Debate contribution: Review of Local Councils’ Animal Welfare Policies

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 6 May 2025.

MLA

Ms Claire Sugden

Party at the time

Independent

Date

6 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Review of Local Councils’ Animal Welfare Policies

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4929831

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the motion, and I appreciate the Ulster Unionist Party's tabling it. The current approach to dog welfare in some council areas is simply not good enough. The system is inconsistent and under strain and, in some cases, results in healthy dogs being put down after just five days. That raises serious concerns about not just policy but whether we are meeting even the most basic standards of animal welfare. Across Northern Ireland, councils are managing animal welfare with limited facilities, outdated infrastructure and unclear direction. In many areas, the service sits within wider environmental functions and does not receive the priority or support that it needs. That has real consequences not just for animals but for public confidence in how the law is being enforced. Constituents contact me regularly with concerns about animals that they believe are being neglected or mistreated, and, too often, they feel that those concerns go nowhere. They report issues, they expect action and they hear nothing back. There is a real sense of helplessness, and I share that frustration. In too many cases, even where there is clear evidence of suffering, the response is slow or, worse, does not happen. Often, the animal welfare officer will say that the legislation is not strong enough for them to take appropriate action. When the public services do not step in, it is often the community organisations that fill the gap. In my constituency, Causeway Coast Dog Rescue does the kind of work that people expect the councils to do, responding to welfare concerns, taking in vulnerable dogs and helping to rehome them. However, it is a voluntary group, with no statutory powers and even fewer resources. That is not sustainable and, frankly, not fair. There is no consistent policy on rehoming, no mandatory licensing of pounds, no requirement for unannounced inspections and no public reporting of euthanasia rates or rehoming outcomes. Furthermore, there is no meaningful oversight from the Department. That is a systemic failure, because it allows poor practice to continue unchecked. This is not a new issue. I have raised concerns about the system repeatedly over the years, but the Department has shown little urgency in addressing it. At times, it feels as though the status quo is being tolerated, despite the clear evidence that it is not working. That approach fails animals and the public, who expect better. The idea that a healthy dog can be euthanised after only five days simply because no one came to claim it is hard to justify. Euthanasia should never be routine. It should be a last resort, only used when there are serious health or behavioural risks. That is not what is happening in parts of this system. The motion sets out practical, reasonable proposals: a consistent approach across all councils, mandatory licensing and inspections, proper data collection and transparency, and a review of policies that permit the destruction of healthy animals. Those are not difficult tasks; they are the basic foundation of an appropriate and responsible animal welfare system. I will not support the amendment, because it appears to shield the Minister from criticism. That should not be our priority. We need to be honest and, at Question Time, the Minister said that he was an honest Minister. I appreciate the work that is being done and the proposals that he is making to try to progress animal welfare, but this issue, which is specific to councils, is being overlooked again. The amendment takes councils out of it, as other Members have said. While we debate, healthy animals are being put down because the structures to protect them do not exist. We cannot delay action on this any longer. The issue does not stand alone. We have seen the same lack of enforcement and oversight in cases of illegal breeding, with reports of dogs being shot when they are no longer profitable. That is cruelty, and it happens in the absence of proper regulation. If we want to close the door on that kind of abuse, we need to start by fixing what is happening in our public systems. Animal welfare should not depend on where you live or which council you fall under. The current system is too fragmented, too under-resourced and too far removed from the standards that people rightly expect. We should ensure that no healthy dog is destroyed simply because the system ran out of time, space or options. We need accountability and policy that is finely aligned with public expectation as well as our standards in animal welfare. I support the motion.

763 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:27 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification