Debate contribution: Aversive Training Tools for Domestic Animals

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on 5 October 2026.

MLA: Mr Jon Burrows
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 5 October 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Aversive Training Tools for Domestic Animals
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5774025

Text

I beg to move
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will keep this relatively brief. It is an important issue, but it does not have to be controversial; in fact, it should unite us all. We are a nation of animal lovers; in particular, I am a dog lover. Everyone knows that I have my three dogs at home: Maggie, Cassie and Nancy. A test of the morality of a society is how it treats the voiceless and vulnerable. We have moral choices in front of us: whether an animal should be treated treated humanely or inhumanely and whether we should go for training or pain as a way of dealing with a behavioural issue. I commend the motion to everyone in the House. The aversive training tools that are out there are simply literally shocking. That a dog in this country can be legally subjected to electric shocks through a collar is obscene. I am told that, even on the Stormont estate, there are dog trainers who use electric shock collars on their dogs. That is inhumane and not only is morally wrong but relies on a theory of dog or animal training that is based on pain and compliance as opposed to teaching and reward. That is fundamentally wrong. I will read out some of the tools available in Northern Ireland that can be used legally. A grot collar puts pressure on the bone behind a dog's ear, causing significant pain. A shock collar delivers an electric shock to a dog's neck remotely or automatically, creating pain, fear, anxiety and discomfort. There are prong collars, and I have some in my desk upstairs. We are not allowed to bring props into the Chamber. I will not do a Gerry Carroll and bring a prop in, but it would have been useful to see one today. Those collars have prongs that tighten and put pressure on a dog's neck. They cause punctures, sores, scarring, burns, bald patches and inflammation. What is more disturbing is that they can break a dog psychologically. I was at the Dogs Trust not long ago and saw dogs that had been subjected to that kind of treatment, and they are broken dogs. It is often said that there is no such thing as a bad dog, only a bad owner, and, unfortunately, we have lots of bad owners. The proposition is a simple one. Those devices are inhumane, cruel and lazy shortcuts to training a dog properly. If people do not have the time, skill or patience to train a dog or other animal properly, they should not have the dog or animal at all. There is, therefore, no excuse for using those devices. Scotland is taking action on this. Wales has banned shock collars, and we need to do so as well. However, there has to be more than that. There have to be proper penalties for abusing animals. I do not think that there is anyone in this place who is not shocked when they see headline after headline about someone who has tortured an animal or starved an animal to death and got a slap on the wrist. Shockingly, they are banned from owning animals for a couple of years. Why on earth would anyone permit those people to own an animal ever again? That is why we need tougher penalties. Frankly, if you torture or starve a dog to death, you should never be allowed to own a dog again. I will be unusually brief when speaking about the motion. We need not go beyond a few simple principles: first, the tools are available to purchase and use in Northern Ireland; secondly, they are cruel; and, thirdly, they reflect the mindset of an owner who enjoys inflicting pain or an owner who is lazy and cannot be bothered to train a dog properly. Those tools inflict not just physical pain but psychological trauma, and we need to see the end of them in Northern Ireland. We have listed some exemptions in the motion, which is not to say that we are convinced of the case for each exemption. There may need to be exemptions for some types of tools. For example, a dog warden might have to use equipment to get hold of a dangerous dog that we would not want an ordinary citizen to have, but we need to work those things through in legislation.
In principle, I am not opposed to the Alliance Party's amendment — we should ban the sale of those tools — but we have a query about legislative competence: is doing so within our remit in Northern Ireland? We got advice that enabling legislation or consent from Westminster might be required for us to ban the sale of such things; perhaps the Minister could clarify that. We certainly need to ban the possession, use and sale of those horrible tools. I want us to recognise that our dogs and other animals in this country are voiceless and vulnerable, and they rely on our passing laws. This debate is on a motion, and I have criticised such non-binding motions as much as any Member has, but, where we have the opportunity of a motion, I will use it to raise awareness of an issue and to garner some kind of cross-community and cross-party support. If we all vote for the motion, perhaps we can, in the next mandate if not in this one, make a commitment that whoever holds the relevant Department will introduce legislation that would be uncontroversial and quickly agreed to protect our animals from those awful contraptions that have no place in a civilised society. Keeping it brief, I commend our motion to all Members and encourage them to support it. I look forward to getting some clarity from the Minister on the legalities of banning the sale of those inhumane contraptions.
Yes.
Thank you. I will conclude by saying that that would be a positive result of the debate. I think that we can deal with this one fairly quickly, and I urge Members to support the motion in its entirety.

1,020 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