« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 'PROPOSALS TO REVISE EXISTING ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION'
(15) Markets
Paragraph 39 of the consultation paper stated: Under existing regulations there is no requirement to licence places where animals are gathered and sold. Most markets operate to high standards, treat animal welfare as a very serious issue and are regularly visited by local authority animal health officers and inspectors from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA). As indicated in an earlier consultation, issued in February 2003, "Animal Disease Control: Proposals for Legislation in Scotland", we are considering the introduction of a provision which would make animal markets subject to licensing by the Scottish Ministers or local authorities. This would apply both to permanent markets for the sale of farmed livestock and other places where animals (livestock and other animals) are bought and sold on an occasional basis.
40. The Scottish Ministers would be able to set out conditions under which animals may be sold. The detailed regulations may vary between species but could include the design, operation, cleanliness and biosecurity of the places of sale and the competence and qualifications of animal handlers.
41. In the earlier consultation there was general agreement of the need to licence markets. (15.1) Do you agree and (15.2) what conditions should be met before a licence should be issued?
Overview
The 57 responders on this subject included 13 local authorities, their representative body, LACORS; one police force; the Scottish SPCA; three farming unions or associations; one livestock dealer; the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland; four equine organisations; 13 individuals also responded.
Question 15.1 The need to licence markets
Almost all the responders to this question agreed that markets should be licensed. However, one business responder regarded this move to be 'a worrying development'. Two responders disagreed with the proposal, considering that they were already well regulated by appropriate legislation. A further one believed that farm livestock markets were already well inspected and 'did not therefore believe that another layer of inspection is necessary' (The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland). A very small number did not specifically note whether they agreed to the proposal, though their comments suggested that markets, or activities undertaken at them, should be subject to some form of regulation.
There was a general awareness and agreement among key stakeholders that animal welfare standards currently found in Scottish markets were high. The Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland acknowledged that markets 'have always been at the forefront of animal welfare both through their involvement in instigating assurance schemes and indeed the fact that every mart in Scotland has had an Animal Welfare Officer appointed since 1982'. That organisation was not aware of any animal welfare charges that had been made against any Scottish auction mart. The Scottish SPCA confirmed these standards, noting that 'Inspectors find that markets in Scotland do meet a generally high standard, with problems only arising through the actions of a few individuals. In such cases the market authority normally supports taking action against the individual responsible.' The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers believed that 'most markets do operate to high standards and treat animal welfare as a very serious issue'. Markets were able to demonstrate their commitment to animal welfare through their 'completely open door policy' in which members of the public and all officials could come into their premises at any time and to inspect the auctions. Markets were also closely monitored on a weekly basis and inspected by welfare organisations (such as the Scottish SPCA which made 885 visits in 2003), SEPA, local authorities, HSE and Quality Assurance Bodies. As a result of this monitoring, The Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland believed that 'we are totally regulated, and with the exception of a bit of paper, licensed at present'.
However, there was also an awareness, at least by some equine organisations, that a number of difficulties existed with the current legislation that applied to the sale of horses at markets. NEWC acknowledged that the welfare provision for horses at sales was generally poor as they were not always properly handled or provided with a safe environment. One individual suggested that the handling of horses at horse markets was 'far from competent and operators have no idea of the welfare requirements of the stock on sale'.
Although welfare standards were considered to be high, responders suggested a number of reasons why markets should be licensed:
They must be adequately controlled. (The Home of Rest for Horses)
To prevent the abuse of the animals. (Scottish Kennel Club)
To ensure good welfare. (Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Sciences)
To set minimum standards of welfare at a national level. (individual)
To govern the conditions under which animals may be sold. (Canine Concern Scotland Trust)
To ensure market operators carry out their responsibilities and to care and protect animals whilst at market. (South Ayrshire Council)
To provide a useful tool to prevent the sale of unsuitable ponies to unsuitable homes. (Mossburn Animal Sanctuary)
As markets are on the principle routes of disease transmission, there are also health reasons for licensing. (Scottish SPCA)
To ensure the need for biosecurity and traceability. (NFU Scotland)
Maintain food safety standards. (BVA Scottish Branch)
To remove anomalies in standards and powers of inspection. (Central Scotland Police, LACORS)
A number of responders, especially from the agricultural and market sector, regarded the subject of licensing to be a complex issue. First, livestock markets were seen to be only one type of place where animals are bought and sold. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland suggested that the 'definition of "market" [should] be extended to include all places where all types of animal are bought and sold'. This extension was also supported by The Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland which 'categorically stated that we will only support the licensing of auction marts if every other person and organisation trading or gathering livestock are also licensed and have to comply to exactly the same regulations as auction marts. This would include collection centres (official and unofficial), hauliers who gather stock onto their own premises, livestock dealers and traders either operating on their own account or acting as agents for others. There was a strong argument for these people who trade stock on their farms to be similarly licensed as different groups of people and vehicles are going on and off their farms viewing and picking up the stock'. That organisation also suggested that shows should also be licensed. NFU Scotland also recognised the need to extend licensing to other premises: 'seasonal markers, collection centres, premises used by dealers/agents, hauliers etc'. The Royal Association of British Dairy farmers also agreed that the proposals should be broadened, and believed 'that there ought to be a requirement to licence places where animals are gathered and sold'. This view was also expressed by 14 organisations and three individuals. Livestock dealers were also considered as a group that should be subject to licensing. LACORS and Central Scotland Police asked for this licensing activity to take place, as did NFU Scotland which believed that it was 'desirable'. If an extension was to be made, NFU Scotland considered that 'a clearer definition of the term "dealer" must be established to cover those who use a holding or premise to temporarily house stock prior to their resale direct to farm, through a market or to an abattoir'. In relation to the issue of market licensing, Mr Mike Radford also believed that it would also be helpful to also think about the definition of 'farmer' or 'livestock keeper', as 'at the moment, it is an imprecise term which can be applied equally to multinational corporation, small family run businesses, hobby farmers, and those who would be more appropriately regarded as traders'.
Coupled with the desire to extend the licensing of the markets, was the recognition that the different places where animals are bought and sold operate to different standards. This situation presented a range of difficulties for licensing and enforcing licence conditions. The Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland pointed out that there was a need to 'create a level playing field' in licensing activities (see also their earlier comments noted above). It believed that if this was not universally applied, then markets could be over-regulated and driven underground. It concluded that all 'aforementioned people and places where livestock are both traded and gathered [should be] similarly licensed and comply in the exact same high standards as we currently do. Nothing less will be accepted.' Two enforcing bodies, LACORS and Central Scotland Police, also supported the creation of a level mark, as also did one animal sanctuary, Munlochy Animal Aid. This latter organisation believed that 'if there are different types of licence, operators will endeavour to have their premises categorised under the least onerous set of regulations and the whole licensing procedure will become a joke.'
Not all of the responders supported a universal licensing system which would apply equally to all types of premises. They felt that there could be a disproportionate burden placed on some types of premises (Family Farmers Association), and the operation of seasonal marts could be threatened, which in turn would have significant economic implications (NFU Scotland).
However, a universal licensing system was considered to have a number of advantages in providing better regulation and enforcement for places where animals are gathered, bought and sold. Two enforcement organisations, LACORS and Central Scotland Police, believed that there were currently anomalies in the enforcement of places where animals were gathered for sale. Although licensed collection centres were regulated, other gatherings of livestock were not, and powers were not available to inspect animals at these premises or ensure their welfare, other than under basic welfare legislation. In addition, no obligations were placed on an operator to inform any agency when they are operating, a move which in itself would allow animals to be inspected.
Question 15.2 The conditions that should be met before a licence is issued
The consultation document asked what conditions should be included in the licence. Responders listed a number of provisions. Each usually noted a few conditions, rather than a comprehensive set. These were:
Standards should be met before a licence is granted. (East Ayrshire Council, Fife Council, West Lothian Council, Advocates for Animals, 3 individuals)
A licence should not be granted where the market has been convicted of animal cruelty. (The Vegetarian Society, individual)
The operator should inform the enforcement bodies when they are operating so that their premises can be inspected. (LACORS, Central Scotland Police)
Animal handlers should be competent (Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council, NEWC, 4 individuals) and qualified. (City of Edinburgh Council, British Horse Society, Munlochy Animal Aid, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, Macaulay Institute, individual)
A welfare officer should be appointed. (East Lothian Council, Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Sciences)
Standards for accommodation. (Aberdeenshire Council, British Horse Society)
Standards for the design and construction of facilities for feeding and watering. (Angus Council, City of Edinburgh Council)
Standards for equipment etc for handling animals. (LACORS, Central Scotland Police)
Time animals spend at market. (East Lothian Council)
Animals should have available at all times a supply of clean water and food. (Advocates for Animals, British Horse Society, 2 individuals)
Stocking densities. (Advocates for Animals, NEWC, 2 individuals)
Unloading and loading. (NEWC)
Cleanliness and biosecurity. (Aberdeenshire Council, City of Edinburgh Council, North Lanarkshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, British Horse Society, individual)
Need for bio-security measures to be enforced. Persons can currently enter the livestock area without being properly dressed or have proper footwear that can be cleansed and disinfected. (South Ayrshire Council)
The type of footwear that can be worn in the livestock area that can be dipped in disinfectant should be specified. The current term 'robust footwear' is insufficient. (South Ayrshire Council)
Contingency plans to deal with welfare problems and disease. (City of Edinburgh Council, North Lanarkshire Council, individual)
Veterinary attention. (Angus Council, Advocates for Animals, Animal Concern, 2 individuals)
Arrangements in place to deal with unfit/injured/dead animals. (East Lothian Council, Animal Concern, NEWC, individual)
Health and safety. (East Lothian Council)
Additional sales of rare breeds and domestic animals and non-commercial livestock should have additional conditions. (Aberdeenshire Council)
Definition of what constitutes a breach of welfare and how this would be dealt with. (The Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland).
Powers to close down a market in the event of bad management. (South Ayrshire Council)
A license should be backed up by improvement notices for non-compliance and include a right of appeal where removal is being considered in order to protect the operator and his investment in his business. (LACORS, Central Scotland Police)
The licensing system should be based on the current The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 (amended 1993). (Scottish SPCA)
The existing codes of practice for livestock markets should be used as the basis for further control. (BVA Scottish Branch, The Home of Rest for Horses)
« Previous | Contents | Next »