Debate contribution: Register of Animal Welfare Offenders

Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on 22 October 2024.

MLA

Miss Michelle McIlveen

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

22 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Register of Animal Welfare Offenders

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4608254

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Cruelty against animals is a despicable crime. We are, proudly, a nation of animal lovers. Like many in the Chamber, I was brought up in a home with pets who were very much part of our family. The idea that anyone could be so cruel as to harm an animal that looks to us for food, care and shelter is horrendous, and we should be taking all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that our animal protection and enforcement measures are robust and effective: robust in punishing and deterring offenders and effective in preventing harm to such animals. As a result of legislation passed by the Assembly since 2011, we have brought enforcement for animal welfare to local councils; increased the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in Northern Ireland to five years in prison; and brought into force, this year, the Pet Abduction Act, which makes it an offence for a cat or dog to be taken from a person with lawful control of the animal. Those are all positive steps forward. It is disappointing to note that DAERA has cut resource funding for animal welfare departments in councils from around £1·2 million in 2019-2020 to £625,000 in 2023-24. Even without taking into account inflationary and increasing wage pressures, that is a huge cut to what was already a tight budget. Councils have a responsibility to enforce animal welfare regulations in respect of non-farmed animals. Under the budget provided to them, they provide advice, issue improvement notices, take animals into their possession where there are extreme cases of suffering and take enforcement action. That work is carried out by nine welfare officers operating across the 11 council areas. In 2022, councils secured 20 convictions, and the PSNI, which deals with animal fighting and other animal-related offences, secured a further 12 convictions. There are steps that have not been taken, steps that not only have the support of political representatives but have strong public support. They include Lucy's law, which bans third-party puppy sales. My former colleague Robin Newton championed it, and the mantle was taken up by another colleague, Keith Buchanan. While the Minister has said that he will explore options, we are still no further forward on the issue. That is meant as a criticism not of the Minister but of the slow grind of the bureaucratic machine that operates under him and other Ministers. Such a law would put a stop to unethical breeding enterprises, and I look forward to it eventually becoming a reality. The other step and the subject of the motion is the establishment of a register of banned animal welfare offenders. The Assembly has been debating that for over 10 years, and, each time that it has been debated, the motion has been passed. Since 2016, seven of our councils have passed motions calling for the creation of a banned offenders register. The register envisaged would be a readily accessible register of convicted animal abusers who have been banned by the courts from keeping animals. Those on such a register should have a legal duty to update their details should they move house or change their name. The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA) has welcomed the increased penalties, including bans, but believes that a register of banned offenders is essential to make such bans effective. Concerns have been expressed about data protection issues around such a register. In June of this year, the Minister committed to gathering information on whether a register has worked effectively elsewhere. I will refer to two examples: New York City and Finland. In 2014, New York City Council passed the Animal Abuse Registration Act. Anyone required to register is prohibited from owning, possessing, residing with, having custody of or intentionally engaging in any physical contact with any animal. The registration period lasts for five years after sentencing or, if incarcerated, five years after release from prison. Failure to register is an offence in itself and can result in up to one year in jail, a fine of $1,000 or both. Animal shelters, animal rescue groups, pet shops and other animal-related businesses are required to check the register and refuse to sell or transfer ownership of an animal to anyone appearing on it. New York City operates a closed register that only specified organisations can access. In Finland, the Court Registry Centre owns and maintains its register. Once the court has imposed a ban on keeping animals, it notifies the centre of the decision. Information from the register may be disclosed by means of an extract from the register, which may be ordered in writing from the Court Registry Centre. Information from the register may also be disclosed by authorities specified in the legislation. GDPR is enforced in Finland, as it is here. It is a semi-closed register, where a fee must be paid to check whether an individual is on the register. If data protection concerns can be addressed there, they are not insurmountable here. Other places, such as Tennessee, have an open register that holds the name and address of the offender. I appreciate that such a register would be difficult to have, given our data protection laws and the risks that it might pose to those on the register. However, as a party, we are clear on our belief that Northern Ireland should have high animal welfare standards. We are committed to ensuring that animals are cared for and that those who abuse animals are adequately punished. It is important for us that agencies that have statutory and legal responsibilities for animal care and welfare enforcement are properly supported and adequately funded and have the appropriate tools to carry out their jobs. It is on that basis that we have campaigned in election after election. While we have some of the toughest legislation against animal cruelty in the world, with raised maximum custodial targets and the introduction of Finn's law to give greater protection to service animals, we need additional legal measures to prevent reoffending and avoidable harm to animals. The disproportionate cut to council animal welfare services will have a devastating impact on enforcement against offenders and the protection of animals. We understand the budgetary pressures facing all Departments, but it is up to the Minister to decide how he distributes his budget. Cutting funding in half cannot be justifiable if the Minister wants councils to be able to do their jobs. We believe that the introduction of a register will be a useful tool. There is a recurring problem of animal cruelty offenders who, although banned from keeping animals, reappear, sometimes in a matter of weeks, charged with new animal cruelty offences. That is because authorities and rehoming charities have no knowledge of that individual's status. One of the primary causes identified by the USPCA is the lack of monitoring of banned animal abusers. A register would assist in addressing that. A register means having a central point to access key information to assist enforcement authorities in policing animal cases and for reputable dealers and rehoming charities to screen those purchasing or adopting an animal. It would also be a useful tool for those who care for animals to check potential employees for their status on the register. As part of that, we ask the Minister 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. The Minister said in June of this year that he would seek the views of the Irish Government on a register and potential all-island cooperation. What have been the outcomes of those discussions? What conversations has he had with other devolved Administrations and the UK Government about a joined-up approach across the British Isles? We also face the situation that the current legislation does not cover animals being kept by family members in the same household as a banned individual. That is a complicated issue for enforcement, and I ask the Minister to look specifically at it. I hope that the Minister agrees that animal welfare should be at the heart of the matter. It is about prevention of harm above all else. The thousands of members of the public who have signed petitions on the matter recognise that; the majority of our councils, who have passed such motions, recognise it; and the Chamber has recognised it each time that the issue has come before us.

1,412 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:27 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