Debate contribution: Aversive Training Tools for Domestic Animals

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on 5 October 2026.

MLA: Mr Andrew Muir
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 5 October 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Aversive Training Tools for Domestic Animals
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5774101

Text

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion, which goes directly to how we protect animal welfare and promote humane, evidence-based training for dogs and cats in Northern Ireland. Let me be clear: improving animal welfare is one of my highest priorities, and the use of devices that control behaviour through pain, fear or distress is not consistent with the standards that I want to see for companion animals. That commitment is reflected in the animal welfare pathway that I launched in May 2025, which made it clear that stronger protections for dogs and cats, including action on aversive training devices, are a key part of that reform programme. One of my published priorities is to examine the use of electronic collars and consider the approaches taken in other jurisdictions. I have previously indicated my preference for a ban on specified aversive training devices, because the welfare evidence is clear: such devices can cause pain, fear, anxiety, stress, physical injury and longer-term behavioural harm while reward-based training provides a humane and effective alternative. The consultation on proposals to ban the use of hand-held, remote-controlled electric shock collars, choke collars and prong collars has now closed. The responses have been analysed, and I am considering the advice from officials. Those devices have been prioritised because they are associated with a particular risk of pain, distress, physical injury and behavioural harm. However, the concern is not simply that such devices may be misused; it is that their intended operation relies on an unpleasant stimulus to suppress behaviour, and that can compromise animal welfare even when the user believes that they are acting responsibly. My Department has also considered whether electronic containment fence systems and spray collars should be included. However, the current policy focus is on the devices that were assessed as presenting a greater risk of direct welfare harm or misuse. The proposal is consistent with the wider direction of travel across these islands and beyond. Wales has prohibited the use of electronic collars on dogs and cats since 2010. Scotland strongly discourages their use through guidance and promotes reward-based training methods, while the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC) has recommended a ban on electric shock collars. England did not proceed with proposed regulations. Ireland, however, has signalled its intention to legislate. At a European level, the direction of travel has become clear in the recently published regulation on the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability. While it is not known yet whether that regulation will apply to Northern Ireland, I intend to make the case to the UK Government that it should. In all this, the objective is not to punish responsible owners but to prevent avoidable suffering and to make it clear that humane training must be the norm. I recognise that there are differing views. Animal welfare and veterinary organisations, including the British Veterinary Association (BVA), Dogs Trust, the USPCA, Battersea and others, have argued for stronger restrictions or bans because such devices can cause pain, anxiety, stress, injury and behavioural harm and because effective, non-aversive alternatives are available. I recognise that some farmers, rural dog owners and trainers have raised concerns about livestock worrying, recall and control. Those are serious issues, but they do not remove the need to protect animals from methods that cause unnecessary pain, fear or distress. If legislation is taken forward — it is my desire to introduce the legislation within this mandate — I will work with the Department of Justice to ensure that penalties and enforcement arrangements are proportionate, credible and capable of deterring harmful practice. The proposal under consideration is to align any penalties with those already available under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in cases of unnecessary suffering, namely a maximum of 12 months' imprisonment, a fine of up to £20,000 or both on summary conviction. The motion also refers to exemptions for veterinarians, animal rescuers and dog wardens. I fully recognise the importance of safe handling in emergency and high-risk situations and understand the arguments in support of exemptions for those groups, but I have not yet reached a final view on whether any exemptions should apply. Those professionals already have access to established handling and restraint methods, such as control poles, humane traps, nets, slip leads, muzzles and, where appropriate, sedation or anaesthesia. Such tools are designed for safe management and restraint. Using them is not the same as using aversive training devices to modify behaviour through pain, fear or discomfort. A broad exemption could undermine the purpose of the ban, create uncertainty for enforcement bodies and blur the distinction between legitimate handling equipment and devices that are intended to suppress behaviour through aversive stimuli. Separate issues have been raised about specified service dogs that operate in particular public safety and security contexts. It has been suggested that certain operational requirements may warrant consideration separate from that that applies to companion animals. Those issues are being considered alongside wider animal welfare evidence, legal advice, operational requirements and enforceability. Any such exemption would require a cogent evidence base demonstrating operational necessity, the reason why non-aversive alternatives are insufficient, the safeguards that would apply and the way in which the exemption could be tightly controlled. My position is that any exemption must be exceptional, evidence-based, proportionate, tightly drawn, subject to appropriate oversight and capable of effective enforcement. My position is clear: animals should not be trained through pain, fear or intimidation where humane and effective alternatives are available. The consultation has concluded, and the responses have been analysed. I will consider the consultation findings alongside the advice from my officials and the points raised in the debate before determining the final way forward. My priority, however, will remain the welfare of dogs and cats. Where there is a clear welfare risk and humane alternatives are available, I will not hesitate to act. My approach will be fair, evidence-based, enforceable and firmly grounded in animal welfare. I thank Members for their contribution to the debate, and I reassure everyone that it is my desire to take forward the measure in this mandate, subject to speedy approval by the Executive.

1,025 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