Yesterday’s debate on the Hunting with Dogs Bill at Stormont demonstrated one thing above all else: this issue is far from settled.
While supporters of the Bill attempted to portray the legislation as “balanced” and inevitable, the debate instead exposed deep concerns from across the Assembly chamber about the Bill’s practicality, proportionality and legal robustness.
For many in the countryside, the discussion reinforced what rural communities have said from the beginning, this Bill is not simply about animal welfare. It is about whether legislation affecting rural life is evidence-based, legally sound and capable of standing up to scrutiny.
Yesterday’s debate highlighted significant flaws that cannot simply be brushed aside through political slogans or emotional campaigning.
Serious questions remain over the Bill’s legal foundations
During the debate, MLAs raised concerns about enforceability, unintended consequences and the breadth of the proposed restrictions. Those concerns matter.
History shows that poorly drafted hunting legislation creates confusion, uncertainty and years of legal challenge. Across Great Britain, hunting law has been subject to continual interpretation, amendment and dispute since the passage of the Hunting Act 2004.
Northern Ireland must not repeat those mistakes.
The Bill’s opponents rightly questioned whether the legislation is sufficiently clear for landowners, farmers, gamekeepers and those involved in lawful wildlife management.
Legislation that lacks clarity risks criminalising legitimate countryside activity while placing impossible burdens on policing and enforcement agencies already under pressure.
That is why the Countryside Alliance maintains that this Bill does not stand up to proper legal scrutiny, particularly in light of the legal opinion provided by former Attorney General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin KC, who warned that ordinary dog ownership could become “more burdensome, if not dangerous” were the legislation to be enacted, impacting hunting, shooting activities thorough to everyone who owns a dog.
Some supporters of the Bill have attempted to dismiss these concerns by arguing that there have been no prosecutions of ordinary dog walkers under similar legislation elsewhere. However, the absence of convictions does not mean the risk does not exist. Badly drafted legislation should not rely on prosecutorial discretion or good fortune to protect innocent members of the public from criminal liability.
In his opinion, John Larkin KC highlighted what he described as “apparently startling liability consequences” arising directly from the wording of the Bill. He gave the example of an elderly person walking her dog through a park when, entirely unexpectedly, the dog runs off in pursuit of a rabbit or squirrel. Under the proposed legislation, the dog could be regarded as “hunting” simply by pursuing the animal, even if it never catches it. In those circumstances, the owner could potentially face criminal liability for participating in hunting.
More alarmingly still, Larkin noted that if a neighbour happened to be walking alongside the dog owner and merely observed the incident unfold, they too could theoretically be exposed to liability for “participating” in hunting, despite having no responsibility whatsoever for the dog.
These are not trivial drafting issues or far-fetched hypotheticals. They go to the heart of whether this legislation is proportionate, workable and legally coherent. Rural communities are right to ask serious questions about a Bill that could potentially criminalise entirely ordinary behaviour by responsible dog owners.
A debate that revealed wider concerns across the House
Supporters of the Bill attempted to frame opposition as isolated or outdated. Yesterday’s proceedings proved otherwise.
Concerns came from multiple political perspectives and reflected a much wider unease about how the legislation would affect rural Northern Ireland.
MLAs highlighted issues including:
These are not fringe concerns. They are serious legislative questions that deserve proper examination before any law progresses further.
Importantly, many MLAs recognised that rural communities increasingly feel ignored when legislation affecting the countryside is debated. That frustration was evident throughout yesterday’s exchanges.
Rural voices will not be silenced
Campaigners behind the Bill have tried to suggest that Northern Ireland is somehow “behind” the rest of the UK because hunting legislation differs here.
But devolution exists precisely so Northern Ireland can make decisions that reflect its own rural landscape, farming traditions and communities.
The Countryside Alliance will continue to challenge attempts to import flawed legislation that has already generated years of controversy elsewhere.
We will continue to stand up for:
The fight goes on
Yesterday was not the end of this debate, far from it.
As the Bill moves forward, every clause, every enforcement mechanism and every legal implication must now face detailed scrutiny.
The Countryside Alliance will continue working with rural stakeholders, legal experts and elected representatives to ensure the voices of countryside communities are not drowned out by political point-scoring.
Stormont heard yesterday that there is no consensus on this legislation.
The growing list of concerns across the House proves that.
And as scrutiny intensifies in the weeks ahead, one thing is clear: the fight for fair treatment of rural Northern Ireland goes on.