Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on 26 May 2026.

MLA: Mr Harry Harvey
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 5583155

Text

No one in the Chamber will be in any doubt about the importance placed on this issue by the Member whose name the Bill bears. Many of us will recall the first iteration of the Bill, which had its Second Reading in December 2021. Whilst many of the key procedural issues that were the subject of concern then have now been addressed, the core contentions remain. It is undoubtedly an emotive issue for many, and I have received a significant amount of correspondence relating to the Bill. I have always sympathised, to a degree, with the Member's overall motivation and general intent on the issue. Whilst I do not support the concept of the recreational hunting of mammals with dogs purely for human gratification, I am unable to support the Bill as I have fundamental concerns about its drafting and the burden that its intended and unintended consequences would create. When considering the Bill, I found the opinion of John Larkin KC, which was published by the Countryside Alliance, to be particularly useful in crystallising the key areas of concern. I turn first to the broad and overtly ambiguous nature of much of the Bill's drafting. My principal concern relates to the real-world implications that the Bill could have. Many of those implications may not be the intention of the Bill, but, nonetheless, they appear to be facilitated in its drafting. Clauses 1 and 2 risk criminalising ordinary and unintended behaviour involving dogs. Clause 1 defines hunting expansively to include:
"searching for and pursuing",
a wild mammal. The offence of participating in hunting extends to another activity during which:
"a dog hunts a wild mammal".
Mr Larkin KC argues that the Bill could capture activities, such as dog walking, shooting, drag hunting, falconry or rescue operations, where a dog unexpectedly chases wildlife, regardless of the intent, and I am of a similar view. Whilst attempts have been made to provide clarity and assurance on some of those matters in the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum, the courts will interpret the wording of the legislation, not the content of an explanatory and financial memorandum. I am concerned that the Bill will seriously undermine lawful wildlife management and rural land practices. The two-dog limit that is set in clause 7 has been called into question. The prohibition of the use of dogs below ground in clause 3 would potentially criminalise established terrier work, which is essential for fox control. That would create uncertainty around common farming situations involving barns, drains, stone piles and bales. The intended prohibition of trail hunting, provided for in clause 10, appears to be so widely drafted as to prohibit the use of dogs for vermin control. It is also worth noting that the Bill omits the exemptions that are found in existing Scottish legislation, which relate to game shooting, stalking and falconry. It appears that those elements could be encompassed in the outworkings of the Bill. The Bill suffers from a lack of definition, which should cause concern to many in the House, particularly when that definition pertains to a criminal offence. Farmers and landowners will require legal certainty should the Bill be enacted, particularly in light of the potential for vexatious complaints to be made against them. As it stands, the Bill does not provide that certainty. For instance, the Bill's proposed exemptions at clauses 7 to 9 have been widely criticised as failing to provide meaningful protection in many ordinary farming and countryside situations. The House has a duty to the individual citizen to make it abundantly clear which activities will be criminalised and which will not. I fail to see that clarity in the key elements of the Bill, as presented at Second Stage. The enforcement that flows from the Bill will not be devoid of difficulties either. The proposed penalty of up to five years' imprisonment for participation in hunting or trail hunting is wholly disproportionate and well in excess of the penalties outlined in any existing wildlife legislation. Despite my sympathy for the Member's principal motivation, I am of the view that the Bill as drafted would make for bad legislation. For that reason, I am unable to support the Bill at Second Reading.

702 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