I call on Bethan Jenkins to speak on the topic she has chosen.

Diolch. Before I begin today, I’d like to pay a particular tribute to the three tireless campaigners whose passion and commitment have driven this issue I’m going to speak about here today, and who at the very least deserve a full and fair hearing for this forward-thinking proposal. The first is my constituent Jenna Satterley, who took a recent tragedy, a burglary at the Ty-Nant sanctuary in Cymmer in my region in July, when three cats were horribly mutilated and killed, and used it to give this positive idea fresh impetus. The other two are Maxine and Brian Berry of the Justice for Chunky campaign. Like Rocky’s law, it was an act of horrific cruelty against a dog for this couple to begin their campaign to introduce animal abuse registers in the UK. Sadly, I don’t think I have enough time to go into their meticulous work that lays out the legislative landscape, but I’m sure they would be happy for me to share what we’ve done and what they’ve done with the Welsh Government.

This is a debate that I wish we weren’t having here today. We know that in an ideal society, there would be no such thing as animal cruelty. And for the overwhelming majority of us, an act of senseless spite against an animal is something that revolts us, and is something that we simply cannot comprehend, but it does exist. Only this month, a kitten not more than a few weeks old was beaten to death with a rolling pin and thrown in a food disposal unit by kitchen staff at a hotel in Betws-y-Coed. It took an outcry on social media and, presumably, a threat to business for the management to apologise and sack those responsible. Meanwhile, dogs remain the most abused animals in Wales. In July, the RSPCA had to put down a German Shepherd named Sindy after she was left tied to a railing in Flintshire with injuries to her legs and a note saying, ‘My owner cannot cope.’

So, regardless of how most of us feel about such incidents, it’s savagery and its regularity behoves us to find ways to eradicate animal abuse, for that should be our aim—the total eradication of animal cruelty.

What I’m proposing today is within competence. It has also been established and tested elsewhere, although it would be a first for the UK, and it has potential benefits outside of animal welfare and outside of what this Assembly does. At the end of the day, if we are able to support law enforcement, then we should, even if we don’t have the powers. That isn’t a reason to refuse this proposal.

In proposing an animal abuse register for Wales it is, as I said, not necessary to reinvent the wheel. We already have working models in the United States. While this isn’t a Welsh solution, because it sits in a different legal framework, it provides the basis for building a register while exploring the necessary changes to legislation—if legislation is required—and identifies potential issues.

So, as I said, at present there is no animal abuse register in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The issue of establishing an animal register in England has recently been examined by a Westminster committee as part of an inquiry into animal welfare of domestic pets. This inquiry recommended the UK Government examine the potential for the establishment of an animal abuse register. This follows on form a 2012 Assembly petition that called for a Welsh animal offenders register. The Petitions Committee explored a number of issues and felt at the time that it would not be practical. However, events have moved on sufficiently for this idea to be revisited. We have them established elsewhere and we can see that they work.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

There are numerous examples of animal abuse registers in the US, where two different models are used. The first is an open register, such as in Tennessee, when information on the convicted individual is published online including their photograph, name, address and date of birth. The other is a private register, such as in New York City, which is only available to certain organisations, such as animal shelters and those who sell animals.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation operates a number of registers: a sex offender register, a drug offender register, an abuse register and an animal abuse register. This animal abuse register is operated state-wide under a Tennessee state law, the animal abuse registration Act. It is the first publicly accessible register in the United States. Since January this year, it has posted the following information: the offender’s name, address, date of birth and type of offence. It does not include social security number, drivers’ licence number or any other identification number. The information is held on the register for two years for a first offence, and this increases to five years for a second offence. A ‘Huffington Post’ article noted that by hosting the register on its existing website, the TBI incurred no significant cost with the introduction of this legislation.

There are open registers in Albany county and Orange county, both in New York state. The online open register in Albany county is maintained by an animal shelter, the Mohawk Hudson Humane Society, as a service to the public. As such, there is no cost to the taxpayer. Anyone who is convicted of animal cruelty in the county of Albany after January 2012 is required to submit information to the Albany county sheriff’s department, and update it annually. That information is then passed to the shelter. Its website says:

‘Anyone selling, giving away or adopting an animal to another person in Albany…must check the registry prior to any change in ownership. Giving, selling or adopting an animal to a person on the registry is a violation of county law.’

The Orange county animal abuse register was created in 2015 by an Act of Orange county legislature, known as Rocky’s law, after a dog had to be put down after being left out in the snow without food and water for five weeks while his owner went on holiday. This is maintained by the sheriff’s office, and anyone convicted of animal cruelty who resides in that county is required to submit their information to the Orange county sheriff’s office and this is then put online. They’re also charged a fee of $125. The law requires that anyone transferring ownership of an animal for payment or otherwise must check the Orange County animal abuse registry prior to any change in ownership. Giving, selling or allowing adoption of an animal to a person in this area is a violation of county law.

In New York, the Animal Abuse Registration Act 2014 requires anyone living in New York City who is convicted of an animal abuse crime to register with the city health department, from where they will be added to the NYC animal abuse registry. The information it holds is considerably more than what is required for the Tennessee open register, including a description of the crime, drivers’ license, height, weight, ethnicity and eye colour of that person. However, the registry is only accessible by those organisations named under the Act. The legislation sets out which types of animal-related businesses are legally required to check it and refuse to sell or transfer ownership of an animal to anyone listed in the registry. This include pet shops, animal shelters and vets in New York.

Over 20 Bills establishing animal abuse registers have been introduced across America, including Illinois, Maryland, Rhode Island and California. In Colorado, a Bill for an open register was rejected on the grounds of cost. However, having taken through legislation myself, cost in itself is not reason enough to deter its progress; it has to have purpose. Cost only becomes an issue when that purpose cannot be established, or if there’s a lack of will.

I see an animal abuse register for Wales as having two purposes. The first is to demonstrate to offenders and would-be offenders that there’s going to be another consequence to their criminal behaviour; that we begin to move, as a society, towards making it abundantly clear that abuse of animals is beyond the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, in the same way as various forms of prejudice are considered far more unacceptable than they were years ago.

Of course, we cannot say that prejudice has been completely eradicated, but it is moving in the right way. And that is the point here. At the moment, animal abusers seem more likely to be shamed and censured on social media than they are through legal remedy. We need a deterrent. The House of Commons inquiry also identified another issue concerning animal abuse: that it is very difficult to track those who’ve been banned from keeping animals. An accessible register could play an important role in protecting animals and prevent abusers from accessing animals, it found. And it looked to recommending further work on the issue.

I did say earlier that there is another dimension to this debate. The Links Group, an organisation that includes the NSPCC, the RSPCA and the Women’s Aid Federation of England, produced work that said that there is increased research and clinical evidence that suggests that there are sometimes links between the abuse of children, vulnerable adults and animals, and that

‘a better understanding of these links can help to protect victims, both human and animal, and promote their welfare.’

It found that if a child is cruel to animals, this may be an indicator that serious neglect and abuse had been inflicted on that child. While recent research in the UK suggests that animal abuse by children is quite widespread, in a minority of more extreme cases, it appears to be associated with abuse of children, or subsequent abusive behaviour by the child.

Where serious animal abuse has occurred in a household, there may be an increased likelihood that some other form of family violence is occurring, and that any children present may also be at an increased risk of abuse. Acts of animal abuse may, in some circumstances, be to coerce, control and intimidate women and children to remain in or be silent about their abusive situation. The threat or actual abuse of a pet can prevent women leaving situations of domestic violence. Sustained childhood cruelty to animals has been linked to an increased likelihood of violent offending behaviour against humans in adulthood. If a child exhibits extreme aggressive or sexualised behaviour towards animals, this may, in some cases, be associated with later abuse of other children or vulnerable adults, unless the behaviour is recognised and treated.

There is no doubt that these last two points are important where law enforcement is concerned. For some time, it has been known that many serial killers and other serious criminals began their journey with animal abuse. In fact, the FBI in America uses it as part of criminal profiling. I cannot, for one moment, think that any police force in Wales would not find such a register of use to them in detecting crime, and I would argue that all law enforcement agencies should be given access to such a register.

One of the concerns surrounding such a register is how we would define abuse, and decide who should go on it and who shouldn’t. For me, it seems quite simple. If someone has been convicted—not accused, convicted—of animal cruelty, then, their name should go on that register. It would be for existing law, which does have its weaknesses, in my opinion, to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of those accused of such crimes.

Before tabling this debate, I took advice and made sure that it was within our competence entirely. As you know, this Assembly has powers to legislate on matters of animal welfare, but initially, I had wondered whether we were in that grey area slot, such as we saw with the agricultural wages Order or the UK Government’s trade union Bill, where no-one was quite sure where the line of competency lay. But it is a great deal more straightforward than that, because there is no involvement in the criminal justice system, and it would need to be convicted before anyone entered into the register. So establishing such a register does not fall outside of our competency.

In June this year—while I don’t always agree with the DUP—the Northern Ireland Assembly supported a call from the DUP to establish an accessible register of those convicted of animal cruelty offences. At the time, the Minister said that he was interested in the idea, because although the police already has a list of such people, there was an argument for making it available to other relevant organisations.

I’d also like to thank, finally, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs for responding in a similarly positive way to my question on 12 October about animal abuse registers here. The Cabinet Secretary said, and I quote,

‘I haven’t considered introducing legislation. We are looking at the different codes of practice we have for different animals, and certainly it’s something that I’ve asked the chief veterinary officer and officials to monitor. But I’m very happy to look at the point you raised; I think that’s a very interesting point about, as you say, perpetrators with animals.’

So, I’m very much looking forward to what the Welsh Government has to say on this matter and to seek to move forward on this debate. It won’t surprise you that I’ve had a wealth of interest from across the world, actually, in this debate here today. I think people have a very close and important relationship with their pets, be it because it keeps them company if they feel isolated, or it’s part of a family environment. It’s something that we then feel is an extension of how we treat other people in our lives also in relation to how, then, we treat animals. So, I would like to thank everybody who’s given me their experiences via e-mail from all the different countries that have contacted me. I hope that Wales can be first in putting forward this register in the UK. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much, and I call the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to reply to the debate, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m really pleased that you tabled this topic, Bethan, for your short debate today. As you say, you did raise it with me in an oral question back in October and, just last week, I answered a written question that was submitted by Paul Davies, who is in the Chamber. I said to both of you that it wasn’t something that I’d ever considered, but, since that time, I have asked officials to look at it, and I’ll say a bit more about the sort of advice and discussions that we’re having.

Because I’d never thought about it previously from an animal health and welfare perspective, but, listening to Bethan talking about the levels of animal cruelty, really, it’s a salutary lesson. I think the way we treat our animals really says a lot about the sort of society we are. So, it’s very sad to hear those cases that you talked about at the beginning of your debate.

I absolutely also understand the comments that Bethan made about how animal abusers are often connected to other forms of abuse. Unfortunately, there are too many examples where abuse was carried out on an animal and then followed up with abuse on another family member or another individual. I actually had a case in my own advice surgery of a woman who would not leave the perpetrator of domestic abuse because of her dog. So, it’s absolutely something that we should be very aware of.

I’m also aware of the RSPCA’s action on its pet retreat and, equally, I’m aware of the wide concerns that I know have been expressed right across the UK on this issue, not just Wales, by a number of organisations. It is a very complex issue—you’re right, we do have the competence, and I will continue to give very serious consideration to the whole topic and in connection, particularly, with the responsible ownership of an animal. So, the Welsh Government commissioned a review on responsible dog ownership, and many of the outcomes are applicable across all animal ownership. I also think I need to consider this topic with my Cabinet colleagues, because the potential scope of these issues—whilst you might think they just initially fall into my portfolio, I think there are implications outside my portfolio.

Any such system, I think, should have a national approach for it to be effective and comprehensive, and it’s again something that I would like to discuss with ministerial colleagues from across the UK. There have been previous discussions in the UK Government public protection unit, which is responsible for the Disclosure and Barring Service, which was formerly the Criminal Records Bureau, about using existing systems, because I think we need to make sure that we use any existing databases now in a much more improved way, through better connectivity and information sharing. So, again, I’ve asked officials to pursue enquiries with the appropriate UK Government department now.

There are also questions that I think we would need to ask if we were developing such a policy: data protection, whether having such an identification process is a good idea; is it practicable and what would a register achieve by way of animal welfare that the current arrangements don’t achieve? You mentioned, Bethan, police forces and that it would be useful for them. I think local authorities also, and there are probably other aspects of the public sector.

In Wales, we believe that prevention is better than cure. That’s the reason why we place such emphasis on animal welfare and the importance of responsible ownership and the role of veterinary practitioners. I’m meeting with the British Veterinary Association next month, and I’m going to discuss this topic with them, and their comprehensive guidance for veterinary teams regarding ‘Recognising abuse in animals and humans’, which they published last January.

So, we’re going to continue to develop our thinking on the matters that have been raised by Bethan today. We’ll do that as we make progress on our work on responsible animal ownership also. We do expect the highest standards of animal welfare for all protected animals to be in place here in Wales. We’ve got a duty of care. That’s embedded in the Animal Welfare Act, which was commenced nearly 10 years ago. But I think that the topic that you’ve raised again today, Bethan, does need further serious consideration. I’d be very happy to work with you on it. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. And that just brings me to say to everybody left—just to offer my season’s greetings to you all, and we hope that we all return in the new year. That brings today’s proceedings—in fact, this year’s proceedings—to a close. There we go. Thank you very much.

The meeting ended at 18:06.