Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I welcome the following representatives to the meeting: Ronan Gorman, chief executive; and Sophie Smyth, operations manager. We have a copy of your survey, so if you give us a brief synopsis, I will then open the Floor to questions. Thank you, Ronan.

Mr Ronan Gorman (Country Sports Ireland): Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Committee, for having us. It is our pleasure to be here to present on behalf of Country Sports Ireland. I will start briefly by acknowledging that the Committee has gone out of its way to involve as many stakeholders as possible in the scrutiny of this Bill, and I warmly welcome that. It is a really good thing. Often, we complain about a lack of stakeholder engagement, but, on this occasion, well done and thank you.

You have the written submission, and I am conscious of the fact that we are one of four groups that are presenting today, so I will try to make life a little bit easier for you by keeping what I have to say pretty brief and not getting into too much detail. That will allow time for as many questions as possible. The written submission is as is. I have no doubt that the Committee has read it thoroughly and memorised it all. I am happy to take questions on it later.

Country Sports Ireland is an expert country sports membership organisation. We represent 11,000 subscribing members throughout the island of Ireland. Those members live in our countryside in every single parish, town and county. They are farmers, and they work closely with other farmers. They are game managers. They are conservationists, so they are people who have a vested interest in all this. Through that work, they do particular things. This is important, so I will expand a little bit on why we do the things that we do and leave the written submission as is.

Why do we control foxes and wild mammals, for example? It contributes to things such as farm business sustainability. You are the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; you will have heard from farmers and other representatives that farm incomes have never been under so much pressure and that there is so much stress in the rural community. Farm business sustainability is not just a buzzword; it is really important for rural sustainability.

Game-shoot management is another really important aspect. Without proper pest and predator control, game shoots would simply not exist. They deliver conservation work and impact on rural communities economically and socially, and even physical and mental health are involved for people who get out every week with their friends and take physical exercise. Those are all strategic objectives at a government level to which well-managed hunting contributes, and they should not be devalued in any way.

I think that the Irish Working Terrier Federation (IWTF) touched on this point, and I am pleased to hear that Merlin Becker will be here next week, because there is a whole issue now around vulnerable species, such as Irish red grouse, curlew, lapwing and snipe. When we were younger, we would have seen all those sorts of species in wetland areas. I am a Newry man from south Armagh, and, when we walked the fields, we would have seen snipe all winter long in all the little drumlins and places like that. All those species are under serious pressure for a plethora of reasons, including global warming, changes in migration, development and other things. On top of that, I do not think that it would be wise for us to turn off the predator control tap.

I encourage you to think about another group: the Irish Breeding Waders European Innovation Partnership (EIP) project. It is funded by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and its work takes place down South. That work is similar to Merlin's in the hills of Antrim. That group has some really interesting surveys and information on its success in breeding curlew, for example. It is clear that, without really focused predator management, the future for breeding curlews is very bleak indeed. That can be applied across a pile of wader species. That is why this is an important debate and why we should look at those wider issues.

I will give you my background, if you want. I have held a firearms certificate for over 40 years and have run a game shoot for more than 30 years. I keep and breed hunting dogs, and I compete in and judge hunting-dog competitions, so I have significant knowledge across all those issues, as does the entire leadership team in Country Sports Ireland. We are happy to make that expertise available, possibly during questions later.

The community that we represent includes, as I said, farmers, doctors, nurses and teachers. It includes every minority in society. The one message that I want to get across is that we are not cruel. We do not inflict cruelty on any animal. We manage pests and predators as best we can, given the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

It is timely and useful that we are following such a good presentation in the previous session. I was going to speak to you a little bit about the management of pests above ground, but I think that Brian covered that really well by explaining why we need more than two dogs for pursuit. The Bill says that:

From personal experience, I know about taking two dogs to try to find a fox in a vast upland area, which most of our countryside is. Thankfully, we still have vast areas of wilderness, whether those are conifer plantations, vast hills of scrubland or places like that. Taking two dogs is simply a waste of time, never mind the fact that you need to find the hole for terrier work. Frequently, however, foxes will lie in those vast areas of cover above ground. With one or two dogs, all that the fox will do is dodge them. Foxes are clever and fast. They know their runs and how to avoid the dogs. I know from bitter experience that, if you cannot put sufficient pressure on a fox, he will not bolt from that cover. He lies up in the cover. When the hunt has gone past, he will come out, mostly, but not always, at night, because foxes are nocturnal. We are seeing increased levels of predation during daylight hours. The Committee has looked at the likes of free-range hens and fowl. That is a trend — it is a welcome trend — and the consumer wants that trend. However, if loss to predation by foxes is not sustainable, it threatens that kind of activity. Foxes lie up close to free-range chicken facilities and the likes of turkey facilities and predate them. That threatens the sustainability of that activity. That is as much as I will say about those issues, but I want to draw out another point.

Country Sports Ireland represents people who participate in all country sports, but not all people participate in all sports — some just shoot game birds, for example. Given the Bill's overreaching and wide implications, there is a concern amongst all the people whom we represent that it could affect the like of game shooting. If you shoot a bird, it lands in a piece of cover. You will then send a few dogs — more than two, because you want to retrieve the bird as quickly as possible — to pick up the bird. They may encounter a fox, a rabbit, a hare, a mink, a rat — I am sorry, rats are exempt — or any of those other mammals and chase it. Therefore, you will have committed a crime. I listened to the evidence that John Larkin KC provided to the Committee, and it is clear from that that you will have committed an offence in those circumstances.

There are concerns about things such as dogs that are trained to track animals. I train gun dogs. They are taught to follow the line of a wounded rabbit or hare, for example, that has been shot, so that you can retrieve it quickly and dispatch it quickly. Others train dogs to track wounded deer so that they can be retrieved. Again, more than two dogs will be involved, so all those activities would be an offence. That sends what we call "a chill", as has been referenced, across all the people who are involved in all country sports.

The only other area that I want to cover briefly is something that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) referred to. I will pad that out a little bit and provide a little bit more information. It is on the concept of the chill factor. We have 55,000 licensed firearm certificate holders. Those people have to be law-abiding citizens. Nowadays the PSNI would regard any suggestion of not complying with any legislation, for example, as an indication that you are not suitable to possess a firearm. So be it; that is the way that it should be. People who possess firearms should be suitable. However, where an allegation of unlawfulness has been made, as part of PSNI practice, the firearms are seized as a precaution and there is an investigation. We represent members day in, day out who are involved in those kinds of cases. Some are cases in which there is a legitimate concern that someone has done something wrong and their firearms have been seized, but, more and more, we are seeing two other categories start to emerge. One is where people make a report to the police based on a genuine misunderstanding of the legislation. I have frequently received phone calls from members who have been shooting pigeons in a field to protect crops for a farmer and had someone phone the police on them to say, "There's someone down there breaking the law. He is shooting in the summertime, and you can't do that". In fairness, the police will not always understand wildlife legislation completely, so the action is usually to seize the firearms, carry out the investigation and, 18 months later, return the firearms. I do not know you personally, Committee members, or the activity that you value highly in your life, but if I said that I might take your golf clubs or your bicycle or whatever it is for 18 months, you would err on the side of caution and say, "I'm not going to do that".

The other area of concern to us is what we regard as malicious reporting. Someone knows full well that what you are doing is lawful, but they do not like it, so they ring the police and say, "There is someone down there who is breaking the law.". I and our members are concerned that the broad nature of the Bill might give rise to more instances like that.

I note — John Phelan mentioned it in the earlier presentation — that the USPCA has said that there were 576 reports of organised cruelty related to hunting with dogs in the past 12 months. I would encourage the Committee to, perhaps, prod that a little bit and find out how many prosecutions there have been as a result of those reports. I have no doubt that some of them will have been legitimate, but some may well have been misinformed, albeit well-intentioned, and some may have been malicious. That is an interesting statistic.

That is it from me as an overview. I will finish by saying that, as an organisation, having outlined all the reasons why pest and predatory control is necessary, we feel that all of the current methods of pest and predatory control have their place. On that basis, we do not support the Bill.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much, Ronan. You have answered my questions about the use of two dogs, and you have covered that very clearly. In your survey, you question the rationale for prohibiting trail hunting. We have not really discussed trail hunting. How should legislation distinguish between lawful trail hunting and the unlawful hunting of wild mammals with dogs?

Mr Gorman: That is a good question with an easy answer. This Bill should not become law. There should be no need to distinguish between trail hunting and drag hunting at all. In fact — Sophie and I talked about this on the way here in the car — trail hunting does not happen here because, of course, it originated due to prohibition in England and Wales in particular. We do not really have trail hunting; we have hunting and a little bit of drag hunting. The wording that accompanies the AERA survey says that one takes place with an animal-based scent and one takes place with an artificial scent.

However, let us bring it all back to the focus of the Bill — Tom touched on this in his question in the previous session — which is animal welfare. Why does it make any difference from an animal welfare perspective what the scent trail is comprised of? Interestingly as well, who can tell the difference? If I see dogs hunting — I see them every day — I cannot tell what scent they are following. I know that they are following a scent, but I do not know what it is. When it comes to any potential prosecution, how could you provide evidence to a court to say, "Oh, your Honour, I think it smelt a little bit like fox urine and not some kind of artificial chemical".

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much, Ronan. Áine's hand is up on Zoom. Did you want to ask a question?

Ms Murphy: I have a quick question for Ronan. In your written submission, you refer to the definitions that are used in the Bill. You say that:

that is used in the Wildlife Order 1985. Will you expand on your thinking around that?

Mr Gorman: Thanks, Áine; that is a good question. I am happy to provide clarity on that. It is pretty clear. In the Wildlife Order, a wild animal is an animal that is free to come and go. It is simple if you take it from the point of view of liability. In the case of a road traffic accident, for example, the owner of an animal is responsible for it and is therefore responsible for the repair of the vehicle. If a vehicle strikes a wild animal, no one owns that animal: no one is responsible for it, so no one is liable. It is pretty simple, Áine: in the Bill, the definition of a wild mammal is a mammal that is kept in captivity. Wild mammals are not kept in captivity — those are not wild mammals any more; they are mammals. Under that definition, it could be a dog. In fact, I think that John Larkin KC offered the view that a tiger that broke out from Belfast Zoo would, under the terms of the Bill, be regarded as a wild mammal. That is what I was getting at. We sit on various steering groups, North and South, and advise on legislation, and if you were to ask me for my professional expertise on what a wild mammal is, I would tell you that it is a mammal that is free to come and go.

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

Ms Murphy: I have another quick question, Chair: it is more of an action for the Committee. Thank you, Ronan. We will probably flesh that out at a later date, during our Committee deliberations.

At the end of the previous evidence session, John mentioned some of the statistics for organised animal cruelty. Can the Committee write to the PSNI to ask how many prosecutions were made in the past 12 months off the back of the instances reported to them?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Are members content with that?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thanks, Áine.

Mr McCrossan: Thanks for your presentation, Ronan, and for being so forthright in your assessment of the Bill. There is a trend coming through from the evidence sessions that we have had to date. Is it your organisation's belief that the Bill could catch people who are carrying out ordinary legitimate activities, such as farmers controlling pests or someone using a gun dog? Will you give an example of where the Bill could create a problem?

Mr Gorman: Is it my belief? It absolutely is. In fact, I would go beyond that and say that that is clear from the evidence that has been produced to date. Whether that is an intended or unintended consequence of the Bill is another matter, but there is absolutely no doubt that it will have a chill factor across every aspect of country sport.

I refer to simple things such as the fact that the Scottish legislation, which has been referenced many times in relation to the Bill, has a specific exemption for game shooting for sport. There is no exemption for game shooting in the Bill, although there could have been. Game shooting is probably one of the most widespread types of shooting in country sport. It is not exempt if more than two dogs are used. As I said earlier, I am involved in training hunting dogs, and I regularly run in things called field trials, which are competitions in which game is shot. Rabbits are frequently flushed at field trials. Indeed, we spend a lot of time training dogs to flush rabbits and things like that. Under the wording that I see in front of me, if more than two dogs were to flush, chase, pursue or search for a rabbit, that would be an offence.

Mr McCrossan: You have been very clear, as many of our witnesses have been, that the two-dog limit is unacceptable and unworkable. Is it fair to say that? If a limit were to be put on the number of dogs, what should that limit be?

Mr Gorman: There should be no limit. It is as simple as that. We feel that there are circumstances in which one or two dogs —. The Irish Working Terrier Federation described some of that as well. But how many is too many? On a big shoot, there are multiple what we call "pickers-up". If a bird lands and is clearly wounded, then how many pickers-up is too many? In fact, the more dogs that get to the area as quickly as possible, the more likely it is that that bird will be retrieved as quickly as possible and that any unnecessary suffering will be alleviated. Putting a limit on the number of dogs is counterproductive. Another issue is that of trying to find foxes or flush them out from cover in the vast areas of wilderness that still exist. In those areas, I think that putting a limit on the number of dogs is not helpful. If you want policing of all of this, and if the limit is 12, what happens if some boy happens to stroll in with a thirteenth dog? Who broke the law?

Mr McCrossan: Are you saying to the Committee, Ronan, that it is your opinion that, if the Bill were to go forward with the two-dog limit in place, that would be a more inhumane way of hunting than with a pack of dogs, given the welfare issues that you have raised?

Mr Gorman: I could not put it any better.

Mr McCrossan: I have a final question on firearms certificates, because you mentioned that. You raised a number of issues in relation to the chill factor, as you put it, for rural activities. Could uncertainty, in your honest belief, expose those with lawful firearms certificates to investigation? Ultimately, what legal advice have you obtained about the potential consequences of that? You have mentioned this, and it is a concern that has been raised with me and others. If Tom, for example, were to make an allegation that I was out hunting unlawfully, the allegation would be sufficient in itself to remove my firearm, and that would remove me from the loop for 18 months. What can be done to ensure that that does not happen? Should there be an exemption in the Bill, for instance? How can we provide that clarity and certainty for lawful firearm certificate holders?

Mr Gorman: It is a really good question, and it gets to the core of a lot of the concerns. You are right. We deal with these issues almost every day. The latest information that we have, from January 2025, is that the PSNI seized more than 900 firearms in the previous two years. That is 450 a year, or more than one a day. Between us and one or two other representative bodies, we deal with virtually all of those. When we challenge an allegation, the member will get a letter that says that it is just an allegation at that stage. The PSNI will say that its decision is based on civil law principles, where the balance of probabilities applies, rather than on criminal law principles. Under those principles, you are not innocent until proven guilty, and the balance of probabilities applies. That in itself is a chill factor.

We see legislative uncertainty all the time, and I will give you a good example. During COVID, the regulations around shooting were not clear. Of course, it was a new environment for all of us, and many of you advised your constituents through that time. It was not clear whether people could shoot or not or whether they could shoot in a group of two or as part of a larger party as the regulations changed. The vast majority of firearms certificate holders chose to stay at home because they were concerned that, had they gone shooting and someone reported it, even though the regulations were not clear, that might have resulted in a seizure and the consequences that follow that.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you for sharing that, Ronan. I have a brief follow-up question. For people who have had their guns confiscated by the PSNI because of an allegation, what are the future consequences, from the experience of your members, for obtaining a future gun licence? Does that tarnish any future application, even if the allegation is unfounded? I know that the police keep very tight records of those activities.

Mr Gorman: Daniel, that is another really good question. The official line from the police will be that each case is taken on its merits, and that is fine. However, thinking back to the point that the decision is based on the balance of probabilities, if someone were to have an allegation made that was subsequently dismissed or if the police were to decide to return the firearm, the police might well decide, if another allegation were made, that, on the balance of probabilities, the person is not suitable to possess a firearm.

That is the kind of mindset that our members have. Even though they have been reported and the allegation has proven to be unfounded, they feel that they are on a yellow card, to use football or hurling terminology, and they are really concerned about the next action.

Mr McCrossan: That makes the whole thing very challenging for certified gun holders generally because there will be all sorts of allegations that, ultimately, could have profound consequences.

Mr Wilson: I have a couple of quick questions. The USPCA says that there are something like 14,000 reports of activities. What is your view on that? I find that difficult to believe because other contributors have said to me that it is more like 30 in three years. To give that some sort of weight, what is your take on that statistic?

Mr Gorman: If you remember, Gareth, I suggested that you should probe a bit more, and Áine Murphy followed it up by saying the same. Reports are reports. Anyone can report anything, and it may well be legitimate. I have no doubt that, in some cases, it is, but I end up dealing with a lot of the reports. I see only a handful of case in which a member has been reported for any kind of wildlife crime over the course of a year. Therefore, I do not recognise the figure of 14,000. I think that the number of incidents per year is small. Let me put on record that our organisation and all country sports organisations do not in any way condone wildlife crime. Most of us sit on organisations such as the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. We take a multi-agency approach to doing everything possible to reduce wildlife crime, to report it, to have those people prosecuted and to remove them from our community.

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

Mr Wilson: It is useful to hear your views on that. I have a similar view. I raised something with John Larkin, and it would be good to get your perspective. You talked about the chill effect. I feel that there is a huge chill effect in the making for a landowner because none of the activity happens in outer space; it happens on the ground, and that ground is owned by somebody. Based on what you have described, the landowner may also be a licensed firearms holder, so they will also be subsumed into that quagmire of a law. What is your take on the implications for a landowner, who, knowingly or not, takes part in that activity, and on whose evidence will the police rely?

Mr Gorman: If a landowner facilitates hunting on the land in any way that is an offence under the Bill, he commits an offence. In my opinion, it puts landowners in a really impossible position. If you are a farmer, and you run a farm business, you are trying to pay your mortgage and your farm bills. The financial viability of your farm enterprise is your focus. I will not go over any of that, but we described how proper pest and predatory control is a fundamental part of that. Equally, you are a law-abiding citizen, and you do not want to break the law, but the law is not clear.

Bear in mind that we are the professionals, in a sense. We do this for a living. You guys scrutinise legislation for a living, whereas a farmer, a member of Country Sports Ireland who has another job, is not a legal expert. That is where my concerns rest. I am concerned that farmers will be reluctant to undertake pest and predatory control. Even when they want such control carried out, they will struggle to find people who will do it if the Bill goes through. I put myself in that position. Under the Bill, I would be very reluctant to control wild mammals on a farm.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We will have a final question from the proposer of the Bill.

Mr Blair: Thank you, Chair. I hope that you will not mind if I start with a couple of clarifications. First, I caution against generalisations in all of the conversations that we have, not just in this Committee but in the Assembly. We should never just assume that all people in one sector think one thing. That is a very dangerous thing in politics and in sectoral representation, in many ways. The fact is that — the correspondence that you read out earlier, Chair, shows this — there are many farmers who support every aspect of my Bill. Some of them are already corresponding with this Committee, and many of them speak to me on a regular basis.

The second thing is to do with the possibility — we call it that — of malicious reporting. There is zero evidence that any such thing would arise. If it has already arisen, it clearly has nothing to do with my Bill, because my Bill has not been enacted. We really need to get back to facts, and I am going to deal with some of those.

Do you accept that, given the two-dog limit in Scotland is exactly the same as what I am proposing, there has never been a prosecution of a dog walker or of a person hunting with guns in Scotland?

Mr Gorman: First of all, I accept your point about generalisation, John.

Mr Blair: Thank you.

Mr Gorman: I also accept that there is a diversity of views amongst the farming community.

Mr Blair: Thank you.

Mr Gorman: I am articulating the views of those people who do want —

Mr Blair: Who want to hunt with dogs.

Mr Gorman: Yes, and whom, I believe, are the majority. We can accept that. When it comes to prosecuting dog walkers, to be honest, I have not, in any of my written or oral evidence, referred to dog walkers. I am happy to leave that to other people from a dog walkers' association or whatever. I have not referred to dog walking at all. My members are not concerned about dog walking; they are concerned about their participation in country sports.

Mr Blair: The other part of my question was about people hunting with guns. No one has been prosecuted, with the same limit of two dogs, nor has there been an attempt at prosecution in Scotland. Do you agree with that?

Mr Gorman: We are Country Sports Ireland, not Country Sports Scotland. I am not familiar with what happens in the Scottish courts. As I mentioned earlier, there is a specific exemption in the Scottish legislation for game shooting. That would cover off any potential prosecution in that respect.

Mr Blair: There is also a legal opinion that guns that are held and carried by gun-dog hunters differentiate them from those who are hunting with dogs simply to use the dog to kill a wild mammal. That legal opinion came from barristers who worked on the Bill, by the way.

Mr Gorman: I have to say that I do not accept that legal opinion. John Larkin KC outlined a very different opinion. I understand that legal opinions can differ, but all that I would say is that we have to deal with the Bill as we see it and how we think it will affect our members. I do not agree with your analysis, John, that the Bill would not affect the people who, I represent.

Mr Blair: You will understand that I do not agree with your analysis.

Mr Gorman: Correct.

Mr Blair: You have already answered this question in response to Daniel, but I want to clarify it for my own purposes and more clearly for the record as well. It does not matter whether I had a two-dog limit, a 20-dog limit or a 200-dog limit; the fact is that you and your organisation oppose my Bill because you want to continue to carry out hunts using packs of dogs to kill foxes. Is that not correct?

Mr Gorman: Were you to go for a 200-dog limit, we might be a bit more amenable.

Mr Blair: Exactly. That just about sums it up. Thank you.

Mr Gorman: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much, Ronan and Sophie, for coming in. That was a good session; we really appreciate your presentation and the information that you have given us, which will help us in our considerations. Thank you very much for being with us this morning.

Mr Gorman: Thank you, Chair and Committee members. We remain prepared to engage further, if that would be useful, through either another appearance here or by correspondence. Please feel free to let us know if we can help. Thank you.