Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Joining us from FACE Ireland are Dan Curley, William Montgomery, Sean Woods, Barty Murphy and Austin Fitzpatrick. You are all welcome. We have received your presentation. I invite you to address the Committee.

Mr Dan Curley (FACE Ireland): Thanks, Chair. I am chairman of the National Association of Regional Game Councils (NARGC), which is the biggest shooting and hunting organisation in Southern Ireland. It is the equivalent of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) or the Countryside Alliance in Northern Ireland. I am also chairman of FACE Ireland, which represents 12 distinct associations, including mounted hunt associations; foot harrier associations; ourselves, obviously; two or three deer associations; and a hawking club. Six of those 12 associations are all-Ireland bodies that operate in Northern Ireland as well as in Southern Ireland.

I will introduce the other fellas. Austin Fitzpatrick is from Drumlin Harriers, which is a mounted hunt in County Cavan. Austin has also been a foot harrier in his time, including in Fermanagh and the Belturbet-Cavan area. Barty Murphy, from County Cork — he is probably from furthest away — is secretary of the Irish Foot Harriers Association. Sean Woods is from Middletown, County Armagh. He is vice chairman of the Irish Foot Harriers Association, which is an all-Ireland body. He has hunted North and South down the years. Bill Montgomery is representing the Irish Masters of Fox Hounds Association. The chairman of that association was not able to attend today.

Thanks very much for inviting us; we are delighted to be here. It is good that the Committee is looking at the Bill from all perspectives, because anything to do with nature or species is multilayered. If you do one thing, you affect about 10 things. Unfortunately, that is what you are up against in nature. That is how it works.

We will not dwell too much on the Bill, because the people you have had here already have done that, but I will say a couple of things. Some of the definitions are very tight. The two-dog rule would affect almost everyone involved in hunting or shooting. For instance, two or three fellas from my association, which is in the South — it will be the same in the North with the BASC — will go out hunting together. Invariably, they will have one or two dogs apiece, so they would be over the two-dog limit straight away. Equally, the foot harriers will have packs of roughly 10 dogs, so they would be affected by that rule. Practically everyone involved in hunting and shooting would be affected by that rule.

As I said, I will not go too deeply into the law, because you have heard all of this before and, I am sure, do not want to hear it again, but "participate" is a ferociously wide word to be used in any Bill. You could almost say that some poor man who nodded at you going down the road had "participated". There are serious issues with the Bill. I know that the BASC has been here and may have gone into the Bill in a bit more detail. The Committee would need to look at the consequences of such law.

Our submission is more to do with the human element. There is a rich cultural tradition and heritage in this area; these men could outline it better than I could. Even at the height of the Troubles, Northern men hunted with Southern men. There was serious interaction. If there were any shining lights in the Troubles, that was one of them: the way in which hunting people from all communities interacted. The border never existed with them. The Bill, if enacted, would break all of that tradition. If you tell people that they cannot hunt, they will have no reason to be there and no reason to have their dogs. It would be close to a crime to break that great tradition and that camaraderie. The lads could probably outline better than me where they hunted and whom they hunted with. Religion never came into it.

All hunting people are conservationists first, because, if you do not have your species there, you have nothing to hunt. The fellas here mostly hunt hares. They do not want to kill hares; they want to follow them. In fact, they will do everything to make sure that there are hares in their area. A Queen's University Belfast study found that, where an active club was looking after hares, there were far more hares in that area than was the case in areas where no one was looking after them. The trouble with such legislation is that you will ban the people who are at it, but then no one will do anything. If you ban it and everyone walks away and leaves it, no one will do anything. That is the problem with such laws. Where is the alternative? Who will look after those species? That is what we would like you to look at. It is multilayered, as I said. There are a lot of elements to it, and it is important that the Committee looks at those.

While it is about hunting, there is a lot more than hunting involved. It is about a culture. As I said, most fellas learned to hunt from their fathers and grandfathers. The dogs' lineage goes back just as far. The fellas really love their dogs. It is a combination of things: the hunting plus the interaction with the dog. No one goes out hunting without a dog. Even when you go out shooting, you do not go out without a dog. There are about five elements to any of our sports, and they all combine to make it what it is. The Bill would destroy that long history, whether we like it or not.

We thank the Committee for fully examining the issue, because it is important that we fully engage with politicians and that they fully understand what we are at and the surrounding circumstances. While I have been here before with the BASC and have met some MLAs, this is the first time in a long time that FACE Ireland has been here. It is important that there is full interaction. All our associations have codes of conduct that they adhere to strictly in what they do. If the Committee has any concerns around animal welfare or thinks that there is a need for better codes of conduct, we are more than willing to come in and fully discuss that with you. What we do not want is a blanket ban, with our fellas being put out of business and no one replacing them. In Southern Ireland, some birds were taken off the Wildlife (Wild Birds) (Open Seasons) Order. We asked for some of those birds to be taken off, but then they did nothing about them. They took no action. The original action was meant to save those birds, but it did not save them.

It is well documented that hunting and shooting are generally not the cause of a decline in species. The recent article from University College Dublin (UCD) that I sent you more or less found that. There are other issues. Habitat loss and the use of land nowadays are probably the biggest drivers of a lot of that stuff. It is important that someone looks after those species, otherwise no one will. While you may have a few birdwatchers or someone looking at them, they are mostly urban people who come out on a Sunday or whatever, so they are not on the ground. Our people have boots on the ground every day of the week, and it would be an awful pity if we lost all that.

I will leave it at that, Chair, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you. You have given us a good presentation. It is true that you are the people on the ground. Thank you for referencing the cross-border aspect and the potential impact on the two hunts, North and South, working together and their camaraderie. It was really important to hear that. On that point, if a hunt started in Donegal or Monaghan and dogs strayed into Northern Ireland, who would be legally responsible for those dogs?

Mr Curley: The person in charge of the dogs is ultimately responsible for them. Hunting dogs can go astray. The code of conduct states that you hunt only where you have permission to do so. A fox or a hare can go where you do not want it to go, unfortunately, but the boys will always try to round up the dogs straight away. If the farmer or the landowner in the area has an issue, they will talk to him and say, "Listen, we had no intention of going in there. The dogs went in, but we pulled them out as quickly as we could". That can happen when hunting. With shooting, it is more controlled in that the dog will be close to you and most dogs will be under full control. A hunting dog may be a bit away from the handler, and, if they pick up a scent, that can happen.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That is the instinct of the dog.

Mr Curley: It is the instinct of the dog, yes — unfortunately, it is — but the boys will pull back the dogs as quickly as they can. They will go in and try to get around them and get them back.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Do you have any idea of how many cross-border hunts there are?

Mr Curley: Are you talking about packs?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Yes.

Mr Austin Fitzpatrick (FACE Ireland): There are four or five mounted packs that hunt on either side of the border. With foot packs, there is huge crossover with people from Portadown, Derry and Fermanagh coming down to hunt in Cavan and where I live in Cootehill. There is a huge transfer. I could not put a number on it.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Do those numbers similarly come up north?

Mr Fitzpatrick: Not so much. It is more Northern people coming down south. The Donegal Harriers hunt a large area of Derry, and the Tyrone Hunt and the Tynan and Armagh Hunt both hunt in Monaghan, so there is crossover on the mounted side and a lot of crossover on foot hunting too.

Mr Sean Woods (FACE Ireland): We are talking about hunting on the border: I live on the border. The townland that I was brought up in touches the border. A number of years ago, in the townland that I was reared in, a farmer — he is a friend of mine who hunts along with us — said that we needed to check the glen to see whether there were any foxes about before he let his sheep and lambs out. It was breeding time for the foxes too — it was around Christmastime — and we pulled a dog fox out of it. The fox headed south first of all. He then crossed from Armagh into Monaghan. Then, he turned and came back down at the Tyholland side of Monaghan. He went on to the old Ulster canal right down through Tynan Abbey and across into Caledon estate. The fox hit three counties all in the one hunt. That is a fact; I was there. We had to follow him and get permission to go into Caledon estate to get him out of it, but we got all that done.

There are no borders in hunting. Wildlife can go anywhere. It can go in and out of the North and South. Any time that you are out in a border area —

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That is just the unpredictable —.

Mr Woods: — you can cross the border 10 times a day. There are definitely no borders with hares, foxes and dogs. That is all I will say. I live there and have hunted there all my life, as did my father and grandfather before me — no horses, just dogs — trying to keep the local community happy, if at all possible.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): To go back to the two-dog rule, how do you see the impact that that would have on hunting on foot?

Mr Woods: There are a lot of places where you get foxes in cover. Two dogs will never put a fox out of cover; it is too hard. You need to get more of a noise behind a fox to move it, because the fox will only double back. If you have a fox giving trouble somewhere but have no pressure behind him, even if you intend to flush the fox out to guns, he will not come out. The fox will see somebody outside and will turn back in. A fox can spend hours just going up and down through the same cover without you getting any result. You need to get pressure behind the fox.

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

I turn to the Bill sponsor: John, do you want to ask any questions?

Mr Blair: The first question is straightforward and is based on your background information on the demographics of those who participate in hunting. Do you accept that the objectors — those who back me 100% in my opposition to hunting wild mammals with dogs for fun, recreation or sport, where a dog is used to kill the wild mammal while humans look on — also come from every social background and every age group and from urban areas and rural areas? Further to that, do you accept that, only two Thursdays ago, I sat on a farm in County Down with, easily, 10 farming families who are totally in support of my Bill and have put that on record to the Committee, should there be any doubt?

Mr Curley: I accept that there are people who are against hunting, yes, 100%.

Mr Blair: From all backgrounds?

Mr Curley: From all backgrounds. It may be overstated a bit in the media. We did some surveys at the Ploughing Championships. It is 40% urban and 60% rural in Southern Ireland; you might not be that familiar with it. Acceptance is quite good. Generally speaking, people are not against hunting or shooting. I accept that there are people — all of these fellas will tell you — who will not go anywhere near —.

Mr Blair: From all backgrounds and age groups?

Mr Curley: Probably, yes, but it is more people from urban backgrounds who maybe do not fully understand it.

Mr Blair: I think that there is an implied criticism in your submission and presentation that I referenced UK regions in my explanatory note and in other submissions but did not mention the Republic of Ireland. Will you do two things? First, will you accept publicly that, even if I wanted to, I cannot legislate for anything outside Northern Ireland? That is the way that it works, and I need you to accept that. That is the reason why I made comparisons with other regions where such a law exists. Such a law does not exist in the Republic of Ireland, so I could not make that comparison. I would really like you to put that on record. Perhaps you could also explain what seems to me to be an inconsistency. There is that implied criticism of me for mentioning those UK regions, while your presentation to us includes a dataset that refers to Spain, France, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. I am criticised for referencing other regions, but you have referenced nine other regions in your submission to this Committee. What is the rationale for that inconsistency?

Mr Curley: First, obviously, there is a land border with the Republic of Ireland. As this man said, animals go across it and back again. I accept that you are legislating for Northern Ireland, but you have to take into account the fact that there is a land border. As the lads have said, the land border never made a difference to species. For instance, I am involved in a grouse project at Sliabh Beagh, which is mainly in County Tyrone, partly in County Fermanagh and 40% in County Monaghan. We have been out there doing predator control for 30 years, and the border makes no difference to that project. It did in the past; yes, that is right. On a Northern Ireland authority map, the Southern bit was not mentioned, and vice versa in the South, and that was totally wrong. You have to consider the land border. If you are building a wind farm in County Fermanagh or County Tyrone, you have to take into account the impact that it will have across the border, because they are the same habitats; it is the same area. My point was that you, perhaps, should have looked more at what happens in the South, given that it is so close and so relevant.

My other point was that a lot of hunting in the UK is different from hunting here, particularly shooting. Our farms in Ireland — perhaps more so in the South than in the North — are mainly small farms of 40 or 50 hectares. In England, hunting tends to take place on big estates and the whole shooting scenario is different. In the South, local hunting clubs are a part of the community. They are probably next to GAA clubs in Southern Ireland in size and importance. They are parish-based, so they are all about the local community and the parish. That was the reason for making that point.

The EU survey was done by Barry John McMahon, who is a UCD professor. It was a survey of the effects of hunting or whether it has an effect, and it said, more or less, that it does not. The only reason that I mentioned it is that it is relevant to the debate from that perspective.

Mr William Montgomery (FACE Ireland): Previous contributors have pointed out that neither foxes nor hounds know where the border is. Were the Bill to pass, it would raise a serious problem for the police. You could be hunting a fox illegally at one point and, at another point, hunting the same fox legally. That, however, brings me to a much more important point. Historically, another Mr Blair brought a Bill before the Palace of Westminster. That Bill was originally intended to apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The then Secretary of State, Dr Reid, met the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland to discuss the Bill.

The Chief Constable pointed out some things, the first of which was that it would be difficult to enforce the legislation along the border. Probably more importantly, he pointed out to the Secretary of State that a great many people would become potential criminals. He also pointed out that, sadly, because the police in Northern Ireland were pretty busy with important things, it would be difficult for his force to enforce an unpopular law, especially at weekends, that would have a bearing on people who were normally law-abiding and perhaps the backbone of the local community. I was present at that meeting. After he had listened to the Chief Constable's evidence, the Secretary of State said that it would be impossible for the Bill to apply to Northern Ireland. He memorably said, "I'll be in Downing Street in three days' time. This Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland". I put it to you that the arguments that held then hold now.

Mr Blair: As someone who sat on the Policing Board for five years, I have some knowledge of cross-border policing operations. Many criminal activities cross the border, from speeding cars to drug dealers. I trust the law enforcement authorities to collaborate in order to manage such activities.

Separate from that, William, will you acknowledge that what may be unpopular with people who want to do something may not be unpopular with those who do not want them to do it? That is a simple principle. Can you confirm to the Committee that, at the farm to which I referred, you were at a meeting with me with many farming families who totally support my Bill? It was one night in 2023. Do you recall that meeting?

Mr Montgomery: I do not think that that holds.

Mr Fitzpatrick: I offer this bit of information to the author of the Bill, who has suggested that we go out to kill foxes. I have been in the hunting field for over 60 years: in that time, I have never seen a fox taken overground by a pack of hounds. The inference to draw from that is that, if we were out to kill, we would have to wait for 60 years or more before seeing a kill. It has nothing to do with the kill; it is about the thrill of the chase. A healthy fox will not be taken overground by a pack of hounds. I say that from over 60 years' experience of hunting.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you for your evidence today.

The Bill refers to the two-dog rule: for the farming community, what impact will that have on wildlife management and pest control? Farmers have to manage wildlife and control pests on their farm.

Mr Curley: It will have a huge impact, because, as I said, it will affect every element of shooting. For example, although I may have only one dog, I may be with three friends, so we will have four dogs. Pest control has become a serious problem. Avian and mammalian predators have become a huge problem on farms. They spread disease to cattle and sheep in feedlots, while pigeons and crows can decimate crops. There is also now a problem with deer. The best practice is to use dogs, because, if a deer gets away, dogs are needed to find it. Traditionally, two dogs are brought for that purpose.

There are many issues with the two-dog restriction. I am not sure whether it was its intention, but it will hit everyone.

Mr T Buchanan: Absolutely. It will hit not only the farming community but people who live in the countryside who have more than two dogs and want to take them out for a walk. It will also affect the shooting fraternity.

I am sure that you are aware of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Countryside Alliance Ireland (CAI), the Northern Ireland Masters of Hounds Association (NIMHA) and the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU): do you agree with the updated MOU?

Mr Curley: I do. It is all about permission. Everything that we do is at the behest of and with the permission of farmers. There can be the odd accident — I am not saying that there cannot be — but that is our principle. It is the code of conduct of every association. If the farmer says no, that means no. If, however, the farmer says, "Yes. Come in, but I want a written agreement", I agree 100% with that.

Mr T Buchanan: I am sure that you still have a concern that, if it passes, the Bill will no doubt criminalise genuinely innocent people. Take the cross-border element or where somebody is out walking their dog and it chases a scent.

Mr Curley: Definitely. Do not forget that, in my association and in BASC, we are gun owners. We are probably the most regulated people in the country. We have to comply 100%, or we will not have a gun. We are in real danger there. For instance, if you were out when someone rang up, your guns would probably be taken while the investigation was going on. It is a huge worry for our members. I am sure that BASC and the CAI have similar concerns. When it comes to that kind of thing, people are considered a criminal until proven innocent, and that is unfortunate. If someone were to see you out with two dogs and ring the police, probably the first thing that the police would do is take your guns, and you might not get them back for one or two years, even if you are proved 100% correct in the end. There are huge dangers around the whole thing.

Mr T Buchanan: Someone out for a day's sport who was wrongly accused of something would be considered guilty until they were able to prove themselves innocent. Their guns would be lifted from them. That is a huge problem.

Ms Finnegan: I appreciate your presence here today. You have outlined your position well. Moving slightly away from the Bill, I note that you described very well what it is like to live in a border community. Foxes and dogs do not know the border, so, from a transboundary perspective, even though we can legislate only for here, it would be remiss of us at least not to mention and consider the South of Ireland. Tom asked the questions that I had on pest control, so I will ask what difference the number of smaller farms in the South of Ireland has on the sort of hunting that takes place there.

Mr Curley: It is huge. I am in a gun club in Newbliss in County Monaghan. There are perhaps 50 farmers in our gun club. We are a parish-based organisation, so quite a few of the farmers and their sons are members. It is one of the clubs of the parish. We are involved in fundraising for charities and hold games nights. For that reason, if the two-dog rule were to come in in the South, it would be completely detrimental to us . If I were to go out with a friend or two, we would be over the two-dog limit. There is the reference to participating. There are so many things wrong with the Bill.

If the Committee or Members want to talk about improving welfare or how we might do things better, we have no issue with that. We will 100% engage with anyone, and we have done so down the years. We have improved animal welfare and all that down the years, but it is about doing it in the right way and for the community.

It is all to do with the community.

As has been said, vermin have become a big problem in the countryside. We get calls from farmers asking us to come out because crows or pigeons are attacking crops or whatever. A lot of farmers will have a gun, but they probably do not have time to go down at daybreak or whenever it has to be done to shoot crows and frighten them away.

It is about cooperation. We would not be here unless the farmers cooperated with us. It is the same in Northern Ireland by and large. There is cooperation among all the groups.

Ms Finnegan: Will the exemptions in the Bill allow your groups to continue to operate? If that is not the case, what amendments would you make to the Bill for it to be workable?

Mr Curley: I have read the Bill. For a start, the title of it is wrong, and it is wrong in practically every respect. It would take serious work to get the Bill right, because so many things are wrong with it. The definitions are wrong. The Bill would have to be changed at its core. Whether John would want to do that I do not know, but so much of it is wrong that it would take an awful lot of amending to get it right. It would be better to go for a Bill on animal welfare or another issue, rather than this. To answer your question, the Bill probably could be amended, but a good marker would be needed. A lot of scalping would need to be done to it.

Mr Fitzpatrick: The Bill addresses a problem that does not exist. There is no problem. We all operate under strict guidelines. There is a small cohort of people who are not from rural Ireland who do not want us to carry on our heritage. When the Romans came to Ireland to have a look at the place, they sent a report back to Rome — this was before Christ walked on the earth — that said four things: that they had called the place "Hibernia"; that it was always raining; that it would not be worth the trouble to conquer it; and that the natives hunted with hounds. That is our heritage. That is our tradition. We just want to be left alone to do that lawfully and not to be intruded on by people who think that what we do is not lawful. It is lawful. It is our heritage. It is what I have done and what people before me have done.

All my family hunt. My father's family hunt. Last week, my granddaughter said, "I'm hunting this year without the lead rein": she is five. It is a way of life for some people. The import of the Bill is to leave me an outlaw, a criminal. I cannot understand how it could be put in statute in a modern democracy. It beats me.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much. That may explain why there are no straight Roman roads in Ireland. [Laughter.]

Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

I have one final question. You suggested that welfare should be assessed by outcomes rather than methods: what methods do you propose to determine whether an activity causes more or less suffering?

Mr Curley: Down the years, as animal welfare standards rose on farms and everywhere else, we raised our standards and brought in codes of conduct. The codes of conduct for each group are available to anyone who wants to see them. All the mounted hunts have one. William's hunt has one. If anyone thinks that they are not good enough, they should definitely come back to us, and we will look at them. Any of the groups and associations will engage, as will FACE, as the overarching organisation. It is about working together.

We want to work with legislators. Down the years, we maybe neglected to engage enough with politicians, because, traditionally, we assumed, "Yeah, nothing changes". As Northern Ireland has become more urban than rural — Southern Ireland is the same — maybe we have not moved enough to explain ourselves better to urban MLAs and TDs. That may have been one of our failings, but, hopefully, from now on, we will do a bit more of that so that politicians fully understand where we are coming from.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Tom has another question.

Mr T Buchanan: It is just one wee thing, in case anybody were to take what Austin said out of context. Austin, you said that hunting with dogs is part of your heritage, but it is a different heritage from that which the Bill portrays. The Bill paints a picture of dogs being out to catch an animal, tear it apart and all of that: that is not the heritage that you were talking about. I say that for the sake of clarity.

Mr Fitzpatrick: As I said, I have never seen that. It just does not happen. A healthy fox will not be taken overground, because he has that many areas he can escape to in rural Ireland. There is no hope of him being caught.

It is definitely heritage, however. If hunting did not exist, it would need to be invented. I would not be sitting in this room had it not been for my Protestant neighbour — I am a Catholic — putting me on a horse when I was a young lad and bringing me to hunt. That is where I started. I have hunted along with Protestants, Catholics and Dissenters. Hunting has brought our community together. My hunt, Drumlin Harriers, is almost entirely Catholic. Our previous chairman was Gordon Drury, a Protestant. Our current chairman is David Dunne, a Protestant. It brings the community together, and that is what the Alliance Party should be trying to do: bring people together and encourage communities to come together.

Mr T Buchanan: Yes, just for clarity, the killing is humane and is not what has been portrayed to us, even in the Bill?

Mr Fitzpatrick: Very much so.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Daniel, do you have any questions?

Mr McCrossan: Yes, I do, Chair. I find that [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I am afraid that we cannot hear you, Daniel. It is a bad connection.

Mr McCrossan: that have been raised with me consistently over the past number [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Daniel, we are not getting you. Perhaps switch off your screen.

Mr McCrossan: Can you hear me now, Chair?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Yes, that is better. Try that.

Mr McCrossan: OK. Can you hear me now?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Yes. Thank you. Will you repeat the question?

Mr McCrossan: I thank [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We are still having problems.

Mr McCrossan: did find it interesting in that it touches on quite a lot of the concerns [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We cannot hear you, Daniel. Switch off your screen, please, and go to voice only. Thank you.

Mr McCrossan: It is fine, Chair. I am outside the door [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I am sorry, but we have lost that opportunity for Daniel to ask questions.

The Committee Clerk: He said that he is outside the door. I think that that means that he is about to come in.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): In the interests of time, we will have to move on.

Thank you very much for coming this morning. It came into my head that former Taoiseach Charlie Haughey was a huntsman. I believe that he rode to hunt.

Mr Fitzpatrick: Yes, he did. Funnily enough, Pádraig Pearse was a huntsman and rode the hounds. His brother, Willie Pearse, was a huntsman, as was Daniel O'Connell. They were all huntsmen.

Mr Curley: Daniel O'Connell had a famous pack in Kerry. You probably know more about it than I do, Barty.

Mr Barty Murphy (FACE Ireland): It is part of

heritage. The hounds came in from France, and the pack dates back to the 1900s. It is a big tradition. Some of the breeds of hounds are still there.

I come from a rural village in County Cork. An awful lot of people misinterpret clubs and hunts.

There are about 13 clubs in my parish. They keep people together. People work, raise money and help other people. Someone said to me one day, "If you aren't in any clubs or anything today, you may meet nobody, because you can work from home". One man who comes out with us has had a bit of mental instability down through the years. Last year, he said to me, having been away for six or seven years, "I'm glad I came back, because I meet people again". He said, "We have the craic on a Sunday, and it's jovial". That is what a lot of things are about.

Foot hunting is good exercise and represents a healthy day out, and there is great camaraderie among the fellas. If somebody is sick, we help them out. Hunting goes far more deeply in smaller communities than people realise.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We appreciate the evidence that you have given this morning. Thank you so much for coming in. It has been a good engagement.

Mr Woods: There is a picture of a huntsman on the wall outside this room. Brian Faulkner was killed while on a hunt, coming off a horse. It even happened here. It is not us alone.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Daniel has joined us in the room. Daniel, do you want to ask your question quickly?

Mr McCrossan: Sorry. I was preparing for the Public Accounts Committee inquiry that is happening later, but I was listening to the presentation remotely and found that it touched on a lot of the concerns that, I am sure, Tom, Declan, Aoife and others who represent rural constituencies have heard.

The key concern that comes up is the land border. John has said that, as a Member of the Assembly, he cannot legislate for other jurisdictions. That is fine, but the key point to make is that we have to be practical with the legislation that we bring in and sensible about unintended consequences. This is not a criticism of John, but, from what I hear in rural communities, the Bill is largely portrayed as an anti-rural Bill: how fair is that analysis?

Mr Curley: We are from rural communities, and hunting traditionally happens in rural communities. The term "anti-rural" may be a bit over the top. Banning a hunt — part of a parish's activity — might not be fully anti-rural, but it is halfway towards being anti-rural, if you know what I mean. In a lot of rural areas, the hunt club may be just about the only club that is there. There may be a GAA club or a soccer club, but, a lot of the time, in really rural areas, there is only a hunt club. I am not sure about Northern Ireland, but, in Southern Ireland, Boxing Day is a huge day for mounted hunts to go into the towns. That is something that people look forward to for the whole year. There are a lot of elements involved. No one likes to say that the Bill is anti-rural, but, unfortunately, that could be one of its consequences.

Mr Fitzpatrick: I will draw a parallel between what the Bill would do and what was considered in the South. Two similar Bills have been proposed in the South, both by Members from central Dublin constituencies. It can therefore be inferred that the Bills were anti-rural, because hunting had no impact on Dublin North-Central. There were enough problems in Dublin North-Central, but hunting was not one of them. There was a large element of anti-rural sentiment in those Bills.

Mr McCrossan: In your opinion, is that because of a fault with how the Bill is drafted? I heard Dan say to Aoife that it will be difficult to fix the Bill. If there were to be amendments to try to fix the Bill so that it was appropriate for you, what would they be, or is the Bill unrealistic for people who live in constituencies in which there is a huge hunting fraternity and therefore unfixable?

Mr Curley: As I said, practically every clause would have to be amended to some degree, particularly the definitions. The name of the Bill would probably have to be amended as well. I am not sure whether that is practical in legislative terms — maybe it is or maybe it is not — but there would have to be a lot of surgery on the Bill to make it right. It would affect everything. As I said, the two-dog rule would affect two fellas just going out for a day's shooting with guns. If they had three dogs, they would be gone already under the legislation. That scenario is common: I would have one dog, and my friend would have two. I am not sure whether you are familiar with dog trialling. Dog triallers may bring out five dogs but will work only one at a time, because it is about training them. Four dogs would be sitting, while one would be used for activity, so dog triallers would be caught under the legislation. It would catch practically every activity, and that is the problem.

Mr McCrossan: I will finish on this, Chair. Aside from the concerns that have been raised on either side of the argument, one of the questions is how realistic it would be to operate the Bill's provisions. I suggest that, in its current form, it would be unworkable, particularly in rural constituencies. A lot of us do not recognise borders, and, as you rightly said, animals certainly do not. We are looking at the Bill constructively. We understand the concerns about animal welfare, but we also understand the concerns of those, such as you, who have an understanding of the hunt. Legislation should understand the lived experience of those at the coalface.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): OK. I will bring in the Bill sponsor for a final word or two.

Mr Blair: Chair, I am surprised that I can still see you, given that there are so many smokescreens around me today. I will clarify a couple of points. First, I represent a rural constituency, and I know the number of people in that part of my constituency who are 100% behind me — it is probably an underestimate, because I have not spoken to them all individually — so I will not try to please both sides. Simply put, I drew my conclusion long before today. There are those who will try to justify the hunting of wild mammals using dogs — where the dog kills the wild mammal — for their entertainment, their sport, their recreation, their tradition or whatever they want to call it, and there are those who oppose that. I am one of the latter, and I believe that I represent the majority of people overall, wherever they live and whatever their background.

I will clarify one other thing about which there appeared to be confusion. The farmers whom I spoke about — at least 10 families, whom I sat with two Thursdays ago in County Down — are happy for me to shout out for them that they are fully behind me. For the record, the Concerned Residents Groups of Ardtanagh, Shanrod and Fedney have confirmed to me during the session that Mr Montgomery emailed them on 1 March 2023 to thank them for their hospitality the previous Friday at the meeting to which I referred. That should set the record straight.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That possibly was as a courtesy. Thank you, John.

With that, we will wrap the meeting up. Thank you again for your evidence. It has been an interesting session.

Mr Curley: Thanks, Chair, and thanks to the Committee for listening to us.

Mr B Murphy: We appreciate being here today. It is good to meet people. Thank you very much. Have a good day.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you. Bye-bye.