Paul Frew
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. Nevertheless, there are concerns that I want to address. The Minister and the departmental officials will know that, even from the range of questions that I have asked. We need to make sure that we get the balance correct.”
“In the written and oral evidence received then, the Committee was advised of potential amendments that the Minister may table at Consideration Stage, including an amendment to remove the commissioner that is being considered in liaison with OLC.”
“That in itself causes some victims and witnesses bother, because they are in a system that they are not part of, which means that they do not get the support that they require. That can sometimes leave them feeling retraumatised, as though they have been put through the wringer again.”
“The Bill makes provision to offer those protections and provide clarity to victims that they do not have to face their perpetrator in court. <BR /> <BR />Members asked questions about a range of matters, including the independence of the office, the ability to review the performance of any future commissioner, the costs of establishing th…”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. She was absolutely right to take that action, as it means that victims' voices are right at the heart of the matters under discussion. It is now obvious to us that that should have been done years ago, but it is good that it is being done now.”
“Officials explained that the Bill would legislate on the disclosure regime not to prevent an application for disclosure but to set out a process whereby the defence would have to show the relevance of the information that it was requesting. That is an important protection.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,736 lines we hold for Paul Frew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 75.
“I thank the Member for giving way. All of us in the House should expect clear definitions in a Bill. If a Bill does not contain clear definitions, we are quite within our rights to ask the proposer of that Bill why such things are not clearly defined.”
“that, if the Members opposite had wanted to end traditional hunting with red coats and horses, they could easily have formulated a Bill that stated, "This Bill is about hunting with horses". That would have captured the traditional hunt that, those Members say, they want to end. However, they want to end more than that: they want to end the gun hunter.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. May I say”
“That is very important. Biodiversity is very important when there is no hierarchy of predator. When animals and mammals out there cannot be eaten or taken by other animals, man must intervene humanely and passionately to dispatch those animals.”
“I thank the Member for giving way on a good point. We have the penalties here. They include 12 months in prison and fines not exceeding £20,000, which is excessive. Does the Member know whether, if the person, occupier or landowner is guilty of an offence, they could be liable to a £20,000 fine? If that is the case, no landowner in the country would give consent to hunting on their land.”
“I thank the Member for accepting the intervention. Perhaps he was not in the Chamber when his colleague the Member for Mid Ulster Patsy McGlone raised serious concerns about the provisions for hunting with guns, given that an owner's guns could be confiscated if they were to be investigated for, or charged with, a crime under the Bill. Does he not share his colleague's concerns?”
“Thank you. Will the Member accept that the scenario that she painted of the cat being ripped apart would mean that she would have to amend the Bill to get protections for pets, as far as I can see? I do not know that a cat would be a wild mammal. Maybe we could get clarification on that, and maybe the Member would be minded to amend the Bill to protect pets.”
“I say this to the Committee: you have a job of work to do to make sure that the Bill is fit for purpose and does not penalise the humble hunter with a gun.”
“If you are out in the wild, in open countryside, how could you ever prevent your dog from going after a wild mammal? How could you ever prevent your dog from pursuing a wild mammal and injuring or even killing it? That is where the dog walker bit comes in, because a gun dog is trained to preserve its prey and not damage it. It holds the prey in its mouth without damaging it, but a pet dog does not have that same training. I therefore have real issues with the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I have outlined only some of my concerns about the Bill. I am sorry that my contribution has taken so long, but it is really important that the issues be ironed out at this point. It looks as though the Bill will pass its Second Stage and move to Committee Stage.”
“Why would you go to the bother of training a dog to pick up animal-based scents when you are forbidding the dog from being used? <BR /> <BR />I would like to know what "reasonable steps" the Member is talking about that need to be taken to ensure:”
“You could have the best trained dog in the world, but its instinct will be to go underground if that mammal goes underground. How does he define a dog being "under control"? How does he stop that one dog meeting up with other dogs on the same scent? Does that mean that the hunter is liable for prosecution and, at that point, is causing an offence? Those are all valid questions that need to be asked and ironed out before the hunting fraternity, whether that is on foot or anywhere else, has any sort of assurance from the Bill. <BR /> <BR />There is also an issue around:”
“I will add to that. Even in a built-up area, cats, rather than dogs, are more at risk of attacking a fox. Therefore, there are issues around why the Bill sponsor has picked on dogs. <BR /> <BR />He also talked about the exemption for the purpose of "preventing the spread of disease". Again, what does that mean? Is it the disease of animals, or is it the risk of disease spreading among humans? That is very important point, and it is not clarified in the Bill. I hope that the Bill sponsor can clarify that. <BR /> <BR />The Bill goes on to say that the conditions for the exemptions are:”
“Ground-nesting birds and their eggs are so vulnerable to mammals. Foxes and other mammals will deprive that area of ground-nesting birds, and they will do in quick fashion.”
“OK. You have answered it. I suppose that I need further clarification over my concern. The Bill talks about exemptions for the purposes of "preserving human health". What does "human health" mean? I do not know. It is not defined in the Bill. Therefore, where does the wild animal come into it when it is about "preserving human health"? I do not know. <BR /> <BR />It also talks about:”
“I would really welcome it if the Bill sponsor could tell me whether, if a fox goes into a henhouse and destroys 50% of the hens and comes back the very next night to take the rest, that farmer can use a gun to dispatch that fox and use his dog to flush that fox out.”
“How can you keep a dog above ground? They can:”
“You run the risk, when not using a dog and not having flushed the mammal out, of not being able to take a safe, clear shot. There are all sorts of ramifications, and there should have been exemptions for deerstalking in the Bill to cover that because it is common in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The exemptions that are in the Bill include:”
“Then, you can use that dog to flush out that mammal to get it to a point where you can dispatch it safely, with a decent background, so that you fire that weapon safely.”
“I heard the proposer of the Bill say that, if it is not in the Bill, it does not need to be covered in the Bill. However, he inserts his provisions after article 23 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Part III of that Order, which is straight before this amendment going in, deals with the protection of deer, so he should, I believe, have included provisions for deerstalking, where you will use a dog. When you go out to stalk deer, you go out to shoot it, and you dispatch it humanely. You shoot it in the head so that you can get food from the carcass. You will have a dog, with a lead tied around your waist, to direct you in the scent of that deer. You could walk for miles and cover acres before you come across a deer, so you use a dog to steer the deer stalk.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Scottish Act also refers to the "management of foxes below ground". There is no exemption for that here, as far as I can see. There is an exemption for using a dog above ground. My problem is this: how can anybody with a dog control it to the point that he keeps the dog above ground when it is chasing a mammal? A mammal will go underground. Its instinct will be to go underground, and the dog's instinct will also be to go underground, so that exemption does not really pass the sniff test. Pardon the pun. I know that you appreciated that, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Then you have section 6:”
“Oh, there we go, and the Member has won a small victory there with regard to that. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that the Bill will pass this stage. Sinn Féin has made many a U-turn this week. Its position on this is just one of them. Of course, its members will answer for that themselves with their own constituents and in their own policies as they go forward. <BR /> <BR />There are a number of exemptions in the Bill, and I am grateful for them, but why did the Bill sponsor not go further? Of all the exceptions in the Scottish Act, there are only two here in Northern Ireland. Why has he left out licences for use of more than two dogs for the activity mentioned above? It is simply because the Bill deals with "one dog or more", so he cannot use that exemption. He cannot use a licensing regime, because he wants to ban hunting with "a dog".”
“I compliment the Member on his passion. I absolutely do. I like to see passion in the Chamber. I like to have his intervention, and I like the toing and froing, because that is what proper debate is, and that is why I encourage that as we go through the Bill.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention and for that explanation, but that is all really irrelevant when he talks about hunting with one dog. When you cannot hunt with one dog, the question of whether the Bill mentions "pack" becomes irrelevant. I did not see the word "pack", by the way. I could be wrong, but I have read it, and I cannot see the word "pack". It talks about "one or more dogs".”
“I thank Mr Buckley for his contribution. He makes a really good intervention and really good points. I will take the Member at face value.”
“It is not about catching and eating or tearing apart; it is about "searching for and pursuing". Those are his own words in his Bill.”
“The sponsor is explaining it to me, but I am reading his Bill. His Bill says:”
“How do you prove inducement? How do you prove that someone induced their dog to go into a hole? It talks about an "enclosed space". What is an enclosed space? I do not know. I suggest that nobody in the Chamber knows what an enclosed space is. Is it a hole, a barn, a pile of stones, a midden — some of you might not know what a midden is — a vehicle, a field or a hedgerow? Does anyone know what an enclosed space is in that regard? I do not know. <BR /> <BR />Also, there are the penalties. A person who is guilty of an offence under new article 23B, which relates to hunting and, I think, shooting with a dog, new article 23C, which relates to trail hunting, or new article 23D, which relates to terrier work — and remember that 23B —.”
“"searching for". A dog, by its very nature, will search for animals. That is where ordinary dog walkers will fall foul of the legislation. There is a real risk that — the Member has referred to such concerns — it could well criminalise ordinary dog walkers, whether they live in the countryside or the town, north Belfast or south Belfast — wherever they live — who are out walking their dog in a park and the dog chases after a squirrel, rabbit or hare. I do not know whether there are any hares in north Belfast, but there should be. I have a real concern about a dog "searching for and pursuing" a wild mammal. <BR /> <BR />The Bill then goes on to talk about terrier work:”
“I hear that defence. Maybe that is just because it is bad law. Maybe that is just because the police do not enforce the law. We have occasions, even in this place — Northern Ireland — when the police do not want to publicise law or offences: they just do not bother with them because they have other things to do. That is not really a defence for us passing bad law, so I worry about that. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is flawed. As I said, the only definition in the Bill seems to be that:”
“Are you telling me that any landowner will allow any sort of shooting or hunting on their land if they think that they will be prosecuted? They will not be able to see what is happening. They will not see the dog going left, right and centre.”
“I think that that clarifies the answer to the Chair of the Committee's question about whether it would be OK if eight people organised to go out for a shoot and had eight dogs with them. I think that I have proven that that is not the case, for two reasons. The first is that hunting is hunting a wild mammal using one dog, and the second reason is that you cannot organise or participate in the hunting of a wild mammal using one or more dogs. The answer to your question about where you can organise a shoot is that you cannot. Will the farmer, the shooter or the gunman risk it, if he thinks that his guns will be confiscated? <BR /> <BR />I will read on:”
“There is no doubt that John has changed his position, but I am still not sure that the Assembly should pass the Bill, because it has deep flaws and clarification is needed to make it safe for the rural community, the countryside and everyone who partakes in hunting. <BR /> <BR />We have looked at "Interpretation of this Part", which refers to:”
“Is that not a chill factor created by the Bill? <BR /> <BR />I should point out that, in the last mandate, Mr Blair introduced a Bill in which his definition was:”
“That is where my concerns about the Bill come from. If the Bill was purely about the traditional hunt — the red coats, the horses, the trumpets, the sailing over fences — it would surely be called the "Hunting with Horses Bill". If it was to do with packs of hounds, it would be called the "Hunting with Packs of Hounds Bill". This is about hunting, which will encapsulate shooting. This is about hunting with one or more dogs. If you go out with a gun and a gun dog to retrieve the prey that you have shot for countryside management, food or, for that matter, sport, you will be liable to be prosecuted under this law. What will happen then? As Patsy McGlone ably said, you will be investigated and could well be arrested for a crime. Your guns will be confiscated immediately, and it could be years before you get those guns back.”
“That is the interpretation of hunting. How is it defined? It is defined as "searching for and pursuing." On the point of "searching for and pursuing", you do not even have to catch a mammal to break the law.”
“I thank the Member for that important point. How do you prove that that mammal was killed by the dog? Most dogs are trained well. They are trained to retrieve and not to damage the game or the prey. That can also be birds, not just mammals. It is important, but how do you prove it in the Bill? You cannot, because the only interpretation of hunting in the Bill is:”
“I will, in a minute. In all circumstances, most of the hunters who shoot that game will use dogs.”
“Yes, I have. I have a number of restaurants that use game. To educate the Member for North Belfast, game can be rabbit and venison. That is game. In all circumstances —”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I will move on, because we want to make progress. We have not got unlimited time, and people want to get home tonight. <BR /> <BR />Do the Bill sponsor, his party and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs think that wild animals do not need to be managed in the countryside? Do they think that they do not need to be humanely dispatched in the countryside? Do they think that people should not hunt for food? Do they think that that is unacceptable or cruel? Is it cruel to hunt to provide restaurants with food? Is that wrong? Should that be stopped? There is a danger that the Bill could do that. The Minister might have some restaurateurs coming to his door if it hurts their supply chain and their ability to produce good food that we can all enjoy and which we need for nourishment.”
“I agree with the Member; he is right. In my time in politics, I have heard from many aggrieved farmers who have had to stop the traditional hunt going over their land because of the damage that it was doing to fences, the soil, land, grass and sometimes even crops. Therefore, I agree with the Member, but that is not what the Bill is about; that is not what the Bill encapsulates.”
“It is not what they are made of; it is not what they do.”
“Yes, it does. I do not know anyone who hunts who does not care passionately about the wildlife in and around their environment. I have not met a hunter who goes out to cause unnecessary harm to any animal that they hunt.”
“I thank the Minister for his clarification. I hope that it is a clarification and that it does not mean that he thinks that angling or fishing is cruel or that dispatching an animal humanely is cruel. I do not know whether the Minister has seen how a wild mammal dies naturally. Most foxes will die of disease, but a fox will not be left alone to die. It will probably starve to death or be attacked and eaten by another wild animal. Not only will it be attacked and eaten but its young will be. That is how an animal in the wild dies a natural death.”
“Only last week, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs stated:”
“I am concerned about the people who live in the countryside, their way of life, how they manage the countryside, how they manage the wild animals in and around their environment and how the Bill would impact on their life, their livelihood and their livestock. More than that, the Bill will affect their way of life, their traditions and even what they eat. <BR /> <BR />Let me explore that. The motivation behind the Bill may be sound and clear, but it is not about traditional fox hunting. It is not just about the people who wear grey or red coats, blare trumpets and ride horses to chase foxes with a pack of hounds. The Bill says nothing about that. It is about more than that. We must concern ourselves with what the Bill says and does. <BR /> <BR />I have concerns about the Bill sponsor's party.”
“Before I commence my contribution, I will say that it is a great honour for a Member to bring a private Member's Bill to the House, and, because of the work that they have had to put in in order to do so, I congratulate anyone and everyone who does. I commend John Blair for his actions and for his work on the Bill, as well as for his previous work on a Bill on the same subject that he introduced in the previous mandate. It takes a lot of hard work, research, scrutiny and consultation to get to this point, and I commend him for that. <BR /> <BR />That is where I will stop giving out compliments, because I cannot agree with the Bill.”
“Given the state of our justice system and the time that it takes for a case to go to court, that could mean someone being deprived of their firearms for up to two or three years.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. To be clear, although the Bill is not clear, it provides for an article 23A stating:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Where in the Bill does it say that eight persons who go out with a gun to hunt mammals can take eight dogs with them?”
“Thank you very much. The Bill sponsor talks about packs of hounds. Can he show me the page of his Bill that mentions "packs of hounds"?”