Motion or amendment: Creating a Register of Animal Welfare Offenders
Motion or amendment by Mr Tom Buchanan on .
- MLA
- Mr Tom Buchanan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 October 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Creating a Register of Animal Welfare Offenders
- Assembly identifier
- Document 413332
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Creating a Register of Animal Welfare Offenders
That this Assembly believes those convicted of animal cruelty should be prohibited from owning or breeding animals in the future; notes with concern the recent figures from the Department of Justice indicating that between 2018 and 2022, only 12 per cent of convictions for animal welfare offences in Northern Ireland resulted in a custodial sentence; highlights that this is compounded by current bans on keeping animals which have proven ineffective in preventing reoffending; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to work with his Executive colleagues to review safeguards against those with such convictions from later being employed in roles relating to the care of animals; and further calls on the Minister to explore proposals to establish a register of banned animal welfare offenders and make that information readily accessible to animal rehoming charities and reputable pet retailers.
148 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:57 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.