Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I welcome Mark Allen and Aidan Stennett from the Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe). Mark and Aidan, I understand that you wish to present one after the other and then have a joint Q&A at the end. Is that correct?

Mr Mark Allen (RaISe): That is correct, Chair. If you are amenable to that, that would be easiest for us. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you, Mark. I am content with that.

Before hearing the briefing, I will address some procedural concerns that have been raised in correspondence. Correspondence from Countryside Alliance Ireland dated 14 August starts at page 359 of the Committee pack. I also refer members to correspondence from Northern Ireland Says Enough (NoISE), starting at page 357, which outlines some procedural concerns. The Bill sponsor has advised the Clerk that the legal matters referred to in Countryside Alliance Ireland's correspondence do not relate to the Bill. John, I would be grateful if you would give your view for the record, without divulging anything that you cannot say, given potential legal proceedings. Please confirm that the matters do not relate to the contents and purpose of the Bill.

Mr Blair: Absolutely. I confirm that, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. The legal matters referred to do not relate to the Bill or its content at all but relate, in fact, to positions that I held before I became an MLA.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That is noted. Thank you.

In response to procedural issues raised by stakeholders, I put on record that the Committee is committed to ensuring that the Committee Stage of the Hunting with Dogs Bill is carried out in line with all relevant Assembly procedures and Standing Orders. Mr Blair can participate in all aspects of the Committee Stage. It is up to him whether he wants to recuse himself at any point, but he is not required to do so. The code of conduct and guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members applies to all Members, including when they act as a Bill sponsor. The Chair will ensure that all Committee members get equal time for questions and participation in discussion. It is up to a member, including the Bill sponsor, to declare any interests that are relevant to a Bill. The Chair will ensure that there is no undue influence at the Committee from any member. If Mr Blair is in the witness seat for aspects of the Committee Stage, he will not be considered to be present for the purposes of quorum, as he is acting in his capacity as a witness rather than as a member of the Committee. However, when he is not acting as a witness, he will be considered to be present for the purposes of quorum.

Miss McIlveen: I appreciate that John is the Bill's sponsor, but, if there are additional requests, those are for the Committee to decide on. I suppose that he is wearing a dual hat. Not everyone has the privilege of being on the Committee to give directions. I urge caution in relation to that because the Committee may be criticised later if it does not give people the opportunity to speak.

The Committee Clerk: If the Committee is written to and wishes to hear evidence from groups beyond those that have been agreed, it will be up to Committee members to make that decision and make the time for that.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Certainly. That is noted, Michelle. Thank you.

I remind members that Mark and Aidan are here to talk about the Bill as introduced and its provisions, rather than to give an opinion on whether hunting with dogs is a positive or negative activity. Mark and Aidan, I now invite you to brief the Committee. Thank you.

Mr Allen: Thank you, Chair and members. You are getting two for one today, in that Aidan and I have worked closely together over the past few months. These are two extensive papers. You will be relieved to know that we will not go through them line by line or word by word. This is very much a broad overview. You have the reports in your packs. There are over 140 pages between the two papers, and they will be published in due course, but, if there are additional questions, feel free, as a Committee or as individuals, to come back to us.

With that caveat and that provision in mind, I will try to provide a broad overview of the Hunting with Dogs Bill. Committee members will find my paper in their packs. I will look at a couple of areas: the background and the current legal framework. I will then look at three specific areas that may be relevant to Committee scrutiny: the provisions of the Bill; the consultation exercise; and the potential issues and questions that the research paper raises. I cannot emphasise enough that I do not have the time, and members do not have the time, to go through it all in detail today, but it is there in black and white for further scrutiny.

I am accompanied by my colleague Aidan. Aidan has prepared a paper that reviews the potential costs of the Bill, which can also be found in members' packs. Thank you for your indulgence in allowing us to take questions at the end, after I have completed my briefing and handed over to Aidan.

On the current legislative context of the Bill, it is fair to say that the Bill represents a significant policy change. Northern Ireland is the only UK jurisdiction without specific legislation that either prohibits or restricts the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, although the activity of hare coursing has been banned since 2011 under section 38 of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. The Bill would change that position substantially. At present, hunting with dogs and hunting wildlife more generally, is, in effect, regulated indirectly through wildlife and animal welfare legislation, rather than through dedicated hunting legislation. Table 1 in my paper gives an overview of some of the provisions that are in statute at present, which are the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. At this point, it is important to note that the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 does not generally apply to wild animals that are hunted in the normal course of hunting unless the animal is injured, exhausted, mutilated or hunted in an enclosed space without a reasonable chance of escape. In practical terms, that means that hunting certain mammals with dogs is currently legal in Northern Ireland.

I will turn to the situation in the rest of the UK, but I should first say that the situation in Ireland is very similar to the situation here, in that there is no dedicated legislation in Ireland at present, and the issue is dealt with through wildlife provisions. Earlier this year, there was an effort to introduce a private Member's Bill in the Dáil, which sought to ban fox hunting, but that fell at Second Stage. It may therefore be more pertinent to look across the water to GB. England and Wales operate under the Hunting Act 2004, whilst Scotland currently operates under the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023. All three jurisdictions prohibit hunting wild mammals with dogs, subject to various exemptions and exceptions. The Bill would broadly align Northern Ireland with developments elsewhere in the UK, although, in several respects, it would go further than England and Wales and Scotland.

Thank you, Chair, for alluding to the fact that this is a contested issue. It is an issue about which people feel incredibly passionate, and we recognise that. We have made no attempt to provide a commentary or a full analysis of the different positions. It is not our role to do that. All I will say, in summary — there is a table in the paper that seeks to summarise this — is that supporters of hunting with dogs argue that hunting contributes to predator control and biodiversity management; that it is a rural tradition; that it has a vital part in connection with the equine sector; and that it has an economic impact on and benefit to rural areas and more widely. Opponents, broadly speaking, argue that hunting causes unnecessary suffering and that modern wildlife management objectives can be achieved through less harmful means. Members are well aware that the Bill sits at the centre of that ongoing debate. As you mentioned, Chair, neither of the papers that we have prepared make any judgement on the acceptability or otherwise of hunting with dogs; our focus is purely on the Bill's provisions and how they would operate.

With that said, I will move on to look at the scale of hunting with dogs activity in Northern Ireland. It has proved to be challenging to quantify the scale, because it includes such a wide range of activities, from organised hunts to terrier work, trail hunting, falconry and shooting, and involves individuals and organised groups. What we have been able to establish in the paper is that, according to 'Baily's Hunting Directory', there are around 20 organised hunts currently active in Northern Ireland. Those operate across several counties and involve fox hounds, harriers, beagles, bloodhounds and draghounds. I am aware that, in at least one of those instances, no actual quarry is hunted. Rather, a scent is followed. When we look at those 20 organised hunts, we see that fox hunting seems to be the most commonly organised activity, with the majority of hunts that identified a quarry species indicating that foxes were their primary target. As I mentioned, some hunts focus on clean-boot or trail hunting rather than on a live quarry. On the basis of those 20 organised hunts, there appear to be 544 dogs involved. However, dog numbers were not reported in all instances, so the true figure may be higher. Indeed, the number could be lower, because some of those dogs could be used across different hunts: there could be a common pack used across a number of hunts.

Additional hunting-related activities exist beyond those organised hunts, as I said. We are well aware of instances of dog-supported shooting. No doubt, you will take evidence from those who participate in that. We have working terrier clubs, pest-control schemes — the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has a scheme with one of the shooting organisations in which dogs are involved — and, of course, falconry. It may be on a smaller scale, but it is there, and the activity happens. Our challenge is that the scale of those activities is largely unknown, due to limited available data, so what I have said to you is what we could find.

As you will be aware, the Bill was introduced on 27 April and is made up of 14 clauses. Its primary objectives are to:

The mechanism that has been used is an amendment to the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 that inserts new Part 3A. The Bill creates the following new offences: hunting wild mammals with dogs; organising or participating in hunting with dogs; trail hunting; terrier work; and knowingly permitting prohibited hunting activities on land. It is important to say that the Bill extends liability beyond those who physically own or control dogs to organisers, participants and landowners in specific circumstances.

The Bill includes five exemptions, as set out in clauses 6 to 10: the hunting of rats and mice; the management of wild mammals above ground; relieving the suffering of injured wild mammals; searching for dead wild mammals; and training dogs to follow animal-based scents for lawful purposes. However, other than in relation to the hunting of rats and mice, all of the exemptions are subject to conditions that need to be met to enable the activity to occur. There are conditions attached to those exemptions, including that there is a maximum of two dogs; that dogs must be under control; that permission from the landowner must be secured; that reasonable steps are taken to prevent packs of dogs forming; and that measures are aimed at minimising wildlife suffering. A recurring issue throughout the paper is that many of those conditions could be better defined in the Bill. That is an observation.

The Bill proposes substantial penalties: for summary conviction, up to 12 months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £20,000 fine, or both. For a conviction on indictment, the penalties are up to five years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both. Those penalties are considerably higher than the current hare coursing penalties that are in operation in Northern Ireland: on summary conviction, an individual is liable for a fine of up to the maximum on the standard scale — level 5 — which equates to £5,000.

The proposed penalties in the Bill are broadly comparable with those used in GB, with three distinct differences. Currently, there is an unlimited fine on summary conviction in England and Wales. That changed in 2015. A summary conviction in Scotland can also include a fine of up to £40,000 in particular circumstances. The more interesting thing about both of those, and a distinct difference, is that England and Wales have additional sanctions that can include wide-ranging deprivation orders — those are quite topical at the minute — disqualification and forfeiture, which can apply to equipment, dogs or horses. I have set out some of those differences in table 14.

I turn briefly to the public consultation on the Bill's proposals that ran between October 2024 and January 2025. It generated 12,011 responses, which, in our experience, is a significant number for a private Member's Bill.

Of the respondents, 4,864 identified themselves as Northern Ireland residents. The Bill promoter provided a dedicated section of the consultation that considered those who said that they were resident in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of responses came from individuals rather than organisations, and the scale of the response, as I said, demonstrated significant public interest.

I turn to the main findings. The consultation recorded majority support for banning hunting with dogs and trail hunting and for, in effect, landowner liability provisions. If we look at the Northern Ireland-specific data, we see that 72% of respondents from Northern Ireland supported banning hunting with dogs, approximately 70% supported banning trail hunting, and about 73% supported landowner liability.

Themes emerged from the consultation. Supporters generally focused on issues relating to animal welfare, namely the prevention of cruelty and the need for stronger legal protections, whereas opponents of the Bill's provisions tended to focus on the requirement for pest control; questions about biodiversity management; rural traditions; economic impacts; and enforcement costs. The responses reveal that there are divergent views on the issues. There is not a lot of consensus. There might be a majority in favour of banning some of the activities, but consensus has definitely not been achieved.

Issues for Committee scrutiny are set out in section 8 of the paper. I will give a brief overview of the more significant issues, but I encourage members to look at all the information. First, I will refer to section 8.5, which looks at definitions. That section repeatedly notes that a number of questions remain around concepts such as "participation", "organise", "under control", "reasonable steps" and "serious damage", which are either undefined or partially defined. A number of sections of the paper deal with the perceived threat to dog walkers posed by the Bill's provisions. I will not focus on that now, but it is partly captured by the definition issue. Members may wish to consider whether additional clarity is required in the Bill or through statutory guidance accompanying it. It is safe to say that legal certainty will be particularly important, given the criminal penalties involved, which I listed.

The second issue relates to the consultation methodology. I emphasise that these issues are not critical to the content of the Bill but relate to the veracity of the evidence presented and whether it is representative. That is about whether residency claims were verified and how responses were analysed. Text responses were provided in the consultation, which was helpful, I must say, when I looked at it, but maybe another question is how the responses were sampled and whether the sampling was done consistently: is it representative of the responses in the round? As I said, those questions are not critical to the functioning of the Bill, but maybe they are relevant to the assessment of the weight to be attached to the evidence.

The third issue is trail hunting. As members may be aware, DEFRA recently consulted on banning trail hunting in England and Wales. That was not dealt with in the Hunting Act 2004; indeed, trail hunting as an activity probably emerged from the 2004 Act. According to press reports, there have been approximately 100,000 responses to that consultation, with some media commentary suggesting that 85,000 of the responses were against the proposed ban. However, there is no DEFRA analysis of the responses at this point, and further clarity is needed on the Government's stance, which remains unclear as to the next steps, although we have the Labour Party manifesto commitment to ban trail hunting in this Parliament.

The paper asks whether trail hunting takes place in Northern Ireland — I could not find evidence to that effect — and whether the proposed definitions are broad enough to capture the activity that the Bill intends to prohibit. I do not want to go into much more detail than this, but, in particular, given that clause 3 is premised on the "scent of a wild mammal", is there an implication that trail hunting using scent from another animal that is not a wild mammal would still be legal? I just pose that question, and there are a number of others, but I will move on to another section of the paper.

The fourth issue is terrier work. Members may wish to ask why the Bill proposes a complete prohibition, when other UK jurisdictions have adopted more limited approaches that would enable the use of dogs underground in certain circumstances. There are questions about the evidence and proportionality and the implications for pest control.

The fifth issue is licensing. One of the most significant policy choices is the absence of a licensing system for exempted activities. Scotland has exempted activities and allows more than two dogs to be used under specific purposes, provided that it is licensed. The paper asks whether a licensing model would provide greater flexibility while still providing appropriate safeguards.

The sixth issue is the two-dog limit. As I said, the Bill generally limits exempted activity to two dogs. The paper asks whether that could affect legitimate conservation, biodiversity and wildlife management activities in a negative manner. That may be particularly relevant as the Committee visited Glenwherry last year, I think, and I accompanied you. The Glenwherry example is quite interesting when it comes to the impact that pest and predator control has had on nesting bird numbers. Some of that evidence is set out in the paper.

Finally, I will very quickly look at the issue of enforcement and offences. Unlike legislation elsewhere in the UK, the Bill does not contain statute offences for individuals who reasonably believe that they were acting within an exemption. The paper asks whether such protections should be included to ensure that the legislation operates fairly in practice.

In conclusion, the Bill would fundamentally alter the legal framework for governing hunting with dogs in Northern Ireland. There are probably six overarching thematic questions that members may wish to consider. Are the Bill's definitions sufficiently clear? Would that be addressed through statutory guidance? Are the exemptions workable? Should a licensing scheme be included for exemptions? Are penalties proportionate? Will enforcement be practical? Would that benefit from guidance or training? Have the economic and rural impacts been sufficiently assessed? Who would do so, and when?

With that, I hand over to Aidan. Thank you for your time.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you for that, Mark. We will move now to Aidan, who will talk about the financial implications of introducing the Bill.

Mr Aidan Stennett (RaISe): Thank you, Chair, Mark and members. As you said, Chair, I will take you through the review of costs paper. Before getting to that and to the Bill itself, it is worth noting the context in which it has been introduced. Members will be aware that we are currently in a challenging budgetary context. Table 2 in the paper sets that out in detail. Talks about the Budget are ongoing, but, as of today, no Executive Budget has been agreed. The Budget Act deadline passed on 31 July, meaning that an expenditure limit of 95% of last year's Budget has been triggered.

The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) that accompanied the Bill's introduction states:

but that its implementation could impact on departmental and PSNI budgets. The EFM also states that fine income "could help offset" enforcement, monitoring and compliance costs. The paper sought to test those statements. However, that was challenging, as no implementing Department or body — DAERA, DOJ and the PSNI — was in a position to share its assessment of the potential financial impacts of the Bill at the time of writing. Instead, the paper relies on the experience of similar legislation in Scotland, as well as in England and Wales, and other publicly available information from Northern Ireland. As Mark pointed out, although there is legislation in other jurisdictions similar to what is proposed in the Bill, it varies in scope and remit. For example, although Scotland is possibly the closest comparator, from a financial perspective, the largest cost identified there was from the licensing of hunting with dogs activities. The Bill as introduced does not include similar licensing provisions, as Mark outlined.

Based on the available information, potential costs are identified for DAERA and bodies falling within the remit of DOJ, including the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service, and the Northern Ireland Prison Service. From DAERA's perspective, the Bill as introduced would place new responsibilities on the Department with regard to the enforcement, review and reporting of the implementation of the Bill's provisions. The Department may also be required to update existing hunting guidance. Each of those new activities would likely result in costs to the Department. However, at the time of writing, the extent of those costs and how they would be met is unclear. In the case of the Scottish example, however, such costs were not expected to be meaningful. The Committee may also wish to explore that further with the Department; in particular, how clause 11, which provides for the enforcement of the new offences, would impact on the enforcement activities of DAERA's wildlife inspectors.

Turning to the Department of Justice, as noted, the Bill could potentially impact on the budgets of the PSNI, the Courts and Tribunals Service and the Prison Service. Clause 11 would require the PSNI to enforce the new offences that the Bill would create. Presently, the PSNI has a wildlife officer who advises and trains investigating officers. The Bill, if enacted, would, therefore, expand the range of offences that the wildlife officer would advise and train on, as well as the range of offences that investigating officers would be required to investigate. RaISe contacted the PSNI to establish the extent of that impact. While it was not in a position to provide a detailed breakdown, the PSNI stated that any costing would be absorbed under wider policing duties. That is similar to findings in Scotland when legislation passed there.

In a similar vein to that of the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service may incur increased costs from processing individuals charged under the new offences that the Bill would create. That would depend on the number of prosecutions under the Bill. Again, the experience from Scotland points to a modest increase in court proceedings resulting from similar offences after the enactment of the 2023 Scottish Act, albeit that that is from a limited sample size. In 2023-24, 26 individuals in Scotland were proceeded against for hunting with dogs. That was a 3·7-fold increase from the baseline. That was at the lower end of the Scottish Government's cost estimates, where a threefold increase in cases was expected to lead to a total additional cost to the court services of just under £16,000.

Similarly, where new offences created by the Bill result in custodial sentences, the Prison Service may incur additional costs. Experience in Scotland shows that there were zero custodial sentences for wildlife crime in 2023-24, the year that the Scottish Act was introduced. However, the data is limited to that one year, and no long-term trends can be established. Little can be learned from England and Wales in that context, because, as Mark outlined, custodial sentences were not included as a penalty in the 2004 Act.

Available evidence reveals that prison costs in Northern Ireland are higher than the Scottish comparator. Available figures for 2024-25 show that the cost was £57,180 per prisoner place in Northern Ireland compared with £38,213 per year in Scotland. That Scottish figure is based on 2020 data.

Turning to the second point raised in the Bill's EFM that fine income could offset the cost of enforcement, there are two points worth noting. First, experience from England and Wales reveals that fine income from hunting offences there has been relatively low. The total fine income generated following the Hunting Act's introduction was £176,700 up to 2025. Secondly, the Bill as introduced does not include any provision that specifies that fine income is to be retained for use by either of the implementing Departments. As such, the income generated from fines will be paid into the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland and distributed through the Executive Budget process.

Thanks, Chair and members. That is all that I wanted to say. We are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much, Mark and Aidan, for that information and for the research that you have carried out. There is a lot contained in that.

I will start with some questions for you, Mark. First, with regard to the absence of definitions for key terms that you refer to possibly creating challenges for enforcement, I understand that the Committee has had similar discussions on the Dilapidation Bill. In that situation, the Department has statutory guidance to fall back on to flesh out definitions and give examples of cases. Do you feel from your research that the Bill would benefit from such guidance of the definitions, and, if so, who would be responsible for producing that guidance?

Mr Allen: That section relating to the enforcement dimension and guidance for PSNI officers on the ground becomes a critical issue. There may be different ways to approach that. For example, amendments to the Bill could potentially flesh out those definitions. Even if that is done, I still think that there are legitimate questions to the responsible Departments on whether they would benefit from having statutory guidance to ensure that there is consistent application. As Aidan alluded to, the PSNI, to all intents and purposes, has, I think, two individuals in that unit who are responsible for giving training to officers. Not all officers in Northern Ireland receive that training, but, where they do, they have to be informed of the key components. If there are changes here, you imagine that guidance will have to be given to inform that training and for the officers who are on the ground, faced with the circumstances. I have posed those as questions, and the question on whether we end up with statutory guidance is maybe for the Department to answer. Maybe part of that issue can be dealt with through amendment.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you. Do you have any examples of guidance from other jurisdictions that could be used as a template?

Mr Allen: We looked at Scotland, and there is. I have not actually seen that guidance, but I was told by an official that, in particular, some issues emerged around licensing. Scotland is, relatively speaking, in the foothills of this as well, because it is only three years since the 2023 Act came in. An issue in Scotland that is presenting potential challenges on licensing is the definition of "cover", because cover changes over the course of a year. Bracken in winter can be at ground level, and, in July or August, it can look very different. Challenges have emerged in relation to people who are seeking to undertake licensed activities. It is not an issue unique to Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): One of the issues that has come to me is that of protection for dog walkers. Can you expand on your research findings on that? That issue has caused a lot of concern. Is there more protection in other jurisdictions for dog walkers to cover a situation where the dog escapes off a lead and runs, naturally following something, and is not under the control of the dog walker?

Mr Allen: From the consultation and, indeed, some of the public commentary, that issue has been flagged fairly consistently. For me, a lot of this comes down to the definitional issues, and I have looked at that in section 8.5 of my paper. A lot of this maybe relates to some of the definitions. I know that John, the Bill sponsor, is sitting opposite us. His EFM makes it clear that hunting is an intentional activity. When I looked at it, I considered circumstances where I were to set out not to engage in an intentional activity and the dog were to become involved. Clause 1 deals with participation, including "participation in another activity", and that maybe raised some concerns. I think that there are a number of questions there. The paper looks at that. Only one activity is named. The paper states:

I raised the question of why only one such other activity is named in the Bill. Does that apply to all activities named, and what implications does that have for dog walkers? The questions that I pose include the question of whether there would be merit in amending the Bill to exempt, specifically, the activity of dog walking. I am not in a position to answer that. Other legislation across these islands has not done that, but that issue is there, and that is reflected in some of the consultation responses and the concerns.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I have one other question before we move to the floor. On welfare, should the law, in your opinion, target cruelty and unnecessary suffering rather than specific methods in the pursuit of sport?

Mr Allen: Are you talking about the Bill, Chair?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Yes.

Mr Allen: I did not actively consider that, but what the exempted activities include and what conditions would have to be met are clear. That is there as a definition. I flagged that. That is above my pay grade, but it is definitely an issue for consideration.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Could welfare standards, codes of practice or licensing achieve the same objective with less impact on legitimate countryside activities?

Mr Allen: You are getting into the idea of an amendment to the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. That would be a separate legislative process, because normal hunting activity is exempt from the 2011 Act as written. Again, doing that within the remainder of the mandate might prove quite challenging.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you for that.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Mark and Aidan, for a very comprehensive paper, as always. Mark, in the paper, you mention that the Bill does not make provision for "environmental benefit activities". May I hear your thoughts on what that might mean or what those activities cover?

Mr Allen: Declan, that point relates to the Scottish exemptions. I have not gone into detail about it, but you might want to revisit that issue. If you want, I can give you more detail on it. In Scotland, there are circumstances in which a person can engage in the activity of hunting a mammal with more than two dogs, provided that they can prove that they are bringing an environmental benefit. That is an objective assessment made by NatureScot when someone seeks a licence.

Mr McAleer: Can you think of any examples off the top of your head, Mark? I do not mean to put you on the spot.

Mr Allen: No, I cannot, but I am happy to come back to you with a bit more detail on that, if that would be helpful. NatureScot has published reports in the past two years on who has applied for licences and for what. I might be able to get you more detail, and, if we cannot, we could direct the Committee to NatureScot to extract that.

Mr McAleer: From the Glenwherry visit, we picked up on the biological diversity piece, but I am curious to know a wee bit more about the environmental benefit.

Mr Allen: It is fair to say that Scotland has had challenges with licensing. Aidan and I had a conversation — feel free to chip in at any point, Aidan — about one of the challenges, which relates to people who, shall we say, have said that they were going to do activities and are in the process of deciding whether they can reapply for a licence. The evidential threshold concerns what you engaged in and whether you actually did what you said you were going to do, and that becomes part of the challenge. That is why I mentioned the licence: it gives an opportunity, at least. In Scotland, dogs that engage in those licensed activities have trackers, and it can be seen where the activity occurs, meaning that there is an evidential base. In Scotland, there is a more developed system than what we have or what the Bill proposes. The extent of the conditions and the exemptions reflect that.

Mr McAleer: That is great. Thank you.

Mr Wilson: Thanks very much for all your work. I have a number of points. The first is from the landowner's perspective. I am curious as to what legal weight will be put on the word "knowingly"? How will that be established? Will it cover somebody saying, "You may use my land", or, "I didn't allow you to use my land, but you're using it. I'm not very happy about it, but I'm not going to take any action"? What about a case where someone does not want a person to use their land and tells them to leave, but that person uses it anyway? Were this version of the Bill approved, what will it involve for a landowner who could find themselves in this type of situation?

Mr Allen: You are correct to identify that that is a challenge. The reality is that that is one of the areas where there is considerable divergence. Some landowners welcome it, and some landowners are opposed to it. Indeed, among some landowners, it could be even more nuanced than that. It may be that some activity is viewed positively and some is not, and, indeed, that could alter over time. When it comes to the operation of the provisions of the Bill, we need to go back to the guidance and what that means. Is that a statutory guidance issue? It was not within the remit of our Bill paper to consider what the implications might be. However, you are right to raise the question of what it would mean for landowners. What would constitute "permission"? Is that verbal, or is it written? What is the evidential threshold?

Mr Wilson: I want to move on to the dog-walking aspect. If you are hunting with a dog, you are, to all intents and purposes, walking your dog. If an alien landed from outer space and saw you in the field, they would say that you were walking your dog — that that was your primary action. When it comes to the blue pages of this Bill, however, is it about the clothing that you are wearing that make you look like you are hunting? If the PSNI carry out a legal interception on the basis that you are hunting, what will that look like? To be hunting, do you have to have five or 10 beagles with you, or six or seven horses? Do you have to be wearing a Barbour coat and hat with a whistle? If the Bill is passed in its current form, is that the test? If you go hunting with your dog but are not wearing all the associated traditional gear, could you say, "I'm not hunting, because I don't look like I am hunting"? It is so widely framed that it would be a complete nightmare to try to —.

Mr Allen: I alluded to that. In the other jurisdictions, there is a means for a defence. People can effectively state the case that they were not knowingly involved, or that they believed that they were engaged in an exempted activity.

Moving on to your other questions, in the paper, I noted a number of areas that could benefit from further clarity. What is the definition of "control" of a dog? What is the definition of "participation", including participation "in another activity"? How is "organise" to be defined? How are "searching for" and "pursuing" to be defined? I have noted a series of issues that play into that conversation.

Mr Wilson: There are specific breeds of dogs, such as pointers, that people are very passionate about. I know such people, and lots of them use the dogs for the intended purpose; many others do not. Those dogs still need to be exercised and walked. Should the dogs then pursue their natural desire, and somebody takes umbrage with that, where do we sit with all of that? That is what I am interested in.

Mr Allen: I cannot comment further than what I have already said. The EFM states clearly that the action of hunting is an intentional and organised activity. As I said to the Chair, if that is the case, could more work be done in relation to an exemption for dog walking, or is it a matter of trying to be more prescriptive in those terms and definitions? I flagged those questions in the paper. Beyond that, I am restricted in what I can say. I considered the text of the Bill as introduced.

Mr Wilson: The Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 covers unnecessary suffering. However, is there a restriction in how that is applied today? It is still in operation.

Mr Allen: I did not revisit that, Gareth. I went with the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in the paper, but, if you wish, we can have a look at the 1972 provisions.

Mr Wilson: If it is intentional, surely unnecessary suffering would be a by-product of that.

Mr Allen: Yes. I can see where you are coming from. You are going to get into a legal argument, and I am not a legal professional.

Mr Wilson: I am just keen to put those arguments on the table. Lots of people are interested in this.

Mr Allen: Those are interesting questions. They do not come under the paper's remit. Again, however, if the Committee wants us to look at that again, we can do so. We can have a look at the 1972 Act.

Mr Wilson: What is your ultimate assessment of the wider rural economic impact?

Mr Allen: We do not have that data in Northern Ireland. There was a study done down South by University College Dublin (UCD), and I have included a reference to that in the paper. It is safe to say that — you have been given legal advice — a Bill sponsor is not required to complete a rural needs assessment. A rural needs assessment would potentially have to consider elements such as that. One of the issues is that a range of bodies and individuals support the activity, either directly or indirectly. That UCD study, which is from 1997 — I have to caveat it in those terms — valued the contribution of Irish field sports to the economy in 1995 as IR£67 million. If we take account of inflation and the fact that the South has changed to the euro, it would be about €161 million today. That is the approximate figure. Other than that, we were unable to find any direct monetary figure. The Burns report of 2000, which was commissioned by the UK Government, went further and said that it was not possible to give a precise figure for the number of the jobs that would be lost if hunting were banned. There is a paucity of evidence in that regard.

Mr Wilson: Thanks very much.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you for that. Yes, it is hard to find that information.

Ms Murphy: Thank you, Mark and Aidan, for coming in. I declare an interest as a firearms licence holder for sporting purposes and vermin control.

Mark, in your paper, there are numerous references to "terrier work", which is included in the Bill but is not included in the Scottish, English or Welsh legislation. What was the rationale for those areas not including that in their legislation? Scotland updated its legislation most recently — in 2022.

Mr Allen: Thank you, Áine. It is safe to say that the debate continues in different jurisdictions as to whether that should have been included. The legislators gave consideration to matters such as pest control, and that was reflected in the legislation. In Scotland, there are limitations. It is not a free-for-all; there are restrictions on what can be done in relation to terrier work. It is not that it is an unregulated activity. There are very clear obligations that participants have to meet.

Ms Murphy: You also flagged the two-dog limit, Mark. I am looking at this from the angle of livestock protection in the context of rural realities. If there is a two-dog limit in place for foot packs or for a farmer in protecting their livestock, will there be any implications, in your assessment, given the possible differences in topography? Take the example of a fox that has caused harm on a farm or to farm animals and has been spotted in a rural area, such as one in my constituency that is pretty much forestry and surrounds a number of local farms. Do you think that the two-dog limit in itself is workable when it comes to protecting livestock to deal with a fox that has caused damage to herds?

Mr Allen: Áine, to be honest, I would be veering into opinion on that one. I am not in a position to say. I recall the Committee's visit to Glenwherry last year. The hill farm at Glenwherry goes across an entire mountainside, and a point was made about predator control. I have included in the paper the quote from the Department. Predator control has been one of the key steps to securing the growth in nesting bird numbers. One of the witnesses that day spoke about how challenging that is within the environment in which they operate and how they require most means that are available to them. Beyond that, I cannot say anything, because I have not looked at any other evidence. If you want us to look at that, I will be happy to do so. The restrictions are fairly clear regarding what the exempted activity can be, and the two-dog limit is there.

Ms Murphy: I have a final question, Chair, if you will indulge me. It relates to some of the defence provisions included in the Bill. Keep me right, Mark: the burden of proof will fall on the defendant, if an accusation is made.

Mr Allen: Are you referring to specific clauses, Áine?

Ms Murphy: I am speaking generally, if somebody has been accused of engaging in hunting a wild mammal with a dog.

Mr Allen: Again, I am not engaged in enforcement, and I will not be. You will see how I approached that issue in the paper. Some of the definitional issues become central in ensuring that someone is not captured in something that they were not intending. That is how I choose to answer that question. I will not go any further than that, because I think that I am veering into legal territory.

Ms Murphy: That is 100%. Thank you, Mark.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Mark, those are all the questions for you.

I move now to the cost implications, Aidan. Your paper states that any:

Could that be part of the Bill, or would that be stretching it outside what could be included?

Mr Stennett: My understanding is that it would have to be included in the Bill, but, importantly, there would have to be DOF permission for it to happen. If you want to pursue that, the best course of action would be to talk to officials from the Department of Finance to get a fuller understanding of how that could be achieved.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you. It just seems that the income would go outside the sector.

I also note DAERA's advice that:

Have you received any update on that position? If not, could the Committee pursue that when it takes evidence on the Bill from DAERA?

Mr Stennett: I have not received an update, and I have not sought an update. The Committee should probably pursue that.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I propose that we seek an update on any cost implications. Are members content?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you. We can pursue that.

There are no other questions from members. Thank you very much for coming in. You have done extensive research, and I appreciate the work that you have put into providing that for us.

John, I move to you.

Mr Blair: I also thank the RaISe team for its work. I did not intend to participate in this section of the meeting, and still do not, but I want to say that I am more than willing to engage with members on points that have been raised, and other issues, as the process goes forward. I hope that you do not mind me putting on the record that I am prepared to have discussions around the penalties, for example, as I have indicated to DAERA, so that those are in line with the current legislation. It would be remiss of me not to update the Committee that, although not confirmed —. I am happy to discuss that with DAERA officials and Committee colleagues.

Separate to this item — it has nothing to do with RaISe, if the researchers want to get away — I want to make a comment about the visit to Glenwherry when this item is completed, please.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you. We can allow that.

I propose that we request John Blair, the Bill promoter, to respond to the Committee on the various issues and queries highlighted in the two papers as soon as possible, if he is in a position to do so. That will likely save us time in the long run as we go through our deliberations. I acknowledge that there are a considerable number of queries. Can we have an assurance that you will do that?

Mr Blair: I will most certainly do that. Yes, of course.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much, John.

Mr Blair: Chair, if you intend for it to be done in writing, may I receive a summary of the questions raised, in case I have missed anything in my notes? It would be useful to receive a summary. I have taken notes of everybody's comments, but I do not claim to have covered every detail of every question. I am more than happy to respond if a list can be provided.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We will do that. We requested the same response from Declan on his Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill. I say that just to assure you that that practice has been happening.

I am sure that Mark and Aidan will be happy to talk to John if he requires further explanation on any of the queries. Declan, I am sure that the same is true for your Bill. As I understand it, Declan, you are aiming to complete passage of your Bill in the next few weeks.

Mr McAleer: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): With that, we will close the session. Thank you again for being here.

Mr Allen: Thank you, Chair and members.