The consultation document included a draft partial regulatory impact assessment. In paragraph 6, on page 15 of the consultation document, it listed three options for taking forward the revision of existing animal welfare legislation. Option 1 suggested that no changes should be made to the existing legislation. Option 2 suggested that a voluntary code of practice should be imposed or there should be self-regulation. Option 3 proposed that the existing animal welfare legislation should be revised and legislation aimed at consolidating and updating much of the animal welfare legislation in Scotland should be introduced.
Responders made a number of comments on the draft partial regulatory impact assessment. These commented on the cost and resource implications for various organisations such as local authorities and the Scottish SPCA that would be involved in enforcing the proposed legislation. Organisations also asked for additional funding to be provided for them and suggested types of welfare centres that should be given government funding. Some organisations also asked for assurance that additional resources would be made available if additional duties were assigned to them. Responders also suggested how additional funding could be made available, namely through licence fees or taxes:
PAWSI have put together a regulatory plan to regulate and monitor animals in the audio and visual industries which would be self funded to a certain degree and we would be pleased to discuss this with you at a further meeting. (PAWSI)
There are cost implications for those with commercial interests in animals (ACTA)
There may be an increase in work (and income) to some veterinary practices which have veterinary surgeons already qualified in these inspection areas. There would be a stimulus to local authority staff training in animal matters and also for market personnel. (individual)
There would obviously be an increase in financial terms of policing and setting up all the policies within the animal industries. However, these should stabilise in time and the increasing impact of better welfare for animals must surely be worth it. (PAWSI)
It must be noted that the Scottish SPCA is an independent charity, without any government or lottery funding and its resources are already extremely fully stretched. (Scottish SPCA)
Animal sanctuaries and rescue centres should receive regular government funding (i.e. lottery grants) as they are providing a public service. (CARROT)
The Society will offer its resources to assist local authorities, police officers and the Scottish Executive in the implementation of all animal welfare legislation. (Scottish SPCA)
Recognise that the extension of licensing provisions may put a strain on enforcement agencies, notably the local authorities. (Scottish SPCA)
There are significant resource implications in these proposals for local authorities. (Angus Council)
With greater regulation would come a greater demand on resources. (Dumfries and Galloway Council)
The potential for increased licensing of premises by the local authorities is great if these premises are to be uniformly inspected and the standards benchmarked. While most local authorities would welcome these changes, funding should be made available to take on the additional staffing required to carry this extra load. (Central Scotland Police, Aberdeenshire Council)
It is likely that a tightening up of animal welfare legislation will result, at least in the short term, in an increase in enforcement and a consequent increase in cost to enforcement agencies and others. However, so far as the Scottish Police Service is concerned, this increase should not have a major financial impact. (ACPOS)
Local authorities have no scope to deal with additional offences being proposed without increasing the resources allocated to it. For example, if an abandonment offence is created should enforcement be a function of the Police, Scottish SPCA or Local Authorities? With age restricted sales in other statutes the police or Trading Standards may be the appropriate enforcement agency dependent on the articles in question. Similarly, the allocation of funding must be appropriated accordingly. (City of Edinburgh Council)
Enforcement agencies require to be reimbursed for any financial expenses incurred to avoid agencies with responsibilities evading the work as a cost cutting exercise. (South Ayrshire Council)
It is to be assumed that extra resources will be made available to local authorities to meet the additional demands of the new legislation, particularly those of licensing inspections and animal care orders. The Scottish SPCA is concerned to ensure that there is sufficient experience, manpower and husbandry knowledge available. (Scottish SPCA)
We would like to be assured that additional resources would be made available for any additional duties assigned to us. (Dumfries and Galloway Council)
Accept that costs of the revised legislation will have to be met to some degree by licence fees. (Catflap)
As much of the proposals would rely on licensing schemes then the cost of implementation should, at least in part, be met by licence fees. Pedigree and exotic pets can be expensive to buy. It costs many hundreds of pounds to provide a lifetime of feeding and veterinary care for even a humble rescued cat. Owners should be prepared to pay a reasonable price for the privilege of having a companion animal, especially if fees are ring-fenced and used to support the scheme and to provide low cost spaying/neutering for pets for those on pensions and low incomes. Licensing fees could also be discounted for those groups. (Animal Concern)
The issue of licensing should be prioritised to ensure that enforcement resources are devoted to the areas of greatest need. (Scottish SPCA)
The funding provided by licence fees does not presently cover the resource required for this purpose, the requirement to licence more premises will therefore not be self-financing. The main area of resource shortage will be in light of the much wider range of animals to be protected, the proposal that no mater if these animals are in business premises, licensed establishments, private homes or cars that they be protected and protected proactively. This is a wider role than even the Scottish SPCA has undertaken. There may be cases where dogs left in cars are phoned into the local authority and if these proposals become legislation there will be a duty on local authorities to act. Further, the power to seize animals could see local authorities spend significant sums on care, feeding and veterinary treatment without any real likelihood of being able to recover the cost. There are cases where flocks of sheep may be seized and treated for sheep scab/malnutrition where the owners' credit with feed and veterinary treatment suppliers having reached its limit. (Angus Council)
There are cost implications to the implementation of any new legislation. A proportion of licence fees should be allocated to this. Producers and purchasers of animals, animal products and by-products assist the maintenance of welfare through some kind of 'Animal Welfare Added Tax' … directly or indirectly. If breeders, dealers, pet shops and others involved with the points covered in this consultation are to be allowed to continue practising, we see no argument against a proportion of income and/or expenditure being allocated to this most worthwhile and necessary legislation. (Scottish Gamekeepers' Association)
The cost of these licences would be borne not by the organisations proposing them, but by the people actually working with animals. (Scottish Hawk Board)
There should be differences between fees for commercial profit-making concerns and those charged to charities and other not-for-profit organisations. (Catflap)