Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- 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 5583269
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. He raises a very valid point. Should the Bill become law, if a farmer who has a henhouse that had been decimated by a fox were to go in pursuit of that fox, and it were to go on to another farmer's land, he would have to go and ask for consent to go on to that farmer's land. That landowner would know about the new legislation and the penalty involved. He would know that it was now:
"an offence for the owner or occupier of land to knowingly cause or permit another person to hunt a wild mammal using one or more dogs on that land."
The farmer could plead with that landowner all that he wanted, saying that his henhouse had been decimated, but the landowner would not grant him permission to pursue that fox because he could be liable to a £20,000 fine for allowing him to do so.
159 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
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.