Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I welcome Glenn Cuddy, deputy president, Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), and Daniel Toft, policy officer. We have received your papers and have had a chance to read through what you have submitted to us. We appreciate that. I ask you to brief the Committee, and then we will open up to questions.

Mr Glenn Cuddy (Ulster Farmers' Union): Thanks very much, Diana. Thank you for the opportunity to give an overview of our thoughts on the Hunting with Dogs Bill. We welcome the opportunity to do that. I will hand over to Daniel, our policy officer, who is responsible for legislation.

Over to you, Daniel.

Mr Daniel Toft (Ulster Farmers' Union): Chair, members, thank you for the opportunity to give evidence on behalf of the UFU this morning. Our central message is that the farmer's choice, farming operations and the ability to protect livestock must be properly considered in the debate. Our interest in the Bill concerns its implications for farmers, their control over their land, the protection of livestock and their ability to undertake effective pest control. The UFU does not take a position on whether hunting as an activity is acceptable. Our membership is diverse and includes people who support hunting, people who oppose it and people whose primary concern is how any activity affects their land, livestock and business. Our responsibility is to represent those practical agricultural interests. The UFU opposes the Bill and believes it to be fundamentally unworkable. We have set out our detailed concerns in our written submission. Today, we want to explain the principal issues for farmers and present our strengthened memorandum of understanding as a possible alternative approach for the Committee's consideration.

Our starting point is that farmers should have control over access to their land and the activities that take place on it. A farmer who does not want a hunt on their land must have that decision respected without question, and it must be respected immediately. Equally, we believe that a farmer who wishes to permit lawful activity should retain that choice. The choice must remain with the landowner throughout, and permission should never be treated as an indefinite entitlement to enter land regardless of livestock, ground conditions or farming operations.

The Bill also raises concerns about the liability of owners and occupiers, particularly given the historically informal nature of permission for hunting. A farm may remain in a parent's name while a son or daughter manages the business, or land may be occupied by another farmer under conacre or another rental system. Permission may have been given verbally to one family member, neighbour or hunt many years ago without clear agreement about its duration or scope. In those circumstances, the Bill must clearly establish whose knowledge and conduct would give rise to criminal liability. Historic permission to access land should not by itself be treated as knowing permission for unlawful hunting, nor should one family member's decisions be automatically attributed to another simply because they own the farm. The clause that will criminalise landowners who "knowingly cause or permit" hunting with dogs could therefore be dangerous, given the history of hunting on agricultural land.

Our second concern is the breadth and definitions of hunting and participation. We recognise that someone can deliberately participate in hunting without personally controlling a dog. However, the legislation must clearly distinguish that conduct from involvement in an otherwise lawful activity in which a dog unexpectedly pursues a wild mammal. Our submission acknowledges the reassurance in the explanatory memorandum that genuinely incidental pursuit is not intended to be criminalised. We welcome that intention, but we ask the Committee to ensure that the operative wording in the Bill reliably gives effect to it. We do not believe that the Bill and the memorandum are echoed by each other in that regard.

We recognise that the Bill also provides exemptions for purposes including the protection of livestock and crops. However, the existence of an exemption does not by itself establish that farmers can use it effectively. The conditions attached to the exemptions are the things that matter most. Terrain, vegetation and the extent of cover may vary considerably between farms, and we question whether a fixed two-dog limit without a route for justified exceptions can accommodate every legitimate farming situation. We ask the Committee to consider the scope of the exemptions. Legal advice that we have been privy to suggests that the farming exemptions may not provide protection against the Bill's trail hunting offence. Activity intended to be permitted under the principal hunting exemption could fall within the separate prohibition where dogs follow an animal they scent. That creates uncertainty, and farmers who are undertaking otherwise exempt pest control could risk criminal liability elsewhere in the Bill.

We also have concerns about the prohibition on terrier work, particularly the undefined term "enclosed space". That could extend beyond underground activity to ordinary farm settings such as drains, barns, sheds, stacks of bales or elsewhere where a wild mammal may shelter. Without a farming or pest control exemption for terrier work, that could create uncertainty about the use of dogs to deal with pests in those settings. These concerns require careful scrutiny, because they affect how the Bill would operate on working farms. If the Bill proceeds, farmers will need clear guidance, sufficient preparation time and a proportionate approach to enforcement.

The Committee should also establish how enforcement would be resourced alongside existing demands, including rural crime. Resourcing is a legitimate concern in the debate, particularly at a time when the UFU is seeking greater PSNI attention and capacity to tackle machinery theft, livestock theft, trespassing and other rural crime. Any additional enforcement duties could place further pressure on resources that are already stretched. If the Bill becomes law, it will be essential to have an initial statutory review within two years of commencement to assess whether the exemptions work in practice and to identify any unintended consequences for farmers, landowners and legitimate pest control.

That brings me to the alternative that we ask the Committee to consider: the strengthening of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the UFU, Countryside Alliance Ireland and the Northern Ireland Masters of Hounds Association. For the farming interests that we represent, our agreement provides a practical approach based on permission, clear standards and accountability. The original MOU was agreed in 2013, and the UFU's experience is that it has been largely respected. Where problems have arisen, they have been addressed through engagement with the hunts and their representative organisations, and we have seen a hunt disbanded following breaches. We have now built on that experience to strengthen the agreement further. The revised arrangements apply from the 2027 hunting season to ensure that the hunts have a sufficient lead-in time to prepare for the new arrangements, which, for the first time, include written permission from every landowner.

There are four areas that I particularly draw to the Committee's attention. The first is clear and continuing consent. The revised agreement requires annual written and field-specific permission before hunting takes place. Farmers must receive information about the proposed activity, and relevant contact and vehicle access must be agreed. A farmer can withdraw permission at any time, including during a hunt, and instructions to change a route, cease an activity or leave must be complied with immediately. That gives practical effect to the choices of farmers who permit hunting and those who refuse it. The landowner retains ultimate authority. The second is communication before every hunt. An annual permission cannot account for every change on a working farm. Livestock movements and agricultural operations can change, and the weather can quickly affect the suitability of the ground. The revised MOU therefore requires contact immediately before each hunt so that farming activities and local conditions can be considered. Material changes in weather or ground conditions require further consultation and review. The third is stronger livestock protection and biosecurity. Routes must be amended to avoid interference with livestock, with particular care around inland sheep. Where a pack comes within one field of livestock, immediate, reasonable and practical steps must be taken to move away and prevent any further encroachment or disturbance. The agreement also provides for communication about disease outbreaks and appropriate biosecurity measures. The fourth is responsibility and accountability. Hunts are responsible for their active participants. The agreement includes requirements concerning insurance, damage and repairs and a process for considering material losses to an agricultural business, with supporting evidence. Where matters cannot be resolved locally, our collective organisations have a role in helping to address them. There is also provision to review compliance and recurring concerns yearly.

We expect and demand hunt representative organisations to uphold those standards and to act strongly where breaches occur. Our experience of the previous agreement gives us confidence that the strengthened arrangements will be respected and enforced through those organisations and on to those on the ground. We ask the Committee to give this alternative serious consideration. We believe that the previous agreement has been largely respected and that breaches have been addressed, and the revised agreement provides more explicit consent requirements, stronger protections for farming operations and clearer responsibility where problems arise. The UFU believes that this offers a practical way forward that preserves farmer choice but holds hunts accountable for their conduct on agricultural land.

Our priorities are clear: farmers' decisions must be respected; livestock and farming operations must be protected; and workable pest control must remain available. We do not believe that the Bill passes any of those tests, and we therefore oppose it. We ask the Committee to assess the Bill against those needs and give proper weight to the strengthened MOU as our proposed alternative.

Thank you. We welcome any questions.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much, Daniel, for taking us through the strengthened MOU. The UFU expresses concerns about the offence of knowingly causing or permitting hunting. You have laid out the new contract between the hunts using farmland and the permits to do that each time. What specific amendments would provide sufficient protections for landowners while ensuring that there was accountability where permission had been granted?

Mr Toft: We believe that the Bill is fundamentally unworkable as a starting point. In our submission, we have outlined a non-exhaustive list of amendments that we wish the Committee to consider. The landowner liability provision is particularly problematic to us because of the historical nature of how hunts got agreement from farmers. We seek assurances that landowners will not be improperly criminalised and brought into those provisions and that there will be a strong bar for prosecution, should that arise. Our fear is that the Bill will make the landowner a bit of a scapegoat: "He gave me permission" or "She gave me permission". We are concerned about that happening to a landowner who is not involved in the activity that becomes prohibited under the Bill.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): In instances of shared tenancy or shared occupancy, who is ultimately responsible? Is it the tenant or the landowner?

Mr Toft: Under the Bill?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Yes.

Mr Toft: That also remains unclear. Our assumption is that it is the tenant, but it is hard to say. We would need to see that play out properly to understand it or statutory guidance to make that clear.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): This is the final one from me. You touched on the wording in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) and the fact that "active" and "passive" are mentioned: what protections would you introduce to ensure that incidental behaviour by dogs during lawful rural activity does not result in criminal prosecution? That means being out walking with dogs and the dogs taking off.

Mr Toft: In our response, we talked about the need for a clearly defined mental element, as other stakeholders have. We welcome the intention of the Bill to protect people when the behaviour that you describe occurs, but our query is whether the Bill would do that. There is no doubt about the intention; it is just whether the Bill would do that.

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

Mr McAleer: Thanks very much for your presentation. One of our more interesting visits in recent years was to the farm at Glenwherry. We learned how the wader birds are managed and protected through the use of hunting. Do you agree with that? On your farms and in your meadows, for example, can hunting help the ground-nesting indigenous birds that we have here?

Mr Cuddy: If that is happening at Glenwherry, which is a government-run farm, it is probably happening at other farms. I have no ground-nesting birds on my farm.

I am not a hunting man, but, for the purposes of controlling the number of foxes or whatever on land, I would not like to see hunting done away with. If you keep sheep, as I do, and you lose lambs to foxes, you need some sort of control to keep them at bay. Currently you can shoot and do all those things, surely, but, if the Bill became law, where would you stand if you were out with three dogs on your farm and something suddenly happened? I am not sure where you would stand, whether or not you intended to do it. With the use of mobile phones nowadays, somebody could take footage of that, and you could have a serious problem.

The other fact is that, with a lot of farms in my part of the world, maybe on a Sunday evening, you can come across a gang of boys who are out with a white van, let us say, and hunting. Where do you stand then? Some of those people, when you confront them to put them off your land, will tell you that it is none of your business. I have been in that situation. The police were contacted, and I am still waiting for them to come, so I do not how they will enforce extra Bills.

Mr McAleer: I support the principle that farmers should have full control of their land. As you know, we have a patchwork system here with conacre and small farms. To be clear, it is effectively the active farmer who, you believe, should have control. As you know, you could have land in conacre and the owner might not even live in the country. It is difficult in those circumstances.

Mr Cuddy: Under the current rules, an active farmer who is taking conacre is responsible for that land for the full calendar year. I assume that it will be the same under this.

Mr Toft: For the purposes of this, Declan, the active farmer, as you described, would have the call.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I invite John, the Bill sponsor, to speak.

Mr Blair: Thank you. I will start with a couple of areas of clarification. First of all, the review period was mentioned, and I am not desperately precious about that. I would have no difficulty with looking at that again. You mentioned penalties in your submission: I have already given a commitment here and to DAERA that I am prepared to look at that to make those compliant with the existing Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 penalties. I look forward to the day when the penalties for all those acts of barbaric cruelty are much different from what they are now, and I hope that that happens sooner rather than later.

I have a couple of questions for you that are based on the report. Can you give me any examples of when the Ulster Farmers’ Union opposed other legislation that would have affected private landowners: on badger baiting, for example, or hare coursing? There are many pieces of legislation that affect private landowners should an event happen on their land. Did the Ulster Farmers’ Union oppose any of those Acts or regulations?

Mr Toft: John, to come back on your first point about the review period, that is a small issue for us. We would welcome a shorter review period to see how things play out. On the penalties, our democratic structures have been clear that we oppose this for the reasons that we have set out.

As I am new into the role, I cannot give you examples off the top of my head. I know that we opposed your previous attempt at a Bill, and I know that there are Bills working their way through where we have issues with landowner liability clauses. There are Bills that are currently proposed in the Assembly that we will ask be looked at to see how they would work at a farm level; it is not just this Bill. There are others that are going through the Assembly. On your colleague's Tree Protection Bill, for example, we have said constructively that we should have a look at how the landowner liability would work in practice and play out. It is definitely not just this Bill.

Mr Cuddy: Our main concern is that the liability will be left on the landowner. Our concern is where this all ends.

Mr Blair: I am asking whether you raised those concerns over hare coursing or badger baiting. Irrespective of anything that has not become law yet, did you object to the law that is in place that applies to private land ownership, including farmland?

Mr Toft: We are absolutely clear that any instances of hunting should be at the permission of the landowner, including as —.

Mr Cuddy: That has never been any different.

Mr Blair: I am asking about other legislation that already exists; I am not talking about my Bill.

Mr Cuddy: I thought that we were here to talk about this legislation, to be honest with you.

Mr Blair: In the context of this Bill, is there a record of the Ulster Farmers’ Union objecting to other legislation that affected private landowners?

Mr Cuddy: Yes. I presume that there is.

Mr Blair: Do you have examples?

Mr Toft: You will be able to see from where colleagues have responded to other pieces of legislation that, absolutely, we are concerned about landowner liability. Only two weeks ago, I drafted our response to your colleague's Tree Protection Bill, where we made a similar argument. My colleagues are covering a lot more legislation where that has come up.

Mr Cuddy: If you need more examples, we can get them to you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I think that we can leave it that we have some examples.

Mr Blair: I am happy to leave it at that, Chair. I am well aware that pieces of progressive legislation will bring objections. We had a series of conversations a moment ago on a similar basis.

You have attached what is called a "memorandum of understanding" to your submission: I have permission from at least 10 farming families, some of whom are your members, whom I met exactly two weeks ago today, to tell you that that is not worth the paper that it is written on, because it is completely unenforceable. Their experience is that they have never had any action taken on complaints about damage to their property, damage to fences, intrusion on their land or trespass. Tell me two things: first, whether it is enforceable or whether the new iteration of it is any more enforceable than the old iteration and, if so, how; and, secondly, what the main differences are, if we have not covered that in the first point. The message was coming through clearly to me two weeks ago that it is not worth the paper that it is written on. Those families have never had an outcome.

Mr Toft: John, I am aware of the meeting that you referred to, and I can only apologise for not being able to attend it. I was stuck in England.

Your first point was about the MOU being enforceable. The union's view is that, on the whole, our agreement, which has been in place since 2013 and was strengthened this year, has been largely respected by hunting organisations and groups. We have worked closely with hunting stakeholders and other organisations to flag issues where they have arisen, and we are broadly confident that they have been addressed. There will always be cases such as the ones that you described, and, when they arise, we will absolutely step in to defend our members both with regard to the other stakeholder organisations with which we have the agreement and with the PSNI on issues of aggravated trespass and criminal damage. We will always defend our members. Our experience at a national level, without alluding to any particular circumstance, is that the MOU has been respected and enforced by hunting organisations and that, in instances of things going wrong — I am aware of cases, as you are, John — issues are being dealt with.

After such a long time, we felt the need to revisit the MOU constructively with the other stakeholders, and they engaged constructively with us — we are grateful to them for that — to tighten things up. We wanted to look at the written permission and the field-specific permission and get it in the MOU that landowners can change their mind at any time and that must be immediately respected. I have no doubt that the contents of our MOU, which, as you said, John, is an agreement between us and the hunting representative organisations, will be enforced. We will watch closely to check that it is. Where members raise issues directly with us, we will absolutely defend members. Our experience is that the MOU has been widely enforced. We hope that that remains the case. For the first time, we have added a review mechanism to the MOU, so we will revisit it yearly with the stakeholders to check on progress, see how it has been implemented and move forward. However, as you said, John, there will, of course, be cases of things going wrong.

Mr Cuddy: We will encourage members to use the MOU, look into it and work with their local hunt if they want hunting on their land. If they do not want hunting on their land, they should not agree to it.

Mr Blair: How can that be enforced?

Mr Toft: As you know, the MOU is between us, the Countryside Alliance and the Masters of Hounds Association, which wear a number of hats. We are confident that they will enforce the MOU on their hunts. We have experience of them doing that. We are confident that the groups are all on board. You have just heard from some of the stakeholders: I am not sure whether it came up then, but we are confident that they are aware of it. In cases of things going wrong, we will work with the hunting organisations to make sure that things are rectified to the farmer's satisfaction. We will also work with the PSNI on aggravated trespass, criminal damage and anything else that is relevant.

Mr Blair: So the PSNI would be involved with something happening on private land, in the same way that it would with my Bill.

Mr Cuddy: If there is something wrong.

Mr Toft: If there were a case of aggravated trespass or criminal damage, we would tell the member that they had the option to involve the PSNI. I know, John, that the PSNI has been involved in a number of cases.

Mr Blair: There is an objection to the PSNI being involved under my Bill. Is that not simply —.

Mr Toft: No, there is a legitimate argument that all need to consider. It is perfectly sensible to consider resourcing, particularly at a time when we are working with PSNI colleagues on a host of other rural crime issues that, I know, the Committee is across. Where we feel that PSNI capacity is too thinly stretched, we are arguing for further resource.

We think that we have an agreement that works. We do not think that we need legislation in this area at this time, and we are looking to talk about resourcing and making sure that the PSNI can deliver on tackling, as Glenn referred to, already illegal instances of hunting, theft, crime and all that.

Mr Cuddy: That is where our problem lies. We do not know what comes onto our land.

Mr Blair: I say this to you respectfully: I treat the resources issue with some caution, because I could easily say that, if you were concerned about resources, you would not make another demand of the police at this time because of the stretched resources that you cite when it comes to my Bill. Do you accept that that is a completely unrealistic position? All of us might need to make some request to the police. Every piece of legislation that is passed in this place is likely to have some impact.

Mr Cuddy: We do not believe that, if we have an MOU that works, we need this.

Mr Blair: I disagree with that.

Mr Toft: I appreciate your concerns, John, but we do not think that it is illegitimate. We think that resourcing should be a core part of the debate.

Mr Blair: On a Bill that you do not like.

Mr Toft: It should be a core part of the debate on how this fits in with the wider rural crime picture, particularly given how close I, the UFU, Glenn and other colleagues are to what goes on on the ground. We need action in some of those areas from the PSNI, and we are working with the PSNI on that. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that resourcing should be a valid consideration for the Committee. However the Committee falls on that, we certainly believe that it should be considered.

Mr Blair: That is clear enough.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Any further questions from members? No.

Thank you for coming in and giving us your evidence. It has been helpful.