Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Good morning. I welcome to the meeting Ms Heather Weir, CEO of the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA); and Ms Siobhan McHaffie, director of animal operations and service development at the USPCA. I invite you to brief the Committee.

Ms Heather Weir (Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals): Chair, Deputy Chair and Committee members, thank you for inviting the charity to provide evidence. The USPCA is Northern Ireland's leading animal welfare charity. Having been founded in 1836, we are the second oldest animal welfare organisation in the world: this year, we will celebrate our 190th birthday. Every day, our staff and volunteers work to prevent cruelty, relieve suffering and improve animal welfare across Northern Ireland through our rescue, rehabilitation, veterinary centre, education, advocacy and investigation. Last year alone, through our services, we responded to more than 2,300 wildlife rescues; carried out over 10,000 veterinary consultations and surgeries; handled more than 68,000 calls and queries from concerned members of the public; and supported thousands of animals and their owners.

We are here because we strongly support the Hunting with Dogs Bill. We want to see laws being brought forward that protect foxes and other animals from those who wish to encourage packs of hounds to chase them to death. If implemented, the Bill will bring an end to many decades of savage and unnecessary cruelty by ending an archaic practice that belongs in the past. Our position is guided by this simple principle: wild animals should be protected from avoidable suffering and cruelty. We believe that preventing unnecessary suffering should be the central test applied to every aspect of the Bill, including its offences, exemptions and enforcement mechanisms. No recreational, sporting or avoidable activity should expose a wild mammal or dog to suffering that can reasonably be prevented. The Bill represents an opportunity for Northern Ireland to modernise animal welfare protections and bring to an end practices that cause significant distress and harm to wildlife. The reality of hunting with dogs is that wild mammals can be pursued over long distances, exhausted, injured and, if caught, subjected to a traumatic death. Even in cases where an animal escapes, it may be left seriously injured or suffering from prolonged stress or trauma.

We particularly welcome the proposed prohibition of trail hunting. In our view, that is not a peripheral issue but a central safeguard in the Bill. Trail hunting closely mirrors traditional fox hunting and can provide a convenient explanation when dogs pursue live animals. That creates a significant evidential loophole and risks allowing illegal hunting activity to continue in the guise of supposedly lawful activity.

Genuine scent-based activities, such as drag hunting, can continue without exposing wildlife to the risk of pursuit and suffering.

We also strongly support the prohibition of terrier work. Sending dogs underground, into enclosed spaces, to locate or flush out wild mammals creates serious welfare risks for all animals involved. That sport or recreational activity results in barbaric consequences for wildlife and the dogs, causing severe injury and the death of animals. It can result in injury, prolonged stress and suffering, while creating practical difficulties for enforcement agencies that are attempting to investigate offences. Our experience is that dogs themselves can become victims of cruelty when used in wildlife crime activity. We are aware that those types of hunters will go to extreme measures to train their dogs to hunt in that way. Examples range from putting GPS trackers on the dogs so that they can be located in a burrow or sett underground and then dug out to 3D-printing chin guards to sell to other hunters in an attempt to avoid their dog getting maimed underground.

The USPCA exists to prevent cruelty, to advance animal welfare and to alleviate the suffering of animals. We collect information and research from multiple sources to help inform the public bodies that have statutory responsibility for dealing with animal crime and illegal activity. Working closely with the PSNI, councils and other agencies, we regularly receive information from members of the public who are concerned about cruelty and illegal activity. We proactively share that information and research when there is a genuine concern that needs to be escalated to the appropriate authorities. Our experience tells us that strong legislation must be accompanied by effective enforcement, adequate resources and collaboration across agencies, including non-governmental organisations. That is why we are calling for a coordinated multi-agency approach, to be led by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and bringing together the enforcement agencies, veterinary expertise and animal welfare organisations, to ensure that the legislation delivers meaningful protections in practice.

Finally, I emphasise that the USPCA is a non-political charity that works constructively with all parties and stakeholders. For us, the Bill is about animal welfare. It is about affirming that every animal, including wildlife, deserves respect and compassion and should never be subjected to the terror of pursuit, avoidable suffering, injury or death simply for human sport or recreation. It is about sending a clear message that cruelty and unnecessary suffering have no place in modern society. We therefore urge the Committee to support the Bill and ensure that, in its final form, it provides robust protections for wild animals, closes loopholes that could undermine its effectiveness and delivers a humane future for animals across Northern Ireland. Thank you, Chair. I welcome the Committee's comments.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you, Heather. You talked about bringing together stakeholder groups. Has the USPCA engaged with any of the hunting organisations?

Ms Weir: We have responded to the consultations. We remain open to engagement with all stakeholders. During my tenure of the past 12 months, I have not engaged personally with any of the hunting groups. Earlier this year, we had a situation in Newry in which the local hunt's hounds attacked a domestic animal and trespassed on private property. The huntmaster engaged with the member of the public involved, and we supported that member of the public from a mental health and emotional well-being perspective.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That is understandable, but would it not also be helpful to engage directly with hunting organisations in order to gain greater understanding of how they organise their hunts and how they respect animals in the countryside as well?

Ms Weir: I am from a rural background. I understand the tradition of hunting, equestrian sport and the joy of riding one's horse in the countryside.

We are certainly open to having engagement with the hunts. Our angle on this, however, is to end unnecessary cruelty to the animals as an outcome. We understand that a lot of the communication in the arena is on the impact on the rural community and the equine fraternity. Every animal's life is precious to us, be it that of a horse or a fox. For us, the Bill is about banning the deliberate hunting and maiming of foxes and other animals as an outcome of that activity.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): On enforcement, do you support a co-design process to develop a solution by striking a balance on hunting with dogs in the countryside?

Ms Weir: Evidence from other jurisdictions across the UK shows that, because hunting was banned there 20 years ago, drag hunting and clean-boot hunting, for example, have risen in prominence. We are open to talking to anyone. At the heart of everything that we do is the welfare of animals: all animals.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Finally, Heather, you state that terrier work presents a serious risk of prolonged distress and injury to wild animals and potentially serious injury to the dog. Terrier work is where a single dog is used to flush out an injured animal. Is it not more humane that the dog flush out the animal for immediate dispatch than that animal be left underground to suffer?

Ms Weir: Sadly, what we see and the information that we receive from the public and through social media is that, in Northern Ireland, terrier work is not perceived as being used to flush out injured animals. Rather, terrier work is an underground activity that sections of our community consider a sport, whereby a dog is taken and put underground to hunt out badgers. We do not know whether those badgers are healthy or unhealthy. That they are unhealthy may be used as a guise. Respectfully, Chair, if you refer to our briefing paper, you will see the images that we have shared with the Committee. Those images are not meant in any way to detract from the Bill, but they are evidence that the charity has received of individuals across our communities engaging in underground terrier work as a blood sport. It is not viewed as a way of putting injured animals that are underground out of their misery.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Do you support the regulation of dogs in a hunt setting? You say that there is a network of that activity happening under the guise of hunting with dogs? Do you see a differentiation between how the two could be addressed in legislation?

Ms Weir: Our position is that we support a ban on hunting with dogs for sport and recreation purposes.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you very much for being here and for sharing your submission with us. It contains very serious claims about foxes being torn apart by dogs and being injured. You mentioned that photographs have been provided. To your knowledge, how many verified cases have occurred in Northern Ireland over the past five years of foxes being torn apart by dogs, in which they were injured, abandoned or killed, and how many involved recognised, organised hunts, as opposed to already illegal activities such as badger baiting or criminal lurching?

Ms Weir: Thank you for your question. We can share with you the information that we received from the past year on that. Please bear with us while we get the numbers.

Ms Siobhan McHaffie (Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals): We have some statistics for the past 12 months. It is important to say that they are taken from only the information that comes to the USPCA. We have absolutely no oversight of how many hunts there have been in the past five years, never mind the number of animals killed by those hunts. We are not aware of anywhere where all that information can be located. There will also be no differentiation made between what is legal hunting and what is illegal hunting. It is extremely difficult to find evidence of illegal hunting, never mind of the hunts that legitimately go across farmers' land.

In the past year alone, the USPCA received over 68,000 calls and queries from the public. In the past 12 months, we have recorded 576 reports of organised cruelty relating to all forms of hunting with dogs: badger baiting, hare coursing and deer, fox and rabbit hunting. We also received directly 37 reports relating to injuries sustained by the dogs used in hunting. Most include images retrieved from social media, which are the ones that we have included in our report, where the animal is killed or displayed like a trophy, together with the dog, thereby showcasing the "value" of the dog to the hunting fraternity. The USPCA team that takes those calls has extensive experience of investigating organised wildlife crime, as well as previous law enforcement experience. The charity receives reports daily from concerned members of the public and other charity partners regarding animal cruelty and welfare concerns. We advise members of the public always to report animal cruelty and welfare concerns to the enforcement and statutory agencies that deal with them, because the USPCA has no statutory powers at all.

Mr McCrossan: Were the 68,000 calls and the 576 incidents of organised cruelty that you referenced specific to Northern Ireland?

Ms Weir: Yes. They were from local people.

Mr McCrossan: The 68,000 calls.

Ms McHaffie: Yes.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you for that.

I find it interesting that you propose in your submission the creation of a DAERA-led animal welfare hub to coordinate the legislation's enforcement. As I said during our previous evidence session, given the Department's recent handling of the killing of 51 cattle in Fivemiletown, about which serious questions remain about ministerial oversight, transparency and the publication of veterinary advice, why should the public have confidence in DAERA's leading such a sensitive enforcement regime?

Ms Weir: We can talk about that from only our perspective as a charity and our engagement with DAERA. We work with all political parties. We welcome the commitment that the Minister has given during his tenure on the pathway to improving animal welfare in Northern Ireland. We also welcome his commitment to hold an independent inquiry into what happened in Fivemiletown, and we note that the Minister and the Department have confirmed that the issue should have been handled differently.

Mr McCrossan: You will understand from what I asked that public confidence in DAERA has been affected by its mishandling of that situation, which, as we have mentioned previously, is subject to review. I appreciate that we all await the findings of the review, but it was obvious to anyone who was present that the situation was mishandled. As an MLA from a neighbouring constituency, I have received reports about what happened. Almost every member here lives fairly close to where it happened. Do you not think that, given that 51 healthy cattle were shot in an open field, there are serious questions to be asked about the Department's judgement when it comes to animal welfare?

Ms Weir: Respectfully, I believe that there was court case, where evidence was presented of legitimate reasons why that farmer had received a court direction on disposal of those animals. What the review will look at is the method by which, and how, that disposal was conducted. We cannot second-guess that at this time. We have to allow the independent reviewer to do his work.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): For the record, that is what we said to the previous witnesses.

Mr McCrossan: Yes, we did. I am pointing out a clear public concern about the handling of animal welfare cases, particularly given how the approach that was taken on said farm ended with the slaughter of 51 cattle in an open field in full public sight. I do not think that that was appropriate. I go back to my point about animal welfare. What happened is at odds even with the very clear rules and regulations governing slaughterhouses, in that no animal should see another being slaughtered. My real question is this: is it your ask that such enforcement be led and coordinated by DAERA? Should there be an independent body to oversee that enforcement, as opposed to leaving it to DAERA to investigate, enforce and, ultimately, account for its decisions?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): May I just ask, Daniel, whether your question is to do with —?

Mr McCrossan: Dogs.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Yes.

Mr McCrossan: Yes, hunting with dogs.

Ms Weir: Our position is that, whatever body is responsible for implementing the legislation, we feel very strongly that a multi-sectoral response is needed. The role that NGOs can play is as both supporter of and challenger to those bodies. We already do that with the TB partnership steering group. We pose questions and question some of the activities and research. For me, it is therefore important that the body be multi-sectoral and 360 degrees in scope. It could have independent representatives among its membership, but it has to be anchored somewhere in our political framework so that action can be taken. If it were to sit outside that, with independence, there is a risk that its legitimacy could be pooh-poohed, for want of a better word. It needs to be anchored in the Assembly.

Mr McCrossan: I will be very brief with my final point, Chair. It is about how workable the legislation would be if it were to come into effect. There is no equivalent general prohibition on fox hunting with hounds in the South. I live in and represent a rural constituency. In that constituency, I live on the border. That border largely does not exist to human beings, let alone animals. What assessment has the USPCA done of dogs crossing into the North of Ireland from a hunt that began in Donegal or Monaghan? How should investigators distinguish in that situation between an accidental crossing and deliberate hunting or participation?

Ms Weir: We have not done any work on that.

Mr McCrossan: The practicalities of that need to be ironed out, because, ultimately, the people whom Tom, Declan, Aoife, Áine and I represent cross borders naturally daily. That is a very clear unintended consequence of the Bill. This is one island. It may legally be two separate jurisdiction, but the situation that I described could have profound consequences for somebody. Will you give a commitment, as an organisation, to explore that? We cannot look at the legislation through the lens of Northern Ireland simply because it stops at the border. It does not stop at the border when it comes to hunts.

Ms McHaffie: We are not the ones who will be enforcing any legislation here, so we cannot really look at the practicalities of it. The enforcement agencies need to determine how that would work. We cannot bring prosecutions, for example.

Mr McCrossan: I get that, but that means little to the individual whose hound crosses the border. On that basis, do you think that it is legitimate for me to say that a formal cross-border protocol is required before any legislation is commenced? A lot of hunts happen in my constituency. I am therefore concerned about that issue.

Ms McHaffie: It is not necessarily required before the legislation comes in, but taking an all-island approach definitely needs to be considered.

Mr McCrossan: Is that not putting the cart before the horse? What about two fields that are next to each other, one in Donegal and one in Fermanagh?

Ms McHaffie: There is also the rest of Northern Ireland.

Mr McCrossan: Yes, but I do not live in the rest of Northern Ireland. I am talking from my perspective. It is a serious concern that has been raised with us in Tyrone and Fermanagh. A hound could cross the border, and the individual would have no control over the situation, even though, ultimately, an offence would have been committed. What would happen to the individual involved? They would have been legitimately hunting in the South, where hunting is within the confines of the law, but would automatically be in breach of the law here upon crossing the border.

Ms Weir: You said that the individual would have "no control" over the hound's crossing. One of the principles of the Bill is that a pack of hounds that is out of control needs to be addressed. When a pack of hounds is out of control, there are unintended consequences for not just the hunt. This year, we had an incident in Newry — it hit the media, as you will be aware — involving a domestic cat. A pack of hounds was out of control, ran on to private property, sought out the cat and tore it apart. The huntmaster had the audacity to walk on to the property, lift the carcass and discard it by throwing it over a wall. I hear what you are saying about your constituents and your rural community, but I will bring it back to why the USPCA exists. We are about preventing that cruelty, alleviating suffering and advancing animal welfare. The unintended consequences go far beyond what you have referred to. We have to acknowledge that the public are also affected by hunting with dogs.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): In that regard, Heather, would you propose any amendments being made to the Bill? Do you see an opportunity for codes of practice to be included about the execution of hunting?

Ms Weir: The UK legislation has been in place for 20 years. During that time, we have seen a diversification from hunting with an animal scent to drag hunting with, for example, an aniseed scent. That type of hunt does not involve chasing wildlife. That is a very different option. It serves to support the equestrian community to ride cross-country. We are conscious of the fact that there are other equestrian events, such as point-to-points, that do not go out with the intention of hunting wild animals. There are therefore alternatives that we ask the Committee to consider.

Mr Wilson: I am interested in your opinion on the two-dog limit, particularly when it comes to alleviating the suffering of an injured wild mammal or searching for a dead wild mammal. My reading of that is that it would be prohibitive to the success of either of those procedures. I am just curious. Given your obvious regard for the welfare of animals, and having got into the legislation and its potential unintended consequences, do you agree that the two-dog limit is negative, not a benefit to animal welfare and, in fact, could create a worse scenario?

Ms Weir: When I reflect on your question —. We are cognisant of the fact that hunting with dogs for legitimate purposes, such as pest control, in which there are commercial opportunities for individuals to use dogs for specified above-ground wildlife management purposes is sometimes necessary, including the prevention of serious damage to crops, the prevention of the spread of disease from dead animals and carcasses, and the legitimate protection of human health, livestock and biological diversity. In order to allow for that, we would like to see the sector regulated, but the reliance on that exemption must be necessary, proportionate, tightly defined and capable of being evidenced. It should not create a commercial or recreational loophole by which, under those exemptions, hunting with dogs, whether that is with two dogs or a pack of dogs, can continue. Where, exceptionally, lethal control is proven to be strictly necessary for the management or removal of carcasses or diseased animals, it must be carried out lawfully, swiftly and humanely by suitably trained and competent people, not by allowing dogs to purposefully attack, injure or kill a wild mammal in accordance with DAERA guidelines and licensing laws. Dogs should be used only as an exception, if at all, for tightly controlled above-ground detection and flushing, with clear safeguards to prevent pursuit or contact.

The USPCA would support regulation, licensing or the registration of a person or business seeking to rely on that exemption, limited to specific purposes only, with records retained to demonstrate necessity, proportionality and compliance. That approach is consistent with the Bill's intention to insert new hunting with dogs provisions into the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 while preserving tightly controlled exemptions for genuine wildlife management. The Wildlife Order already provides for the protection of wild animals, prohibited methods of killing or taking, and licensing and enforcement. The new exemption should therefore sit within the established framework and be interpreted in a way that promotes animal welfare, legality and effective enforcement. I hope that that answers your question.

Mr Wilson: I see an anomaly in terms of welfare. There is a real possibility that restricting it to two dogs for those specific purposes would, in many cases, worsen welfare outcomes in that regard from a sentimental perspective. If we are talking about relieving the suffering of an injured or dying animal, then it is about the sentiment associated with that and the human nature to want to prolong life or reasonably deal with an injured animal in the way that we see fit. I do see an anomaly in that, and I do not think that you have really addressed it.

You mentioned badgers. Badgers are a protected species and are highly regulated. Given the very high status that badgers in Northern Ireland enjoy — if I can use that word — due to their being a protected species, and the incidents that you referred to, how well do you feel that that regulation is enforced? If it is not enforced to the level that you would like to see, how do you feel it will play out with an additional regulatory burden on those who are tasked in that very high-profile species restriction?

Ms Weir: Lots of questions there; thank you for those. On the hunting aspect, we know that foxes, when they are under threat, will run —.

Mr Wilson: I specifically mentioned badgers for this one.

Ms Weir: They run into a sett. It could be a badger sett —.

Mr Wilson: Badgers are protected. That is what I am getting at.

Ms Weir: Absolutely. It could be —.

Mr Wilson: They are already protected, whereas foxes are not. My point is solely from the perspective of the existing protection of badgers. I detect that you are not content with how badgers are protected in real life by enforcement and that your view is that there are obvious deficiencies there. How do you feel that that will be assisted by adding to the regulatory burden?

Ms Weir: We know through our work —. We have a group of volunteers called Brockwatch who observe setts through conservation to ensure that they are not tampered with, because badgers are protected species. When we report incidents of tampering with setts that we become aware of through calls to the centre, we very much encourage the public to put those reports in the direction of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is responsible for investigating wildlife crime. It is a difficult crime to investigate unless the cries and the activity are witnessed. A lot of the crime associated with badger baiting is underground and is not well known in the public realm. The people who do it know that they are breaking the law. There is a difference in the number of prosecutions for badger baiting that come before the courts compared with the number of reports that we receive about setts.

Mr Wilson: That is precisely my point, and it is useful to have you state that.

Ms Weir: We ask the questions of our colleagues in the statutory agencies, and it will be of no surprise to anybody in the room, but, like anything, it is about resource constraint. That is why we are calling for resources to be applied. That is a consideration for the Committee when the Bill comes into being.

Mr Wilson: From a public representative perspective, we are very aware of how finite resources are.

Ms Weir: Absolutely.

Mr Wilson: Moving on quickly, with the blessing of the Chair, I want to get into precise scenarios. We had an interesting contribution before you came in from a gentleman who carries out specific forms of hunting using dogs in high-profile and hazardous areas where shooting is simply not an option. What is your take on scenarios where it is important that someone such as Steven McGonigal is able to continue that important work, for instance around oil refineries and those types of environments where he has to use a dog or two? If this legislation was imposed, he simply could not do his job, or it would be made seriously difficult.

Ms Weir: Forgive me, but I am not aware of what went before us coming in here this morning, so I cannot really comment on that.

Mr Wilson: Given the detail of the law that you are supporting, what is your position on the use of one or more dogs in circumstances where they are needed for a specific purpose that has nothing to do with what you have talked about in terms of sentimentality towards the animal but is about public safety, perhaps, or disease control in a school environment?

Ms Weir: Our position is that we recognise that there are circumstances where, as a last resort, dogs can be used for purposes such as humane protection and disease biosecurity. We stated in our submission that that type of hunting needs to be regulated and licensed. Using dogs to kill animals should be the absolute last resort.

Mr Wilson: Over and above any other method?

Ms Weir: Other methods should be examined first. The last resort is using the dog.

Mr Wilson: That was useful.

Mr T Buchanan: To follow on nicely from that, how do you reconcile the welfare claims against evidence that alternative methods can lead to higher wounded rates and longer suffering of animals where other methods could mean that an animal could be injured and take days to die? How do you reconcile your welfare claims against that evidence?

Ms Weir: I have not seen that evidence, but I will go and pick that up. I am not sure which evidence you are referring to, Tom.

Mr T Buchanan: Other evidence of instances in which shooting or trapping, or methods like that, is used and leads to the animal being injured and lying for days before it dies. How do you reconcile your welfare claims against those alternative methods that you are talking about?

Ms Weir: The charity recognises the need to alleviate suffering where animals are beyond veterinary treatment or care. That alleviation of suffering or euthanasia, if we are talking about that, should be done compassionately and swiftly by trained, accredited, professional veterinarians who have assessed the animal and determined that. It is not up to a member of the public to determine that an animal is so injured that their dog, which has the natural instinct to kill it, should put it out of its suffering. That comes down to a fundamental ethical question around deciding.

Mr T Buchanan: Yes, but with respect, you are missing the point. You are in full support of the Bill, which is against somebody going out hunting with dogs, right? If somebody goes out hunting with dogs and there is a fox in the field, within seconds that fox is dead, so there is no suffering, but if you use the alternative method, which may be to trap the fox, and the fox gets injured, either by the trap or by shooting, that fox will go underground and suffer for days there until it dies. How can you then reconcile the support for this Bill to do away with hunting with dogs for alternative methods that will cause more suffering to the mammal than what killing it is with a dog?

Ms Weir: You will have to forgive me for bringing this right back to the simple principle of the Bill: this is about stopping the deliberate injury of and attack on foxes. It is not always instantaneous for foxes. There is often a long hunt, during which animals and wildlife are chased to the point of exhaustion and where the dogs will then attack and kill them. I am not quite sure —.

Mr T Buchanan: But the Bill comes down to the two-dog limit. That is the issue. The evidence shows that with two dogs it will take five times longer for the animal to die than it will when a pack of dogs, as you talk about, is used.

Ms Weir: Again, forgive me. I do not have sight of that research into the length of time that it fundamentally takes a pack of dogs or two dogs to kill a wild animal. That just seems extremely unethical for a research study, and I question the ethical nature of any research that determines the length of time that it takes two dogs or a pack of dogs to kill a wild animal. The whole premise of the Bill is about avoiding the suffering and killing of wildlife by dogs.

Mr T Buchanan: OK, let us look at the farming community. I am from West Tyrone, in the midst of the farming community. A farmer has to take control of his land. He has to control his land from these wild mammals and whatever. What engagement did you have with the farmers prior to your decision to support the Bill — a Bill that would criminalise the normal farming practices used by a farmer when they are, if you like, taking control of their land? Let us remember: a farmer's first priority is the welfare of his own animals. Therefore, if a wild mammal is going to attack them, he has to think of their welfare. What engagement have you had with the farmers? The Bill will criminalise that farmer if he is out protecting his own animals against those mammals.

Ms Weir: The Bill is about banning hunting as a recreational sport, something that is seen as a leisure activity. It is not about damaging farms. In terms of your question about engagement with farmers, the charity regularly engages with individual farmers who tell us that they do not want hunts happening on their ground. They do not welcome them as they damage their crops and their land. They do not want hunts with packs of dogs in and around their livestock. So we hear from farmers on a regular basis.

Mr T Buchanan: One final question. What protection is there for the ordinary person in a rural area who has a dog, two dogs, three dogs — perhaps they are springer spaniels — and they take those dogs out for a walk. A springer spaniel always has its nose to the ground. If one of them picks up a scent and runs away after a rabbit or a hare, someone could allege that the dog walker is out on a hunt. What protection is there in the Bill for that individual? I have no doubt, since you have given your full support to the Bill, that you will be able to tell me where the protection is for the person within the Bill.

Ms Weir: The USPCA supports the definition of participation that captures active organising, planning and involvement, whether or not the participant directly controls the dog. That is important to avoid concentrating liability on only one person who is holding or directing the dogs. The distinction between deliberate participation and unplanned incident involving an ordinary dog walker, as you have described, should be explained in the statutory guidance. We feel that it needs clearer definition in the Bill. It needs to be in the Bill.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Are you happy with that, Tom?

Mr T Buchanan: Not really, but we will let the matter sit for now.

Ms Murphy: Thank you for coming in. I want to circle back to drag hunting, which you touched on in your piece to the Committee. From your point of view, you have no issue with drag hunting. The issue comes with trail hunting. The way I look at it, from a legislative and, more importantly, an enforcement point of view, if drag hunting can be successfully carried out and policed, could the same not be said for trail hunting?

Ms Weir: Thank you for your question, Áine. There is a distinct difference between trail hunting and drag hunting. Trail hunting uses an animal-based scent, such as fox or hare urine, to mimic the experience of hunting wild quarry, raising concerns that hounds may still pursue or kill wild animals, as you are using that same scent that they would use in a hunt, rather than in a trail hunt. Drag hunting uses an artificial scent — it is well documented that aniseed is used by some of the hunts in the UK; indeed, I believe that there is one hunt in Northern Ireland that undertakes drag hunting — and is led along a planned route. The hounds are trained to follow that scent rather than follow wildlife. It is a well-organised event. It is planned. The horses and their riders know the planned direction of the drag.

Equally, you may have heard of another analogy called "clean boot hunting". That is similar to drag hunting, as it follows the scent of a person who runs ahead on a pre-planned route. It is often referred to as "hunting with the clean boot". It is unlikely that foxes or other wild animals will accidentally be chased and killed during the use of the drag hunt or clean boot hunt methods, as the hounds are trained to follow not animal-based scent but an artificial scent.

Ms Murphy: I go back to the difference in scents. As I understand it, aniseed is laid to try to mimic the smell of fox urine, for example. If a trail hunt is being carried out, compared with a drag hunt —. I do not know about this from a scientific or research point of view, but a dog will naturally pursue another animal-based scent. Is there a possibility that, even during a drag hunt, a dog could pick up another animal-based scent inadvertently and follow it?

Ms Weir: There is that risk, yes.

Ms Murphy: Even with drag hunting?

Ms Weir: Even with drag hunting. A lot of this comes back to the training of the dogs that are used.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Áine, I hope that you do not mind my cutting across you. In your opinion, Heather, is it instinctive that a dog follows a scent? You said that it is trained to follow not an animal-based scent but aniseed. Does that training completely rule out a dog's natural instinct when it picks up a scent?

Ms Weir: I am afraid that I cannot answer that. I am not an expert in dog training. Apologies, but I cannot answer that.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That is fine. Obviously, a dog has that natural instinct, so it is difficult for it not to pursue that instinct. It cannot be wholly responsible for its behaviour, because that pursuit is instinctive rather than deliberate. Thank you for that. I do not think that we have any more questions.

Ms Murphy: Sorry, Chair, I want to come back in on that. I look at trail hunting and drag hunting, and the only difference that I see is the type of scent that is laid. The scents are different, yes. The drag scent mimics the animal-based scent. It is physically laid the same way. I cannot understand how there is any physical difference during the hunt, apart from the scent. The panel in the previous session raised the two-dog limit, which Tom touched on. From a rural point of view and a point of view of protecting livestock —. As it stands, the Bill —. If a farmer cannot flush a fox from cover or pursue a fox with more than two dogs, if the fox has entered and taken two or three lambs, as it sits at the minute, in reality, the farmer cannot protect their flock or livestock whilst flushing —. Well, they cannot flush a fox out from underground, even if it has been shot and retreated underground grievously wounded. In addition, no one, including farmers, can pursue a fox with more than two dogs. I set that out in terms of what would happen in reality. If you had a large area — say, 40 to 60 hectares — and you could only use two dogs to pursue a fox, would that not cause additional stress to that fox being chased over a greater distance with fewer dogs, compared to more dogs pursuing a fox? There are two different questions there. The first related to a fox retreating underground after it has possibly been shot, and the second is about the issue with the two-dog limit — not being able to use more than two dogs.

Ms Weir: Forgive me, I am not entirely clear on what the question is.

Ms Murphy: The first question is essentially around what would be perceived as terrier work. If a farmer shoots a fox, which is within the legislation, but does not kill it, and the fox is significantly wounded and retreats underground, the Bill prohibits him from dispatching or flushing out that fox. From an animal welfare point of view, we are in a space where an animal could be significantly wounded underground and nobody can put that animal out of its pain or suffering.

My second point is about the two-dog limit. As it sits, any number of dogs can pursue a fox. I am not looking at this in the context of hunting on horseback; it is more about foot packs. Given that the legislation will implement a two-dog limit, over a large area — maybe 40 to 60 hectares, as I said — where you are only allowed two dogs to pursue a fox, it is essentially a game of cat and mouse for the two dogs and the fox. In that situation, do you not run the risk of actually causing more distress to a fox by chasing it over a larger area with only two dogs?

Ms Weir: Áine, it is very difficult to answer your questions, because there is not an evidence base to support that that is actually what happens. How is that currently managed? I have more questions than answers on that at this point.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): During our deliberations, we will go through the Bill clause by clause and consider that. I am very conscious that we have quite a lot of business to get through and that this room is needed for another meeting. I thank you, Heather and Siobhan, for coming in and giving your evidence on behalf of the USPCA. We will certainly note and consider that evidence. Thank you for being here today.

Ms Weir: Thank you very much. We appreciate the opportunity to present to you today and the due diligence that you, as a Committee, are doing to ensure that the Bill progresses. We know that there is significant public sentiment in support of this Bill, and we hope that the Bill will lead with compassion, strengthen the legacy of animal welfare and build a future in which every animal is protected from avoidable suffering. We encourage the Committee to act with courage and determination to expedite the legislation within the current mandate and make its passage a defining and lasting achievement for all animals and for everyone who believes in a kinder Northern Ireland. We trust that the information that we have shared with you is both informative and helpful to the Committee. Should there be any other information that you feel we can add, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I just want to say that the Bill sponsor would have been here if he could. He has been called to the Chamber on Chamber duties, as Deputy Speaker. I know that his office is viewing this and that he will look at the presentation. Thank you very much.