Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 26 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Peter Martin

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 5583162

Read the official Assembly record

Text

For transparency, I have a firearms certificate licence for, among other things, vermin control. However, in the time that I have had said licence, I have depleted the pest population of Fermanagh and south Tyrone by just three pigeons and two rabbits. That is probably over an eight-year period, and it is not because I am a particularly bad shot, but because I do not get a chance to use it very much. Much of the debate has been around the ethics. I will dwell on that for a second. Most of us in the Chamber are meat eaters. I find this a sobering process. My personal ethics demand that, if I shoot something, I eat it. I am not sure how many meat eaters in the Chamber have ever prepared their own meat, but, if you are sitting here on your phone — doomscrolling or something — I suggest that you consider that, because we buy our meat from Tesco or Lidl and it is in those little pre-packaged containers. If you shoot a pigeon, you have killed it with your own hand, but taking the feathers off, taking off some pigeon breast and putting it in a pan is quite a process. Perhaps there are vegetarians watching the debate thinking, "What on earth is that DUP MLA on about?", but I have had plenty of vegetarians come to me saying that knowing where our food comes from is important to them. Shooting, prepping and cooking your own food will be the most ethical meat that you will ever eat. I have been conflicted on the issue. I have spoken at several rallies in support of greater protection for animals and clearly against the inhuman and cruel treatment that has been inflicted on them. In my view, foxes are incredibly beautiful animals; in fact, I would go so far as to say that foxes are majestic. However, as has been pointed out, they remain pests, and they must be controlled. They have a God-given natural kill instinct. A friend of mine described what happened when a fox got into his henhouse. He described it as a scene from the movie 'Saw'. If you have not seen it, I do not necessarily suggest that you go out and watch it, but I will summarise it for you. There is a lot of blood, although, I am sure, fewer feathers than there were in my friend's henhouse. Foxes devastate livestock. I have agreed with much of the commentary that we have heard today regarding ground-nesting mammals and the propensity of foxes to eat the eggs and limit the number of birds, especially rare birds, that we have. Foxes need to be controlled; they need to be shot to save other mammals. However, they do not need to be hunted down with dogs. I have heard only one other Member speak about trail hunting; I think it was Áine across the way, right at the start. I was not in the Chamber for that; I came down later. I happen to support trail hunting. The fox is not hunted or killed by dogs. It is already dead — it has usually been shot as part of pest control by a farmer — and is provided to a hunt, and that dead fox is dragged for its scent. My issue with fox hunting is not the people putting on red coats and going across fields, if that is what they want to do, but with the kill, although, as others have pointed out, animals can die at the hands of other animals in nasty ways. If the Bill passes its Second Stage today, which, I expect, it will, it should receive high scrutiny at Committee level. My colleagues, Paul Frew from North Antrim and Phillip Brett behind me, highlighted a range of questions. The AERA Chair is not here, but the AERA Committee should take on board the comments and concerns of all in the Chamber as it is ironed out. As colleagues have said, the Second Stage debate is about policy intent and principle. It is at the third and fourth stage that the details of what the Bill will entail will be ironed out to make it the best Bill possible. I particularly encourage the proposer of the Bill to look at how best we can protect what has been described in the Chamber as a "rural lifestyle".

I have been lobbied considerably, on both sides of the debate, by constituents. However, my office staff have informed me that I have seemingly managed to do the impossible for an MLA: annoy constituents who support and those who oppose the Bill. It is quite a skill level for an MLA to somehow get on the wrong side of both groups on the issue, and that is perhaps because of my slightly nuanced stance. That has been my experience. Nearly every time I enter the Chamber, I have a pretty clear view about what I should do and how I should vote. I have not had such clarity on this issue, and I have spent the last week, particularly the weekend, rolling the issue around in my head. I even had my three children give me some feedback on the issue at various times over the weekend. However, I am extremely grateful to my party for giving each of us a free vote, recognising it as a conscience issue and recognising the fact that my colleagues and I, as has been evidenced today, have a range of views on the issue. Today, I will support the sponsor's Hunting with Dogs Bill, but I ask him to take on board the views of those who do not support the Bill and do not agree with everything that is proposed. We should try our best to make the Bill, if it passes this stage, fit for purpose for the 21st century.

986 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