Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I welcome Tommy Mayne, Northern Ireland director, British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC); Dr Alex Murray, head of law, BASC; and Glynn Evans, head of game and wildlife management, BASC. I invite you to brief the Committee.

Mr Tommy Mayne (British Association for Shooting and Conservation): Good morning, Chair and Committee members. I am the director of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, otherwise known as BASC, and I am joined by Dr Alex Murray, head of law, and Glynn Evans, BASC's head of game and wildlife management. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the Committee on the Hunting with Dogs Bill and represent our members' interests. BASC has met the vast majority of you around the table over the course of the past 12 months or so on this issue to highlight our concerns regarding the Bill and its potential impact on firearms certificate holders — our members — should it be passed into law. We have also met the Bill sponsor, John Blair, on several occasions, and we are very grateful indeed to all of you for that engagement; thank you.

BASC is the UK's largest shooting organisation, and we firmly believe that any changes to legislation or policy should be based on sound evidence. Before we get into the Bill itself, we appreciate that we are tight for time here. We will not have time to cover all of our concerns, so we have submitted a written paper. We also appreciate the fact that you have heard about the practical concerns on the ground from some other organisations.

As far as we are concerned, the Bill is unworkable. BASC is strongly opposed to a ban on hunting with dogs, and we believe that landowners and managers should be able to choose the most effective methods of pest and predator control for their circumstances. BASC supports trail hunting that is conducted according to the law. Trail hunting preserves many of the traditions and rural skills that are used for the hunting of foxes and other mammals with dogs. Trail hunting provides social connections, recreation and exercise for those taking part, whether mounted or on foot, and benefits the rural economy. BASC believes that it is for landowners and managers to determine, within the law, which recreational activities take place on their land.

Turning to the Bill, we want to make the point that shooting is not the same as hunting. We feel that it is important that the Bill distinguishes between hunting with dogs and shooting, which is a separate activity. The Bill prohibits hunting a wild mammal using dogs and defines hunting broadly to include "searching for and pursuing". It also provides exemptions for certain activities in which a dog is used to:

where the intention is that the animal is subsequently shot. An activity in which a firearm is used to kill a quarry is commonly referred to as "shooting" — we are just talking about terminology here — including where a dog assists by locating, tracking or flushing the animal for the purposes of shooting it. By contrast, hunting, particularly of foxes, commonly refers to the deliberate pursuit of a fox by hounds, whether participants are on horseback or on foot, with the hounds being used to pursue the quarry. Having a clear distinction between shooting and hunting is extremely important. That should be made clear so that lawful shooting and the legitimate use of dogs in support of shooting are not unnecessarily characterised as hunting and made subject to exemptions that could create uncertainty or unintended criminal liability.

I will hand over to Alex.

Dr Alex Murray (British Association for Shooting and Conservation): Thank you, Tommy. We have several legal concerns — maybe a dozen or so — about the Bill, but we are conscious of time, so I do not want to dwell too much on the minutiae.

Our broad concern is about the certainty of criminal legislation because, ultimately, we are talking about a criminal offence. We can break that concern into three parts: the breadth of the proposed offence; the lack of a clearly defined mental element, or mens rea, as it might be known; and the clarity of the legislation itself. In terms of breadth, for one reason or another the offence is drafted very widely, which means that its boundaries and outer limits are quite flexible, plastic and unclear. For example, as Tommy mentioned, it is stated in the Bill that the definition of "hunting", "includes searching for and pursuing". Our issue is with the word "includes". What is also going to be included in the definition of "hunting"? It is not just "searching for and pursuing"; it could be any other associated activities, and we just do not know from looking at the Bill. It really is a matter of what else is going to be included in that definition of "hunting". Of course, that matters for criminal legislation, which I will come on to in a little while, because criminal legislation should be clear and certain so that people know what is and what is not unlawful and what is and what is not going to get them into hot water with the authorities.

I mentioned the mental element and the lack of apparent mens rea. The Bill does not contain any specific reference to the individual's state of mind. There is no mention of "intentional" or "reckless" or even "knowing". Of course, that creates uncertainty about what a person may or may not do. What about dog walkers? That question has been asked widely since the Bill was introduced. The lack of mens rea in the Bill's definition of "hunting" is one of the points that is causing that question to be asked. The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) states that dog walkers would not be captured by the Bill, but the mental element should be clear in the Bill.

The third point is about clarity, which is interlinked with the breadth of the offence. People should be able to understand what is prohibited and what is not and regulate their conduct accordingly. It is really a question of whether a person could look at the Bill and say, "I want to go out and do a particular activity. Is that going to fall within the bounds of the Bill or not?". I do not think that someone could have a clear idea of what is and what is not lawful from the Bill as drafted. Of course, the Bill might not prevent only hunting with dogs; it could have a chilling effect on other wildlife management activities throughout its scope. We say that, on that basis, the Bill is unworkable.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much. Are you happy if we open for questions, Tommy, or do you want to add something?

Mr Mayne: If you do not mind, Chair, we still have a little bit to do.

I will speak about practical aspects on the ground. If we take deer stalking, for example, a trained dog may be used in lawful deer management to locate a live deer or a dead deer, or to track a wounded deer for humane dispatch. We also have a concern about incidental pursuit. Deer management takes place in areas with a high density of deer. You are not going to encounter just a single deer; there will be lots of deer about the place. That is why you go there. I am talking about cases in which there are two or three deer together. Let us say that you shoot one deer and another is waiting close by. If your dog goes forward to find the first deer, which is in rushes or cover and you cannot see it, sees the live deer and takes off in pursuit, will an offence have been committed? We argue that the Bill affects all aspects of deer stalking that uses a dog.

We obviously understand that game birds are not mammals. However, it is very common to encounter ground game on game shoots, and the dogs will regularly encounter ground game. Again, uncertainty has been created. It will create uncertainty in the minds of people who want to participate there. Should they or should they not? Where is the clarity? Is there clarity? I am a firearms certificate holder. What are the consequences here? Will my guns be seized? What chain of events does that set off? That needs to be considered as well.

Alex has already touched on the big one: participation. Where does participation stop? If a colleague drives me to a game shoot, and I have a dog, or that colleague is involved in an activity with me, and there is an allegation of a criminal offence — for example, that my dog was hunting a wild mammal — not only is there a question mark over me, but there is a question mark over my colleague who dropped me off, who may be doing something else in the vicinity, because of the participation clause. Again, we have concerns about that. We are happy to take questions at this point, if that is okay.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Quite a few members have indicated that they want to speak.

First, you have repeatedly stated that the Bill lacks certainty and contains overly broad definitions, such as "participation", "another activity" and "under control". Can you provide the Committee with specific examples of circumstances where you believe a person carrying out lawful land management, pest control or recreational activities is at risk of unintentionally committing an offence under the Bill? That is lawful land management, pest control or recreational activities.

Mr Glynn Evans (British Association for Shooting and Conservation): I will answer that. To continue with the game shooting analogy, it is common for people who pick up shot game birds to use more than one dog. I take four or five dogs myself, because it is more efficient and I can cover the ground speedily. If a rabbit was shot, and I used the five dogs to look for it, I understand that I would be committing an offence under the Bill as drafted. That is a practical example. Rathlin Island was in the news this morning, and a detection dog is being used there to help find ferrets. The way the Bill is worded, I think that the use of a dog in that way comes under the scope.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you. Tommy, you mentioned a chain of events. Can you enlarge on what you meant by the chain of events from the participatory element or the firearms certificate? Does the Bill have enough financial certainty to support anything that might happen as a result of the chain of events?

Mr Mayne: Thank you for the question; it is a good one. I give the example of an allegation being made against me that I have hunted a wild mammal and committed an offence. The police will be called, and I am a firearms certificate holder. The allegation is the allegation; let me just park that for a minute. We are dealing with new legislation, and we need to bear that in mind. If and when the Bill is passed, the police will need to make a decision about how they are going to react to an allegation of criminality. However, we have not got there yet. What I can say is that currently, as things stand, where a criminal offence is made under any other piece of legislation, the general reaction of the police is to seize the firearms, because they do not know the full circumstances at that time. It is standard procedure for the police to seize firearms. The firearms will be held until that incident — let us call it that — is investigated.

Let us say that the firearms certificate holder lives in a house with three or four other people — it could be a husband and wife and a son or two sons or a son and daughter — who are also firearms certificate holders. Where a person's firearms are seized at an address, it is common practice for the police to seize the other firearms at that same address. It is the address that actually becomes unfit, if you get my meaning. All of the firearms will go, and they will generally be held in police care, let us say, until the incident is investigated and concluded. Obviously, they are not quick at doing that; it could take a couple of years. Let us say that that certificate is then revoked. There are three or four people affected, potentially. The certificate is revoked, and that goes to an appeal with the Department of Justice. The police process will take a considerable amount of time — anything up to two years, potentially. We also need to bear in mind the involvement of the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), which I will come back to, if I may, in a moment. The situation moves from a police revocation process to an appeals process with the Department of Justice. In our view, that appeals process is broken beyond repair. That is something that the Justice Minister talked about some months ago, around the time of the firearms consultation, when she talked about the likelihood of the DOJ charging for the appeals process, which is actually an adjudicatory function.

I come back to the PPS. Let us say that the file that is prepared by the police goes to the PPS, and the PPS makes a decision not to prosecute. It will write to me, saying, "Dear Mr Mayne, we have decided not to prosecute you, blah, blah, blah". We then go to the police and say, "Here is a letter from the PPS, which has decided not to prosecute". It would not be uncommon that there would be a little bit of friction with the police officer on the day — a little bit of behaviour that the police might describe as being not at the level of a firearms certificate holder. If PPS has decided not to prosecute, and that letter has gone to the police, you would like to think that, at that point, the certificate and the firearms would be returned and everything would be put to bed. However, the police could potentially say, "Well, actually, we appreciate the fact that you are not being prosecuted, but we expect a higher standard of behaviour from a firearms certificate holder", and the situation might not be resolved at that point. We need to bear in mind that all of that could take a very considerable amount of time. If a person is, perhaps, a gamekeeper, a pest controller or someone like me, for example, who needs firearms for their job, that is a big problem. I hope that that answers your question.

You asked about financial implications. I cannot speak for the police, obviously, but we are talking about a firearms licensing branch which, to be polite about it, is under-resourced and underfunded and needs staff. Its service level is well below what it could or should be, and it certainly does not meet the standards of 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' (MPMNI), bearing in mind that the Department of Justice was seeking to increase its funding recently. Any additional workload on that branch would, I imagine, be quite damaging. You also have to bear in mind that, where an allegation is made against a firearms certificate holder, police officers have to go out and investigate that. The Bill needs to be very clear. The police should not be left to interpret it; it should be as clear as a bell, so that they can make a decision as to whether to seize firearms. There is also a cost to policing in terms of police officers on the ground. There are potential costs for the Department of Justice in terms of appeals. I hope that that answers your question, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Yes, that is the chain. You have explained that very well; thank you very much.

Ms Murphy: Your opening remarks, as well as the answers to the Chair's questions, covered a lot of ground. Your organisation covers other jurisdictions, and similar legislation was recently introduced in Scotland. Are your colleagues in Scotland experiencing similar concerns with their legislation around shooting and the outworkings of it?

Mr Evans: Yes, that is a recent change. If it is OK, I will answer from a Welsh perspective, because I live in Wales. The drafting of the legislation is different. There are exemptions which cover a number of areas, but there are still what I would call "improvements" to how we have to operate in Wales.

Ms Murphy: In that sense, is the legislation in Wales a lot more workable for you, compared with the draft before us?

Mr Evans: It is certainly clearer. Starting from the position of not being in favour of a ban on hunting with dogs, there are things in there which, for me as an ex-gamekeeper, are clearer to understand, and some of the exemptions are clearer.

Ms Murphy: I will circle back to a game shoot. What would happen if, during the shoot, your dogs unexpectedly pursue or flush a fox or anything like that. Going back to the legal point of view around definitions, the offence is to "participate". From my reading of the Bill, if you went to a game shoot with the intention to shoot, not to participate in a hunt or participate in pursuing or flushing a fox, and that incident happened and somebody phoned the police —

Mr Mayne: Or videoed it, which is usual.

Ms Murphy: — or videoed it, what position would that leave you in, legally?

Mr Evans: A highly risky position.

Mr Mayne: Absolutely.

Mr Evans: If we were shooting rabbits in Wales, we would take multiple dogs, because rabbits are part of an exemption in Wales. We would hunt with multiple dogs. I would have two or three terriers, and somebody else would have two or three terriers or spaniels. If we were pheasant shooting and a rabbit got up and one of the dogs were to chase the rabbit, we would be in a difficult situation.

Ms Murphy: There would be a requirement for more than two dogs in those specific circumstances relating to rabbits.

Mr Evans: It just works better. Imagine a wood that is maybe 150 metres long. If we were trying to shoot rabbits, we would be trying to flush them forward towards standing guns. Dogs that are working along the line are only pushing in a short area — a short distance — but we are trying to flush them to shoot. You cover the ground; it just works much better.

Ms Murphy: My final question goes back to deer stalking and hunting for food. Would you like to see hunting for food, or for the purpose of obtaining food, added to the exemptions, or inserted as a specific exemption?

Mr Mayne: Again, our starting point is that we are opposed to the Bill. However, if and when there was such a requirement, absolutely. We are an organisation that is massively about food and respect for quarry. We have been working closely across the UK with the various hospitality and catering colleges and have taken game into colleges. We have done a lot with Belfast Metropolitan College and, in fact, over the past number of years, have run competitions between Belfast Metropolitan College and Coleg Cambria in Wales. That has been extremely successful. It is all about promoting game and respect for quarry and game as a healthy alternative. It is highly nutritious and high in protein — you get where I am coming from. Food is a big thing, and it is disappointing to see that there is no mention of it. People think that we shoot just for sport. That is not the case. If you want to shoot for sport, go and shoot clay or paper targets. We do not shoot live quarry for sport. We shoot for food.

Ms Murphy: Apologies, Chair, I need to declare an interest as a firearms licence holder. I should have done that at the start of the meeting. Can that be kept as a standing declaration of interest? I will forget to declare it some day.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We will keep that as a standing declaration of interest. Thank you.

Ms Murphy: Thank you.

Mr Mayne: Chair, if I may, I come back to your point about risk and to the scenario of a dog chasing a rabbit. It is not about just the practical consequences on the ground. Let us say, as we have talked about, that somebody were to video that scenario on their phone. We know where that video will go: straight on to social media. The person involved will then be tried by social media, particularly if they are employed in some high-profile job, which could have catastrophic consequences. You know that that is how such things play out. It is not about just the factual consequences of how it plays out on the ground; it is about reputational risk.

Ms Murphy: That is an interesting point. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Three members are seeking to ask questions.

Mr Wilson: Last week, the Committee took evidence from Northern Ireland Says Enough (NoISE). A number of issues were raised at that evidence session. I agreed with some but not all of what was said. I was particularly interested in aspects of the NoISE report and where those witnesses' presentation referred to the use of rifles. What is your view on the generalities of the NoISE report? Did you have any takeaways from it or find any inferences in it? I declare an interest as a member of your organisation and a firearms owner.

Mr Mayne: Thank you for that; it is a good question. I will answer it. We are aware of the NoISE comments. However, rather than go into the detail of them, if the Chair is agreed, we will formally submit a document to the Committee on that in due course on behalf of the BASC.

I will come on to the comments made about shooting foxes with air rifles and so on. When processing a firearms certificate or an application for a particular firearm, the police refer to two documents: the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and 'Guidance on Northern Ireland Firearms Controls'. The Firearms Order is law, and the other one is guidance. At appendix 3 to the guidance, there is a table that sets out firearms calibres, starting with airguns and going up a band into small rimfires — ·22 and ·17 Hornady Magnum rimfires (HMR). It then goes up into the fox and deer calibres. I think that the Committee gets the gist of what I am saying.

If Glynn were to apply for a specific rifle, such as a ·22 calibre, the police would look at the 'Guidance on Northern Ireland Firearms Controls' document as part of their consideration of the application. They would look at the application and they would do background checks on Glynn, but they would also look at the rifle alongside the quarry species that he lists in his application and match them up using 'Guidance on Northern Ireland Firearms Controls' as a reference. Our guidance was last updated in 2006 and is not comprehensive. The police actually print out the Home Office's guidance to police, which was updated a couple of years ago, and they use the table in that as well, because it gives them all the calibres that do not exist in our guidance. They use that guidance document to match the calibre against the quarry species.

That said, the Chief Constable can choose to apply that guidance or to depart from it as individual applications dictate. As a professional pest controller, Glynn could apply for a ·22 rifle for fox control, for example, because his specific circumstances dictate that the noise of a centrefire rifle is not appropriate in the area, or the topography might permit a reduced calibre. In such circumstances, the PSNI might authorise the smaller calibre of ·22 or ·17 HMR for fox control, but that would be for use at much closer ranges.

The other thing that we have to bear in mind is that BASC has been lobbying for many years to get the "any other lawful quarry" firearms certificate condition implemented here because it was implemented around 2007-09 in GB. What does that mean? Every firearms certificate here, and every firearm, is conditioned for specific purposes. Prior to 2022, if you had a deer-calibre rifle and you had done the course, it was conditioned for deer stalking purposes. Just deer. That is it: end of story. If you used that deer-calibre rifle for any other quarry species, you would be committing an offence.

To be honest, we thought that that was madness. Based on what was happening in GB, we pushed the police and lobbied, using elected representatives as well, and we were successful in getting the "any other lawful quarry" firearms certificate condition implemented in late 2022. What does that mean on the ground for a firearms certificate holder? Take me, for example, as a deer stalker. I have a deer-calibre rifle that is above ·243 or ·236. That means that when I have that condition on my firearms certificate, I can shoot deer and any other lawful quarry, provided that I have permission to do so. Therefore, since late 2022 we have had a scenario in which somebody who did a deer-stalking course and has a condition of their firearms certificate can also use that heavier calibre firearm, which carries much more muzzle energy, to shoot foxes. Hopefully, I have explained that well enough.

Mr Wilson: That is useful. You spoke earlier about the difference between hunting and shooting not being clearly defined, and the conflation of the two. You gave a good example of a pheasant shoot on an estate. If the Bill were to become law tomorrow, what would be the view of the owner of the estate or the organiser of the shoot? I think that it would have a chilling effect because of what you described: you are trying to curtail the natural instincts of dogs that are used to find a shot bird or animal — in the case of a pheasant shoot, birds. If the owner of an estate knowingly allows a pheasant shoot to go ahead, they are potentially also involved in committing an offence should more than two dogs, or your friend's dog or somebody else's dog on the gathering-up line, be found to have run after a rabbit or other animal. If you owned that shoot, would you be concerned? Where does that stop?

Mr Mayne: I will answer that question from a completely different but relevant angle. During COVID, in 2020, when the lights were basically turned out overnight, our world, our jobs and our roles in BASC changed literally overnight because everything stopped. We were all working from home, nobody was allowed out, and everyone had to stay two metres away from everybody else. I am not saying that it would be that bad but there are similarities.

There would be a lot of uncertainty, and people just would not do it because they would be unsure. There would be different interpretations of the legislation, and those would be all over social media. Some people would be doing one thing, others doing another, and some people would not be doing anything. Our role changed during COVID because we became advisers on the COVID regulations, and we were making phone calls to elected representatives and various Departments to get our interpretation confirmed so that we, in turn, could advise our members. There would be an element of that.

Mr Wilson: That was from the perception that any reasonable person will fear criminalisation.

Mr Mayne: Absolutely. Just that uncertainty of, "What do we do?". The consequences are extreme: the penalties, the fines, the prison time and the firearms revocation process. The firearms revocation process can be a traumatic experience, and even more so if you consider that it could apply to two or three people in the same household.

Mr Evans: I agree with Tommy. The fear of what will happen and the implications will weigh heavily on people.

Mr Wilson: That is a significant fear, in my view.

Mr Evans: I do not disagree with that at all.

Mr Mayne: As I said to Áine, there is a reputational risk for high-profile people in certain types of employment. That can be very damaging.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thanks. We will move to Tom and then John, who will wrap up.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you, Chair. My questions follow that same theme. The Bill does not really define the difference between a hunting dog, a working dog, or even a pet dog for that matter. It is just about hunting with dogs. If the Bill passes, what impact do you see it having on working dogs?

Mr Evans: As we said, it will have a massive impact on the people who own those dogs. They may simply stop working them, and that will have a knock-on effect for the environment and the environmental management that comes from those practices. It is a real domino effect.

Mr Mayne: The economy.

Mr Evans: Yes, that then has an effect on the economy and those sorts of things. I am conscious, as I mentioned, of the Bill's other unintended consequences for working dogs. I am going slightly off-piste, but it is an important point. I work spaniels and terriers. When I take those dogs out, I will not always want to shoot what I flush and pursue. For instance, in the past, I have managed deer, and we have had fenced-in areas. In such instances, we do not want to shoot or take the deer, but we want to take them out of that area. We put the fence up and leave the gate open at the end. We drive, hunt or flush — whatever you call it — them out of the wood. The way that the Bill is worded would prevent me from doing that.

Mr T Buchanan: There is no doubt that that is a good point. What impact will the Bill have on our farmers, landowners and managers of farmland when it comes to pest control?

Mr Evans: To be blunt, I think that it will handcuff them. It will stop them doing a lot of the traditional, practical pest control that they carry out. Rabbits are what instantly springs to mind, as I mentioned. Dogs are widely used in the control of rabbits because they are effective.

Dr Murray: It goes back to the chilling effect. If people whose firearm certificates are essential to their jobs think that those might be at risk, they probably will not take that chance for fear of losing their firearm certificates. They would rather not do something and preserve what they have than take that risk and lose something that is very valuable to them.

Mr T Buchanan: OK. Thank you for that. It seems that, if the Bill were to go through, it would cause huge problems and difficulties for farmers, farm holders and farm managers, as well as those who are involved in sport and those who have working dogs. It causes me a lot of concern.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you for that, Tom. I will pass over to the Bill sponsor, John Blair, to ask a few questions.

Mr Blair: I thank Tommy and his colleagues for being here and for our previous engagement. I hope that we have further engagement. For absolute clarity, I repeat that in no way has it ever been my intention to target those who use guns to hunt.

Mr Mayne: Sorry, John, with respect, I must intervene with a correction: you mean those who use guns to shoot.

Mr Blair: OK. I am happy with that correction, Chair. I wish to record that I make a clear distinction, as I always have, between hunting that puts food on the table and hunting of whatever form that involves people killing animals for what they might describe as recreation or whatever term they put to it.

I hope that people do not mind the directness of my questions, but I want to set some context. Your presentation refers to this point, so it is relevant to the Committee. It refers to the areas that are tackled by the organisation that you represent, which:

To set an accurate context, in the last few areas mentioned — habitat conservation and wildlife and game management — it is the case that many thousands of birds are bred for release for shooting. They are not naturally occupying the habitat, and they are not naturally breeding in the habitat.

I will give you a casework example. I discovered an example that was probably in my constituency — I have not checked the boundary, but it probably was — in which 30,000 birds a year were being kept for game shooting and were to be sold across GB, Ireland and Northern Ireland. At any one time, 16,000 birds would be housed at that location. That case was with the Planning Appeals Commission, by the way, from 2020 to 2022. So, can we be clear that this is not all about shooting naturally breeding birds in locations using dogs, which is relevant to the Bill, and that tens of thousands of birds are bred for release for that specific purpose?

Mr Mayne: I cannot argue with that.

Mr Evans: Yes, rearing of game is done in line with codes of practice —.

Mr Blair: I am not disputing that.

Mr Evans: If I may, I will answer that. If it is done with high animal welfare standards, it is an integral part of much shooting.

Mr Blair: For the purposes of today, I am making the point that many people would not see that as conservation and wildlife management.

Mr Evans: Can I finish? You have to consider that within the whole picture. So, you have a shoot, and you have people on the ground who are interested in putting the birds out and harvesting them sustainably. They then do land management and put in cover crops that benefit many other birds. They carry out pest control on things like grey squirrels. I agree with you 100% that birds are reared. Instead of looking at that one bit, you need to look at the whole approach, which benefits the economy, the individual and the environment.

Mr Blair: A couple of the categories that you mentioned — the economy and the individual — are not related to habitat conservation and wildlife and game management, but we have established that tens of thousands of birds are bred and released for the purpose of shooting.

The second one is more difficult and is somewhat more sensitive, but I want to get your thoughts on it. First, I have represented a number of constituents who have had delays in getting their firearms application processed or getting it back if there has been a problem. I fully accept what you say about delays in the process. However, I do not believe that we should avoid legislating in this place because of delays in any administrative process; otherwise, we would never legislate. I simply do not accept that.

Likewise, although you have not said it today, somebody will say that Departments or the police do not have the resources to implement the Bill's provisions. We would never legislate if we accepted that argument. I need to put that out there. That is an argument that people in politics will use selectively — it does not apply to you — when it suits them, but you will probably find that the person saying it will have a number of legislative priorities that they want to bring forward and will do so in full knowledge that they will have a resource implication for government, the police and other agencies.

You and I know, and I assume that members of the Committee know, that people have to forfeit their firearms licence for a wide variety of reasons, including allegations of offences against the person. Therefore, surely you are not suggesting that we should never legislate again on matters around offences against the person or violence against women and girls, in case some person who has their firearms licence taken from them faces a longer delay in getting it back again. Can we be clear on that and the fact that the Bill applies to a wide range of areas where police might have to intervene?

Mr Mayne: I am happy to answer that, if I may. I will be brief. We are not suggesting anything; we are simply stating facts in relation to an under-resourced police service. We were very keen, as many MLAs around this table will know, to work with the police and the Department of Justice in relation to a fees increase.

I will take it a stage further, if I may. BASC chairs an umbrella firearms group called the Northern Ireland Firearms Representative Group (NIFRG). It is made up of nine organisations that got together in 2021 as a result of deep-rooted concerns around PSNI firearms licensing and protracted processing times. That group continues to exist. We had our AGM recently. I was appointed chair. Country Sports Ireland provided a secretariat for it. I make it clear that I have no remit to speak for the group today and that I am speaking on my own behalf. We were very keen to engage with the police and the Department of Justice with a view to looking at their proposals, basically, with a view to getting them more money, and to improve the service that the PSNI's firearms and explosives branch (FEB) delivers. Unfortunately, the consultation was, in our view, unlawful. I wrote a soft letter to the Department of Justice and signed it on 20 April, yet it has failed to respond. Yes, we got an acknowledgement, but it failed to respond. That soft letter basically said, "Look, we feel that this is unlawful. Please take it down and rectify it. We are happy to work with you and the PSNI with a view to getting you more money". Therefore, the Department of Justice had its chance. That is what I am saying to you.

Mr Blair: With respect, I am not asking about the correspondence between yourselves and the Department of Justice. I accept the broad thrust of what you have said. I have actually said that I have dealt with the matter on behalf of constituents. I am making the point that the problems that you have highlighted were presented to the Agriculture Committee, not the Justice Committee, in the context of a problem with the Bill. I am asking you this: how far can an arms certificate be forfeited where other offences or misdemeanours are alleged in the context of a person's having to forfeit their certificate when an accusation is made against them? I am asking you directly whether you accept that you have not asked for any delay, halt or cessation to making legislation in any area other than the one that you have flagged up with regard to the Bill.

Mr Mayne: To be clear, again, I am basically setting out the facts that may occur if, and when, a firearms certificate holder is confronted by the police where that firearms certificate holder has been reported for allegedly committing a criminal offence under the Bill. The process that we set out with regard to the seizure of that individual's firearms, and the seizure of other family members' firearms, is a real-world scenario. I am not using that to stop your Bill: I am simply stating facts about how things would play out on the ground if the Bill passed into law.

Mr Blair: I am content that I have established that such delays relate to a number of possible alleged offences or inquiries.

I accept what you said about the drastic change that was experienced in many sectors, and probably every single household, when COVID hit us in 2020. However, when it comes to drastic change impacting what you do, do you agree that you experienced pretty significant change when major legislation was introduced in England in 2004, and in Scotland around that time and again in 2023, but that, in those other jurisdictions, where significant bans on hunting with dogs have been introduced, you have continued to carry on with your shooting pursuits? Is that not right?

Mr Evans: The legislation is significantly different. As colleagues have explained, the way in which your Bill is proposed is significantly different, and that is what will cause issues for people.

Mr Blair: Did you agree with the legislation when it was coming forward in England, Scotland and other places, or did you predict that there would be major problems there and then go on to shoot afterwards? Can you clarify that for me?

Mr Evans: So that —

Mr Blair: That was in 2002 and 2023.

Mr Evans: I can speak personally. The answer is no, because I am not somebody who hunts foxes in the sense that you describe. Therefore, it has not impacted me because it was already illegal. The issues that I see are with the way in which your Bill is worded. It causes —. Starting from the point that we are opposed to a ban on fox hunting, I can see significant unintended consequences.

Mr Blair: OK. This is my final question, Chair. Can you tell us whether, as an organisation, you opposed the GB legislation in 2004 or the two iterations of Scottish legislation since then? Did you support that legislation, not consult on it at all or oppose it? Do you know?

Mr Evans: I would have to check with colleagues in Scotland.

Mr Mayne: I can make another point on that. In 2004, I did not work for BASC. We are going back some considerable time.

Mr Blair: I accept that.

Mr Mayne: With respect, John, going back to 2004 when people were not employed in BASC, makes that a bit of an unfair question .

Mr Blair: There are others who would not agree. You might hear that soon.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We will wrap up at that point.

Mr Wilson: I have one small question.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): A quick one, because we have others coming in.

Mr Wilson: I have my view, and I will ask whether you agree. I feel that the Bill, in its current format, is a threat to shooting and conservation. Do you agree?

Mr Mayne: Absolutely; 100%. That is why we are opposed to it.

Mr Wilson: John asked you those questions, as he is entitled to, but I would argue that John should know the answers to them. It is his Bill, so he should have considered all the ramifications of other pieces of legislation. That is just —.

Mr Blair: Chair, I want to put on record that I accept Gareth's right to make that point — of course I do — but it is absolutely unfair to comment that I should not have asked questions in relation —.

Mr Wilson: I am not saying that you should not ask questions. I am just saying that, in asking those questions —.

Mr Blair: I did not interrupt Gareth, Chair, and I hope that he will not continue to interrupt me. I do not think that it is at all unreasonable that I asked questions of an organisation that is in front of the Committee today. Every single question that I asked was about the actions and experiences of that organisation. With none of those questions —

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We will move on.

Mr Blair: — could I have been expected to know the experience of the people presenting, and the questions were directed at them.

Mr Wilson: I will just say this: I did not say any of that in the way that John perceived me to.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We just have to move on at this point.

Mr Wilson: I appreciate that; I was just giving my view, as I am entitled to.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We will finish the conversation at this point.

Thank you for coming in and giving a presentation. It has been very helpful to get your point of view. I know that there have been conflicting points of view, but that is what good discourse is about. Thank you very much for coming in. As a Committee, we will move on. I think that you are going to send us a document, Tommy.

Mr Mayne: We will do that in due course, Chair. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That is great. We will expect that. Thank you very much indeed.