Speaking after Tuesday’s debate in the Assembly chamber, Ulster Unionist Agriculture spokesperson and AERA committee Chair Robbie Butler MLA set out the party’s qualified support for the broad principles of the Hunting with Dogs Bill, while pressing the Bill’s sponsor for greater legal clarity.

Robbie Butler MLA said:

“The Ulster Unionist Party was broadly supportive of the principles underpinning the Hunting with Dogs Bill. We took that position grounded not in hostility towards rural life, farming, shooting or legitimate countryside management, but in a belief that animal welfare legislation should reflect the highest ethical standards expected of a modern society.

“Vermin control and wildlife management are necessary components of rural living. Farmers, gamekeepers and land managers face genuine challenges in protecting livestock, safeguarding biodiversity and managing species responsibly, and in my experience they are among the strongest advocates of conservation and responsible stewardship. The question before the Assembly was not whether wildlife management is necessary. It is. The question was whether the hunting of wild mammals with packs of dogs remains an acceptable and proportionate method of achieving those aims in a modern society.

“I welcomed the fact that the Bill did not seek to eliminate lawful pest control or countryside management. But our support was qualified by the need for robust scrutiny and clear legal certainty. There were legitimate questions to be addressed to ensure that lawful rural activity, responsible dog ownership and those who hunt to gun for food were not unintentionally captured by overly broad drafting. When we make legislation, we need to get it right first time, so that we do not have to return to the Chamber, hold our hands up and say, ‘We got it wrong’.

“I asked the Bill sponsor to provide clarity on a number of points: how the Bill would distinguish unlawful hunting from lawful hunting to gun for food or pest control; what safeguards would protect ordinary dog owners, rough shooters and gamekeepers from inadvertent criminalisation; how the definitions of ‘participation’, ‘searching’, ‘pursuing’ and a dog being ‘under control’ would operate in practice; what evidential threshold would apply; and whether a clearer mental element of intent, recklessness or knowledge should be introduced so that inadvertent conduct is not criminalised.

“I also pressed the sponsor on the ‘more than two dogs’ threshold. I wanted to understand what evidence supported that figure, and how it would work where more than one person is present, whether it meant two dogs in total or two dogs per person. These were reasonable and necessary questions.

“At its heart, this debate was about balance. It is possible to support stronger animal welfare protections whilst recognising the legitimate realities of rural life. It is possible to oppose cruelty whilst supporting lawful pest control, biodiversity management and sustainable countryside practice. It is possible to support the broad intent of the Bill whilst seeking substantial reassurance, clarification and refinement before it proceeds further.

“That is why, while we were prepared to support the Bill’s broad principles at this stage, that support was qualified pending further scrutiny, greater legal clarity and assurances that lawful countryside activity will not be unintentionally criminalised.”