Debate contribution: Pet Abduction Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on 20 May 2024.

MLA

Mr Andrew Muir

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

20 May 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Pet Abduction Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4490642

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion and speak about the Pet Abduction Bill, which creates new offences of abduction of dogs and cats. The Pet Abduction Bill is a private Member's Bill supported by the UK Government that is currently progressing through Parliament. It applies to England and Northern Ireland, and its clauses relate to devolved matters. For that reason, I seek the Assembly's legislative consent to the Bill's extending to Northern Ireland. Before I get into the detail of the provisions, however, I emphasise the Bill's importance. I fully understand how important dogs and cats are to their owners in Northern Ireland. They are part of families, and they provide support and comfort when we are down, as well as companionship and joy. That is why it is so distressing for owners when one of their beloved pets is abducted or detained in what is a cruel crime. While information on the volume of pet thefts in Northern Ireland is not clear, responses to freedom of information requests to the police indicated that the number of recorded burglary, robbery and theft offences where the property was described as a dog was on average 35 per year.

It is important to note that each of those offences may have involved one or more dogs and that the actual number of dogs taken may, therefore, be higher. Unfortunately, there is no similar information for cat theft. Whilst the number of dogs abducted in Northern Ireland is relatively small, for each family that has a dog taken, the impact is significant.

The Bill would mean that the abduction of a pet will not be treated the same as the theft of a television, mobile phone or power tool, all of which can easily be replaced. They may be worth a lot of money, and replacing them may be inconvenient, but the item itself is not affected by the crime, whereas a pet is. It is important to note that the intention of the Bill is to allow the courts to consider the emotional impact on the owner and the impact on the welfare of the animal when deciding the penalty. I therefore support the creation of a bespoke criminal offence of pet abduction in Northern Ireland. While there has not been time to carry out public consultation prior to introducing the new offences, I believe that they are likely to be welcomed by the public; indeed, as the Bill progressed through Parliament, pet organisations and welfare charities were positive about and welcoming of the measures in the Bill. I turn to the details of the Bill, specifically as it will apply in Northern Ireland. Clauses 1 and 2 will create two specific offences of cat abduction and dog abduction. The Bill will make it an offence for a dog or cat to be taken from a person who has lawful control of the animal. In the case of dogs, the Bill will also make it an offence to detain the pet. It limits the offence of cat abduction to the taking of cats to take account of the different lifestyles of the animals, recognising the fact that, unlike dogs, cats roam without their owners, enjoy mixing in other households and probably get fed at every house in the street. A number of safeguards and exemptions are set out in the clauses. That is because the Bill is intended to deal only with unscrupulous people who abduct a dog or cat; it is not intended to criminalise genuinely kind behaviour to cats and dogs by people who are not their owners. It is a defence for the person to show that they had lawful authority to take or detain a dog: for example, in instances when the animal is under the control of a vet, dog walker or pet sitter. That defence is also intended to protect police officers or district council officials, who may have authority to seize dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. There is also a defence in relation to unaccompanied or stray dogs, such that a person charged with the offence of detaining a dog could show that they complied with the current notification requirements under the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 and made reasonable steps to comply with the requirements for the collection of the dog. That would also be relevant to a farmer who detains an unaccompanied dog that has been worrying his livestock. In such cases, should the farmer comply with all the legal requirements, they cannot be prosecuted for detaining the dog. The Bill does not seek to criminalise cases involving domestic disputes between partners. Therefore, no offence is committed where a dog or cat is taken from a household or detained, if it entered that household after the two people had started living together. Finally, there is the fallback defence of "reasonable excuse", to ensure that we do not inadvertently criminalise well-meaning behaviour. The term "reasonable excuse" is deliberately not defined in the Bill in order to give courts flexibility to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the taking or detention of the animal is unlawful. For example, the defence may be available in a scenario in which a neighbour has taken in an injured pet to check on its welfare. The maximum sentence attached to cat or dog abduction in the Bill is up to five years in prison, a fine or both. I appreciate that that is lower than what is currently available in the case of theft of property, including animals, under the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, which is 10 years in prison. However, as the new offences are centred on the impact on the animal, I consider that it is right that the maximum penalty aligns with other serious animal welfare offences under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which also sets a maximum of five years' imprisonment. For context, the maximum penalty for child abduction in Northern Ireland is seven years' imprisonment. I do not think that it would be appropriate to have a greater penalty for the abduction of pets. The clauses also address the fact that pet theft and abduction do not currently have a unique identifier in crime data sets, which is why it is so difficult to identify the number of pets stolen every year. In many police records, it is impossible to distinguish between the theft of an inanimate object and that of an animal. Of course, a dog or a cat may be taken as part of a burglary or robbery, but the fact that an animal was involved will not be mentioned in all police records. Creating the two new offences of the abduction of dogs or cats will introduce new, unique identifiers that will help with the recording of such crime and help us to see the true extent of it. At the moment, the Bill covers only cats and dogs, but it has enabling powers so that it can be amended to cover other animal species if the need arises. That is set out in clause 3, but the power is, in some ways, limited. My Department must first consider that animals of the species concerned are kept as a pet and that there is evidence of a significant number of or rise in cases of unlawful taking or detaining. Any legislation to extend the offence to other animals must also be considered by the Assembly. Clause 4 provides for a consequential amendment to the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, with the effect that a defendant in Northern Ireland charged with a summary offence under clauses 1 or 2 cannot claim trial by jury. Clauses 5 and 6 set out the territorial extent of the Bill and arrangements for commencement. If the Bill receives Royal Assent, the provisions to create a new pet abduction offence in Northern Ireland will not come into force until the introduction of a commencement order by my Department. That concludes my overview of the Bill. It is a short, simple Bill, but its implications will be far-reaching in protecting animals and their owners. It shows that we will not tolerate the abduction of cats and dogs and the value that we place on them. It shows that we understand the needs of animals, giving them a voice in the most powerful way possible by changing the law to protect them. I hope that the legislative consent motion (LCM) will enjoy your support. Accordingly, I commend the motion to the House.

1,428 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:20 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