Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on 26 May 2026.

MLA

Ms Diane Forsythe

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 5583108

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As someone who has initiated a Member's Bill in this Assembly term, I understand and in no way underestimate the amount of work that has been undertaken by the Bill sponsor to introduce this legislation. Like my colleague Paul Frew, I congratulate Mr Blair on that. I love animals, and of course I care about animal welfare, but the Bill is not just an animal welfare Bill; it is about so much more than that. The consequences for those of us who live in rural Northern Ireland will be huge and significant. Even though I can see that I am in the minority in the Assembly, I will still take the opportunity to speak up for those whom I represent. While I do not support the Bill, I can see that it is going to pass its Second Stage today. The Bill sponsor said that the Bill's provisions have been tried and tested in other jurisdictions. As my colleague Paul Frew outlined, however, the Bill does not directly replicate legislation that exists elsewhere, as it has been changed. I have also been consistent in expressing my concern that Members' Bills come to the Assembly without going through the full departmental structures. Where there is substantive change and a commitment through legislation, I believe that it is best that that is fully informed and brought forward with allocated funding by the Departments. I believe that this legislative proposal should come through those structures in order to ensure that it is fully scrutinised and applied appropriately. I have specific concerns, having read the section in the explanatory and financial memorandum that sets out the financial effects of the Bill and which, I believe, is contradictory. Paragraph 20 of the explanatory and financial memorandum states that the Bill has no direct financial consequences. Paragraph 22 states that there would be implications for the public purse with the requirement for increased staffing costs for the PSNI, yet no costing is provided. That is clearly a financial consequence. The next paragraph discusses fines to offset enforcement costs. The Bill cites fines in the region of £20,000, which, again, represents a clear financial consequence. At a time of extreme financial pressures on the Budget, which continue to increase, we need to be honest about what everything we do means for the public finances. I believe that we need to do that when we look at the Bill. What is the true cost to the PSNI? Just the other day, the Justice Minister, from the Bill sponsor's party, highlighted the budget pressures and cuts to policing that would be required under the current financial constraints. Were this Member's Bill to be passed, it would potentially prioritise policing these matters over other police work. I have been consistent on that point. The Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill would mean an additional cost of £30 million a year, which must be found from the Education budget, and education services would be cut in order to fund it. The Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill would cost an additional £11 million a year, which would need to be found from the DAERA budget, taking money from other farming funding streams.

Members' Bills should not be brought forward at this time, as they put burdens on the Assembly Budget, with the Executive then struggling to deliver other objectives. At the very least, the Bill should be costed. I do not understand why there has not been a broad attempt to cost it. Without that, the Bill does not stand up. Pam Cameron made a point about unintended consequences. Proposed article 23A(2), which states:

"participation includes a reference to participation in another activity",

lacks a meaningful statutory limitation. It is incredibly vague on the line at which criminal liability exists. That is incredibly concerning for those of us who own animals and live in the Northern Ireland countryside. The Bill is not specific. There is no defence of intent. It is shocking to think that I could be criminalised if, when I am out on my walk, my dog "is pursuing", as it states in proposed article 23B(4), a rabbit, squirrel or any other type of vermin, or that that could happen to any other dog owner. In any case, I have little confidence in the defence around intention, because, as we have seen recently, people have been prosecuted for their thoughts when praying in public. I love animals, and I oppose cruelty to them, but I have an ingrained respect for and appreciation of the ways of rural life in Northern Ireland. Severe animal welfare issues in a variety of circumstances, including torture of animals by humans, are ignored and not policed, and the Bill does not cover them. There is a fundamental issue here with how animal welfare issues are policed. The police's inconsistent approach on such issues is a serious concern, and I agree with Robbie Butler that the Bill needs to be more precise. I am concerned for what the Bill may mean for the 400,000 dog owners across Northern Ireland. I have serious concerns about the Bill: how it is drafted; its direct and unintended consequences; its effect on rural life; its vilification of hunting and dog owners; and the costs that it will impose on the PSNI in delivering its services, especially in rural communities.

889 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