Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 26 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

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 5583182

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Today, I speak as an MLA who unashamedly represents a predominantly rural constituency. I speak as someone who has been involved in a rural way of life since my inception, as were my father, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, which is something of which we are extremely proud. I speak as a committed conservationist and as someone who sees and values man and woman's participation in managing our countryside and all that is beautiful in it. I speak as someone with a deep sense of responsibility to the people who depend on our land, our wildlife and our rural traditions for their livelihood and, indeed, way of life. As a boy, I was reared beside dogs. My family have kept dogs all their life. Dogs are among the most appreciative, kind and caring animals; in fact, they are man's best friend, as we have all rightly seen in times past. My father taught me, as his father taught him, to have a deep sense of respect for the rural way of life and how to manage the countryside. That is why I cannot support the Bill's Second Stage today.

I will in just a moment. Today, I have listened to how Members have degraded and devalued members of the rural community who have participated in lawful hunting activity, all with a genuine and deep sense of value for the land. I have listened to Members demonstrably mischaracterise their activity and their intent. My fear is that, if the Bill should pass, it will do just that. On that note, I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

I thank the Bill sponsor for his intervention. Of course I do not speak for the entirety of the rural community. I do not speak for the entirety of my party. I do not speak for the entirety of Members in the House. Nor does Mr Blair, but it is Mr Blair who has introduced a Bill that will dictate the terms for all of those who participate in hunting. I have not introduced a Bill to put a blanket ban on hunting activity across Northern Ireland. That is what the Bill will achieve, however. When I spoke on a variation of this Bill in 2021, I acknowledged that I did not think that Mr Blair or the Alliance Party had malicious intent or a hidden agenda when it came to hunting activity beyond that which he sought to ban publicly, which was fox hunting.

However, from what I have seen today, and from the clause-by-clause analysis by my colleague Paul Frew from North Antrim, I am afraid that my words were misplaced. Let me be absolutely clear from the outset that the Bill is anti-rural in its design, anti-rural in its effect and anti-rural in its understanding of how the countryside works.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. While I fundamentally disagree with the Alliance Party's policy position, I find it a bit rich to receive interventions from an individual, that is, the Member for West Belfast from People Before Profit, who literally entered the Chamber a few moments ago instead of sitting and listening to the points being debated across the Chamber.

I will take no further intervention. The Member will have his opportunity in due course. I will get back to my point: it is not a Bill rooted in evidence, animal welfare or practical wildlife management. It is a Bill rooted in perception, prejudice and pressure from activist groups that neither understand nor represent rural Northern Ireland. Animal welfare has been cited by most Members in their contributions as a key aspect and means that they want to see advanced in Northern Ireland. I do not disagree with that fundamental point. My colleague for North Belfast gave a different perspective, and he outlined some of the animal welfare issues that we are grappling with, whether it is puppy farming, an animal cruelty register or other aspects of a legitimate animal welfare policy. I will never be found wanting in advancing those arguments because, again, I go back to the basic principles that were instilled in me, which were to represent and respect country ways of life but to ensure that we have adequate animal welfare standards. Supporters of the Bill claim that it is about animal welfare, but all peer-reviewed scientific evidence does not support that claim. I note that, when the Bill sponsor opened today's debate, he could not point to any specific peer-reviewed research or scientific evidence that showed that bans elsewhere on these islands led to better animal welfare for the quarry and mammal population that they seek to protect, and there is a reason for that. You would think that, some 20-plus years after a Bill had been introduced in Westminster or Scotland, there would be evidence aplenty of positive animal welfare impacts, but the truth is that there is none. There has been no spend whatsoever from the anti-hunting campaign group to peer review the very ban that they imposed and how it had a positive impact on wildlife. None. Millions of pounds have been spent on propaganda and spin about a rural population that is often scorned by those who have no understanding of the countryside but now are experts. Veterinary experts, wildlife managers and conservation practitioners have repeatedly stated that controlled hunting with dogs is a legitimate and humane wildlife management tool. I have listened to Members describe how we are a nation of animal lovers, and, indeed, we are. Our duty, however, extends to productive, sensible and legal intervention when it comes to wildlife. We often pit one against the other when debating the issue. There must be intervention to ensure a healthy, proportionate wildlife ecosystem. If we do not intervene and use the appropriate measures to ensure that we manage wildlife populations effectively, they run out of control. The Bill, however, ignores all that.

I will.

I thank the Member for his intervention. What pained me most when I listened to an earlier contribution from the Bill sponsor was that he appeared to imply that dogs and their respective owners, be they in pursuit of legitimate hunting activity with guns and dogs —. I think that most people understand that gun activity is often a group activity, in which each individual has their own dog. In most cases, it is a Labrador, springer spaniel or cocker spaniel. Those people have been portrayed today as the impediment to ground-nesting species. Members, be under no illusion: it is the predator fox population and other animals that have a detrimental impact on ground-nesting birds, such as curlew, not those who legitimately partake in hunting activity. The Bill, however, ignores all that. It ignores the peer-reviewed research and a decade of practical evidence. As I noted, it ignores the consequences of similar legislation in England, Wales and Scotland, where bans have not improved animal welfare and, in many cases, have made it worse. Were animal welfare truly our priority, we would be debating investment in enforcement —.

I will.

Yes. Absolutely. I am on record as an advocate for such things, and I know many farmers who have put in place appropriate measures on their farmland to ensure that ground-nesting birds have the best chance of survival. The Member puts forward a very interesting point, because, without man's intervention to control wildlife, we would simply not have some of those endangered species. If animal welfare were our priority, the debate would be about enforcement, education and evidence-based wildlife management, not a blunt, ill-considered ban that criminalises traditional, rural practices and does nothing to protect wildlife. For Members who do not know: in 1972, Stormont passed the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland). It was hailed as landmark legislation at the time. The law on animal welfare permitted hunting — those two things can coexist — but also allowed for legal action to be taken against a hunt or an individual if a very specific accusation of causing unnecessary suffering was made. Unfortunately, a subsequent law did not include a similar clause. That, I argue, would have had a significant impact on animal welfare in Northern Ireland while also recognising that legitimate hunting activity is required in order to ensure that we can manage an eco-population. Perhaps, were the Bill sponsor serious about animal welfare and protecting rural ways of life, he could have put forward that position. I remember arguing that very point in 2021. The position at DAERA is now occupied by an Alliance Minister. By means of regulation, we could have had significant animal welfare protections that, in effect, squared the circle — which, I believe, the majority of Members agree with — which is the permitting of lawful hunting activity but criminalising any attempt by anyone to cause undue suffering to animals. People will say that that is directly contradictory to any hunting activity, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is required in order to manage the countryside. One of the most alarming aspects of today's Bill is the extraordinary legal risk that it creates for anybody who owns a dog. It is not just about hunting. It is not just about organised country pursuits. This Bill, as drafted, creates a pathway to prosecution for ordinary people whose dogs behave in natural, instinctive ways. Members, common sense needs to be applied. You cannot legislate against a dog's natural instinct, which is to scent, hunt and give chase. That happens day in, day out. You do not have to be a participant in an organised hunt for that to happen. Under the Bill, however, you run the risk of being criminalised. That point has been made light of by a number of Members. The strict liability included in the Bill means that that is an absolute reality. I said that you cannot legislate against a dog's natural instinct. I have listened to how Members across the House are very keen on animal welfare, biodiversity and ensuring that the protection of wildlife is conducted in a way that meets animal welfare standards. However, just as you cannot legislate against a dog's natural instinct to hunt, scent and give chase — the title of the Bill is the Hunting with Dogs Bill — you cannot legislate against other animals, but I have not heard that point being put forward by those who are calling for a ban. Anti-hunting activists talk about the focus on hunting with dogs. An RSPCA wildlife centre study in 2018 suggested that 79·4% of wildlife kills are caused not by dogs, by men or by guns, but by domestic cats. Now, it would be ludicrous of me to advocate that we legislate to ban cats. That would be an absolutely ridiculous position to take.

I am pointing out how ludicrous the Alliance Party's position is. On the one hand, it is saying that the Bill is necessary to ensure that wildlife can be humanely dispatched, but on the other hand —.

No, I will not. I have watched how Mr Honeyford has sniggered and laughed throughout the debate. He has a different opinion from mine, which I respect but disagree with, but I find sniggering and laughing insulting. The vast majority of people who engage in legal hunting activity will also feel that that is deeply inappropriate.

The Member makes —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will respect the fact that I have kept my remarks within the framework of the Bill, such is its large and far-reaching impact on hunting. Its definition is so broad that it takes in many aspects that need to be fully fleshed out in the debate. I mentioned the statistic on cat kills of wildlife. The same study indicated that 0·2% of wildlife kills were by dogs. That goes to the heart of the debate. It is not my interpretation alone that the Bill will have far-reaching consequences. As has been mentioned, it is the view of one of the most respected and highly qualified KCs in the country, our former Attorney General John Larkin. He has provided detailed legal analysis of the Bill. With all due respect to the Bill sponsor, I and, indeed, many people in Northern Ireland will put much greater weight on the response of such an eminent KC than on the opinion of Mr Blair and on a vaguely worded Bill that could have such far-reaching consequences. To dismiss the analysis outright and say that it is being used as diversion could not be further from the truth. Its conclusions should give every Member —.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Here is my problem and why I raised such advice: much weight has been given to the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum. It says that the Bill's intent is not to criminalise the average dog walker whose animal pursues anything from a squirrel to a rabbit or any other mammal. However, the Bill is what matters. It is the Bill's content that will either criminalise a dog owner or not. Therefore, when an eminent KC puts forward a legal opinion on such a Bill, it is worth taking time to pause and reflect. He warns that the Bill, as a number of my colleagues have outlined, is legally unsound, ambiguous in key definitions —.

2,219 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