Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Gareth Wilson on 26 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Gareth Wilson

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 5583166

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have spent some time considering the issue, and it raises many questions and scenarios that have caused considerable concern in the countryside of Northern Ireland. The Bill is unwieldy, and it is far from clear what its implications would be, given the commentary and timely warnings from senior legal figures in Northern Ireland, such as the former Attorney General John Larkin. I commend organisations such as the Countryside Alliance and the BASC, of which I am a member, for their attention to the Bill and all its implications. I also recognise the high level of contact from rural dwellers, who, likewise, have raised their concerns. There is a real and prevailing fear that the legislation would create the possibility of criminalising any dog owner who has no intention of seeing any animal killed and that, under the Bill, through no fault of their own, they could face prosecution. That would be disastrous. Let me be clear: I have no wish to see any animal suffer needlessly. I do not believe that anyone in the House has such a wish; indeed, everyone wants the highest animal welfare standards to be exercised regardless of the scenario. The control of vermin is no different. However, it is clear that there are many in the House who also understand the countryside and the fact that effective control of vermin is essential. That takes on many forms and formats and is done by many methods, all with the sole purpose of protecting our important habitats and our agri-food industry from the over-proliferation of various listed vermin species. While there is some recognition of that fact in the Bill through some minor exemptions, it is, by its construction, so complicated and convoluted that I pity anyone who is seeking to ensure that they are on the right side of the law were the Bill to receive Royal Assent in its current form. It also follows that it would be an absolute legal and resource-guzzling quagmire for the PSNI and, indeed, those in the justice system generally, who undoubtedly would be tasked with trying to make sense of such a complicated Bill in practice. Our PSNI officers and, indeed, our courts are overwhelmed and under-resourced, and the Bill would needlessly add to that workload. When considering the Bill, we must note the fact that anyone out in the countryside with their dog could be criminalised. A dog has, by all accounts, an ability to act on its own instincts and accord and could chase or follow a scent. It is preposterous that that very act could end up criminalising a dog owner, yet that is highly possible under the proposed legislation in its current format. It therefore goes without saying that, on that point alone, the Bill should be rejected. While Mr Blair will say that that is not the intention of the Bill, he will, hopefully, also have read the concerns of the former Attorney General and will understand my concerns for dog owners up and down the country who have been in contact with me and are deeply concerned about the clear overreach of the proposed legislation. I am deeply concerned about the impact on landowners. The Bill has the ability to criminalise not only the dog owner or those present but, most worryingly, a landowner or occupier. Whilst the word "knowingly" is included — presumably, meaning a clear intent — the wide-ranging implications are stark. It could easily be argued and most likely will be the case that hunting could take place on land when the owner did not know nor give consent for hunting with a dog or that land could be accessed when no communication has taken place. Land could be accessed by a dog inadvertently, given that a dog has a mind of its own and often does not follow a command. Would those landowners be similarly held responsible? Who would decide whether a person involved in the outlawed description of hunting with dogs had argued that permission had been given when no permission had been given? What weight —?

Absolutely. I agree with the Member. That is where it opens up or, rather, closes down legitimate hunting with guns. There is that risk when a dog, a number of dogs or, as I have seen on many an occasion, more than one person with a dog is out hunting on a large expanse of territory that is owned by an individual landowner. What weight is given to the word "permit"? How is permission to be tested and validated, and what weight is to be given to the test? I am sure that there are instances when hunting activity accesses lands and owners are not content with it and, regardless of a request to leave, those involved do not leave. Who decides the remedy in such instances? Look at the proposed sentencing regime for that example. It is absurd that someone who is involved in trail hunting, which involves no real, living animal, can receive a justice outcome that is of far greater severity than that received by someone who kills or otherwise takes a protected species under the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. That is not advancement of animal welfare but a backward step legislatively. Many other elements of the Bill raise considerable concerns. However, I am hopeful, despite what I have heard, that the House understands that the outworkings of the Bill, if it were to be implemented, would create such confusion, fear, resource pressure and, no doubt, wrongful prosecutions that it should be rejected at this stage.

942 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