Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 26 May 2026.

MLA: Mr Robbie Butler
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 26 May 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5582888

Text

I thank the Member for his question. That very question arose in the 2021 debate, which I will reference when I speak as a private Member. The Bill sponsor has possibly offered some reassurance in that regard by stating that there have been zero prosecutions in other parts of the UK under equivalent legislation. I do not want to speak for him, however. I am sure that we will return to that point later in the debate. The Committee recognises that the aforementioned issues will require consideration should the Bill proceed to Committee Stage, in which there is likely to be considerable public interest, which there is already, as my phone has been dinging today. Thank you very much, Mr Blair. At its meeting on 23 April, the Committee did not take a position on the Bill's general principles. Members agreed to consider the matter further in their respective parties and to convey their positions during the debate, which, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will now do as the Ulster Unionist spokesperson for all things relating to agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. The Ulster Unionist Party is broadly supportive of the principles underpinning the Hunting with Dogs Bill. We do so from a position that is grounded absolutely not in hostility towards rural life, farming, shooting or legitimate countryside management, as some may try to frame it, but in a belief that animal welfare legislation should reflect the highest ethical standards expected of a modern society. From the outset, it is important to acknowledge plainly and honestly that vermin control and wildlife management are necessary components of rural living. Farmers, gamekeepers, land managers and rural communities face genuine challenges in protecting livestock, safeguarding biodiversity, preventing disease and managing species populations responsibly. We see that with badgers at the moment through the many debates that we have had in the Chamber. Nothing in this debate should diminish those responsibilities, nor should anyone suggest that those who work closest to the land are somehow indifferent to animal welfare. As the Chair of the AERA Committee, that has not been my experience when I have spoken to farmers, rural dwellers or land managers. In many cases, they are among the strongest advocates of conservation, habitat protection, responsible stewardship and wildlife management. The question before the Assembly is not whether wildlife management is necessary — it is — but whether the hunting of wild mammals with packs or a number of dogs remains an acceptable and proportionate method of achieving those aims in a modern society.
We recognise the intention of the Bill, which is to prohibit the organised hunting of wild mammals with packs of dogs, while attempting to preserve exemptions for legitimate land management, pest control and animal welfare purposes. Under proposed article 23B of the 1985 Order, the Bill would create offences relating to hunting wild mammals using dogs and organising or participating in such activities. Importantly, however, the Bill also attempts to recognise practical countryside realities through a series of exemptions. Under article 23F, exemptions are created for the management of wild mammals above ground where the purposes include:
"(a) preventing serious damage to livestock... crops... or pasture, (b) preventing the spread of disease, (c) preserving human health, (d) preventing serious damage to"
biodiversity. The Ulster Unionist Party recognises and welcomes the fact that the Bill does not seek to eliminate all forms of lawful pest control or countryside management. However, our support for the principles of the Bill is qualified by the need for robust scrutiny and clear legal certainty. There are legitimate questions that must be addressed to ensure that lawful rural activities, responsible dog ownership and those who hunt to gun or for food are not unintentionally captured by overly broad drafting. The Bill sponsor must provide absolute clarity on how those provisions will operate in practice. When we make legislation in the Chamber, we do so sometimes with a lack of experience, because we are not here often enough to make really good legislation. We need to ensure that any legislation that we pass is subject to the highest levels of scrutiny and legal testing. We need to get it right first time, so that we do not have to return to the Chamber, hold our hands up and say, "We got it wrong". I will make a few points for the Bill sponsor to pick up on during his winding-up speech. The Ulster Unionist Party seeks to understand how the Bill will clearly distinguish between unlawful hunting with dogs and lawful hunting to gun that is carried out for food or legitimate pest control purposes. We would like clarity on the safeguards that will exist to ensure that ordinary dog owners, rough shooters, gamekeepers and those engaged in lawful countryside pursuits are not inadvertently criminalised. We would like to know how the Bill sponsor intends to address concerns about legal certainty, particularly regarding the broad definitions of "participation" in article 23A and "searching" and "pursuing" in article 23B. We seek further clarity on what constitutes a dog "under control" for the purposes of the exemptions under article 23F; on what potential evidential threshold will apply in determining whether a lawful countryside activity has crossed into criminal liability; and on how the legislation will ensure that the accidental or incidental flushing out of wild mammals during lawful activities does not become subject to prosecution. We would like to know whether the Bill sponsor intends to introduce a clearer mental element, such as intent, recklessness or knowledge, to ensure that inadvertent conduct is not criminalised, and how he will ensure that enforcement agencies are engaged so that the provisions are applied consistently across all our rural communities. Those are reasonable and necessary questions. Supporting the principles of improved animal welfare legislation does not remove our responsibility to ensure that legislation is workable, proportionate and enforceable in practice. Indeed, a number of concerns have been raised through stakeholder engagement over the past number of weeks. It is entirely proper that those matters be rigorously examined. In particular, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I seek further updates from the Member today, if he has any, on how the exemptions in article 23F will operate practically. The Member will know that the threshold of "more than two dogs" jumps out at me, because I have conversed with him about it. What evidence supports that figure, and how will that be captured to ensure that, when there is more than one person present, it is very clear that, rather than being just two dogs, it is two dogs per person? If the Member has evidence of how he came to the threshold of two dogs, that would be really useful. How will "reasonable steps" be objectively assessed to ensure that dogs do not become a pack, as Mr Frew pointed out? What constitutes sufficient evidence that permission has been granted by a landowner? I know only too well —
I will make this point, and then I will. I know only too well about the landowner's perspective. In Lagan Valley, the only hunting incidents in which I have been involved were ones in which hunts had gone across farms and lands that they were not permitted to. Farmers got together and lobbied their local politicians in Lagan Valley to ban hunting because they had no control over the hunts going over their land.
I get the point that you are making, and I would like it to be addressed.
I thank the Member for his question, and I thank the Bill's author for his answer. The debate on this matter in 2021 was one of the more lively ones. If any of you were here for the debate, you will know that there were impassioned speeches and excellent questions. That debate pointed to the fact that, when we want to do it properly, we can. The points that I have outlined are not attempts to undermine the Bill. Rather, they are essential questions to ask if the Assembly is to produce legislation that commands public confidence and avoids unintended consequences. We acknowledge that Northern Ireland remains the only part of the United Kingdom where hunting wild mammals with packs of dogs has not been prohibited. As a unionist, I genuinely struggle with that. I understand that we have a devolved Assembly and can make up our own minds, but there are certain things on which I do not like to lag behind my brothers and sisters in England, Scotland and Wales. However, alignment with other jurisdictions cannot be the sole basis for legislation. The Assembly must ensure that any law passed here is precise, proportionate and workable within the particular context of Northern Ireland's rural communities and countryside practices. At its heart, this debate is and must be about balance. It is possible to support stronger animal welfare protections whilst recognising the legitimate realities of rural life. It is possible to oppose cruelty whilst supporting lawful pest control, biodiversity management and sustainable countryside practice. It is also possible to support the broad intent of the Bill whilst seeking substantial reassurance, clarification and refinement before it proceeds further. For those reasons, whilst we are prepared to support the Bill's broad principles at this stage, that support is qualified pending further scrutiny, greater legal clarity and assurances that lawful countryside activity will not be unintentionally criminalised.

1,565 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification