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 4490672

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. It has been wide-ranging, and good points have been made, which really highlights the importance of animal welfare to not just us but our constituents. It is my hope that the legislation will be introduced for our constituents who are animal lovers, so that we demonstrate that we value our animals and that we will work together for the benefit of animal welfare. The Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee outlined a couple of points. I read over the weekend the useful deliberation that the Committee had on the matter. One point that was raised was the comparison between legislating through a legislative consent motion and primary legislation. That was something that I gave consideration to. The issue for me was about the time that was presented to us: should we do this now or should we wait for primary legislation? The reality is that, by the time that we scope out, consult on and develop the legislation, it could be a number of years before it is in place, so it is important to grasp the opportunity now to have this in law. I, as Minister, have a lot of ambition for legislation, but I am not going to be thran when it comes to getting things done. If a legislative consent motion presents itself as an opportunity for us to legislate on an issue in Northern Ireland, I am going to take that opportunity. Another issue that was raised was the microchipping of cats. A number of Members spoke about the benefits associated with that. I am exploring that with officials. I will be looking at what we can do over the time ahead, given the legislative time frame and resources that we have, but I get the concerns around that. It is something that I am actively looking at. Patsy McGlone talked about the police and resourcing, which is an important issue. It is an issue that affects every Minister. Essentially, if we agree the legislation and it passes through the Palace of Westminster, it will add to the toolbox of powers for the police to act in that regard. That can only be of benefit. He also raised good points about the microchipping of dogs and the different databases. That is something that we will explore in the time ahead in the wider sphere of animal welfare. Nicola Brogan spoke about all-island issues and the benefits that would be associated with being able to make our own bespoke legislation. We need to recognise the benefits of North/South and east-west cooperation. As I said, ideally we would have done this through primary legislation, and it is my desire that we do that in the time ahead, but this opportunity presented itself to us, so, hopefully, we can do this now and also look towards primary legislation in the future. The point about the microchipping of cats was also raised. That is an important point that I will look to address. Tom Buchanan asked about the feeding of cats and whether that falls within the scope of this legislation. The guidance that I have states:

"The Bill is not intended to criminalise the innocent feeding of other people's cats. However, it could be an offence to cause or induce a cat to leave the premises of a person with lawful control of it so as to remove it from their lawful control."

It also states:

"A defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse may be available to any person charged with such an offence. It is for our Courts to decide on the facts of the individual case, and it is right that the Bill allows the Court flexibility in this regard."

The Bill, as it has been framed, has very much taken a reasonability attitude towards that. We know that there are many people in the House and in society who feed other people's cats. The legislation is about giving us powers to deal with more egregious elements, but there are flexibilities in law in such reasonability clauses. John Blair spoke a bit about the reality that pets are sentient animals, and said that the legislation should take that into account. That is important.

I thank the stakeholders for their engagement. Obviously, there was no consultation on this because of the way in which the legislation was drafted, but the Department has given a commitment to do that engagement before commencement. We think that that is key.

With regard to the comments from Jim Allister, as I have said, there is an opportunity for us to legislate from this. I will take every opportunity that I can, as Minister, to safeguard the welfare of animals, and, hopefully, we can take the opportunity presented today. Mr Allister asked how the Bill interacted with the Theft Act. To clarify, stealing a pet is already a criminal offence under the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, as Mr Allister outlined. Offenders prosecuted under that legislation face a sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment; more if it includes burglary or robbery. Theft deals with the deprivation of property, not the welfare of the stolen animal. It does not recognise the distress and anxiety that an animal suffers when it is taken by strangers. Contrary to the core offence of theft under the Theft Act, the new offences in this Bill will not require the prosecution to prove that the person taking or detaining the pet did so with the intention of permanently depriving its owner. The overarching intention is for the Bill to encourage the courts to recognise the particular impact on the welfare of the animal when deciding the penalties. Therefore, the maximum penalty aligns with other serious animal welfare offences in the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. There will be an option to consider whether to use this legislation, once it is enacted, or the Theft Act. That will be decided when considering the offence. Hopefully, I have given some clarity and the House can agree that we proceed in this manner.

1,018 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