Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Good afternoon. We are joined by Christine Bailey, William Bailey and Martin McAleenan from the Concerned Residents Groups of Artanagh, Shanrod and Fedney. You are welcome to the Committee. We have your briefing paper. I ask you to give us a briefing on your views in the paper, and then we will open the floor to members for questions. Thank you.

Ms Christine Bailey (Concerned Residents Groups of Artanagh, Shanrod and Fedney): Chair and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the concerned residents groups. The Artanagh group was established in early 2023 in response to continued hunting-related damage in our area. Like others in the group, I am a landowner, a horsey person and a member of the British Horse Society. I have coloured cobs at home and enjoy happy hacking when time allows.

Our message is simple: farmers and rural residents have a right to say no to hunting on their land, and they need to be protected in law. Their land, livestock, homes, businesses and families must be and need to be protected from unwanted hunting activity. The debate is not simply about hunting as a pastime but about consent, property rights, animal welfare, biosecurity issues, personal safety, civil liberties and the right to live and work peacefully in the countryside.

Our BT25 area lies at the intersection of four mounted hunts, and we also experience unwanted hunting activity by people on foot with dogs. Following significant hunt damage in January and February 2023, we invited Mr Bill Montgomery to our home farm to discuss the issues. Unfortunately, that and follow-up meetings have been to no avail. In July 2023, we held a public meeting that was attended by approximately 100 people, including MLAs, councillors, the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), the PSNI, the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA), the Northern Ireland Masters of Hounds Association (NIMHA) and the Hunting Association of Northern Ireland (HANI), along with local farmers and landowners.

Other groups of concerned landowners have been established, including one of approximately 50 farmers and landowners in the Shanrod and Fedney area, who are represented by Martin McAleenan. Another group exists that covers Saintfield and Crossgar. The Artanagh group covers approximately 55 premises. Those are listed with our solicitor. The names, addresses and farm maps were forwarded to the Countryside Alliance via the Ulster Farmers' Union. We have dashcam footage, photographs and CCTV footage that document hunt havoc activity that can be made available to the Committee for examination on request.

We have had to establish a WhatsApp group so that neighbours can warn one another when a hunt is sighted in the area. Please think about that for a moment: people who live and work in rural Northern Ireland have had to create their own warning system to protect their homes, farms, livestock and families from unwanted hunting activity. That should not be necessary in this day and age.

The fundamental issue is one of consent. Farmers own, rent and work their land. Rural residents live in their homes and operate businesses from their properties. Our fields are not public recreation grounds, and our farms are not available for unrestricted use by hunting parties. Residents have directly informed hunt participants that they do not have permission to enter their land, yet unwanted entry continues, including incidents where landowners have been present and expressly told participants to leave.

We are concerned about gates being forced open or damaged, fencing wire cut, hedges destroyed, crops trampled and agricultural ground damaged. Gates are left open, which allows livestock to escape, sometimes on to public roads or further afield, where they can cause injury or financial loss. Many farmers work alone, sometimes away from their own holdings, and they return to find damage that requires money, time and considerable effort to put right, which is not always possible. When a landowner says no to hunting, that refusal must be respected and, where it is not adhered to, enforced by penalties.

Our concerns extend far beyond damaged property, however. We have raised reports of sheep and lambs being worried or killed by hounds, pregnant ewes aborting following distress and cattle being frightened and chased through fences. We are also concerned about domestic pets that may be killed and hounds that become separated from hunting groups and continue to worry livestock.

Farmers have a legal and practical responsibility to care for their animals and protect them from avoidable suffering. We rear livestock to produce food, support our families and contribute to the agricultural economy. Our animals are cared for in line with strict welfare requirements, and, when destined for the food chain, they are slaughtered through regulated processes that are intended to minimise suffering. In basic terms, they are killed for food, not for fun. There is a fundamental difference between producing food and exposing animals to the risk of being chased, injured or killed for recreational or blood sport purposes. If a farmer allowed dogs to worry livestock or failed to protect animals from foreseeable harm, those actions would rightly be investigated. The welfare of farm animals should not matter any less because the harm occurs during a hunt.

Hunts are planned and arranged beforehand; they do not just happen by accident. We ask that the Committee recognise the distress, financial loss and animal welfare consequences involved and consider how legislation can provide more effective protection, such as through the proposed Hunting with Dogs Bill. We extend that request to all MLAs who will vote on the Bill.

We are also concerned about biosecurity issues, with increased transmission of bovine tuberculosis (TB) across farmland and from one farm to another by the hunt via the target species, horses, hounds and foot followers. Hounds fouling in fields spreads disease that can cause abortion in cattle.

The situation becomes even more serious when people who attempt to protect their property encounter threatening or intimidating behaviour from the huntspeople. We have raised concerns about verbal threats, aggressive gestures, confrontational behaviour and deliberate obstruction of rural roads by hunting participants and their followers. At times, roads have been blocked to the extent that traffic cannot pass. Residents have struggled to reach their homes and land, while people who are trying to operate businesses have experienced disruption. What happens if an emergency service vehicle, such as an ambulance, needs to get through? Rural residents should not have to negotiate their way through a hostile group to reach their property, nor should farmers have to risk confrontation simply to protect their livelihoods and animals.

I have personally experienced the distress of being unable to access a safe place for our disabled daughter, who has epilepsy and autism. When we were blocked in, she had an episode, and we had to restrain her physically in the car for her own safety. We have also experienced fist-shaking, offensive gestures and verbal hostility when trying to protect our property from huntspeople. Such behaviour can be particularly frightening for women, children, older people and those with disabilities. Everyone should be able to live in their home and travel along a local country road without fear of intimidation. This is not simply a difference of opinion about countryside pursuits; it is a matter of personal safety, freedom of movement and the right to go about ordinary life without threats of obstruction.

We are also concerned about the breach of civil liberties and the right to a peaceful home. Farmers and rural residents have the same legitimate interest in privacy, property and a peaceful family life as anyone else. For many farmers, the family home and the workplace are inseparable. Unwanted hunting activity can simultaneously threaten livestock, disrupt a business, damage property and cause distress to children and other family members. Repeated incidents leave people feeling that their wishes carry no weight and that they have little practical means of preventing a recurrence.

The practical problem is clear: farmers and rural residents, rightly, do not believe that existing arrangements provide sufficient protection, legal or otherwise. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) has no legal standing and is unenforceable, with no penalties whatever. If it worked, we would not be in this situation, and we would not be here today. Farmers and landowners should not have to spend money on solicitors, install cameras, organise neighbourhood alerts or repeatedly confront hunting groups just to make the refusal of access understood.

There is the impact on mental health. The cumulative impact on farmers and rural residents must not be underestimated. Farming, as you know, is already demanding, with long hours, financial uncertainty, animal welfare responsibilities and the pressures of running a business. Many farmers work alone and often as a one-man band. Damage caused by unwanted hunting adds another layer of stress. People in our groups describe being constantly alert, watching for signs of a hunt, warning neighbours and worrying about what damage a hunt may have left behind in their fields or farmyards.

The stress does not end when the hunt leaves. There may be damaged fencing, injured or missing animals, repair bills and the fear that the same thing will happen again, as it often does. Neighbours have also told us that their children are frightened to play outdoors because hounds might enter their garden. Families worry about the safety of their pets and whether their home boundaries are secure. Our family has serious concerns about the impact of hunting-related stress on our disabled daughter's well-being and medical conditions, which have deteriorated. Mental health is rightly receiving greater attention throughout Northern Ireland: farmers and rural communities must not be overlooked. No family should have to live in a state of anxiety in their home because they fear what may happen on their doorstep.

We ask the Committee to consider, please, the following practical priorities: strengthening the protection of landowners' rights to refuse access; establishing effective accountability for those responsible for hunt damage; addressing road obstruction by hunt groups; and recognising the cumulative impact on mental health, family life and rural livelihoods.

This is not a city-versus-country argument. We are farmers, landowners, business owners and rural residents. We care deeply about the countryside and the communities in which we live. We ask that farmers and landowners be respected and protected by legislation from unwanted hunting groups. The right to enjoy a recreational activity must not take precedence over the safety and legitimate interests of those who own, occupy and work the land. We should not have to accept damaged property, threatened livestock, blocked roads, intimidation or the deterioration of our mental well-being as an unavoidable part of rural life. Farmers and rural people are the collateral damage for the hunt's good day out. We ask the Committee to listen to the people affected, examine the evidence and support effective legislative protection. It is time for farmers and rural residents to have a meaningful right to say no, with clear legal consequences when that right is disregarded.

Thank you for listening.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much, Christine, for what you have just delivered.

The UFU has brought in a new memorandum of understanding that, it says, strengthens the agreement further. The first area that it drew to our attention was that of clear and continuing consent. Consent is a principle with the UFU, and its code of conduct includes reparations for damage. Does that go far enough? Have you met the Ulster Farmers' Union in order to work with it and understand the memorandum of understanding?

Ms C Bailey: Yes. As I said, the Ulster Farmers' Union came to the initial meeting in July 2023. William Irvine came at that time.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That was in 2023: have you had any recent meetings?

Ms C Bailey: Yes. William, do you want to talk about the times that we have met the Ulster Farmers' Union?

Mr William Bailey (Concerned Residents Groups of Artanagh, Shanrod and Fedney): We have met the Ulster Farmers' Union lots of times. The problem that we have with the memorandum of understanding is that, if a hunt group breaks it, no penalty is imposed. We are left to pick up the pieces. I do not want to have to go to solicitors to try to claim money for damage done. The onus is on us to prove the damage that the hunt has done.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): In that regard, have you engaged with local huntspeople to emphasise —?

Mr W Bailey: We have tried to engage with local hunts. They will not engage with us.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): You are finding that difficult.

Ms C Bailey: We engaged with Countryside Alliance and Bill Montgomery to no avail. Hunt resolution meetings were held at Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council: none of the hunt participants turned up, none of the masters or the whippers-in. None of them bothered to turn up.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): OK. Thank you.

John is the Bill sponsor. John, do you want to come in at this point?

Mr Blair: Absolutely. I will recap, Chair. Thank you to all of you for being here today and telling us your story. Sometimes, people talk to the Committee, not just on this issue but on others, about "the farmers" in general or "rural" matters in general, and I point out repeatedly and will continue to do so that there are shades of opinion on everything in a rural community, a farming community or any other sector of people. No one should presume to speak for everyone. It is undemocratic to do so.

I will recap on two things. The first, which I put to the Ulster Farmers' Union representatives when they were here, is this: as far as I can see, the memorandum of understanding has been, to this point, not worth the paper it is written on, because it is completely unenforceable and does not make a sufficient difference in areas where there are problems, while the new memorandum of understanding offers no guarantee of change. Do you agree?

Ms C Bailey: Totally.

Mr W Bailey: Yes.

Ms C Bailey: As you said, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Mr Martin McAleenan (Concerned Residents Groups of Artanagh, Shanrod and Fedney): We do not agree with it at all.

Ms C Bailey: It is not enforceable. There is always some excuse or some reason. People say, "We thought it was somebody else's field".

Mr W Bailey: If a hunt has come and gone, trying to find out which hunt it was or who was there is nearly impossible.

Ms C Bailey: Even when you ask people to their face, they do not know which hunt they are following.

Mr W Bailey: One day, I asked a hunt whipper-in for his name. I was told that it was "Joe Bloggs". I then asked him which hunt he was whipping-in for, and he did not know. That was the answer that I got.

Ms C Bailey: The followers do not even know which hunt they are following.

Mr Blair: I put this to a pro-hunting group earlier, and they answered it honestly, I have to say: the fundamental reality is that any farmer — you explained that your group of residents represents 55 different premises —.

Mr W Bailey: With the two groups, there are over 100.

Mr McAleenan: I have 54.

Mr Blair: Basically, there are over 100 farms or land ownership portfolios before the Committee with the experience that, if a farmer finds it unwelcome, inopportune or completely unpalatable to have a hunt to kill a wild mammal on their land, they can do nothing to stop it, because previous arrangements have not worked.

Ms C Bailey: They have not worked at all. The new memorandum is no different from the old one. It is not enforceable. It is not a law or a rule. How can it be enforced? There are no penalties.

Mr Blair: I put it on record — the oral evidence is being reported by Hansard — that you have engaged with the hunt sector to the level of the Northern Ireland Masters of Hounds Association.

Ms C Bailey: Yes. Bill Montgomery from the Northern Ireland Masters of Hounds Association was at our house. After the initial —.

Mr Blair: I was there.

Mr W Bailey: After the initial hunt damage, I phoned the Ulster Farmers' Union, which put me in touch with Countryside Alliance, which put me in touch with Bill Montgomery, and he came to see us.

Mr Blair: You have engaged at that level with the hunt. Some elected representatives and members of the Committee were at the meeting in 2023, as you know, and there was cross-party representation at that. The hunt was represented at the most senior level. The police were there at the level of inspector and chief inspector, as I understand it, for your area, as was the Ulster Farmers' Union to the level of president.

Mr W Bailey: He was deputy president at the time of the meeting.

Ms C Bailey: It was William Irvine.

Mr Blair: OK. Engagement with those representative organisations at that level has made no difference and brought no benefit in relation to the negative impact of hunting.

Ms C Bailey: None whatever. We even spoke to the Ulster Farmers' Union at the Castlewellan show this year. We have reached out and tried to talk, but nothing has been done that would make us change our minds.

Mr Blair: Are a number of your members in the union?

Mr W Bailey: Some members are, and some are not.

Ms C Bailey: We are members.

Mr W Bailey: I am a member of the Ulster Farmers' Union.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): There are no further questions.

Thank you for coming in and giving us your presentation today. It has been recorded and will be used in our deliberations.