Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 26 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

26 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5583130

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will speak briefly at this stage of the Bill. This is the Second Stage of a Bill, a version of which we debated in the previous mandate. I commend the Bill sponsor, John Blair, who, it has to be said, has been consistent. I was going to say dogged but that would qualify as an extremely inappropriate and cringe-worthy pun. He has been diligent and consistent on the issues and on his Member's Bill. I welcome the Bill being before the House today, and I commend him for bringing it forward. Lots of interesting comments have been made. It has been a genuinely interesting debate. It is a subject that provokes great passion because people are passionate about animal welfare and the idea of cruelty being inflicted on wild animals for sport and entertainment but also because people are passionate about what they see as traditional pursuits and, indeed, routine and sometimes necessary practices in the countryside.

Let me be clear, however, that the Bill does not intend to outlaw — the Bill sponsor can intervene if this is not correct — the routine and necessary control of vermin, protection of biodiversity or necessary stewardship of the land. Rather, it is about preventing something that inflicts immense cruelty on wild animals, which is using dogs to hunt, attack and kill them. It is not about outlawing all forms of hunting. Some Members, from one side of the House in particular, have sought to conflate what is in the Bill with an attack on all forms of land management and, indeed, hunting. That is simply not what is in the Bill. Phillip Brett put it well when he said that there is not and does not have to be a distinction made between the urban and the rural. Indeed, were such a distinction to be posited, it would be utterly fraudulent. Members talked about the many people from rural areas who are increasingly frustrated at and, indeed, appalled by the excesses of hunting with dogs and the use of dogs for hunting purposes. I also know some urban people who engage in country pursuits, and there is nothing wrong with that. The Bill, however, is a response to increased public pressure and public concern about the use of dogs to hunt and inflict great pain on wild animals. It is not an attempt to prohibit all forms of species control or all forms of hunting. It could not be that — if it were, it would not be before the Assembly — so it is important not to conflate those things.

I will in one second. I represent an urban constituency and make no apology for doing so. After the next election — Kate Nicholl has left the Chamber, and I do not know whether another Member for South Belfast is here — the constituency will be a lot more rural, because it will become South Belfast and Mid Down. I grew up in the countryside of south Down — that was until my teenage years, when we moved into town — so the binary of urban/rural is, particularly on this island, often a false one. Most of us do not have to go far back in time to find people who lived their lives, wholly or in part, in agriculture, on the land or in other rural settings. I grew up among fields, and East Down Hunt often trampled through fields nearby. Sometimes people supported that, and sometimes they were certainly not supportive of it. It is therefore to create a false dichotomy to say that it is an urban/rural point. When I stand up and talk, as you may do, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, about public transport in Belfast or the state of Belfast city centre, I encourage all my rural counterparts to do the same. There is no prohibition on anyone talking about any issue that affects any part of the North. I will now give way to Paul Frew.

Patsy talked about his interest in the area. He has been involved in country sports for a long time and is passionate about them. As I said at the beginning, the Bill, by definition, is not about clamping down on or preventing all country pursuits: not at all. Patsy set out specific questions that the mere fact of the Bill's going to Committee Stage will enable to be scrutinised and interrogated. Patsy and others, including, I think, Áine Murphy, said that there are people who hold firearm licences who want answers to specific questions. Those are legitimate questions that can be answered, and I am sure that the Bill sponsor will be more than happy to deal with them during the Bill's scrutiny stage. That is what the legislative process is all about, but perhaps we have become unfamiliar with that in this place because we spend so much of our time debating non-binding motions. I have no difficulty saying that I do not think that we should compromise all forms of species control or all forms of hunting. Mr Frew went so far as to mention fishing —.

I will in a second. Using dogs to inflict great pain on animals in this way is not just outdated; it is immoral. I could show you my inbox: there are messages from many people in this society, from all backgrounds, who agree with me on that. That is why they support the principles of the Bill and want us to support them.

I do not know at what point you heard me say that anything should be made light of. I did not say that at all. I would like you to go back to the Hansard report and to, please, tell me where I made light of anything. I literally said that those are questions to be interrogated. Any question raised that has its basis in fact or the everyday experience of people who are involved in country pursuits — particularly, it is important to say, farmers — has to be interrogated. Mr Butler is not in the Chamber at present, but I am sure that the AERA Committee will do that. As Phillip Brett said, however, those need to be on substantive concerns. I am sure that there will be specific substantive questions that need to be asked, but there will also be attempts, as with all legislation, to find ways to hold up, stall or question the legislation or to cast a shadow over even the idea of legislating in this area. That is a perfectly legitimate but, I think, fairly well-known strategy for delaying legislation. Where there are specific substantive concerns that can be evidenced, they should be brought to the Committee and unpacked. By all means, amendments can then be tabled, and those amendments, in turn, can be interrogated and scrutinised. The principles of the Bill reflect where we are in 2026 and the great and growing desire to protect animal welfare and do everything that we can to minimise and limit the unnecessary suffering of animals. Some of the Members opposite spoke as if there were a desire to outlaw the laws of nature and animals taking one another's lives, which, obviously, happens every minute of every day across this island. It is not about that. It is about clamping down specifically on the infliction of great and unnecessary pain on wild animals for the purpose of sport. There is a large and growing opinion that is set on outlawing that, and that is why we support the principles of the Bill. I missed Mr Blair's opening remarks, but I think that he helpfully referenced the fact that, in Scotland, there had not been a single prosecution for dog-walking by equivalent law —.

That is an important precedent. I am sure that Members will want to interrogate the example in Scotland. Similar debates are happening south of the border as well. I will say, however, that we have to apply a reasonableness test, just as the police and the Public Prosecution Service apply a reasonableness test when they police and prosecute these incidents. We should sit down and ask ourselves how realistic it is that a dog owner walking in, to pick two areas at random, since people have talked about the urban/rural divide, Ormeau Park or Drumglass Park, would have a dog that saw and then attacked a squirrel. Sadly, it is more likely that the squirrel would be grey than red. Would the dog owner be prosecuted? Would the PSNI go after them? Would they be hauled in front of the court? On the basis of what is in the Bill, I simply do not think that that would happen. I do not think that the Bill provides for that, and I do not think that it would anywhere near meet a reasonableness test for police and prosecutors. We have to be honest, therefore, and live in the realms of reality. Those questions can be properly interrogated and scrutinised at Committee Stage, and that is what will happen, assuming the Bill passes its Second Stage today.

1,517 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