Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr John Blair on 26 May 2026.

MLA: Mr John Blair
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 26 May 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5583445

Text

I thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for chairing the debate, along with your Deputy Speaker colleague and the Speaker. I take this opportunity to respond to the debate and thank all Members for their contributions this afternoon and, indeed, this evening. It has been an important discussion. Whilst some arguments were, as far as I am concerned, aimed to divert attention from the main issue of cruelty, the Bill also received much welcome support, and I am very grateful for that. Before addressing the points that were raised, I emphasise once more that Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK without a ban on hunting with dogs. We need to write that into the record again. Other jurisdictions have had legislation in place for around 20 years. Scotland strengthened its legislation in 2023, and the Government in GB are consulting on banning trail hunting due to the loopholes that it creates, so today is an opportunity to prevent Northern Ireland from falling even further behind when it comes to animal welfare. I will now reflect as briefly as I can on Members' comments. I apologise in advance if I do not get them all in or respond to them all with the same amount of detail, but I will try to be representative. I clarified a point early on for Paul Frew about a reference to packs of dogs, and I hope that he has since found that and been able to look at it. Robbie Butler, as Committee Chair, talked of Committee consideration of the matter. As a member of the Ulster Unionist Party, he said that he would be content to support the Bill at this stage but stressed the importance of robust scrutiny and legal certainty. I am more than content, with my colleagues, to continue to have conversations with him on those matters in either his Committee capacity or his party capacity. Áine Murphy of Sinn Féin spoke in support of the Bill, and I am very grateful for that. She spoke of the need to increase animal welfare standards across the island of Ireland.
I was not massively surprised to hear Tom Buchanan oppose the Bill. He cited a few general objections and omitted something that I will refer to later. He seemed not to mention foxhounds at all, which I found strange. That is a recurring theme among many who are against the Bill. He spoke about the absence of scientific evidence in favour of it but offered none on the status quo. That is another recurring theme, especially in regard to pest control. Patsy McGlone spoke in the spirit of allowing the Bill to go to Committee Stage and talked about concerns relating to dog walkers and about the need for further scrutiny. Paul Frew said that he was grateful for the exemptions. He spoke about licences, foxes below ground and falconry, which, he said, should be considered at Committee Stage, but he made it clear that he would not support any opportunity to amend or add to the Bill. I am grateful to Kate Nicholl for her contribution and to her young son for the lovely drawing that he did to give me support. Kate spoke about constituency casework and the fact that so many people agree with a ban on hunting. Diane Forsythe is not in the Chamber. In fairness, Members who are no longer here had every opportunity to be in the Chamber to hear what I have to say, but I hope that I am not being unfair in any of my commentary. Diane spoke about financial implications and seeking clarification. She expressed reservations about Members' Bills but then openly said that she had intended to introduce one. I see inconsistency in that: we cannot say that somebody can start to do it but I or other Members cannot. Phillip Brett described today's debate as an example of the Assembly at its best and spoke — I am grateful for this — in support of the principles of the Bill. He said that what the Bill took aim at was morally wrong and that we needed modern standards. Michelle Guy, my Alliance colleague, spoke in detail about the real lived experience of some of her constituents; I have spoken to them as well. I thank Christine Bailey and those who have campaigned with her for their support of the cause and their sterling work on behalf of animals and on animal welfare, which is ongoing and relates not just to the single action that I am taking. Matthew O'Toole spoke for the Opposition. I thank him for his support. He spoke about the immense cruelty involved in all of this. Harry Harvey said that he was unable to support the Bill. Peter Martin is not here. I wish he were, because he spoke about annoying people on both sides of the divide, and I was going to say, "Welcome to my world". Some of us have been doing that for 50 years. I am grateful for his support, and I will engage with Peter and other colleagues as we go forward. Gareth Wilson said that the Bill was complicated but, again, did not suggest any amendments or changes. Brian Kingston talked about "unacceptable cruelty". I am grateful for the support that he was willing to give the Bill to go to Committee Stage. I turn to Jonny Buckley's contribution. I will do something that I do not often do in the Chamber, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, in almost refusing to address what Jonny talked about today. I will give you my rationale. Jonny spoke about me and my colleagues as those who are inflicting harm, because our views differ from his. It is not the first time that something like that has happened. He then made the scathing comment that we had no understanding of the countryside, when he knows fine well that many of us represent rural areas. He then made the comment that — I quote — began, "If the Bill sponsor were serious": Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I put that to you in the hope that you and the House will understand why I will not give a more substantive reply to somebody who speaks to me and my colleagues in that way and then accuses us of sneering. I will move on. None of the other comments will get a response because of the tone that was used. Timothy Gaston was courteous. He opened by describing the Bill as vague and then quoted a KC who said that it was complex; I am not sure how that works out. He said that I said that I had considered the report — I would consider any report from a KC by the way — but I have no idea what is in the full report. I do not think that other Members do either, given that they seem not to have quoted from it beyond the newspaper report that I read. We need to be clear that the report was written for a pro-hunting lobby group, requested by and provided to it. There is a snapshot of it in a newspaper, but we do not have a full report to consider.
I am grateful for Gerry Carroll's response in his speech. He expressed support and talked about scaremongering in relation to dog-walking and other things. Like Claire Sugden, who spoke after him, he has been supportive of animal welfare measures. Claire has been supportive of that in the all-party group, too. I am grateful for her support on these matters and for her contribution today. Like Claire, Gerry returned to the principles of the Bill. I do not think that it is unfair to say that, at that stage, it might have been a while since we had heard about the principles of the Bill. As you and other Members know, Madam Principal Deputy, the entire point of the Second Stage debate is to debate the principles, and we have done that. There were disagreements, most of them respectful. I thank all Members for contributing to the debate and say again that cruelty in the name of sport has no place in a modern society. I therefore encourage all Members to join me and my colleagues in supporting the principles of the Bill at Second Stage.

1,393 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification