures that farmers face, given the impact that departmental interventions can have on farmers' well-being. We have talked about that many times. I refer, just from local knowledge, to an incident that happened a number of years ago in the constituency of Newry and Armagh. Two gentlemen had their cattle culled, and the cattle lay for many days until they were lifted. The local perspective is that no consideration was given to the welfare of those farmers; in fact, it caused them serious distress. Reflecting on that case and other cases that may have taken place, what consideration is given to the mental health and welfare of the farmer involved, his family, the neighbouring farmers, local residents and the wider rural community before an operation of this nature is authorised?

Mr Muir: I acknowledge that it is distressing for many people: I have said that. It is not just we and you who are dealing with the issue; the wider farming community and the general public have found the case distressing, and I totally acknowledge that. We will continue to work with Rural Support to provide support and assistance. I met representatives from Rural Support last week and am grateful for the role that they play.

I am happy to consider the other case via correspondence, if you wish. In relation to this case, the officials have set out what engagement occurred with the farmer over a sustained time to bring him into compliance and how we dealt with the court order.

Do you want to say anything more about that, Elsie?

Ms McGarvey: We get training from Rural Support for our staff — my welfare team, who deal with such cases. Gemma will talk about the wider veterinary service staff. As part of that, they are trained in how to recognise issues. We refer farmers to Rural Support. I will not get into the specifics of the case, because it —.

Mr Muir: It would be totally inappropriate.

Ms McGarvey: That would be inappropriate, but our procedure is that all our staff are well aware of Rural Support. I did one maybe six or eight months ago — I am afraid to say any dates now. About a year ago, we had Rural Support in to explain to all our staff about the impact that all this has on the farming community, how to recognise issues with the farming community and, if they are concerned about farmer welfare, how and where to address that. We take that seriously. We work in the community. We know the people. The inspectors who were out on that farm know the man, and that is why they are so emotional and upset about those situations. We provide support when we can.

Ms Finnegan: OK. I appreciate that there is some sort of support there. It is important that we highlight that. If we can get better at it, that absolutely needs to happen. More broadly, you have a formal protocol. Given the impact of this and the public outcry, I ask that we maybe look at that. I imagine that that will be a part of the review.

Ms McGarvey: It is for our staff as well. They avail themselves of Rural Support in such situations, when they find them difficult. Anyway, we will not get into it in detail.

Ms Finnegan: OK. No problem.

Ms McGarvey: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thanks, Áine — sorry, Aoife. We will go online now.

Mr Muir: Are there any other questions?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): No.

Mr Muir: With the mental health stuff, we are conscious of the sensitivity of the case. There are clear protections and confidentiality around it.

Ms Finnegan: I absolutely get that. That is why I referred to the other case; I was not asking for specifics. If you go back to the recording, you will hear that I was not asking for specifics about the case.

Mr Muir: That is fair enough.

Ms McGarvey: I know that you were not. I understand. It was just in general.

Ms Finnegan: On mental health, if your distress as the Department and the Minister, which I absolutely appreciate, is acknowledged, it is only right that we talk about the distress of farmers and that we look after those rural communities, residents, farmers and so on.

Mr Muir: We totally get that. My opening statement was clear: I acknowledged that it is distressing for many people.

Ms McGarvey: Everybody.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Sorry for mixing your names up again, Aoife. It goes back to that point about lessons learned from previous examples. Thanks for that one.

Mr Wilson: Initially, after what has been said, it is fair to say — it needs to be said — that the description of what led to the event is completely matched in severity by what appears to be the mishandling of the carrying out of the court order. As John said, we cannot separate out animal welfare. While there was a serious situation that led to an involved court process and a lot of coming and going by the Department and the farmer, I certainly do not feel that I can stand over what happened in the execution of the court order, and I do not think that my colleagues can stand over it. They have made that clear. I wanted to put that on the record.

I would like an answer on the absence of the permanent secretary and the chief vet. We have heard the Minister suggest that the people who are here should be here, which I do not doubt. I do not doubt their intelligence or their suitability to be before the Committee today, but I would like to know why the permanent secretary and the chief vet are not present today, online or in person. That is my first question.

Mr Muir: As I have already outlined, I am here, as the Minister, with the officials who are closest to the issue, and we are happy to take questions on this sensitive and complex issue. For personal reasons, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the availability of other officials.

Mr Wilson: OK. I will move on. I am not content with that answer, but I recognise the environment that we are in with the back-and-forth questioning.

Some of you today have spoken about human health issues arising from the lack of records being kept of medicines administered to animals and the Department's having, in your words, no choice but to carry out the court order as happened on the day. However, it does not sit well with me that other animals were entitled or allowed or permitted to leave the herd by other means. That suggests that there were many more avenues to pursue for animals to leave the herd for sale or to be dispatched by a more humane method.

Mr Muir: Gareth, that is exactly why we are doing the external review. You have raised those concerns: I understand where you are coming from, and that is why we want the external review to be undertaken at pace and to report. Officials have outlined the circumstances with regard to this, but I recognise your concern, and that is why the external review has been set up.

Ms McGarvey: I can go back and explain the whole thing again if you want, no problem. We had no alternative —.

Mr Wilson: It is not about going back through the thing; it is about answering the questions that farmers answered, because it is they who go through the mill. We preach to the world about our food traceability, our food standards and why our product is head and shoulders above other products around the world. We want to protect that; we totally understand that. I cannot be there today — I am online — but I am sure that the room is full of beef producers who know how important this is. Why can we not get the answers that we want today? Why are we waiting for the review? I welcome the fact that we will have the review, but why can we not have those answers today while there are people listening?

I welcome the interest in the Committee — it is unprecedented for the room to be full; it does no harm to see how the legislative zone of this place works — but we need answers from the people who are in front of us. It will not help public confidence if people leave the Building with their own thought processes, thinking, "I do not feel that those members got the answers that they required and were asked by the public to provide through asking the people in front of the Committee today, including the Minister".

Mr Muir: I will go through the Chair here. I have sought, as have officials, to fully answer questions where that is possible with regard to all the issues associated with this. There is a reason why an independent external review is being undertaken. I have outlined that, and I have made it clear that, once that review is complete, I will be happy to come here with officials to take questions from the Committee about the findings and recommendations arising from it.

Mr Wilson: OK. I find it bizarre to hear some of the language that is being used around the firearms issue. When it comes to silencers, no such thing exists in the sense of silencing a bullet leaving a gun. The word that I think you want to use is "moderate". High-velocity and subsonic ammunition are two distinct categories. If we are talking about the use of suppressors with high-velocity ammunition, there is no question that those rifles would have been heard over many hundreds of yards. That is the type of question that people who come before the Committee should know the answer to. Do we need additional people to come before the Committee to answer such questions for the benefit of the public who are watching us in their hundreds and those who are physically here outside and inside the Building? I am not calling into question the reason for setting up the humane dispatch unit, but I want to know how the team is trained, who trains it and how many rounds were fired, of which how many registered in animals and how many went elsewhere at high velocity, if high-velocity ammunition was used.

Mr Muir: Gemma, do you want to address the sound issues?

Ms Daly: Yes.

Mr Muir: And the wider issue of how we deal with firearms questions.

Ms Daly: Gareth, I made the point earlier that the noise would not be fully suppressed by the silencers or suppressors on the guns. It depends on the calibre of the gun being used, the size of the animal being shot and the choice made by the shooter. I take the point that there would still be a level of noise. However, those were the steps taken by the team to suppress the noise as much as possible.

Ms McGarvey: We have been advised about the security risks around divulging information about how firearms are kept in a public forum. We have been advised to leave that to the review, because we risk —. We did not have a chance to get the Departmental Solicitor’s Office opinion on what we should say. We are afraid that we might say something about the type of ammunition in the Department's armoury that is affected by the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and what you are supposed to say about what ammunition you have in a public forum. We have to be careful about that.

Mr Wilson: Is that to keep you right?

Ms McGarvey: To keep ourselves and our staff safe, yes.

Mr Wilson: By virtue of the fact that you have that material and that weaponry, there is no ambiguity around it: it has to be secure. Every member of the public who has similar weaponry goes through rigorous steps to do that. There is no security risk about what you are telling me. Nobody knows where the weaponry is kept, and that is not the point I am trying to make. The calibre is important, and the noise is important because it ties in. I get why the review will be important to establish that, but we need to know that type of thing, and it should be explained today. That is my point.

Moving on from that, there is some ambiguity about the fact that there were loud noises, the rifles and the animals in distress. However, you said that the animals were not running around the field, and that jars slightly with me. If they were so sedate as to not be running around the field, why could they not have been sensibly corralled, gathered up and taken to somewhere less public?

Ms McGarvey: I refer you to the EFSA report published in 2020, and you might understand it if you read that report. Again, I will not get into how animals are dispatched with a firearm, but you are at a considerable distance from the animals. It is not about running into a field and herding them up. The animals are standing in their normal environment eating grass. I am not getting into the detail of that. However, the animals are in their normal environment, and they are not being stressed or chased. In most cases, they do not even know that somebody is coming up because of the way it is carried out. Those guys are trained in the techniques and in how to dispatch an animal as humanely as possible. It circles back to their training, and that is why we deemed that it was the most humane way to dispatch the animals.

There are reviews and peer-reviewed reports about similar animals, and the most appropriate way of dispatching them is in their groups, in their natural environment, by using a firearm. There is an EFSA report published in 2020 that you can look at, which is good. Have a read of it, and it will explain what we are trying to say.

Mr Wilson: In the court order, the word "immediate" was used. From dealing with court issues and judicial reviews and that type of thing in my previous local council role, what weight was given to the word "immediate"? Can you point to any case law where "immediate" has a time frame, such as hours, weeks or months?

Ms McGarvey: We have already detailed the animal welfare concerns on those premises. If the Department was going to take a significant amount of time, we would have taken a significant risk that there would be further welfare issues on that farm. Going on the experiences from previous years, it would have been completely irresponsible, in my opinion.

I have detailed how the man was given three weeks. I have detailed the numerous efforts that we made to get him to divest himself of animals. He never took that opportunity because he could not gather them in; he had not managed to do that. In my professional opinion as a vet and in the opinion of my team, for animal welfare, we could not take a risk that the animals would get back into the state that they were in in the photographs that you saw in the media.

Mr Wilson: OK. Will the review bottom out the length of time meant by the term "immediate"?

Mr Muir: I am conscious of the time and that it has been an extended Committee session, but I understand the importance of scrutiny. The transcript of the session will be passed to the reviewer. I would be surprised if the reviewer did not look at that issue now that you, as a member of the Committee, have raised it.

Mr Wilson: I have a question about the method of dispatch. Was darting and removal considered as an option? We have seen sedation used in other instances and in public places. A farmer's field is not a public place, but I gather that this one became quite public, and there are risks associated with that, given the use of high-velocity rifles and ammunition. Did the Department at any stage consider using darts and then death by lethal injection for the animals?

Ms McGarvey: That is a specific question for the humane slaughter team. As far as I am aware, we do not practise darting. There are a load of issues with darting, including in relation to keeping the medicines associated with the dart, keeping the dart and keeping the specific material that needs to be in the darts. I will steer clear of that, because I do not know the answer.

Ms Daly: Gareth, use of a three-shot rifle is deemed a humane method of slaughter for cattle. In this case, I do not think that dart or euthanasia by injection afterwards was assessed as possible. The review can check that. However, I want to make it clear that euthanasia with a three-shot rifle is a recognised humane method of slaughter, provided that it is carried out correctly.

Mr Wilson: I appreciate that. As a meat eater, I realise that every steak, burger and other such product that lands on the shelf is the result of a cow’s death. I get that, but we are looking at methods, welfare and how such actions are carried out in the view of the public. We are here to represent the views of the public and the farmers.

Thank you for your time.

Mr McCrossan: I start, as other members have, by totally condemning any threats made against the Minister or senior DAERA officials. That is entirely unacceptable. It is never justified, and it does not help in what is already a difficult situation for everybody concerned. Equally, it is important to state at the outset, given the details that we have had so far, that the farmer's neglect of the animals was absolutely appalling and demanded some form of action. However, it comes down to questions of proportionality; about whether this was the only option available to the Department; and about what consideration was given to other options.

I have looked at the order in great detail, and I see no clear description of a timeline; I see only the term "immediate". I am keen to see the legal interpretation that the Department received to define that term. Who made the decision to go to the farm on that date to do what was carried out? It is important for us to know who knew what and when.

This is another important question that has not been answered today: when was the decision made to shoot the 51 cows? Was it made on the day? Was it made prior to that? Who made that decision?

Mr Muir: Are there any other questions, Daniel?

Mr McCrossan: Yes, there will be other questions, but I would rather start with those, because my other questions will follow on from that.

Mr Muir: OK. No problem.

Ms McGarvey: I have already addressed that in response to another member's question. We always knew that there would be a situation on that farm if we ever had to remove animals, if we ever had a deprivation order. We have been on that farm for a significant time. We always knew that there was that risk. We always knew that our main issue would relate to gathering up the animals and getting them off the farm. We have always known that; we have always known that, when the day came, we would have no alternative but to take the action that we took, because of the experience that we have had on the farm over the past number of years. We always knew that this would be an issue, because, ultimately —.

Mr McCrossan: When did the Minister become aware of the decision to shoot the 51 animals on the farm?

Mr Muir: I outlined that in my opening statement. On the day, I received a submission to note that informed me that the operation would be proceeding.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, what evidence was presented to you that that was the only option available in the circumstances? In fairness to you, Minister, you have said that you know that this has deeply frustrated, annoyed and distressed a lot of people. I have heard about the event daily since. Did you take the information from the officials, or did you seek alternatives to the approach that they decided on?

Mr Muir: The approach had already been undertaken. That submission was received on the day of the operation. I read and noted it in the evening, when the operation was almost complete.

The deprivation order required the euthanising of cattle. As officials have outlined, that is not unique. On the day, I was not aware of the specifics of the case relating to where the cattle were euthanised, because, obviously, the situation unfolded on the day. I subsequently received two items of correspondence regarding the issue, and I fed back my concerns on how we could improve our relationship with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and on the abuse that the staff had received on-site. We have identified that a lessons-learned exercise is being undertaken internally. That was set out. Subsequently, I have set up the independent external review.

I have been clear. I set out in my opening statement that the officials who have expertise in this regard were the people who undertook the operation. It would be neither right nor proper for me, as Minister, to have a role regarding that situation. The submission was sent to me to note on the day of the operation.

Ms McGarvey: I do not think that I have made this point clearly enough: this is not unique to Northern Ireland. Such operations take place in the South of Ireland and across the water for the same or similar reasons. Everybody here will be aware, I am sure, of the recent high-profile cases in the South of Ireland and Scotland. Such operations are not unique to Northern Ireland. I do not think that I made that point, and I wanted to make it for the record.

Mr McCrossan: Given the huge public interest in it, our focus is on this particular event. We accept that the deprivation order was handed down by the court, but the method of killing the herd was delegated entirely to the Department. The decision to destroy the 51 animals was made by departmental officials. I want to understand why other options were not possible. That has not been made clear today.

Further to that, I was looking up some of the criteria around slaughterhouses etc. It is about ensuring minimal distress to the other animals when an animal is being slaughtered. If those cows were together in the field and not running around, surely the gunshot, the sound and, ultimately, the killing of one of the cattle would have had the impact of adding to the immediate distress of the rest of the herd. Was that the case?

Ms Daly: Slaughterhouse rules and the rules for killing out in the field are different. As Elsie said, we can read the EFSA studies that have looked at the welfare of cattle during killing for purposes other than slaughter. A 2020 report indicates that the stress of separation and moving can have a significant impact. It considers fearful responses to inappropriate or unfamiliar handling at the time of killing, including through the separation of animals from groups, to present among the greatest risks of harm occurring in animals before euthanasia. Another finding is:

There is evidence that, where animals are in a neat social group, euthanasia in those groups is more humane than corralling the animals in order to move them somewhere else and stressing them through that travel just to euthanise them.

Mr McCrossan: If the animals were in a group when officials arrived on-site, I do not understand why, prior to the shooting, some of them could not have been taken to another location. Surely a different approach could have been taken, and shooting should have been the last resort. I welcome the review, but we do not need a review to tell us that the cull was handled badly, particularly in the public's eye, because that is entirely what we hear from a significant number of people.

I have a couple of questions to which, I know, the answer will probably be to refer to the review. Will it be placed on record —?

Mr Muir: Daniel, you asked a question, and it is important that Elsie responds to it. It was covered earlier, but you asked whether there were other options.

Ms McGarvey: In this case, as I have tried to explain, in our opinion, there were no other options. Gemma explained that, according to all the available evidence, that is the most humane way of disposing of animals in that situation. If, because of the public outcry in this case, we had decided to gather up the animals and put them through —. We do not determine that we could have done so, but, if an outcome of the situation is that we will not be able to carry out such operations and will have to compromise the welfare of animals because of public perception, it will be extremely difficult for vets in the Department and vets in general to continue with their oath in relation to animal welfare.

The only reason why we would have gathered up animals in this case is the public outcry about how they were slaughtered. Considering all the evidence that we had about those animals and the years of experience of the case, it was determined that the cull was the most welfare-friendly approach. The animals on that farm had been subjected to horrendously poor welfare standards for years, as was on the record. It was our responsibility to ensure that they suffered no more and that their welfare was our main priority in that operation — and their welfare was our main priority. Of course we had to consider health and safety.

Mr McCrossan: I appreciate what you say, but the interpretation of the events, according to the people who were there, which is well cited across a number of articles, is that what was witnessed was not humane; that it contradicted care and concern for welfare; and that, in fact, it added to the animals' distress in their own environment. Local concerns have been heightened because of the manner in which the culling was carried out. Many farmers refuse to accept that there was no alternative way of dealing with the matter and believe that one of the easiest options was to do what was done. That is why there is so much anger in the community about it.

Ms McGarvey: I think that you understand that this was the most difficult option, given what we face now. It was definitely the most difficult option. I never want to be here again, but I know that, unfortunately, we will face another, similar situation in the future. It is clear to everybody here that the Department took the most difficult option. It was absolutely and most definitely not the easiest option.

Mr McCrossan: Will any relevant paperwork that outlines the decisions taken and the options considered be published as part of the review?

Mr Muir: That information will be shared with the external reviewer. We will seek the maximum openness and transparency that is permitted under the law.

Mr McCrossan: OK. Minister, I understand that it is a sensitive matter. DAERA rightly demands the highest standards of animal welfare and accountability from our farming community daily, but that community is making a strong argument about how proportionate or disproportionate the cull was.

Equally, while I recognise what Mr Blair outlined, the Department must be held to the exact same standards as we expect from our farming community. It is the Committee's role to do that, and that is what we are doing today.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, and I know that they have been referred to the review to be dealt with, but I am nevertheless concerned that other options were not given due consideration. We really need to know on whose advice the recommendation was made that the 51 cattle be shot on-site. It is important, for the public record, to know at what level that decision was made, particularly with regard to the resumption of the culling at the third site following the operation becoming what can only be described as a bit of a mess, given that the cattle ended up on public roads etc.

Mr Muir: It is important to remember that the reason why officials had to take action was the litany of offences by the farmer, which resulted in not just a lifetime disqualification from keeping farmed animals but the deprivation order. It is of massive concern to me that some staff names have been put into the public domain, resulting in significant abuse, security risks and the associated worry for them and their families. Given the context of the shocking and irresponsible behaviour of some individuals, including through online commentary, I am sure that you will appreciate, Daniel, that I have no intention of adding to the risks posed to my officials in the Department and the worry that they feel for their personal safety.

Mr McCrossan: In light of what you told us at the start, I appreciate that, but I would like to see that the information or the recommendation was considered rigorously before the act was carried out.

My final question is this: during or following the review, will you commit to providing, with your officials, animal-by-animal shot confirmation records, including on first-shot effectiveness, any follow-up shots and why one animal remained until the next morning before being killed?

Mr Muir: We have already outlined the situation with the shots and the challenges associated with the firearms. We will feed that into the review.

Do you want to say something about the calf the next morning, Elsie?

Ms McGarvey: I explained about the calf. Unfortunately, that is what we face in such operations. It is the herd keeper's responsibility to present the animals so that we can carry out deprivation. Ultimately, that was his responsibility. In such situations, due to the conditions and the farms — in this case, there were three farms with a specific number of acres — ensuring the gathering up of animals is difficult. That is why we go back. We go back the next day to make sure that no animals have been left behind. That brings me back to my point about the issue with trying to gather up animals in a safe and animal-welfare way and the inability to do that at that farm.

Mr McCrossan: I appreciate that.

I just have a final point of clarification.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): This will be your final final question, Daniel, because that was your final one.

Mr McCrossan: Yes, it is my final one. Was the Department aware of any of the herd being currently pregnant, actively calving, recently having calved or caring for dependent calves when they were shot?

Ms McGarvey: I think that it is on public record that there were cows and calves. Yes, there were cows and calves as part of it, but as for the allegations about a cow calving in the middle of events we have no evidence to suggest that that was the case. I know that a photograph was circulated online. A number of us vets looked at that photograph. There is no indication of a cow calving in the picture that was circulated online, and, in relation to the operation, I have had no reports from any staff that a cow was calving at the incident. That is that answer.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I thank you and your team, Minister. I recognise that you have been here for nearly three hours. I will trust two members who wanted in on other questions to be very quick. It is Áine and Thomas.

Mr Muir: Chair, we have been here for nearly three hours. I recognise that the Committee has a scrutiny role, but I am also conscious that this has been an elongated session.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is accepted.

Áine, keep it brief, please.

Ms Murphy: I will. The removal of cattle after they were shot was raised by constituents. Obviously, the farmer in question had a poor track record on properly disposing of cattle. It took DAERA 48 hours, I think — you can clarify that — to bring in an external contractor. Why did DAERA not prepare, knowing that the cattle would be left for a period of time in full view?

Ms McGarvey: Under the deprivation order, it is the responsibility of the herd keeper to recoup any cost to the Department of the deprivation. Ultimately, it was the herd keeper's responsibility. He is responsible for animal by-products on his farm. He was responsible for disposing of the animal by-products relating to the incident.

In this case, in the evening, when the operations had finished, we reviewed the situation. When we were going out there, we did not know how many animals would be there, because of the nature of the case and what we were dealing with on that farm. We did not know until the operation was finished how many animals there would be. That evening, when the operation was finished, there was a discussion about how many carcasses were on the site and whether animal by-product notices had been issued, which they had.

The decision was made that evening, as soon as the operation concluded, that the Department would organise the disposal of the animals. The reason why the decision was not made until the evening is that the site has to be secure. The operation did not finish until about 9.30 pm or 10.00 pm, so a contractor could not be brought in until the site was clear and no more shooting was taking place. At that time, we were notified that the site was cleared and of the number of animals that were there. It was because of the number of animals and because it was a warm evening that the decision was made. A contractor was contacted immediately — this happened on the Monday night — and he agreed to clear the site the next day.

Staff went to the site on the Tuesday morning. I have explained the issues with access to and facilities on the site. Significant issues had to be addressed for the contractor to get access to the ground and to the animals, but, by that evening, every animal had been lifted. Every carcass was lifted the next day. As I said, there were difficulties with getting the lorry in because of the accessibility issues, especially on the first two farms, but all the animals were lifted.

For the public record — there has been stuff online about the contractor, saying that there were legs hanging out over trailers and stuff like that — I need to make it clear that the Department uses a reputable contractor. We use him for numerous things, and he is very reputable. Under animal by-products legislation, he has to comply with requirements relating to transporting animals, one of which is that the container or trailer has to be covered. Before he leaves a site, he has to ensure that the container is covered. I have confirmed that, and I have photographs. That stuff was in the media as well. The contractor is valuable and reputable, and I have to put that on the record. They were lifted.

As the Minister said, there are lessons to be learned. Maybe one lesson that will come out is that we should stop operations on each site and get a contractor in earlier. If that comes out of the review, that is OK — the process would take longer, because we would have to clear each site separately — and we will take it on board.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Áine, I need to bring Tom in.

Ms Murphy: Yes, Chair. It is literally just a point of clarity on the court order. Elsie touched on it earlier, and I want to make sure that the record is clear. It states that the disposal of the animals is ordered with immediate effect. Now, the farmer had a right to appeal.

Ms McGarvey: Two weeks, yes.

Ms Murphy: That two-week period was statutory.

Ms McGarvey: Yes.

Ms Murphy: The Department then gave him an additional week. Legally, would DAERA have been in contravention of the order if it had made a decision to —?

Ms McGarvey: We have not looked —.

Mr Muir: Potentially so. That is where the interpretation of legislation comes in.

I am conscious, Chair, that it has been nearly three hours. I know that you want to ask more questions, but it has been an elongated session, and we have sought to answer all the questions fully.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Very quickly, Tom: it has to be brief.

Mr T Buchanan: It is very brief, and there is a one-word answer to it. In response to Daniel's question, you said that deciding to do this was the most difficult decision that the Department had to take. Given the outcry from the farming community and members of the public, with hindsight, which is a great thing, would you go down a different path?

Ms McGarvey: I do not think that we could. That is my issue, and that is what I said to the Minister.

Mr Muir: As you said, Tom, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the external review is the place to look through all of that.

Ms McGarvey: The other quick point that I will make is that I am afraid that we will be in a position like this again with a similar farm. Are we going to compromise the animals' welfare because we cannot go on to the farm and do this when it is needed? That has to be at the back of everybody's mind.

Mr Muir: I will say just in conclusion that we have a humane slaughter team. We have to be conscious that, if we make the role hazardous and publicly toxic, the most competent people will not be able to undertake it. There will be a real consequence at the worst possible moment, such as during a major animal disease emergency where that capability is urgently required. We all have a role in the Committee and in wider society to lower the tone of the debate on the issue and to give a space for the external review.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you, members. Minister, thank you for your time and that of your officials.

Members will now consider any potential actions that the Committee may want to take, pending the outcome of the review.

Mr Muir: If you can stop for a second, we will head on. It is for you to do that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes. That is not a problem.