Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 26 May 2026.

MLA

Ms Claire Sugden

Party at the time

Independent

Date

26 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5583407

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the Hunting with Dogs Bill passing its Second Stage. The legislation is as important now as it was in the previous mandate, when it sadly did not complete its passage through the Assembly. I commend the Member for continuing to pursue the issue, because it has not gone away. It is as relevant today as it was when we last debated it in the Chamber. It is disappointing that, despite the topic being debated in the previous mandate and the fact that Mr Blair said that he would continue to pursue it, nothing has changed and the issue has persisted. That is why the Assembly has to legislate. This activity has been given many chances and there are many examples across the UK that demonstrate that it is no longer acceptable. Northern Ireland had not changed, but now we are forcing that change because it has to change. It is confusing that so many Members speak strongly and sincerely about animal welfare in other contexts but seemed less willing to apply the same principles when the issue came before the House in the previous mandate. I look forward to seeing who supports the Second Stage of the Bill, particularly those who advocate for it outside the Chamber. At the end of the day, it is about action. I have listened carefully to arguments on both sides of the debate. Like many Members, I have received a considerable amount of correspondence from constituents, particularly from the rural communities that I represent in East Londonderry, which has a significant rural population. They are concerned about the potential impact of the legislation. It is important that we hear those concerns and address them. That is what the passage of the Bill is all about. Certainly, in principle, I support the Bill. I have gone back to those who disagree with me and have outlined why, I believe, their concerns are misplaced. However, that does not mean that we do not take those concerns forward or consider them. If the Bill needs strengthened in order to reassure those who have concerns, we must do that as part of this process. I have read the Bill alongside its explanatory and financial memorandum, which is not an abstract from the Bill. It is important and provides context, so that, when people interpret the Bill when it eventually becomes law, they do so in the context of what the Assembly intended. It is not something that we can disassociate from the Bill; it is why it exists. We also have to remember that the legislation sits within other legislative frameworks and contexts. Sometimes, we cannot remove that from the arguments that take place in the House. We cannot just say that the Bill will do this, this and this. There is precedent and standards. When judges make their decisions, they will look to case law for how they interpret legislation. We cannot just say that the Bill will do such and such. What does the interpretation of particular words and phrases mean? It means something, because someone has already made a decision on it in another part of the framework and the law. I appreciate that Members are trying to poke holes in the legislation. It is absolutely our job to do that, but we must do that at Committee Stage and at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. It is important to remind Members that all law sits within legal frameworks, other laws, precedent and case law. That is how judges interpret the law; it is not just what one Member thinks of it. It is also important to point out that, as Members, we bring ideas to the Bill Office, which transforms those ideas into draft legislation. This is not just something that we have all picked off Google; it is a really important process, and undermining it undermines every one of us who has an opportunity to introduce a private Member's Bill.

Absolutely. I am drafting my own private Member's Bill. It would be irresponsible of any of us not to consider that in that context or within the wider legislative frameworks. The debate should be grounded in the content of the Bill before us and not in assumptions about what it might become in future or in suggestions that it represents a wider attack on rural life, farming, lawful shooting activities or countryside management more broadly. I appreciate that Members will say, "This is the thin end of a wedge". I do not know how many times in my 12 years here I have heard that. Legislation does not happen quickly in Northern Ireland, and we are not good at it, compared with our counterparts in other parts of the UK or in Ireland. I do not ever think that it is the thin end of a wedge: when has the Northern Ireland Assembly ever moved fast on legislation? One of the concerns that are repeatedly raised with me is that the Bill is somehow a stepping stone towards wider restrictions on firearms, hunting and other countryside activities. However, the Bill would prohibit the organised hunting of wild mammals with dogs: nothing more, nothing less. It does not ban lawful shooting activities, pest control, firearms ownership, farming practices, ordinary dog ownership or the lawful use of working dogs. Importantly, if aspects of the Bill could unintentionally lead to consequences beyond what is intended, we will strengthen it. We will go through the various stages to address the concerns that have been raised. We will strengthen it through Committee Stage and Consideration Stage. We will tighten the wording and address the concerns as the Bill progresses. We do not need to reject the Bill at Second Stage on the basis of principles and assumptions that may or may not eventually be realised. We in the Chamber all have a responsibility to ensure that legislation is good, clear and proportionate law. It is telling that the Bill recognises that there are circumstances in which intervention may genuinely be necessary. That is why there are exemptions in the Bill. They exist around livestock protection, pest control, disease prevention and biodiversity management. The Bill does not pretend that all interaction with wildlife can or should cease; it states that, where there is no genuine necessity and where the activity is ultimately recreational, the Assembly is entitled to ask whether the suffering involved remains justifiable. For me, ultimately, that comes back to animal welfare. We have to be honest about what the activity involves. The organised pursuit of wild mammals by dogs, often over considerable distances and ending in injury or death, causes suffering. That suffering does not become acceptable because the activity has existed for a long time, just as something does not become cruel because society suddenly changes its mind. The suffering involved has always existed; the difference is that we are now in a position to decide whether we continue to permit it. That is the principle at the heart of the Bill. It is significant that Northern Ireland is now the only part of the United Kingdom without legislation in this area. England and Wales legislated more than 20 years ago, and Scotland has since strengthened its laws. I appreciate that there are debates around enforcement there and loopholes elsewhere, particularly on trail hunting, and I expect that some of those issues will be further explored. Other Members have talked to that in their contributions. However, the principle remains important. Hunts happen across Northern Ireland, including my constituency, and people see them happening. They see hounds moving across fields and roads. Landowners and farmers have raised concerns around disruption, livestock distress and damage associated with hunts; indeed, my only experience of the issue is of constituents talking to me about the negative impact of the activity. Many people also witness wild animals being pursued in a way that really is not justified. I appreciate that some will see those activities differently — they will see tradition, sport or countryside culture — but many others see an animal being pursued for recreation in a way that causes suffering. The distinction between necessity and recreation is important. There are circumstances in which difficult decisions involving animals may, unfortunately, be necessary. Farmers may need to protect livestock; pest control may be required; disease prevention may be necessary. The Bill recognises those realities, but, again, that is very different from organised hunts involving the pursuit of wild mammals by dogs as a form of sport or entertainment. Increasingly, many people struggle to understand why that continues to be lawful. I reject the suggestion that support for the Bill is somehow incompatible with rural life or countryside communities. I live in the countryside. I am an advocate for the farming community. I regularly meet local farmers and listen to their concerns. I try to come to a position for farmers so that they can get on with doing the job that is so important for Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the UK and the world. As other Members have said, rural communities do not have a single viewpoint. It is really wrong to present the debate as though everyone living or working in the countryside supports organised hunting with dogs. It is simply not true. We also need to recognise that there is a new generation of farmers who do not accept the practice; indeed, protecting animals and animal welfare is a significant part of what they do, and they want to advocate that.

I have not met one farmer in my constituency who does not advocate for animal welfare and for ensuring that we do not take our animals in vain when we produce them.

The Member mentions hunting in legitimate ways, but we are trying to make the barbaric sport of hunting animals with dogs for recreation illegitimate. If the Assembly accepts the legislation, that will become illegitimate, and we will have to move forward.

The current issue on which we are trying to legislate does a disservice to those individuals, because they are then characterised in a certain way. As I said, such a law has existed in England and Wales for over 20 years. Changes have also been made in Scotland in that regard. There was a private Member's Bill on the issue in the previous mandate. It is not as though there has not been enough warning about the issue of hunting animals with dogs, but nothing has changed: that barbaric activity still exists. I say this to the Member and others who oppose the Bill: I have yet to meet anyone or read suggestions or comments from anyone who supports that barbaric treatment of animals. We are trying to ban that activity.

I appreciate that. I think that I have said already that what exists in other parts of the UK is not perfect. I appreciate that there are criticisms about implementation. That having been said, the core principle of what Mr Blair is trying to do is to remove the barbarity that exists in the countryside in Northern Ireland. Maybe we should do more to ensure that we implement it better, but, ultimately, it is about the principle and the message that we are sending, which is that that activity just is not acceptable. It is not acceptable simply because it is something that we have always done and it is tradition. The Assembly has consistently legislated on standards, behaviour and welfare as society has evolved. This is one of those issues, albeit a number of years too late. However, it is not unreasonable for us to conclude that some practices really should end, even if they have existed historically. It is also notable that many people are surprised to learn that the activity remains lawful in Northern Ireland at all. There will be aspects of the Bill that require amendment or tightening as it progresses. We can learn from other parts of the UK about what not to do. If anything, if Northern Ireland is late in legislating where other regions have legislated, there is a benefit to that: we can strengthen areas where criticisms have existed. At this stage, we are being asked whether the principle of the legislation deserves further scrutiny and development. In my view, it does. As I have said a number of times during my contribution, the issue has not gone away. The activity still exists in Northern Ireland. Quite frankly, I am horrified by that. I think that most of us, on seeing the worst effects of that activity, will be horrified. If the Assembly cannot legislate to ban that type of behaviour, I am really unsure about what the purpose of this place is. That is not to say that we should not listen to all those involved; it is not to say that we should not correct some of the misinformation that is being put out there; and it is not to say that we should not improve the law and take each word and phrase as it is. As I have said a couple of times, we need to look at it in the context of the wider legal framework, of case law and of what these things mean. That is how judges will interpret it, which is important. By all means, let us move the Bill to the next stage, get it into Committee and then to Consideration Stage, where we will go through it clause by clause and ensure that we get it right and end a practice that, I think, most people in Northern Ireland would like to see end.

2,273 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