Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 26 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5583439
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There has been sustained and deeply felt public concern in Northern Ireland about the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, and that concern is reflected in the Bill before the Assembly. This is not a new or emerging issue. There have been strong calls, over many years, for a ban on the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, which, I believe, is a cruel, inhumane and outdated practice that no longer has a place in a modern, compassionate society. I pay tribute to the USPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports for their sustained and resolute commitment against animal cruelty and in favour of a ban in Northern Ireland. Let today be when we move forward to the next stage of that campaign.
As Minister, I am opposed to any form of animal cruelty, and I have made advancing and strengthening animal welfare a key priority for my Department. Our laws must keep pace with modern standards, and, where animal welfare concerns arise, the Assembly should be prepared to respond in a measured and effective way. We have acted before on related areas where the welfare case was clear. Hare-coursing events have been illegal here since 2011, providing an important reminder that the House has previously been willing to take decisive action where the evidence and public interest supported it. The people of Northern Ireland are very clear about their support for a ban on the hunting of wild mammals with dogs. Polling by LucidTalk in 2024 demonstrated that 76% of people here would ban fox hunting, 82% would ban hare hunting and 77% would ban rabbit hunting. That demonstrates a clear alignment between public opinion and the intent of the proposed legislation. The Bill presents an opportunity not only to respond to public concern at home but to bring our legislative framework more closely into line with the standards that already operate elsewhere across the United Kingdom. As I have said, animal welfare is one of my top priorities. My Department, as the body responsible for overseeing the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 will naturally support any measures that reduce or eliminate the potential for animal cruelty and to extend them to protecting wild animals. That is fully consistent with my Department's wider duty to promote and protect the welfare of animals across Northern Ireland. In addition to animal welfare considerations, there are practical implications on the ground. Hunting with dogs can affect farmland and property, disturb livestock, risk disease spread and create wider concerns for rural communities. The reduction of such incidents would be welcomed by rural communities and agricultural businesses alike. The Bill proposes amendments to the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which falls within my Department's legislative competence. In particular, it would create new offences related to hunting wild mammals with dogs, trail hunting and terrier work, with the aim of closing gaps in the current law and providing clearer protections. At present, the Wildlife Order is enforced primarily by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, with a more limited role for wildlife inspectors within my Department. As we consider the regulation of the new offences, it will be important that responsibilities are clearly defined to ensure that those charged with enforcing them can do so with clarity and confidence, with costs, resourcing, training requirements, potential practical issues and any unintended consequences considered, and with offences and penalties both proportionate and effective. That will, rightly, be for scrutiny at the Committee Stage, Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage if the Bill passes Second Stage, where, today, we debate the general principles of the Bill. To strike the Bill down at Second Stage and not give it a chance for scrutiny and development at further stages on the basis of technical issues and what I believe are unfounded fears about potential impacts on ordinary dog walkers, would be profoundly wrong. As I said, today is about the principles of the Bill. It is about whether you agree with those principles or not. I commend John Blair for bringing the Bill forward and for his tireless efforts over the years to see this legislation progress. As Minister, I will engage constructively with the Member who introduced the Bill, with the Justice Minister on the new offences and penalties that would be created, and with other Executive colleagues as it hopefully moves forward beyond today. I am confident that, working together, we can ensure that the final legislation is robust, proportionate and effective, reflecting public opinion and our shared commitment to improving animal welfare in Northern Ireland. That is the standard that we are entitled to expect, and that is the standard that I intend to uphold. It is wrong that Northern Ireland remains the only part of the United Kingdom without a comprehensive ban in this area, putting us in an unjustifiable and unforgivable position. The welfare issues raised by hunting wild mammals with dogs are serious and cannot be ignored. They can lead to distress, injury and avoidable suffering for wild animals, and they also raise concerns for the dogs involved. That is intolerable and unacceptable and needs the type of legislation that Mr Blair has set out to us today. I will be supporting the Bill at Second Stage, and I urge other Members to do likewise.
883 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: 0.03 (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 (0.87).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.