Debate contribution: Pet Abduction Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .
- MLA
- Mr Patsy McGlone
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 20 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Pet Abduction Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4490655
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire fosta.
The SDLP is broadly content to support the legislative consent motion on the Pet Abduction Bill. Obviously, we would prefer to see primary legislation from the Assembly on devolved matters, but, given the nature of the Bill and the widespread support for it in the sector, we support today's legislative consent motion. We will, however, continue to deal with LCMs on an individual basis, as and when they come before the Assembly. Legislating for a new offence of pet abduction will recognise the impact on owners and animals of the stress and trauma of abductions, which the Minister rightly referred to. In many cases, a pet cat or dog is regarded as a treasured member of the family. Their loss goes beyond any monetary value, and they deserve to be treated in the law as much more than simply property. The introduction of the new offence will open the way for more accurate figures to be maintained on the level of pet abductions and the breeds that may be specifically targeted. A figure has been made available by the PSNI for abductions of dogs in the North: 215 dog thefts over the past six years. On the point about the PSNI, in Committee I said that it was very important to connect with the PSNI to make sure that it has the resources to deal with this, given the serious cutbacks to community policing in some areas. That will be very important. The 215 dog thefts are a tiny percentage of the number of dogs in our society when you consider that 99,206 dog licences were issued by councils between April and December 2023. However, the impact of the loss in each case should not be underestimated. As far as I am aware, there are no comparable figures for cats or other pets. Statistics from the Dogs Trust indicate that fewer than a quarter of stolen dogs are, ultimately, returned to their original homes. The Bill is not perfect, but, as the USPCA pointed out, it provides an opportunity to highlight the requirement to microchip dogs. Since 2016, it has been compulsory for all dogs in Britain and Ireland to be microchipped and registered on an authorised database by the time that they are eight weeks old, However, current microchipping systems and databases need to be reviewed, so that there are more opportunities to reunite pets and owners or identify the owner of an abused dog. There are a number of different manufacturers of microchips and databases. At least 14 authorised databases exist in the UK, but they are not always compatible, so, when they are scanned, the registered information may, in fact, not show up. In addition, on the rest of the island of Ireland, dogs must be microchipped by the age of 12 weeks and registered on one of four approved databases, but, while the data on those is synchronised with Europetnet, it may not be compatible with the databases used in the North.
There is, therefore, a need to harmonise the databases used to register dogs and, if it happens in the foreseeable future, other pets. The USPCA has proposed a single microchipping database that all enforcement agencies, veterinary practices and animal welfare charities could access. It has also suggested that the Minister should bring in legislation on the microchipping of pet cats in Northern Ireland. I realise that that could be a bit of a task. None of that is possible with the legislative consent motion, as we are unable to amend the original Bill. However, highlighting these issues will, hopefully, improve the possibility that those matters will ultimately be resolved.
618 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging 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 | 0.56 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.40 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.