Debate contribution: Register of Animal Welfare Offenders

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on 22 October 2024.

MLA

Mr Andrew Muir

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

22 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Register of Animal Welfare Offenders

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4608498

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for the respectful debate and for the opportunity to respond. I understand and empathise with the concerns of Members, stakeholders and the public about animal welfare sentencing. The Welfare of Animals Act 2011 made it an offence to inflict unnecessary suffering on an animal. At that point, the offence was triable in a Magistrates' Court, and the maximum available sentence was six months in prison. In 2014, Members raised concerns with the then Minister about the limitations of the penalties in the Act, following a horrendous animal welfare case in which the perpetrators received suspended sentences. The Minister listened and undertook a review, and parties in the House worked together to introduce tougher sanctions. Those included the ability to refer animal welfare cases to the Crown Court and the potential for five-year custodial sentences. The new sanctions became law in 2015, and, at that juncture, Northern Ireland had the toughest penalties for animal welfare offences in the UK and Ireland. It was viewed as a triumph for animal welfare and a recognition that the House and the people of Northern Ireland would not tolerate animal cruelty. Tellingly, Scotland enacted five-year sentences only in 2020, with England and Wales following suit in 2021. Therefore, it is evident that we have the tools and ultimate sanctions to deal with offending. Our animal welfare laws are on a par with anywhere in these islands. I must stress, however, that I cannot control how animal welfare prosecutions are taken forward, nor can I dictate what sentences should be handed down by the judiciary. Quite rightly, no Minister has the power to intervene and take charge of criminal cases. I am not shirking responsibility, but I want to be frank when I say that there is no legislation that I can commend to the House that would resolve everyone's frustrations around sentencing. The courts and judiciary operate independently and are free from government influence. No matter how worthy the subject under scrutiny, that should always be the case. At present, the Public Prosecution Service could choose to send animal welfare cases to the Crown Court rather than to the Magistrates' Court. My understanding is that its decision depends on the severity and circumstances of the case, and the maximum sentences available will differ depending on where the case is heard. When the PPS determines that a case be heard in the Crown Court, the maximum sentence is five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. It is clear from the correspondence that I receive that the citizens of Northern Ireland view animal welfare offences as some of the most serious types of offence. Some of the letters highlight a disparity between the expectations of the public and how those cases are processed in the judicial system. I recently asked my officials to engage with the statutory agencies across the justice system to better understand the rationale when they determine which court will hear animal welfare offence cases. It is important that we get an understanding of prosecution policy and which factors determine how a case is handled. It is vital that the organisations in the justice system, which are, quite rightly, focused on their own responsibilities and functions, be made aware of the public's views on animal welfare and how they expect those who inflict pain and suffering on animals will be punished. We must get maximum utility out of the powers that we have. I am conscious that my predecessor, Edwin Poots MLA, now Speaker of the House, wrote to the Lady Chief Justice in 2021 to seek clarity on sentencing guidelines. The Lady Chief Justice's office advised that judges are very conscious of their range of sentencing powers when passing sentences. Her office made it clear that sentences must be based solely on the evidence that is provided and take appropriate account of any sentencing guidelines and mitigating and aggravating factors. The sentencing guidelines for animal welfare offences are published and available to view on the Judiciary NI website. Those guidelines were most recently updated in November 2018. Any case for further update of those guidelines is a matter on which I will engage with stakeholders in the time ahead. I will talk about that planned engagement with stakeholders. With respect to the sentences that are available, I am content that the range of penalties that are available here is appropriate and on par with what is available to judges across the rest of the UK. I want to make it clear that I respect the role of the judiciary here and the importance of impartiality, and I highlight to Members that the full use of the sentencing that is available is a matter for judges who do take into account the individual aspects of any particular animal welfare case that is before them. On bans and disqualification orders, the motion states:

"this Assembly believes those convicted of animal cruelty should be prohibited from owning or breeding animals in the future",

but it also refers to:

"current bans on keeping animals that have proven to be ineffective in preventing reoffending".

I will endeavour to provide some detail around current powers because, as the motion suggests, the law here already enables individuals to be prohibited from owning animals. When a person is convicted of either a section 4 offence, causing unnecessary suffering, or a section 9 offence, failing to meet the needs of animal, a court has the discretion to impose what is known as a disqualification order. The nature and intent of disqualification orders can be varied, which gives the court scope to deal with a broad range of circumstances. For example, a person can be disqualified from owning animals for a defined period of time or given a lifetime ban, depending on the gravity of the case. A person can also be banned from participating in the keeping of animals, having influence on the keeping of animals, transporting animals or even arranging the transport of animals. When a disqualification order is handed down, the court can also take any animals that the person owns from them and arrange for them to be disposed of. Finally, if a person who has received the disqualification order holds a licence for a regulated activity involving animals, that licence can be revoked. I reiterate that the decision to impose a disqualification order does not rest with my Department, the council or the police. The decision to impose that order is a sanction that can be applied only by a judge. From the statistical data that has been supplied to me covering the period from 2018 to 2022, I am aware of four people who were found to have breached a ban on keeping animals. Even one person breaching a ban is too many, so, be assured that, where a breach of a ban is detected, action is being, and will be, taken. On a register of animal welfare offenders, which is the substantial aim of the motion, it is not the first time that my Department has been asked to consider establishing a register of offenders. The desire to implement a register first surfaced in 2014, when the then Minister, Michelle O'Neill, instigated a review of the implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. As part of that review, stakeholders asked that consideration be given to publishing the names and details of offenders on a central list. In essence, such a central list already exists. Data on convictions is held on the Department of Justice's Causeway system and can be accessed via the criminal records viewer (CRV). Officials determined that it would be possible, in theory, for organisations beyond the criminal justice system to access the criminal records viewer, but each organisation wishing to do so must be able to demonstrate a legitimate business need, such as national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country; the prevention of disorder or crime; the protection of health or morals; and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In short, criminal records data is deemed to be highly sensitive personal information, and the bar to access that information is set at a high level. The review also found that, even if a case could be made for public access, organisations would have to sign up to a data sharing agreement and must abide by strict control procedures. Finally, it found that the creation of a central list that was made available to non-statutory bodies would engage difficult and complex issues around freedom of information, data protection, the rehabilitation of offenders and protecting certain human rights, particularly the right to life and the right to a family life. Following that analysis, there was insufficient evidence or justification to recommend that a register be established. The review concluded that a better option was to continue to focus resources on front-line enforcement duties. Many organisations also stated that they deployed a range of different measures to provide assurance regarding the suitability of those to whom an animal is rehomed.

The final report, which addressed the matter, was formally published by the then Minister, Michelle McIlveen, in November 2016.

Since taking up this role, I have fielded many questions about creating a register that operates not just here but on an all-Ireland basis. I asked my officials to re-examine all of the available evidence, and I met my counterpart in the Irish Government, Minister Charlie McConalogue, to determine whether there was a desire for some sort of cross-border register. The legal complexities and protections that were present in 2014, when the ask was first made, still pertain today. We cannot shy away from the fact that there are safeguards in sharing personal data and that those are difficult to overcome. My officials have advised me that one potential workaround would be for my Department to put in place a team that would have access to the Causeway system. Third parties could then make requests for information to that team, which would determine the veracity and lawfulness of the requests. That approach would require significant investment in staff and resource and would certainly need ongoing legal support. Work would need to be undertaken to scope out costs, but broad estimates from 2021 suggest that annual costs could be about £1 million for staff, the securing of the necessary IT and training. Unfortunately, that is money that my Department does not have. It is questionable whether such an approach would ever pass the value-for-money test. We should never apply the value-for-money test to preventing cruelty to animals in Northern Ireland; I am just talking about how we would evaluate it and make a business case. It is also questionable whether such an approach would deliver benefits and have the impact that we want to see in safeguarding animals against cruelty. My officials also stated that they had explored the possibility of a voluntary code, where animal rehoming organisations and commercial pet shops would be required to get prospective animal owners to apply for a basic AccessNI check. That would disclose the details of that check to the organisation or business concerned before the transfer of the pet took place. It was felt that that way forward could be implemented once guidance is developed and that it could be operational within months. There would be no cost to the public purse or rehoming organisations, and it would allow access to all unspent convictions. Towards the end of 2022, officials engaged with the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group to test their proposal. The Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group ruled out implementing the proposal, as it believed that it could lead to potential delays to rehoming pets due to the wait for the criminal record check; that rehoming centre staff could be put in a volatile position if they refused to rehome an animal due to previous convictions; and that it may dissuade potential owners due to the additional cost of the check, which is £16. While I respect the views of the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group, it could be argued that those concerns would exist even with direct access to the criminal records viewer. As it stands, no other part of the UK or Ireland has plans to create or establish a register of animal welfare offenders. When I spoke to Charlie McConalogue in September, he outlined that his Department was not contemplating establishing any form of register. The Welsh Government invited RSPCA Cymru to lead a task and finish group to explore the feasibility of a register in 2018. That exercise involved examining the effectiveness of registers operating in Finland and parts of the USA, as has been mentioned here today. The conclusion reached by the Welsh group was that no evidence could be found to prove that registers are as effective as desired; indeed, the findings of the group indicated that animal welfare agencies in the USA had concluded that the registers did not work. The report concluded that the operation of a register would involve a significant cost to government and that there are legal barriers that would prevent the establishment of the register. That mirrors the experience of my Department. I have approached the matter with fresh eyes and an open mind. I have brought it to the attention of the Irish Government. I have not been found wanting. I have probed the topic in depth, as officials will know. It is hard to escape the fact that my Department has explored the matter on three separate occasions and creating a register remains legally complex and cost-prohibitive. If the rescue and rehoming sector or similar organisations feel that they need additional safeguards, an option already exists to establish their own processes around AccessNI checks. Ultimately, my vision is to take Northern Ireland to a place where we do not have to rely on reactive enforcement. I want Northern Ireland to be a place where the lives of animals are appreciated and valued and people realise that maltreatment and abuse is abhorrent and wrong. Strong legislation and robust enforcement powers are only one component of achieving that aim. We also need to engage, educate and inform current and prospective animal owners on making the right choices and to give them the information that they need. To achieve that vision, I need the support of everyone in the House, all stakeholders and people in Northern Ireland with an interest in the well-being of animals and the general public. I will say a few things to conclude. I support the motion, and I am happy to look at the issue again. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed in the House. The Member from North Antrim Timothy Gaston commented that we have fallen behind: that is partially due to the fact that the House did not sit for a number of years and we were not able to bring forward policy and legislation. I am glad that we are here, and I will use the rest of the mandate to the best of my ability to progress policy and legislation. I am engaging with the Finance Minister about the resources that can be allocated to my Department so that it can bring forward policy and legislation in the next financial year and beyond, because doing so requires resources. Over the next period, we will engage with the relevant stakeholders, whose work I immensely value, to understand the policy and legislative priorities that we can take forward.

I will finish in one second. A question was asked about Lucy's law. We will bring that forward during this mandate, but I will engage with stakeholders about what else we can do. If the Department can get additional resources, that will give me much more scope to bring things forward. I will consider the issue that has been raised today, because we need to do what we can to tackle animal cruelty in Northern Ireland. I am happy to give way to Gerry.

I will follow up in writing with the Member.

2,686 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:28 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