Robbie Butler
Lagan Valley · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Officials highlighted that alignment was provided through existing EU-derived arrangements and that coherence with existing regulatory frameworks was identified as a main consideration.”
“I note that the Member for Strangford agrees: she understands the value of our fisheries in those areas. There are other complexities. The Isle of Man Government have now done a bit of a circle around that island, which makes it difficult for our fishers from Portavogie, Kilkeel and Portaferry to craft and graft a living from some of the…”
“The Committee took the opportunity to question officials on several issues and highlight matters warranting scrutiny at Committee Stage but was not limited to those areas.”
“As the Minister said, they have possibly been viewed as competing demands, but they are not competing demands, because clean water is part of sustainable food production.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am glad to see language in the Bill on the sustainability of the aquaculture sector, and I want to lean in a bit on that. Aquaculture pastimes have, perhaps, been underutilised, whether they relate to the angling fraternity or other river and water users.”
“Today, I want to talk about a very talented young girl from Lisburn called Freya Terris. Freya, who is 17 years old, attends Friends' School and studies the piano under former Lisburn resident Rory Dowse. Freya is an incredibly accomplished young pianist and has performed in the Ulster Hall.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,636 lines we hold for Robbie Butler, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 53.
“It is just a token and an understanding of what they have been going through for decades. As Members in the Chamber, we will need to conclude whether such expenditure is justified. That is a judgment for each of us to make with our respective parties. However, I believe that we should be honest with ourselves and the public about the implications of the decisions that we are being asked to make today. TEO officials have been very clear that the scheme would be demand-led and that costs could increase further if claimant numbers exceed the assumptions that have been made.”
“When looking through the Committee report, I read some really powerful evidence from survivors and advocacy groups regarding the proposed posthumous cut-off date, and I understand the desire to ensure that as many people as possible are included in the scheme. However, amendment No 11 is not a minor or technical amendment. In fact, it would be one of the most important amendments made to the entire Bill, either at this stage, or indeed, the last. <BR /> <BR />Moving the posthumous eligibility date from 2011 to 1953 would, I suspect, increase the cost of the scheme by a lot of money — maybe tens of millions of pounds. I am sure that the junior Ministers will cover that in their winding-up speeches. However, let us be clear about that. Victims have not been asking for the financial settlement as redress or as justice.”
“It is really important that we understand the costs at this point. I fear that there may also be broader equality and legal concerns associated with that proposal, because it has not had time to go through due process and proper scrutiny. In those circumstances, we as a party simply do not believe that the Assembly has been provided with sufficient evidence or analysis to justify such a substantial extension of the scheme at this stage. As I have said, those amendments are, undoubtedly, well intentioned, but they would likely come at a cost of many tens of millions of pounds. As such, we will not support Mr Carroll's amendments. <BR /> <BR />I want to address amendment No 11. I recognise entirely why the Committee has sought to table the amendment.”
“I have, however, engaged with various people who have been impacted on by what were heinous wrongs. <BR /> <BR />I will speak first to the amendments that Mr Carroll tabled. I can understand the motivation behind them. Nobody wants to see individuals be unfairly excluded from recognition or redress. I do not doubt for a second Mr Carroll's humanity in this moment. His amendments would, however, represent a significant expansion of eligibility. Increasing the level of payments to £12,000, as happened at Consideration Stage, has already caused a real but understandable additional cost pressure. The inclusion of workhouses now, as proposed by his amendments, would, I suspect, have a very significant financial implication. We would not be surprised at all if the true cost of that was difficult to determine at this point.”
“At the outset, I want to be absolutely clear that the Ulster Unionist Party continues to support fully the overall purpose behind what is a really important Bill. The experiences of people who spent time in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses are deeply distressing and resonate not only with the victims and their families but, indeed, with the many of us who have sat through a number of the debates on the issues. Survivors and their families have waited far too long for acknowledgment, accountability and redress. It is right that the Assembly seeks to address historical wrongs. I speak as someone who did not sit through the Committee's detailed consideration of the Bill, so I bow to Committee members' experiences, which I have listened to throughout the debate.”
“The debate is not about party politics — certainly not — despite what Members from across the Chamber have said, and it is not about settling old scores. It is about recognising that confidence in public appointments underpins confidence in public institutions. People in Northern Ireland deserve to know that appointments are made because individuals are qualified to do the job, not because they happen to know the right people, belong to the right party or move in the right circles. Merit must always come first; transparency must be expected; and independent oversight must never again be allowed to disappear for four years. If we are serious about rebuilding trust in politics and restoring confidence in public appointments, that is a very good place to start.”
“She described public bodies operating outside the scope of regulation as a significant regulatory gap. We should listen carefully to that warning. Public appointments matter because public bodies matter. These organisations oversee millions of pounds of public expenditure and influence economic development, healthcare, education, infrastructure, environmental protection and public services. The people appointed to lead them should be the very best candidates available, selected through processes that are transparent, robust and beyond reproach. <BR /> <BR />At a time when trust in politics is under pressure across these islands and beyond, we should not be lowering standards; we should be strengthening them.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />In many cases, there may be perfectly legitimate explanations. The difficulty is that, when oversight is absent, suspicions fill the vacuum. That is unfair not only on the public but on those who are appointed. People who put themselves forward for public service deserve to have confidence that their appointment is recognised as being based on merit, expertise and ability. They should not find themselves subject to speculation simply because the system lacks the transparency necessary to command public confidence. <BR /> <BR />The newly appointed commissioner, Claire Keatinge, has spoken openly about the challenges that she has inherited: a significant reduction in independent assessors, limited audit capacity and legislation that has not kept pace with modern governance standards.”
“The Member will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate —.”
“I thank the Member. He maybe sees everything through a green and orange lens. That is certainly not something that I do. Those concerns have been well covered in the public debate.”
“Whether the appointments were entirely appropriate is a reasonable question; however, the more important question is why no independent scrutiny was in place to provide the reassurance that the public deserve. Good governance is not about simply doing the right thing; it is about being able to demonstrate that the right thing has been done. <BR /> <BR />We have all seen appointments generate headlines and public debate. Concerns have been raised about appointments to Invest NI, for instance, and about other public boards and commissioner roles, and questions have been asked about political connections and affiliations.”
“As an Ulster Unionist spokesperson, I support the motion, not because we believe that every public appointment made in Northern Ireland is flawed or that those who serve on our public bodies do not bring valuable skills and experience — many do — but because public confidence is what matters. In reality, trust in institutions is hard won and easily lost. Once people begin to believe that who you know matters more than what you know, confidence in government starts to erode. That is why the vacancy in the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments should concern every Member of this House. <BR /> <BR />For over four years, from 2021 to 2025, Northern Ireland had no independent watchdog overseeing public appointments. During that period, hundreds of appointments were made to public organisation, ALBs and publicly funded boards.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I do not, for a single moment, dispute the point that you made; it is a good and well-made point. However, in reality, subsection (2) of some of the first few clauses states that "the council may" exercise its powers. The Bill does not mean that a council must act. A council "may" act, and, if a council does not have the fiscal provision to do that, it is unlikely to do so. That is not to take away from our ambition to work with the Minister and the Executive to find the additional money that may be required. In reality, I think that some of this is being misrepresented. The legislation states that a council "may" act.”
“The Ulster Unionist Party supports the majority of the amendments before us, particularly those that the Minister tabled. We encourage him to continue to engage with councils on the Bill's implementation, on assistance with cost recovery, on guidance and on the future review of the legislation.”
“Without that scrutiny having been undertaken, Members are being asked to take a view on a potentially significant new obligation in the absence of the level of evidence that normally informs good legislation. For that reason, although we will consider amendment Nos 31, 34 and 35, we are not persuaded by amendment No 33. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, the amendments strengthen the Bill, but legislation alone will not solve the problem of dilapidation. The legislation's true test will not be whether it passes but whether councils will have the resources, guidance and confidence necessary to use the powers effectively. Our towns, villages and city centres deserve better than to have buildings that are left to deteriorate year after year. The Bill provides an opportunity to address that challenge.”
“We are, however, less convinced by amendment No 33. That is not to suggest that the proposal lacks any merit. There is undoubtedly value in understanding the prevalence of dilapidated buildings, dangerous structures and neglected sites across Northern Ireland. Rather, the Ulster Unionist Party's concern is one of principle. The proposal would have benefited significantly from being considered during Committee Stage, as that would have provided an opportunity for us to engage directly with councils, stakeholders and the Department to test its practicality, to explore how such a review would be conducted and, importantly, to quantify the costs and benefits associated with the introduction of such a requirement.”
“We are therefore interested in hearing further about a cost-benefit analysis of that.”
“An accurate and publicly available register would provide not only greater accountability but a valuable evidence base from which councils, the Department and future Assembly Committees could assess progress, identify trends and determine whether further intervention may be required. Likewise, the inclusion of district electoral area (DEA) information could help Members, councils and local communities to better understand how the powers are being used across Northern Ireland. While some initial work may be required to establish such a system, the long-term benefits could provide an accurate baseline and an ongoing public record that may outweigh the other costs.”
“I will listen to the Member's comments on amendment Nos 31 and 34 and the consequential No 35, because, while I recognise that the establishment and maintenance of a public register will inevitably create an additional administrative burden for the councils, I believe that it is worth listening to the merits of the debate. At times, the Committee was at pains to ensure that the burden would not be put on councils because there was no new money coming with the provisions of the Bill. While there is merit in the amendment, we want to listen to the Member and give him the right to make his case. We also want to listen to the Minister in the winding-up speech on the implications of the amendment. <BR /> <BR />If the Bill is to achieve its objectives, we need to be able to measure its effectiveness.”
“<BR /> <BR />We welcome amendment No 32 and respect the fact that it may be one of the most important amendments before the House today. If we grant councils significant new powers, it is only right that the Assembly has an opportunity to assess whether those powers are being used effectively; whether they are delivering improvements on the ground; and whether further legislative change would be required. The review mechanism will provide an important opportunity to assess implementation, consistency of enforcement, council capacity and the overall effectiveness of the legislation. Those conversations with councils will be crucial to ensuring the efficacy and deliverability of the proposed legislation. <BR /> <BR />I wish to comment on the late amendments that were tabled by Mr McCrossan and Mr McGrath: amendment Nos 31, 33, 34 and 35.”
“That represents an appropriate balance between providing councils with effective enforcement powers and protecting individual property rights and ensuring due process. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 27, 28 and 29 and the consequential amendment No 36 provide welcome clarity regarding the fixed penalty notice and ongoing liability for non-compliance. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Members have questioned whether the fixed penalty regime will provide a sufficient deterrent, particularly for repeat offenders. While the amendments strengthen the position, their effectiveness will, ultimately, be tested only in practice. <BR /> <BR />We are content to support amendment No 30, as it is a consequential amendment arising from changes to clause 11.”
“Amendment No 21 covers consequential changes arising from amendments to clause 11. <BR /> <BR />We also welcome amendment No 22. One of the recurring themes raised by councils was the difficulty in identifying ownership and obtaining the information necessary to pursue enforcement action. Strengthening the information-gathering powers is therefore a sensible and practical improvement to the Bill. Nevertheless, identifying responsible persons remains one of the greatest barriers to effective enforcement, and the Minister should continue to work closely with councils to ensure that the powers are effective in practice. <BR /> <BR />We are content to support amendment Nos 23 and 24. <BR /> <BR />Regarding amendment Nos 25 and 26, we welcome the introduction of a warrant process where access to land has been refused.”
“Throughout the scrutiny, councils repeatedly highlighted concerns regarding cost recovery. Giving councils powers to intervene is one thing; ensuring that they are not left carrying disproportionate financial burdens is another. The amendment provides useful clarification regarding the recovery of costs associated with fencing and securing dangerous sites. However, we would welcome further assurance from the Minister regarding circumstances where ownership becomes disputed, where sites have effectively been abandoned or where the recovery of costs proves difficult for councils. Councils must have confidence that their use of the powers will not leave ratepayers having to carry the financial burden. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party supports amendment Nos 20 and 21.”
“Northern Ireland has a rich tapestry of heritage buildings and sites. Through the scrutiny process, concerns were raised that efforts to tackle dilapidation should not inadvertently undermine existing heritage protections. The amendments provide greater reassurance in that regard, and they recognise that regeneration and heritage preservation should not be viewed as competing objectives. <BR /> <BR />Turning to amendment Nos 4 to 18, we support the changes to clause 11. While largely technical in nature, the amendments provide greater clarity and avoid confusion with existing defective premises legislation. Clear and understandable legislation is always preferable, particularly where councils and property owners alike need certainty regarding their responsibilities. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 19 is particularly important.”
“<BR /> <BR />Looking at amendment No 1, the Ulster Unionist Party welcomed the decision to align the wording of clause 2 with that used elsewhere in the Bill, because consistency in drafting matters significantly, particularly where councils would be required to make judgements on whether a building or site falls within the scope of the legislation. However, clear guidance will still be required to ensure that the provisions are applied consistently across all council areas. I returned to that point many times throughout deliberations on the Bill: we really require all councils to respond in the same manner, whether that is in urban settings or, particularly, in rural settings. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party also welcomes amendment Nos 2 and 3 relating to heritage sites.”
“The Ulster Unionist Party supports the principles behind the legislation. Across Northern Ireland, whether it is in our villages, towns or city centres, too many communities are blighted by derelict buildings, dangerous structures and neglected sites. They undermine regeneration, deter investment and create genuine safety concerns. The challenge has never been identifying the problem, however; it has always been providing councils with the practical tools to address it. <BR /> <BR />Many of the Minister's amendments seek to improve the Bill and respond to concerns raised during scrutiny by the Committee. The Ulster Unionist Party is broadly content with them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 33, 34 and 35 were tabled after Committee Stage completed, so I will turn now to amendment No 36. On schedule 1, the Department advised the Committee of that additional provision, subject to the new provision to fix penalty notices at clause 19, so the Committee is pleased to support amendment No 36. <BR /> <BR />That ends my comments as the Chair of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />If you do not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now reflect the thoughts of the Ulster Unionist Party as its spokesperson. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendments to the Dilapidation Bill. At the outset, I acknowledge the considerable work undertaken by the Committee and the engagement that has taken place between the Department, councils, heritage bodies and other stakeholders throughout the scrutiny process.”
“Such a provision would enable the Assembly and future AERA Committees to assess the effectiveness of the legislation and ensure that councils contribute to that process through the provision of relevant information. At our meeting on 23 April, Department officials indicated that the Minister would consider drafting a standard clause in that regard. Subsequently, the Committee, at its meeting on 7 May, considered a draft amendment. Following clarification from officials that the proposed regulations would broadly reflect those set out in section 228 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the Committee agreed to support the inclusion of new clause 28A as drafted. Therefore, the Committee is pleased to support amendment No 32.”
“The Committee is content with the approach and is pleased to support amendment Nos 27 and 28. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 29 relates to clause 21(6). The Committee was content when it was proposed by the Minister during Committee Stage and following further clarification on multiple notices. <BR /> <BR />The Committee recognised the need for ministerial amendment No 30 to clause 25 to align with the new title of clause 11. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 31 was tabled after Committee Stage, so I will turn to amendment No 32. Following deliberations, the Committee concluded that the inclusion of a review and reporting clause was essential to the Bill.”
“On 17 April, officials advised, following receipt of legal advice, that issuing further fixed penalty notices for the same circumstances would not be appropriate, as it could amount to penalising an individual twice for the same offence. <BR /> <BR />The Committee then sought further clarification on scenarios that involve repeat offenders with multiple properties. Officials advised that the Bill allows for multiple notices, including different types of notice, to be issued in respect of a property. The Committee was subsequently informed that the Department would propose an amendment to provide that payment of a fixed penalty would discharge liability for a conviction only up to the date of payment. That allows for further enforcement action, including court proceedings, in cases of continued non-compliance.”
“The amendment provides for the seeking of a warrant from a lay magistrate where entry has been confused, which is comparable with section 177 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. The Committee is content with that approach and is pleased to support amendment Nos 25 and 26. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 27 and 28 relate to clause 19. The Committee considered whether the Bill made adequate provision for stronger penalties in respect of repeat offenders. Officials clarified that the payment of a fixed penalty notice discharges liability for conviction only and does not remove the requirement to carry out the work specified in the notice. The Committee also explored the handling of multiple maintenance notices.”
“The Committee is content with that approach and is pleased to support amendment No 22. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment Nos 23 and 24. Those minor amendments were noted by the Committee as introduced by the Minister during Committee Stage with regard to clause 17. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 25 and 26 are to clause 18. The Committee considered evidence indicating that, under the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, where entry is refused, consent may be sought from a lay magistrate. The Committee queried whether it would be appropriate to reflect a similar provision in the Bill. Officials subsequently confirmed on 19 March that they would be content to propose said amendment.”
“The Committee recognised that those amendments are consequential to the change in the title of clause 11, and we support the amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 22 is to clause 16. The Committee considered evidence from councils that highlighted concerns that the provision could limit their ability to obtain ownership information and would represent a weakening of existing powers under article 72 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. The Committee raised those concerns with officials, who took legal advice and subsequently advised us, on 31 March, that the Minister had agreed to table an amendment to broaden the scope of the clause and to align the provision more closely with article 72 to enable councils to require information from a person in relation to a property.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 19 was tabled after Committee Stage. However, the issue of cost recovery was considered during our deliberations in February. Members explored what constitutes "reasonable costs" and, in particular, whether the costs associated with fencing off sites are recoverable by councils. At that time, officials clarified that "reasonable costs" is a term used in other legislation and that councils should apply a degree of common sense in determining what is reasonable in the circumstances. Officials also confirmed that, under clause 12(4), councils may recover the cost of fencing off sites but only up to the point at which the danger is secured. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to amendment Nos 20 and 21.”
“The Committee is content with that approach and is pleased to support amendment No 3. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment Nos 4 to 18. On 17 September, the Committee was advised of the Minister's intention to amend the title of clause 11 to avoid confusion with the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 as recently amended. That was in light of ongoing work by the Department for Communities on building safety legislation and wider concerns regarding fragmentation in that area. The Committee supported the Department's view that references to "defective premises" should be removed and replaced with more appropriate terminology. The Committee subsequently considered a suite of 16 proposed amendments to clause 11 and is content to support the revised approach under amendment Nos 4 to 18.”
“In particular, it was noted that the 2011 Act provides for the offence of carrying out unauthorised works on a listed building and that listed building consent for alterations or demolitions does not strictly relate solely to condition. The Committee raised those matters with officials at its meeting on 12 February, and, at the Committee's request, officials subsequently engaged further with HED. The Minister then agreed to table an amendment to clause 4(5) to include an explicit reference to statutory heritage controls. The Committee is satisfied that amendment No 2 strengthens the provision and is pleased to support it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 is to clause 7(4) and is consequential to amendment No 2. The Committee considered evidence from HED that highlighted the need to include an explicit reference to statutory heritage controls.”
“At a meeting on 30 April, the Department indicated that it intended to propose an amendment to align the wording of clause 2(2)(c) with that of clause 1(1) by substituting the words "being detrimental to" for "adversely affecting". The Committee was content with that approach and is pleased to support amendment No 1. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 is to clause 4. The Committee considered evidence from the historic environment division, which is otherwise known as "HED", and Ulster Architectural Heritage that highlighted the need to strengthen the clause to better align it with the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.”
“I take the opportunity to thank all those who submitted written evidence and gave oral evidence to the Committee. I also thank the departmental officials, the Bill Office and the Committee secretariat for their help throughout the Committee Stage, and I highlight the good working relationships between the Committee secretariat and the officials. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to amendment No 1, which is to clause 2. The Committee considered proposals, including those from NILGA and Building Control Northern Ireland (BCNI), to align the wording of clause 2(2)(c) with the wording of clause 1(1) and to introduce a material degree threshold.”
“Notwithstanding that, the Committee recognises that local government remains dissatisfied that not all of its proposals were accepted and that its concerns persist regarding aspects of the Bill. The Committee highlighted the fact that effective implementation would rely on a number of factors, including clear guidance, consistent application and a robust post-implementation review, and we recommended that the Department continue to work with local government to strengthen the statutory guidance.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee's actions in going beyond routine evidence sessions reflected its determination to ensure that the concerns of those responsible for implementation were explored. The Committee facilitated further engagement with NILGA, including through a second oral evidence session, and requested that the Assembly's Bill Office officials met directly with councils' Building Control representatives to help them better understand the operational implications. The Committee sought proposals from local government on amendments and requested a formal departmental response to each of them. However, having considered the amendments in depth, the Committee accepted the Department's position that most proposals are already covered by existing legislation or will be better dealt with by the statutory guidance.”
“Those amendments demonstrate the effectiveness of the Committee's scrutiny and the value of the extended Committee Stage. I commend the Minister and the Department for engaging with the Committee on the amendments, because it is always better to do it in that manner. While NILGA and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE) initially declined to give oral evidence, the Committee always wished to place a particular emphasis on engagement with local government, in recognition of the central role that councils play in implementing such legislation. The Committee pursued the matter further, with NILGA subsequently attending in January. NILGA raised significant outstanding issues, which prompted the Committee to request direct departmental engagement with local government in order to resolve them.”
“Stakeholders widely recognised the detrimental impact that poorly maintained and derelict buildings can have on local environments, particularly where such properties pose risks to public safety or undermine regeneration efforts. However, our evidence also highlighted concerns about the capacity of and financial constraints on councils; the need for clarity on the definitions and thresholds; and the importance of ensuring that councils apply their powers consistently. <BR /> <BR />Arising directly from the council's evidence and deliberations were a number of amendments that the Minister agreed to take forward, including amendments to existing clauses and the introduction of a new review clause as requested by the Committee.”
“The Committee deliberated on the provisions of the Bill and proposed amendments at 10 further meetings, which concluded with its formal clause-by-clause considerations on 7 May 2026. <BR /> <BR />Throughout its consideration of the Bill, the Committee sought clarification on the intent, application and proportionality of the proposed powers, and explored how issues raised during the call for views might be addressed through proposed amendments or the supporting statutory guidance. Overall, there was broad support for the Bill's objective of equipping councils with modernised and consolidated powers to address dilapidated, dangerous and neglected buildings in the interests of amenity, public safety and community well-being.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and happy birthday to you. <BR /> <BR />With your indulgence, before I address the amendments, I wish to say a few words about the Committee Stage of the Bill in my capacity as the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Committee received 30 responses to its call for views from individuals, organisations, government bodies and businesses, along with a further 11 written submissions. The Committee held 14 oral evidence sessions with interested organisations and local government. The Committee explored a wide range of issues and concerns with departmental officials, who were always readily available to the Committee. I thank those officials.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. How will the money that the National Lottery has pledged reflect the confidence that it has in the ability of a project such as Together for Families to turn around the lives of young people who desperately need such intervention and the value that it places on that?”
“I am sure that the Minister will agree that farming is not just an important job but a dangerous job, with around 50 fatalities in farm-related accidents over the past 10 years. Will the Minister give an update on any initiatives on that or of the importance given to driving that number down to zero deaths on farms in Northern Ireland?”
“Can you give us a better update on salmonids and the most up-to-date picture on Atlantic salmon, given their particular relevance to tourism?”
“The Member makes really good points, and the purpose of scrutiny is to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. Does the Member have any data on the legislation that was passed in Scotland, Wales or England? Some of that is now 20 years old. The Bill sponsor has suggested that there is no evidence to uphold the argument that is being made.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. We are conflating two issues. The Member did not ask whether game was on the menu. The Member was asking about whether game that you were going to eat and which was on the menu would have been hunted down by a dog and killed by a dog, not lifted by a dog after it had been shot. Do not forget that we are not talking about dogs generally; we are talking about dogs that are specifically sent out to kill the animal.”
“It is also possible to support the broad intent of the Bill whilst seeking substantial reassurance, clarification and refinement before it proceeds further. <BR /> <BR />For those reasons, whilst we are prepared to support the Bill's broad principles at this stage, that support is qualified pending further scrutiny, greater legal clarity and assurances that lawful countryside activity will not be unintentionally criminalised.”