Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 26 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic 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 5582949

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Before I commence my contribution, I will say that it is a great honour for a Member to bring a private Member's Bill to the House, and, because of the work that they have had to put in in order to do so, I congratulate anyone and everyone who does. I commend John Blair for his actions and for his work on the Bill, as well as for his previous work on a Bill on the same subject that he introduced in the previous mandate. It takes a lot of hard work, research, scrutiny and consultation to get to this point, and I commend him for that. That is where I will stop giving out compliments, because I cannot agree with the Bill. I am concerned about the people who live in the countryside, their way of life, how they manage the countryside, how they manage the wild animals in and around their environment and how the Bill would impact on their life, their livelihood and their livestock. More than that, the Bill will affect their way of life, their traditions and even what they eat. Let me explore that. The motivation behind the Bill may be sound and clear, but it is not about traditional fox hunting. It is not just about the people who wear grey or red coats, blare trumpets and ride horses to chase foxes with a pack of hounds. The Bill says nothing about that. It is about more than that. We must concern ourselves with what the Bill says and does. I have concerns about the Bill sponsor's party. Only last week, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs stated:

"the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland do not consider the hunting of wild animals to be part of the rural way of life."

He went on to say that hunting is:

"cruelty to animals, and it is wrong."

Yes.

I thank the Minister for his clarification. I hope that it is a clarification and that it does not mean that he thinks that angling or fishing is cruel or that dispatching an animal humanely is cruel. I do not know whether the Minister has seen how a wild mammal dies naturally. Most foxes will die of disease, but a fox will not be left alone to die. It will probably starve to death or be attacked and eaten by another wild animal. Not only will it be attacked and eaten but its young will be. That is how an animal in the wild dies a natural death.

I will.

Yes, it does. I do not know anyone who hunts who does not care passionately about the wildlife in and around their environment. I have not met a hunter who goes out to cause unnecessary harm to any animal that they hunt.

It is not what they are made of; it is not what they do.

I agree with the Member; he is right. In my time in politics, I have heard from many aggrieved farmers who have had to stop the traditional hunt going over their land because of the damage that it was doing to fences, the soil, land, grass and sometimes even crops. Therefore, I agree with the Member, but that is not what the Bill is about; that is not what the Bill encapsulates.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I will move on, because we want to make progress. We have not got unlimited time, and people want to get home tonight. Do the Bill sponsor, his party and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs think that wild animals do not need to be managed in the countryside? Do they think that they do not need to be humanely dispatched in the countryside? Do they think that people should not hunt for food? Do they think that that is unacceptable or cruel? Is it cruel to hunt to provide restaurants with food? Is that wrong? Should that be stopped? There is a danger that the Bill could do that. The Minister might have some restaurateurs coming to his door if it hurts their supply chain and their ability to produce good food that we can all enjoy and which we need for nourishment.

Yes, I have. I have a number of restaurants that use game. To educate the Member for North Belfast, game can be rabbit and venison. That is game. In all circumstances —

I will, in a minute. In all circumstances, most of the hunters who shoot that game will use dogs.

I thank the Member for that important point. How do you prove that that mammal was killed by the dog? Most dogs are trained well. They are trained to retrieve and not to damage the game or the prey. That can also be birds, not just mammals. It is important, but how do you prove it in the Bill? You cannot, because the only interpretation of hunting in the Bill is:

"hunting a wild mammal using one or more dogs".

That is the interpretation of hunting. How is it defined? It is defined as "searching for and pursuing." On the point of "searching for and pursuing", you do not even have to catch a mammal to break the law.

Yes.

That is where my concerns about the Bill come from. If the Bill was purely about the traditional hunt — the red coats, the horses, the trumpets, the sailing over fences — it would surely be called the "Hunting with Horses Bill". If it was to do with packs of hounds, it would be called the "Hunting with Packs of Hounds Bill". This is about hunting, which will encapsulate shooting. This is about hunting with one or more dogs. If you go out with a gun and a gun dog to retrieve the prey that you have shot for countryside management, food or, for that matter, sport, you will be liable to be prosecuted under this law. What will happen then? As Patsy McGlone ably said, you will be investigated and could well be arrested for a crime. Your guns will be confiscated immediately, and it could be years before you get those guns back. Is that not a chill factor created by the Bill? I should point out that, in the last mandate, Mr Blair introduced a Bill in which his definition was:

"any case where a wild mammal is pursued by one or more persons and one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit."

There is no doubt that John has changed his position, but I am still not sure that the Assembly should pass the Bill, because it has deep flaws and clarification is needed to make it safe for the rural community, the countryside and everyone who partakes in hunting. We have looked at "Interpretation of this Part", which refers to:

"hunting a wild mammal using one or more dogs".

The Bill then states:

"It is an offence to— (a) hunt a wild mammal using one or more dogs, or (b) organise or participate in the hunting of a wild mammal using one or more dogs."

I think that that clarifies the answer to the Chair of the Committee's question about whether it would be OK if eight people organised to go out for a shoot and had eight dogs with them. I think that I have proven that that is not the case, for two reasons. The first is that hunting is hunting a wild mammal using one dog, and the second reason is that you cannot organise or participate in the hunting of a wild mammal using one or more dogs. The answer to your question about where you can organise a shoot is that you cannot. Will the farmer, the shooter or the gunman risk it, if he thinks that his guns will be confiscated? I will read on:

"It is an offence for the owner or occupier of land to knowingly cause or permit another person to hunt a wild mammal using one or more dogs on that land."

Are you telling me that any landowner will allow any sort of shooting or hunting on their land if they think that they will be prosecuted? They will not be able to see what is happening. They will not see the dog going left, right and centre.

Yes, I will give way again.

I hear that defence. Maybe that is just because it is bad law. Maybe that is just because the police do not enforce the law. We have occasions, even in this place — Northern Ireland — when the police do not want to publicise law or offences: they just do not bother with them because they have other things to do. That is not really a defence for us passing bad law, so I worry about that. The Bill is flawed. As I said, the only definition in the Bill seems to be that:

"'hunting a wild mammal' includes searching for and pursuing" —

"searching for". A dog, by its very nature, will search for animals. That is where ordinary dog walkers will fall foul of the legislation. There is a real risk that — the Member has referred to such concerns — it could well criminalise ordinary dog walkers, whether they live in the countryside or the town, north Belfast or south Belfast — wherever they live — who are out walking their dog in a park and the dog chases after a squirrel, rabbit or hare. I do not know whether there are any hares in north Belfast, but there should be. I have a real concern about a dog "searching for and pursuing" a wild mammal. The Bill then goes on to talk about terrier work:

"It is an offence to organise or participate in terrier work. (2) In this Part 'terrier work' means inducing one or more dogs to enter a hole in the ground".

How do you prove inducement? How do you prove that someone induced their dog to go into a hole? It talks about an "enclosed space". What is an enclosed space? I do not know. I suggest that nobody in the Chamber knows what an enclosed space is. Is it a hole, a barn, a pile of stones, a midden — some of you might not know what a midden is — a vehicle, a field or a hedgerow? Does anyone know what an enclosed space is in that regard? I do not know. Also, there are the penalties. A person who is guilty of an offence under new article 23B, which relates to hunting and, I think, shooting with a dog, new article 23C, which relates to trail hunting, or new article 23D, which relates to terrier work — and remember that 23B —.

Yes, of course I will.

1,809 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:41 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification