The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 'PROPOSALS TO REVISE EXISTING ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION'

Responses to the consultation

(1) The published consultation document

The consultation was sent to a range of parties interested in animal welfare:

• Individuals, businesses and organisations located in Scotland whose membership or jurisdiction extended throughout the country or part of it.

• Businesses and organisations in England with a British or United Kingdom wide jurisdiction.

• Organisations located in England which should be aware of the Scottish proposals.

A total of 325 responses were received; 248 from Scotland, 75 from England and Wales and one each from Australia and Sweden. Of the 75 responses from England and Wales, 45 were from individuals, of which 37 commented on the single subject of tail docking and mutilations. None of these 45 individuals were on the initial list of consultees. The other 30 responses were received from organisations which had addresses in these countries. The largest number of these had United Kingdom wide jurisdiction; two were sanctuaries and zoological parks.

A total of 174 responders wrote on behalf of organisations or businesses; the majority fell into the former category. 151 were private individuals, of which 14 were joint responses from married couples. A further couple responded separately to the consultation, but submitted the same response.

The largest number of responses were received from local authorities and organisations from the following sectors: animal welfare, canine, equine, rural and agricultural, veterinary, animal sanctuaries and rescue organisations. Some specialist sectors had a small number of responders who were directly involved in an issue. The most notable were those relating to performing animals (3 responders), markets (1 responder), sport shooting (7 responders), and greyhounds (4 organisations and one individual with a specific interest).

The lowest response rates were recorded in the following sectors: local veterinary practices throughout Scotland (3 practices out of 301 issued with a consultation document), dog training clubs and local canine clubs (5 responses out of 285 issued with a consultation document), individual livery yards, trekking centres and riding centres (1 response out of 46 issued with a document), local and national enterprise companies (1 response out of 25, which stated that it was not commenting on the document), the haulage sector, including individual companies (one response), the Scottish Political parties and their members (no responses), agricultural livestock breed societies (no responses), local beekeeping associations throughout Scotland (no responses, though the Scottish Beekeepers Association responded), abattoirs and slaughterhouses (no responses), and fish farming and fishing interests (no responses).

A small number of MSPs publicly supported the proposals through local newspapers and encouraged their constituents to send in comments.

While there are varying response rates between the different sectors, responses were received from all the main stakeholders in each of the 19 subject areas listed in the consultation document. There were no evident gaps within each one. In each sector, there was a diversity of responses received, and a range of views were provided by organisations, businesses and individuals which had different jurisdictions throughout Britain, Scotland and within a more localised area. These were especially noted for the following sectors: animal welfare organisations, veterinary, canine, performing animals, rural and agricultural and equine.

• From the veterinary profession, responses were received from the national professional regulatory bodies (RCVS, and British Veterinary Association), specialist branches of the profession including its national organisations (British Veterinary Zoological Society and British Equine Veterinary Association), veterinary networks (Vetwork UK), national veterinary practices (PDSA), local practices (Ark Veterinary Group, Aberlour Veterinary Centre and Millar and Swan), specialist veterinary units (South of Scotland Wildlife Hospital), and research institutes (Moredun Research Institute).

• Responses from the pet sector included organisations in Scotland and across Britain such as pet shops and sectors of the trade (Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association and Pets at Home), species of pets (Feline Advisory Bureau), pet welfare (Companion Animal Welfare Council, Pet Care Trust), and rehoming (Cat Action Trust 1977 and Dogs Trust).

• The canine sector included organisations such as national societies (Kennel Club and Scottish Kennel Club), regional clubs (Perthshire Canine Club, Strathmore Working Gundog Club, Banff, Moray and Nairn Canine Club), breed societies (16 in Scotland and Britain), rescue societies (Independent Werimaraner Rescue and Rehoming Service and Dumfriesshire Greyhound Rescue), kennels (Durris Deer and Minches Hovawarts), training clubs (Kirkwall Dog Training Club and Inverclyde Dog Training Club), greyhound racing issues (British Greyhound Racing Board, Greyhounds UK, Greyhound Action Scotland and Dumfriesshire Greyhound Rescue), and specific sectors interested in aspects of dog welfare such as tail docking (Council of Docked Breeds and Anti-Docking Alliance).

(2) The consultation meetings

Attendance at each of the consultation meetings is shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The open meetings were arranged to provide central meeting points within reach of urban and rural populations throughout the country; these were not based on the notions of agricultural districts which have been used in other SEERAD consultations. The focus meetings were all held in the SEERAD offices in Pentland House, Edinburgh. All meetings we held in the afternoon.

Generally, attendance was low at the open meetings, with the total number varying between 14 and 23 (Table 1). The number of private individuals was small, and attendees were mainly from organisations which were represented at both these and the focus meetings. They included local authorities and welfare organisations such as Advocates for Animals and the Scottish SPCA.

Because of their specialist nature, attendance at the focus meetings varied. This was shaped by the subject of the meeting and the number of organisations and businesses invited. (Table 2). A number of attendees also attended the open meetings, with one welfare organisation, the Scottish SPCA, being present at all of them. Invitations were extended to a small number of organisations to attend other focus meetings to which they had not been initially invited. Some focus meetings were also attended by a small number of individuals who heard about them through their attendance at the open meetings or by word of mouth. The quality of discussion at all of the meetings was very high.

Table 1. Attendance at the consultation meetings: open meetings and focus meetings

Table 2. Focus meetings: Number of invitations initially issued and number of organisations attending

« Previous | Contents | Next »