Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I welcome the officials to the meeting. We are joined by Conor Symington, head of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) wildlife team; and Mark Preston, head of DAERA natural heritage policy branch. You are both very welcome. I invite you to brief the Committee.

Mr Mark Preston (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Good morning, Chair, Deputy Chair and Committee members. As has been noted, I am the head of the natural heritage and policy division in DAERA, and I am joined by my colleague Conor Symington from the NIEA.

Thanks for the opportunity to be here to provide you with the Department's assessment of the practical workability and potential impact on NIEA business of the Hunting with Dogs Bill, as introduced on 27 April 2026. I will open with DAERA's initial assessment of the Bill, and Conor will cover the potential impact on NIEA business.

The Bill proposes amendments to the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, creating a new part 3A. The Wildlife Order is, in effect, primary legislation, and it puts in place protections for certain wild animals, wild birds and wild plants in Northern Ireland. Protected species are listed in the schedules to the Order. The Order makes it illegal to intentionally kill, injure or take an animal of a listed species, such as a bat, otter or seal, or to damage its nesting and breeding sites.

The Hunting with Dogs Bill introduces welfare protections for wild mammals, such as the fox, that are not afforded protection under the Order. One of our first observations of the Bill is that the penalties that it introduces are disproportionate to those in the Wildlife Order, resulting in potential punishment for killing or harming a protected species being much less severe than that for hunting a species that is afforded no conservation protection. Whilst I highlight that observation, I am aware that it has been addressed in the Committee's evidence sessions and that the Bill sponsor has already confirmed that he will amend the Bill to align the penalties in it with those in the Order.

Many of our observations are similar to those that were highlighted by others who have provided evidence to you. The potential for an ordinary dog walker to be liable to prosecution for hunting, should their dog chase a wild mammal while they are out for a walk, is clarified in the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM). As noted previously, there is no precedent in GB for such a case ever having been pursued. We are nevertheless working closely with John to amend the wording so that it more closely aligns to the text in Scotland's Act, which may help to further mitigate the issue by making it clear that the liability is on the part of the person and not the dog. The Bill sponsor has agreed to be amenable to exploring with us the drafting of an amendment to that effect.

We are aware that trail hunting, which is specified in new article 23C, has arisen as a direct result of the legal loophole in the 2004 ban in England and Wales, which unintentionally provided a defence that a real hunt could be passed off as a trail hunt that accidentally resulted in a wild mammal being hunted. It is therefore important that the same loophole is not in this Bill. However, further consideration is being given to such a provision to ensure its workability. We are also considering whether to align, as appropriate, more closely with the Act in Scotland.

New article 23D is on terrier work, and we recognise the concerns that were raised in previous Committee briefings about farmers putting dogs into enclosed spaces, such as barns, for the purpose of detecting rats and mice. Consideration could be given to an amendment to create an exemption for the use, under licence, of dogs for specific pest control purposes in enclosed spaces above ground, such as barns. That could be achieved by including in the amendment to new article 23E, which would extend the exemption for an offence under new article 23B, an offence under 23D.

In assessing the Bill, we considered that the definition of key terms could provide further clarity and strengthen its enforceability. Legislation that creates criminal offences must be clear so that people can be as certain as possible whether their behaviour is a criminal offence and act accordingly. For example, a definition of "under control" may be helpful. We are engaging with legal counsel to identify potential amendments to address those issues.

Finally, the Bill does not contain any consequential amendments or a provision that would entitle the Department to make consequential amendments by means of secondary legislation at a later date. Such a provision or the power to make one would help to ensure that the law remains a coherent whole. Consideration could be given to including a general sweeping-up power in the Bill to make consequential amendments by secondary legislation in case any issues come to light subsequently.

I will hand over to Conor to give further information on the potential impact of the Bill on NIEA business.

Mr Conor Symington (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Good morning, Chair, Deputy Chair and members. As Mark advised, I belong to the NIEA. I head up the wildlife team in the agency. It is a small team, consisting of four wildlife officers who oversee the licensing regime that is in place for activities that are licensed under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 to protect those wild species that are deemed to be conservation sensitive and/or historically persecuted. The team also manages the licensing of local zoos and the private keeping of certain exotic wild animals through licensing under the Zoos Licensing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 and the Dangerous Wild Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. Duties normally extend to the inspection of premises and checks on compliance with licences.

Whilst there can be a support and/or advisory role for that team in dealing with wildlife crime, the main enforcement role for that is currently undertaken by the PSNI. Therefore, the role of the NIEA wildlife team would be broadened significantly by the Bill, and we would need to significantly upscale the resource and skill set in the NIEA to be able to adequately enforce the new regulations. In the rest of the UK, the police are the enforcing authority for hunting. Given that, we have engaged with the Bill sponsor to highlight our concerns about extending the role of NIEA wildlife inspectors. The Bill sponsor has advised that he intends to align the Bill with the approach that is taken across the rest of the UK by naming the police as the sole enforcing authority.

Thank you for listening. We are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much for that briefing. Mark, you raised two points. The first was about dog walkers. That is one of the areas on which most concern has been coming to us, with people asking about the definition of a dog being "under control" and a dog taking off after a scent. Your paper states that you do not have any concerns about that but that an approach could be for the wording of the Bill to:

Will you say a bit more about that, please?

Mr Preston: Yes. We have heard the Committee's arguments on the potential impact on ordinary dog walkers, which is a long-standing issue that has been raised. Our take is that it is explained in the explanatory and financial memorandum. Although it is correct to say that that is not part of the law, it is explained there. The wording is similar to that used in Scotland, but we have engaged with John and are looking to ensure that we take away any doubt. That is what we are trying to deal with with our drafters and legal counsel. We are taking on that remit to remove doubt from the Bill.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): It is just to help with understanding it. OK. Thank you.

The second area that I will ask about is penalties. DAERA has indicated that the proposed penalties may be "disproportionate". Why should offences under the Bill attract penalties that exceed those that are available for some existing wildlife and animal welfare offences?

Mr Preston: Our assessment of the Bill is that the penalties are disproportionate. If a person were to kill a protected bird of prey, the maximum fine under summary conviction would be nowhere near the £40,000 that is in the Bill. We have discussed that with John, and he noted in the Chamber that he is willing to look at that and align it more closely so that no disproportionate fines are attributed to something that is not afforded protection under the Wildlife Order, which, in this case, is the fox.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): On Conor's point, has any examination been done of the resource implication for the PSNI of taking on that enforcement role? The proposer has said that it will be the PSNI's role to carry out enforcement.

Mr Symington: That is a matter for the Bill sponsor to look into. We will be interested to hear the outcome of that, but, as I say, that is more for an interaction between the Bill sponsor and the PSNI.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): OK, we will maybe address that later. I will move to other Committee members. Deputy Chair, do you have a question?

Mr McAleer: Yes. Could we align the provisions on dog walkers more closely to the Scottish Act so that they could be tightened? That is the issue that gets raised.

Mr Preston: Yes. We have looked at that, but we still have to get further clarification from our legal drafters. The main issue concerns occasions when a person walks their dog, or opens the boot of their car, which contains their dog, and the dog runs off and chases a squirrel. That is a dog's natural way of doing things. We want to consider the person who is directing the dog. The Bill is about the deliberate act of hunting. A person walking their dog through a municipal park is not there to hunt; they are there to walk their dog. During that time, the dog may take off after a bird, which is normal practice. We want to look at proposing an amendment for the Bill sponsor's consideration on how we can tighten that point to ensure that it is about a person who is actively hunting, not an ordinary dog walker who is just out for the dog's half-hour walk.

Ms Murphy: I want to go back to trail hunting, because it is mentioned in your written brief. The Department has said that it will potentially look at the Scottish legislation on that. Am I correct in saying that trail hunting is already banned in Scotland?

Mr Preston: I believe so, yes.

Ms Murphy: Therefore, if the Department were to consider a trail hunting provision that aligns more closely with that in Scotland, what would it look like?

Mr Preston: We do not know the full detail. We are going through the process with legal counsel. The key thing is that trail hunting is banned in the Bill as introduced. We have some issues with the exemptions, because searching for a dead wild animal is not really hunting, and we wonder whether the exemption for searching for dead animals should relate to trail hunting as well. We have to sit down with legal counsel and work through those issues in order to bring forward a solution.

Ms Murphy: As you say, that is more linked to the exemptions that are already in the Bill rather than to the act of trail hunting. Thank you for providing clarity on that.

I will go back to terrier work. In the written brief, there is mention of the potential exemptions that the Department is looking at. Is the Department contemplating a licensing scheme in those circumstances?

Mr Preston: We have not actively looked at that to date, but it is a possibility that we will have to consider.

Mr Symington: It is a possibility.

Ms Murphy: Recent legislation in Scotland has experienced significant issues with licensing. I assume that the Department will look at that in the whole.

Mr Preston: Yes. We will be learning lessons from Scotland.

Ms Murphy: I want to flesh this out. The brief mentions terrier work specifically, and, for pest control, it states:

It gets quite technical, but is the Department in the space of potentially considering allowing for terrier work under specific circumstances? I know that you mentioned the enclosed spaces argument for barns, for example.

Mr Preston: Yes. We will be exploring the terrier people's going out but limiting that to rats and mice. At the minute, terrier work is not permitted in any enclosed space or underground, and a barn is considered an enclosed space. There might be an amendment to potentially look at —.

Ms Murphy: Would that be just for rats and mice?

Mr Preston: Just rats and mice at this moment.

Ms Murphy: Will that also include introducing terriers underground to pursue them?

Mr Preston: No, only above ground.

Ms Murphy: What if a rat or mouse took cover underground or if there were, say, a quarry of mice?

Mr Preston: We need to drill down into that. The main issue that others have raised is the point about a farmer wanting to use a couple of terriers in a barn or an enclosed space above ground. That is primarily what we are looking at.

Ms Murphy: Above ground in that scenario. OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Are there any further questions? Gareth; thank you.

Mr Wilson: In the first paragraph of your written briefing, your point about the explanatory and financial memorandum was covered recently by the former Attorney General who was at pains to point out that what would be relied on in court is what is written not on white paper but on blue paper. Over the previous 20 years that I have spent in public representation, there have been a number of examples of where perhaps a Department had a view on what it would like to see in law, but, ultimately, when tested, it came down to what is actually in the law. I think about how planning regulations on houses in the countryside clustering with groups of farm buildings came down to singular and plural. The amplification of that was not reflected correctly. I am conscious of what is in the explanatory and financial memorandum — that white paper. How do you see that as any form of defence in any potential situation in the courts?

Mr Preston: The explanatory and financial memorandum explains the intention of the Bill, but we have spoken with the Bill sponsor. We wish to strengthen the provisions in the Bill to try to take away that ambiguity and put the intention solely on the person. The dog walker walking their dog in the park would not be held liable. You are right: the EFM is not law, but we are looking with our drafters, and we will work with John, to find a solution, so that that issue can be taken out.

Mr Wilson: You are keen to see the police as the ultimate authority with regard to implementing action on any breaches of proposed law. Obviously, police resources are not infinite. The police are not going to reach into every aspect of life, which we know from even a casual look at the media. When we had the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA) in front of the Committee, it provided a lot of inflated reports. After we clarified those with the PSNI, there were only a handful. You said that the police should be the people who deal with the issue, but how do you see your team's being brought into it as an adjudicator in some sense?

Mr Symington: As it sits at the moment, the police are already the main enforcement authority under the Wildlife Order. To put it in the simplest terms, the police have 6,000-odd officers based all over Northern Ireland with local knowledge built in. They are set up to be able to undertake rapid responses if that is deemed to be required. On that footing, the police are, as I said, better placed to do it, whereas we have a small team of a handful of people. We do not currently have a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week response rota in place or the officers or resources to back that up. In that sense, we made the point that we still felt that the police should be the main enforcement authority when it comes to the Bill.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): On that point, would there be a need for more resources for the currently very small NIEA wildlife team, even in a support role to the PSNI?

Mr Symington: That is a possibility. We have not examined that very closely yet, but it is hard to quantify what the size of the job would be, were the Bill to be enacted. However, it is very possible that the resources that we currently have will be found to be inadequate, if and when we have to start to perform new functions.

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

We will go back to Áine for a further question.

Ms Murphy: Thank you, Chair, for letting me back in.

Your written briefing states:

Would the Department consider or suggest a Henry VIII-like power in order to do that?

Mr Preston: An enabling power to make —?

Ms Murphy: Yes.

Mr Preston: Yes. That is what that would allow us to do. If we did not have that power, we would have to use primary legislation, like this Bill. Having that power would allow us to make secondary legislation. It depends on whether that is done by negative or affirmative resolution, but it would give us the power to do that.

Ms Murphy: The possible inclusion of a Henry VIII power by the Department — I am not saying that it should be included — would reduce the capacity of a Committee or the Assembly to give affirmative resolution. It would be implemented via negative resolution straight by the Department.

Mr Preston: We would take legal advice on what powers we would need. It may have to be affirmative resolution. I do not know. We have not got to that stage with legal counsel.

Mr Wilson: I am interested in the wording around species that are protected versus species that enjoy no protection. As wildlife officers, do you see blurring in the importance attached to the protection of species that are deserving of protection versus species that are more ordinarily categorised as verminous or predatory?

Mr Symington: That touches on issues that we have raised. There is an imbalance between the penalty for taking, say, a peregrine falcon and those proposed in the Bill for a mammal that is hunted. We raised that danger with the Bill sponsor and others.

Mr Wilson: Whilst the penalty in any potential Bill would be rationalised so to speak, I am still concerned that, for well-meaning people and respectable organisations that do a lot of good work on conservation and the protection of endangered species, the Bill creates a perception that the animals that are impacting on protected species are also being protected. That could send a message that the Bill is limiting the scope for people to control species that are harming protected species.

Mr Preston: The protected species cannot be hunted unless under certain circumstances. There are exemptions that mirror some of what is in the Bill as well. The key thing about the Bill is welfare and how a kill is done. We explained previously that the Bill brings in welfare protections to animals that are hunted routinely by packs of hounds.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): There are no more questions, so thank you, Mark and Conor, for coming this morning and giving us your briefing.