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 5583070

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Oh, there we go, and the Member has won a small victory there with regard to that. There is no doubt that the Bill will pass this stage. Sinn Féin has made many a U-turn this week. Its position on this is just one of them. Of course, its members will answer for that themselves with their own constituents and in their own policies as they go forward. There are a number of exemptions in the Bill, and I am grateful for them, but why did the Bill sponsor not go further? Of all the exceptions in the Scottish Act, there are only two here in Northern Ireland. Why has he left out licences for use of more than two dogs for the activity mentioned above? It is simply because the Bill deals with "one dog or more", so he cannot use that exemption. He cannot use a licensing regime, because he wants to ban hunting with "a dog". The Scottish Act also refers to the "management of foxes below ground". There is no exemption for that here, as far as I can see. There is an exemption for using a dog above ground. My problem is this: how can anybody with a dog control it to the point that he keeps the dog above ground when it is chasing a mammal? A mammal will go underground. Its instinct will be to go underground, and the dog's instinct will also be to go underground, so that exemption does not really pass the sniff test. Pardon the pun. I know that you appreciated that, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Then you have section 6:

"a person is using a dog above ground to ... search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal, with the intention of providing quarry for falconry, game shooting or deer stalking".

I heard the proposer of the Bill say that, if it is not in the Bill, it does not need to be covered in the Bill. However, he inserts his provisions after article 23 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Part III of that Order, which is straight before this amendment going in, deals with the protection of deer, so he should, I believe, have included provisions for deerstalking, where you will use a dog. When you go out to stalk deer, you go out to shoot it, and you dispatch it humanely. You shoot it in the head so that you can get food from the carcass. You will have a dog, with a lead tied around your waist, to direct you in the scent of that deer. You could walk for miles and cover acres before you come across a deer, so you use a dog to steer the deer stalk. Then, you can use that dog to flush out that mammal to get it to a point where you can dispatch it safely, with a decent background, so that you fire that weapon safely.

You run the risk, when not using a dog and not having flushed the mammal out, of not being able to take a safe, clear shot. There are all sorts of ramifications, and there should have been exemptions for deerstalking in the Bill to cover that because it is common in Northern Ireland. The exemptions that are in the Bill include:

"the person hunting a wild mammal is using a dog above ground".

How can you keep a dog above ground? They can:

"search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal, with the intention of killing it for one or more of the purposes set out in paragraph (2)".

Paragraph 2 states:

"Those purposes are— (a) preventing serious damage to livestock".

I would really welcome it if the Bill sponsor could tell me whether, if a fox goes into a henhouse and destroys 50% of the hens and comes back the very next night to take the rest, that farmer can use a gun to dispatch that fox and use his dog to flush that fox out.

OK. You have answered it. I suppose that I need further clarification over my concern. The Bill talks about exemptions for the purposes of "preserving human health". What does "human health" mean? I do not know. It is not defined in the Bill. Therefore, where does the wild animal come into it when it is about "preserving human health"? I do not know. It also talks about:

"preventing serious damage to the biological diversity of an area."

Ground-nesting birds and their eggs are so vulnerable to mammals. Foxes and other mammals will deprive that area of ground-nesting birds, and they will do in quick fashion.

I will add to that. Even in a built-up area, cats, rather than dogs, are more at risk of attacking a fox. Therefore, there are issues around why the Bill sponsor has picked on dogs. He also talked about the exemption for the purpose of "preventing the spread of disease". Again, what does that mean? Is it the disease of animals, or is it the risk of disease spreading among humans? That is very important point, and it is not clarified in the Bill. I hope that the Bill sponsor can clarify that. The Bill goes on to say that the conditions for the exemptions are:

"the activity does not involve the use of more than two dogs".

In that case, you can use one dog, but:

"(b) any dog used is under control".

You could have the best trained dog in the world, but its instinct will be to go underground if that mammal goes underground. How does he define a dog being "under control"? How does he stop that one dog meeting up with other dogs on the same scent? Does that mean that the hunter is liable for prosecution and, at that point, is causing an offence? Those are all valid questions that need to be asked and ironed out before the hunting fraternity, whether that is on foot or anywhere else, has any sort of assurance from the Bill. There is also an issue around:

"Training dogs to follow an animal-based scent".

Why would you go to the bother of training a dog to pick up animal-based scents when you are forbidding the dog from being used? I would like to know what "reasonable steps" the Member is talking about that need to be taken to ensure:

"no wild mammal is pursued, injured or killed."

If you are out in the wild, in open countryside, how could you ever prevent your dog from going after a wild mammal? How could you ever prevent your dog from pursuing a wild mammal and injuring or even killing it? That is where the dog walker bit comes in, because a gun dog is trained to preserve its prey and not damage it. It holds the prey in its mouth without damaging it, but a pet dog does not have that same training. I therefore have real issues with the Bill. I have outlined only some of my concerns about the Bill. I am sorry that my contribution has taken so long, but it is really important that the issues be ironed out at this point. It looks as though the Bill will pass its Second Stage and move to Committee Stage. I say this to the Committee: you have a job of work to do to make sure that the Bill is fit for purpose and does not penalise the humble hunter with a gun.

1,253 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