Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 26 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

26 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5583342

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Bill is the latest assault on the countryside by the Alliance Party, be that through its intended consequences or the multiple unintended consequences that have been explored this afternoon and into this evening. The debate has got to the stage of asking this question: is the Assembly prepared to pass vague and badly drafted legislation? It is, of course, criminal legislation with serious consequences for rural life. I have to emphasise that. We have now explored the issue in depth. Is the Assembly prepared to rubber-stamp vague and badly drafted criminal legislation and send it through to the next stage? Even this place should aspire to be better than that.

The first thing that strikes me about the Bill, as it should anyone who reads it carefully, is that it is astonishingly broad in scope. The former Attorney General for Northern Ireland John Larkin KC described it as a "confused and unnecessarily complex" Bill. Why? Let us begin with what it says about clause 1 in the explanatory memorandum:

"A person is not hunting if they are walking their dog and their dog happens to pick up a scent and chases after it."

Fair enough, but let us look at clause 2 — that is the important one — which says:

"It is an offence to— (a) hunt a wild mammal using one or more dogs".

Clause 1 says:

"the reference to participation includes a reference to participation in another activity".

To me, that is as clear as mud. How can anyone argue that "another activity" does not include walking your dog? I am happy to give way to the Bill sponsor if he wants to come in at any point. To me, "another activity" could mean anything to anybody, and that is why I say that the Bill is vague and badly written. I am not blaming those in the Bill Office. They have done their job and can only work with the tools that they are given, but, for goodness' sake, that is not some crazy reading of the Bill; it is what it says in black and white on blue paper.

I am happy to give way.

I thank the Bill sponsor for trying to set that out, but, when I listen to him and hear what his intent is while, on the other hand, hearing what the former Attorney General says, whom am I to believe? If I go into court, whose evidence will I depend on? Will I go back to Hansard and say, "Oh, but, but, but the Bill sponsor said that it does not include walking with your dog", or will I take the advice of the KC whose report, Mr Blair said on the radio this morning, he has considered? He obviously has not taken that on board or done anything with it. Time and time again today, we have heard, "Oh, but nobody in GB has been convicted", but that is not to say that nobody will be convicted. If we have a KC, a former Attorney General, saying that the Bill opens the door, that does not mean that nobody could be convicted going forward. We have already heard today about vexatious complaints. I have a big fear that people will use the Bill to make vexatious complaints, either in reporting somebody who is out walking their dog and the dog gets away or, indeed, somebody who owns a firearm, such as a neighbour whom they do not like. They could make a complaint resulting in the police coming out and lifting that person's guns because they have allegedly committed an offence under the Bill.

Let us look at what the Bill says about hunting. How does it define it? The issue has been covered in much detail. The wording under clause 2 tells us that "hunting" includes "searching for and pursuing". That is what, I believe, Mr Larkin is depending on and why he includes the example of a dog that is in the park, and it gets off its lead or its owner lets it off to exercise and it pursues a mammal. It is quite clear, in black and white, what that can mean. Mr Larkin points to the example of an elderly person who is walking her dog through a park, and the dog pursues a wild mammal in the course of another activity. That is the phrase that is used in the Bill, "another activity". I believe Mr Blair when he tells us that that is not his intention. That may be so. However, he needs to go back to the drawing board because, as I warn the House, when we have a former Attorney General pointing out the flaws in the Bill and what it could mean not just for a farmer or somebody who lives in the countryside but anybody who owns a dog, we need to heed that advice. If you want to criminalise things, you need to be clear about what the criminal conduct is. The Bill is certainly not clear. The offence captures activities that are far beyond traditional fox hunting. That is why I say that it is broad in scope. If we are to believe the Bill sponsor about his intention behind that, why has he left the door so wide open that that could affect people who use dogs in connection with shooting? He says, "Oh no, no — that is not the intention". However, that is what the Bill allows to happen. In fact, I would argue that there is no question that, for those who go out to shoot and take a dog with them, the legislation will have an impact on their hobby and sport. If the Bill passes to Committee Stage, there will be a great deal of work to do. The Assembly should consider seriously whether, because of its drafting and how broad it is, the Bill should get beyond its current stage. If one sends a dog into a wooded area to flush out a bird while shooting, you are using it to "search for" an animal that is "pursued". Those are the very words that are employed in the Bill, and they appear repeatedly in clauses 8, 9 and 10. We move on to trail hunting. The wording of clause 3 on trail hunting is so sweeping that I am in receipt of correspondence from members of the rural community who argue that it could even affect farmers who use dogs to locate vermin, such as rats that live in, or under, sheds but not under the ground. The Assembly should not criminalise rural activity simply because some lobby groups dislike fox hunts and shooting as a sport or, indeed, as a method of dealing with threats to farm animals. Some of us in the House find Mr Blair's concern — and, indeed, that of the Alliance Party, which goes to great lengths to protect foxes but has no concern for the unborn in this country —

When he stands up to protect foxes, I take that —

I am happy to do that.

That is OK, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you judge the person and party who brings something forward on their other actions. I will bring it back to the Bill. The Bill appears to ignore the evidence that has been gathered by previous independent inquiries. The Burns inquiry in England, which was mentioned by Mr Buckley, and the Bonomy review in Scotland both examined those issues in detail. Lord Burns stated that the inquiry panel did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that hunting involved significantly worse welfare effects than other lawful methods of control. This is not a case of the proponents of the Bill standing up to prevent the suffering of animals while the rest of us are heartless on the issue. That is certainly not the case. The evidence is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr Blair would have us all believe. Whether or not one likes to admit it, foxes are often a menace to farmers. Foxes are classed as vermin by a sheep farmer who is trying to protect the lambs in their field. Foxes are classed as vermin by a poultry farmer who wants to ensure that they do not come and disturb their birds. Foxes have to be controlled, but how do we control them? There is evidence that alternatives, such as shooting or snaring, produce poorer welfare outcomes than a quick kill by dogs. That is an uncomfortable fact for some campaigners and, indeed, for some in the House, but it is a fact that deserves serious consideration. Again, I observe that the Bill is so broad in its reach that it would potentially criminalise an innocent dog walker, never mind someone who shoots with dogs. We come to the two-dog limit. We read in the Bill that it is "one or more dogs"; then, it talks about "more than two dogs". Lord Bonomy rejected the idea that two dogs are sufficient for effective flushing on rough terrain and in woodland. He made the point that a two-dog limit could prolong pursuit and reduce effectiveness. The Bill raises significant concerns regarding terrier work. Members may not like the activity, but legislation should be grounded in evidence, not sentiment. The Bonomy review concluded that there is a strong case for permitting the use of terriers below ground to complete fox control effectively and prevent further livestock damage, yet the Bill adopts a far more restrictive approach. Once again, the drafting of the Bill is unclear. The term "enclosed space" is not properly defined, as Mr Frew set out. Mr Blair, does that include barns, drains, stone piles and farm buildings? The House must interrogate such definitions.

The "catch-all option". Did you hear that, Members? It is to include everything. The Bill sponsor has introduced a Bill and he is not 100% sure of the definitions, but, just to ensure that he catches all, it means all things to all people.

I do not want to misrepresent the Bill's sponsor when we talk about "enclosed spaces" in this "catch-all" approach so that we do not leave anything out. It is very telling, and it is about enclosed spaces. I get that, but there is a pattern. Earlier on, we talked about hunting and how many dogs — we were talking about a pack of hunting dogs. Now we are talking about enclosed spaces. The more that we probe, the deeper that we get into the detail of the Bill — a Bill that has been introduced, and now we are having a debate on it — the more that we see that there is a lack of clarity. When severe penalties are included in the Bill, there needs to be clarity. There should be no opportunity for wriggle room. There should be no, "Well, he thinks that, and the other person thinks the other". We need to get to a point where there is absolute clarity. I would rather that the element of "enclosed space" were left out than have a broad-brush catch-all approach. That is what concerns me about the vagueness of the Bill. Five years in prison or £20,000, and, yet, at this stage, it is a catch-all approach, and that is what we are going with in the legislation. I return to Mr Larkin. He raised concerns regarding compatibility with article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the lack of legal certainty in the offences created. When a former Attorney General raises serious concerns about legislative competence and European Convention on Human Rights compliance, the Assembly should not simply brush those concerns aside. I will return to an issue that was not fully expanded on. When there are a number of people out individually hunting with their dogs, and if those dogs or, indeed, those shooters come together, under article 23I, they would be breaking the law:

"reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog involved in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs".

That means that anybody who goes out shooting, such as people on stag dos, lads' weekends or whatever — take the dogs with them, go shooting — and their dog runs off and follows its natural instinct — the term in the Bill is "searching for and pursuing" — they could be liable. My goodness, is that the place that we have got to? The final points that I want to make relate to the wider rural impact of what the Alliance Party and Mr Blair are trying to do. For many people involved in these activities, this debate is not abstract politics. It concerns farming, pest control, rural employment and long-standing community traditions. The Bill shows complete disregard for that and, in its genesis, is a party that, either through the Bill, the Minister of Justice or the AERA Minister, has shown disinterest in rural life and shown that it is so disconnected from rural life and countryside people that it simply disregards their concerns and sets them aside. I believe that the Assembly has to think seriously about the Bill, based on the intervention of former Attorney General Mr John Larkin KC and on the raft of queries from Members. I do not believe that the Bill will be amendable when it gets to Committee Stage. Based on the grey areas and the catch-all mentality, I trust that Members will vote against it this evening.

2,258 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