The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

ANNEX A

DRAFT REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PART I - INTRODUCTION
ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE (SCOTLAND) BILL:
PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT OF MEASURE

The Background

1. The Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, launched in June 2004, outlines the principles and roles and responsibilities for continually raising standards for all animals. It envisages a Scotland where:

• Animals in Great Britain kept for food, farming, sport, companionship, entertainment, and in zoos are healthy and treated humanely;
• Our disease status is amongst the highest in the world, and we are able to trade our animals and animal products internationally;
• All disease emergencies are dealt with swiftly and effectively using an agreed approach;
• Consumers value the confidence they have in food produced safely from healthy animals that are well cared for. Consumers and retailers accept that higher standards of animal health and welfare are not free;
• Livestock keeping is part of a competitive British farming industry which succeeds by meeting the needs of consumers at home and aboard, producing food safely and to high standards of health and welfare;
• Animals are free from disease or abnormality, and exist in a state where their physical, environmental, nutritional, behavioural and social needs are met.

2. Modernisation of animal health legislation and animal welfare legislation will contribute to the delivery of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. The Bill seeks to reduce the impact of exotic, notifiable animal diseases, where they occur and to raise standards of welfare. This will in turn improve productivity and competitiveness in the livestock sector, and raise consumer confidence in our food.

3. Powers to counteract incursions of disease are set out in the Animal Health Act 1981. Outbreaks of notifiable disease, particularly those exotic (foreign) to this country, have enormous consequences for livestock farming, other rural industries, tourism, and potentially human health and wider society. It is therefore of paramount importance that the infrastructure is in place to deal with any future outbreaks as effectively and rapidly as possible and powers available that reflect modern practices. Examples of such diseases include Foot and Mouth Disease ( FMD), Classical Swine Fever ( CSF) and Avian Influenza.

4. Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies ( TSEs) are neurological diseases that are progressive and invariably fatal. TSEs include Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ( BSE) found in cattle, and Scrapie found in sheep and goats. Although Scrapie has been around for over two centuries, BSE was only recognised and defined in the United Kingdom in November 1986. BSE has serious public health implications but both domestic and European legislation is in place to minimise the risk. Scrapie does not pose a threat to human health but sheep were exposed to the same infected feed that led to the BSE outbreak in cattle. Scrapie and experimental BSE in sheep have indistinguishable clinical signs and in theory if BSE were present it could be masked by Scrapie. Given that TSEs are not covered in the 1981 Act a legal base is now required to respond to them and to decisions made at a European level.

5. The general principles of animal welfare legislation are set out in the Protection of Animals Acts which make it an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal. Since the first of these Acts was implemented in Scotland in 1912 (similar legislation in England and Wales dates from 1911), they have been amended on a number of occasions. In many respects, the legislation remains designed to deal with the ill-treatment of animals during the nineteenth century: the 1912 Act was intended to consolidate that existing legislation. Since that Act was implemented, there has been an increasing awareness that an animal does not suffer solely as a result of physical abuse caused by deliberate acts or neglect and that there is need to safeguard their physiological and other needs. Some of these needs have, to an extent, been addressed in legislation that has been introduced for farm livestock, animals in transit and animals in zoological collections. However, there remains concern that there are gaps in the legislation covering the welfare needs of domestic, companion or pet, sport and captive animals. Further, that legislation does not reflect modern day practices. There are a number of anomalies in the legislation concerning animal boarding and riding establishments. Additionally there is real concern that the legislation for domestic, companion or pet, sport and captive animals is confusing, unwieldy, insufficient and outdated. There has also been judicial criticism of the ambiguities and out-dated language that is found in the 1912 Act.

The Objective

6. As stated above, the modernisation of existing legislation relating to animal health and animal welfare aims to contribute to the delivery of the objectives of the Strategy. Consultation with stakeholders has highlighted the high priority they place on reducing the likelihood and impact of incursions of exotic disease, and to driving up standards of welfare for all animals.

7. Modernisation on the health side by means of the Bill will support the existing Animal Health Act 1981, adding to the Executive's options and flexibility to control disease, enhancing the ability to respond quickly to animal disease outbreaks and minimise their impacts, and protect Scotland's livestock industry. This will reflect developments in research, technology, and experience.

8. Therefore, on the health side, the legislation would provide additional control measures principally to tackle quickly any new outbreaks of notifiable, exotic animal diseases. Additional powers are also being sought to eliminate Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies ( TSEs) in livestock, in particular for sheep should evidence of BSE ever be found occurring naturally.

9. On the welfare side, the Bill modernises and brings together in one statute some 13 Acts (and their amendments) relating to the welfare of captive and domestic animals in Scotland. It will protect from cruelty and promote the welfare of vertebrate animals which are commonly domesticated in the British Islands, under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis or not living in a wild state. It revises the legislation for non-farmed animals dealing with the animal welfare needs of the late nineteenth century which is in urgent need of revision.

Risk Assessment

10. Veterinary advice suggests that there is a credible risk of FMD, Swine Fever and/or Fowl Plague (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza) breaking out in GB either now or in future. The powers in the Bill would assist in containing a serious disease and eradicating it rapidly before becoming endemic.

11. The first case of BSE in goats was confirmed in 2005, in a French goat slaughtered in 2001. This resulted in an increased level of surveillance of TSEs in goats throughout the EC. There still remains a theoretical risk that BSE could also be present in sheep and that it may be masked by Scrapie. Scrapie is a notifiable disease and all suspects are screened for the presence of TSEs, including BSE. Underpinning this is an ongoing EU wide surveillance programme screening for the presence of TSEs. Both sheep and goats going through abattoirs and those found dead on farm or during transport are screened for TSEs. To date no presence of BSE has been detected in the national sheep flock. The additional powers in the Bill would assist in the rapid elimination of TSEs where a disease control campaign were judged necessary.

12. The revision of the legislation on the welfare side will impact on the number of prosecutions that are brought under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. In 2003 (the latest available figures), proceedings were taken against 33 cases for offences under the 1912 Act, of whom 28 were found guilty. In that year, the Scottish SPCA reported 34 cases. This is lower than the available statistics for that Society in 2004 when it reported 51 cases, of which 34 were heard in that year, with the remainder still pending. Six cases had no proceedings and one not guilty; the remainder either pled or were found guilty.

13. The Bill will also help reduce the number of animals that require to be looked after in animal sanctuaries. In 2004, the Scottish SPCA received 96,697 calls to its central control (excluding calls to its HQ administration and animal welfare centres) from the public relating to animal incidents such as injured animals, rescues, and investigations of abandonment in 2004. This number increased from 2003, when a total of 88,235 of calls were made. In that same year, the Society also picked up and looked after 23,450 animals which included wildlife. It also lodged 12,327 animals at its 13 welfare centres for which it is directly responsible throughout Scotland. It investigated 7,798 cases of cruelty neglect or abandonment. There are, however, no statistics available for the exact number of rescue centres and animal sanctuaries/welfare centres which are independent of the SSPCA. A conservative estimate suggests that there may be around 150 to 200 sanctuaries. It is not known how many animals these centres look after. It is expected that these figures will be reduced in the long term.

14. The Bill will also significantly reduce the length of time animals have to be cared for in sanctuaries/welfare centres. This will be achieved by allowing a court to order that an animal or animals taken into possession can be disposed of prior to a court case.

Conclusions from the consultation document "Animal Disease Control: Proposals for Legislation in Scotland"

15. There were 31 responses to this consultation, of which 5 returned "no comment". In general, the proposals for legislation were welcomed. Fourteen out of the 16 responses expressed support on the proposal to extend the power to slaughter animals where considered necessary for rapid disease control or prevention. Of the 17 responses submitted covering the Executive's proposal to introduce an Animal Biosecurity Code, 13 responses stated agreement with the proposal. Eighteen out of the 31 responders covered the proposal that an offence be created for those found to have breached specified biosecurity measures, of which 2 stated their disproval. On the principle of the creation of a new power to inspect vehicles randomly, 14 of the 17 responses received on this proposals registered agreement. Eight out of the 31 responders responded to part two of a possible Bill. There was acceptance and support for the National Scrapie Plan, with the suggestion of making the scheme compulsory, whilst recognising the need to retain valuable genetic material.

Conclusions from the consultation document "Proposals to revise existing animal welfare legislation"

16. This consultation sought views on what should be included in any new Scottish animal welfare legislation. A total of 325 written responses were received. It was clear that a number of responders had taken much time and effort in their responses and had carefully considered the wide range of issues. During the consultation period, 4 public meetings were held throughout the country and a further 9, which focused on specific issues outlined in the document, were held in Edinburgh. Attendees included animal welfare and rights organisations, welfare groups with a radical agenda, local authority enforcement officers, the police, commercial interests and organisations which focused on one or a range of animal welfare activities outlined in the consultation document.

17. The consultation confirmed that there was a great need for existing animal welfare legislation to be modernised, updated and strengthened. Responders generally welcomed a reform of the legislation with enthusiasm and positive support. They were aware that the legislation relating to farmed livestock was up to date and encompassed modern views on welfare and that welfare law should be pro-active to prevent suffering before it occurred. They also recognised that the legislation relating to pet and captive animals was rooted in the nineteenth century and were concerned that prosecutions could only be taken forward after an animal had suffered. They recognised that the current legislation had a general absence of enabling powers, with the result that it was not possible to change it without making recourse to primary legislation. This had led to relatively few reforms being made. As these were largely ad hoc and piecemeal, they gave rise to legislation which was cumbersome, outdated and unwieldy in character.

18. Responders considered that the definition of "animal" should be wide ranging. The majority were in favour of including cephalopods and crustaceans, though they felt that it was advisable to limit the specific species of crustaceans. There were mixed views on the species of animals and whether wild animals should be included in the legislation. Some considered that it would be beneficial if the Bill was worded in such a way as to allow the definition of "animal" to be changed by secondary legislation. They believed that it was important that the definition should be able to be changed so that it would embrace developments in the knowledge of animal species, including the sentience of invertebrates.

19. There was overwhelming support for the introduction of a new duty of care which would oblige anyone responsible for animals to promote their welfare. This would secure and promote the welfare of animals. This is an obligation which goes considerably further than requirements in existing legislation. Many organisations and individuals were enthusiastic about this proposal and some felt that it was central to the development of the new legislation. There was general agreement that the new legislation should be about the promotion of welfare and the education of animal keepers (including pet owners) rather than concentrating on only animal cruelty and suffering. This would help to prevent cruelty and be able to take action before it had taken place. Many responders stressed that any new obligation to ensure good welfare should not mean that the cruelty offence would be lost. They saw a clear distinction between a failure to promote good welfare and a deliberate act of cruelty, and a need for different offences and penalties.

20. The creation of a specific offence of abandonment was generally welcomed. However, some responders felt that this was not required. They considered that anyone who was abandoning an animal would have already committed an offence by failing in their duty to promote and ensure the welfare of that animal. Abandonment was regarded to be a complex issue which was difficult to define.

21. Responders gave overwhelming support to the proposal to strengthen the legislation which prohibits animal fights between animals and between animals and man. Some stressed that the offence connected with animal fighting should be separated from that of cruelty. A number believed that involvement in animal fighting should attract the most severe penalties including a lifetime ban on keeping animals.

22. The majority of responders agreed with the proposals to strengthen the legislation on the sale of animals, whether from pet shops, pet fairs or dealers; statutory protection for the welfare of captive pheasants; the licensing of markets and the licensing or registration of animal sanctuaries and livery stables and yards; and for the regulation of the tethering of horses. Many canine and animal welfare organisations stated their opposition to the trade in young or pet animals and believed that if the trade were to continue then it should only do so if it was regulated and licensed. Responders also suggested that the deficiencies in the current legislation relating to the sale of dogs from dog breeding establishments should also be reviewed and amended. The vast majority of responders felt that the present regulations covering dog breeding establishments should be extended to cats and other companion animals including birds. The omission of livery yards and stables from a licensing scheme had caused a number of problems within the equine industry and for the enforcement of the Riding Establishment Acts. Some responders were also concerned that the existing Riding Establishment Acts should be amended. In particular, they noted that the licence fee structure and the frequency of inspections should be reviewed, there should be guidance on standards on housing and care, qualifications of riding instructors and other staff and there should be unannounced spot checks. Responders were aware of the connections between the different types of places where animals could be bought and sold. They believed that it would be necessary to ensure that any licensing regime for markets must be extended to include seasonal markets, collection centres, hauliers who gather stock on their premises, livestock dealers and traders. Some believed that this was important as these premises operate to different standards and that official markets should not be over regulated while other places where animals are traded were left unregulated. There were mixed views about the "couping" or uneven shoeing of horses. A number of responders thought that the best way forward was through the regulation of shoeing practices or should only be undertaken subject to a statutory Code of Practice. However, this view was by no means universal as there were a number of responders who believed that there were already sufficient safeguards to protect the welfare of horses.

23. The most controversial proposal, which also attracted the greatest number of responses, was that of tail docking and mutilations. Very robust views were expressed by pro- and anti- docking interests, with some arguing strongly for a total ban except where a tail had to be amputated for medical reasons. Others argued equally strongly for the existing provisions to continue. A large number of responders were against docking for cosmetic reasons or to maintain breed standards. However, there was some support to allow tail docking for working dogs, but this was by no means universal and a number of responders were not convinced that this exception was required.

24. The vast majority of responders agreed that a previous proposal to give statutory powers to local authorities to remove livestock which are at risk of suffering should be extended to all animals. A number of local authorities were concerned that the power to seize animals could be given to a charitable or voluntary organisation. On the other hand, the Scottish SPCA felt that it should be able to apply to a Sheriff for a warrant. A number of responders commented on the requirement to obtain a warrant before any animal could be seized. They felt that it was important that this should not lead to a delay in help being offered to a neglected animal and that action should be able to be taken without a warrant in emergency situations. There was some concern that animals may only be seized after court proceedings had been commenced. They considered that a better approach might be to allow the animals to be seized if there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution and that any appeal process should not delay the removal of animals at risk; there should be provision for adequate care for the animals until a case is heard and all appeals exhausted. Responders felt that a number of practical problems would need to be addressed as to where and how the animals would be accommodated, the cost of their keep and the person who would be responsible for their welfare.

25. A number of responders suggested a range of subjects that should be included in the new legislation. These included the need to ban pets being given as prizes and the use of electric devices and punitive training equipment. They considered that a range of activities such as pet groomers, sitters and dog walkers should be licensed. A range of issues specifically related to farm animal welfare, the character of licensing systems that should apply under the legislation, and the need to strengthen penalties including those for animal cruelty, abandonment and neglect.

26. Responders also noted that it would be important for any new legislation to comply with human rights legislation, but stressed that courts should be able to use the full range of penalties that were available to them in cases of animal cruelty. These included the power to ban people from keeping animals. Other than this, no one felt that the proposals would undermine any human rights legislation. A number stated that the right to keep animals must not allow them to be ill-treated or abused.

27. A range of comments were made on the relationship between the proposals and sustainable development. The good management of animals was regarded to have a beneficial effect on the countryside. There was some concern about stocking densities and the lack of appropriate veterinary treatment of livestock as it was considered that lower stocking densities would ensure a healthier animal and secure higher prices for it. On the other hand, it was important that animal welfare legislation was not so costly that it would place the Scottish livestock industry at a commercial disadvantage, leading to the importation of more animal products from countries with lower animal welfare standards.

28. Responders felt that none of the proposals had a direct impact on equal opportunity issues, including guide and other assistance animals used by people with disabilities.

PART II AND PART III: HEALTH AND WELFARE

29. Modernisation of both health and welfare legislation should be seen as a complementary process with the objective of contributing to the delivery of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. The following 2 parts show the proposals as they relate to the Animal Health Act 1981 (Part 2), and the animal welfare legislation from 1912 (Part 3). Part 4 addresses the measures as a whole and sets out consultation arrangements and a summary of the measures.

PART II: HEALTH

OPTIONS

30. The 2 options are as follows:

Option 1: No change to existing measures as set out in the Animal Health Act 1981.

Option 2: A Bill to supplement the existing powers.

COSTS AND BENEFITS

BUSINESS SECTORS AFFECTED

31. The measures proposed for the Bill would directly affect those farmers keeping farm animals such as cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, poultry and farmed deer. It would not affect domestic or companion animals, such as dogs, cats or horses, although the susceptibility of any animal to a major disease outbreak would need to be considered at the time. Should there be another outbreak of an exotic disease, some of the measures would affect only those farmers whose animals contract the disease or are slaughtered for disease control/prevention reasons. Although the impacts of disease would be felt across society as a whole, the best way to protect society is to get the disease under control as quickly as possible. Therefore, many of the proposed measures concentrate on the livestock sector to facilitate this control effort.

ASSUMPTIONS

32. Outbreaks of exotic animal disease have a potentially devastating effect on the livestock sector and the rural and wider economy. As such, it is essential that the full range of control options are available to bring any incursion under control as quickly as possible. Many of the powers in the Bill are not new, but need to be made as explicit as possible to avoid confusion and potential obstruction of the disease control effort.

BENEFITS

33. The Bill would improve the flexibility of Scottish Ministers to be able to respond to the particular circumstances of any incursion of exotic disease. It will reduce the likelihood of exotic disease occurring in the country, and will minimise it spreading around the country if it does enter. This will reduce the potentially dire impact of disease on the livestock sector and the wider economy. Some examples of these costs are:

• The Royal Society of Edinburgh Inquiry into FMD in Scotland, published in July 2002, reported that the 2001 FMD outbreak resulted in compensation payments totalling £171m to cover the costs of compulsory livestock slaughter. The Report also suggested that the costs to the wider agricultural sector through factors such as loss of income while farms were without stock and disruptions due to movement restrictions were approximately £60m. The outbreak also had a large impact on the tourism sector with the Royal Society of Edinburgh citing a VisitScotland estimate that the industry lost £200-£250m as a result of the epidemic. The total direct cost of the 2001 outbreak of FMD to the UK public sector is estimated at over £3 billion and the cost to the private sector is estimated at over £5 billion;
• The Scottish Executive's Impact Assessment Group commissioned a report ("Economic Impact of the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak in Scotland" http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/agri/eifm-00.asp) which found that the overall impact of FMD on the Scottish economy as a whole was a fall in GDP of between £13.6m and £29.8m (or between -0.02% and - 0.05% of GDP).
• The first outbreak of Swine Vesicular Disease in GB was in 1972. Over the next 10 years 532 cases involving a total of 311,668 pigs were confirmed before the disease was eradicated from GB in 1982;
• An economic analysis of outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza ( HPAI) in Pennsylvania, USA in 1983-4 showed that the direct costs of eradication were $ US 64 million, and the indirect costs to consumers were $500 million through increased prices of products. On the other hand, it was estimated that HPAI would have cost the US poultry industry $ US 2 billion annually if it had become endemic. The influenza virus causing an outbreak of HPAI in Hong Kong in 1997 was found to be capable of transfer to humans and as a consequence a decision was taken to completely cull all chickens there;
• BSE in cattle is estimated to have cost the Exchequer £4.5 billion and has led, through v CJD, to the loss of over 140 human lives. Were BSE, for example, to be discovered in sheep, the impact on this sector would be huge. The measures in the Bill will benefit the public sector by reducing TSE infection and consequently reducing the level of risk posed by affected livestock.

COSTS

34. Many of the measures are about creating greater flexibility to respond to a disease outbreak, and are not about creating new costs. Veterinary and epidemiological advice is that no change to current legislation could mean that the measures in Scotland are not sufficient to support quick and effective containment and eradication of a virulent disease outbreak; therefore, modernisation of legislation seeks to minimise the effect on the wider economy.

35. In the event of an outbreak of exotic disease, there will be associated costs to farmers and related organisations, incurred for example through movement restrictions, disruptions to markets, etc. However, these implications are not new, and the measures implemented by the Bill itself should not bring significant additional costs to the farming industry. A cost benefit analysis of the animal movement standstill regime ( http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/movements/pdf/veeru-report.pdf ) found that 84% of farms surveyed in Scotland reported no additional costs associated with adjusting to the standstill regime. The average net cost of the standstill regime per holding was £93 in Scotland. Hence the costs of adapting to movement restrictions are low.

36. Additional costs to the public sector will arise directly from the compensation scheme for infected premises and from any extended culling programmes carried out under any new powers, including any culling of vaccinated animals. It is the objective of any such programme to contain rapidly and eradicate the disease and so reduce the total number of animals that need to be slaughtered overall. Such steps therefore should minimise the overall cost of compensation, slaughter, disposal, etc.

37. Unlike disease outbreaks such as FMD, there would not be the need for a rapid disease control response with TSEs. If the TSE had public health implications certain risk reduction measures would be announced by Government. These would be dependent upon a number of factors: where the TSE was found, its type and incidence. This may involve wider slaughter powers to remove animals from the food chain which could not be confirmed as free from infection. Costs to farmers and others (mainly those in the slaughter and processing industry) would be mainly through loss of livestock by the introduction of these controls. There would also be a cost to the public sector in relation to paying for genotyping, slaughter, compensation and other associated costs.

38. Additional costs from the Bill to the typical business are not likely to be high. Compensation would be paid for any additional animals slaughtered under the new powers in the event of a disease outbreak, but the more efficient disease control effort should result in lower costs of compensation overall.

39. The majority of farmers already comply with a Biosecurity Code that currently exists under different legislation (Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968); the relevant part is being repealed by this Bill. There will thus only be additional costs for those not complying with the proposed new Code, but in such cases they will benefit from the increased productivity that lower disease status will bring.

40. Animal markets already mostly comply with high biosecurity standards, and will also benefit from lower incidence of disease. Markets will be one of the largest beneficiaries of a more efficient response to incursions of exotic disease.

41. Those breaching existing disease control legislation will incur increased penalties (see Enforcement and Sanctions section).

EQUITY AND FAIRNESS

42. In the event of an outbreak of disease every step will be taken to control and eradicate it as soon as possible. Such actions will be implemented when and where necessary and will be based on a veterinary assessment of both disease and the anticipated impact of the control measures. There are no obvious equality issues.

CONSULTATION WITH SMALL BUSINESS

43. The Small Business Service has been consulted and does not consider that there will be a disproportionate impact from the proposals on small businesses. In the event of an outbreak of exotic disease, the impact on small businesses will mostly be felt in the farming sector. In view of this, the National Farmers Union (Scotland), amongst others, were consulted on the proposals. The NFUS, when consulted in 2003, were broadly supportive, and offered comment on 3 areas:

TEST RUN OF BUSINESS FORMS

44. New licenses will be addressed with appropriate business organisations when Scottish Statutory Instruments are drawn up to ensure they are as clear, simple and easy to complete as possible.

COMPETITION ASSESSMENT

45. The following table gives an assessment of whether there are likely to be any competition issues in the market affected by the proposals, i.e. agriculture.

46. From this, we can conclude that there are unlikely to be any competition issues with the new legislation.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

47. In order to be sustainable, proposals must encourage "development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Minimising the impact of exotic disease incursions and reducing the likelihood of livestock TSEs will clearly benefit animals now and in the future. It will also help the profitability of the livestock and rural sector as trade and productivity will be boosted. Furthermore, it should minimise compensation needed to be paid by the public sector for the slaughter, disposal etc. of animals.

ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS

48. The health part of the Bill revises and brings up-to-date the penalties (financial and/or custodial) for offences under the 1981 Act, ie on summary conviction imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale fixed by the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, or both. These updated penalties will apply also to the new offences detailed in the Bill, which either amend or add to the 1981 Act. The provisions are enforced by local authorities, usually under secondary legislation made under the 1981 Act, and with the assistance of the State Veterinary Service. Most of the new provisions in the Bill, and consequently offences, would apply only at a time of a major disease outbreak such as FMD.

PART III: WELFARE

OPTIONS

49. The three options are:

Option 1: No change to existing legislation.

Option 2: Impose a voluntary code of practice/self-regulation.

Option 3: Introduce and enact the welfare proposals of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill.

BUSINESS SECTORS AFFECTED

50. The Bill will affect businesses that own, manage, or in any way keep an animal, including buying, selling and transporting it. Not only will this include a wide range of businesses which own and manage specific types of animals, but others that undertake specific activities with them, such as trading, or providing accommodation for them. These will include the farming sector, pet shops, riding establishments, livery yards, animal performers, animal breeding establishments and animal rearing establishments. While a number of businesses are already regulated under existing animal welfare legislation, and these will continue to be covered under the provisions of the Bill, further ones which are not currently affected will be brought within its scope. These will include cat breeding establishments, pet dealers, livery yards, animal sanctuaries and pet fairs.

RISKS, BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE OPTIONS

Risks and benefits:

51. Option 1: No benefits. Although there would be no additional burdens, there would be no improvement in animal welfare and the legislation would remain outdated.

52. A number of animal welfare, commercial, professional and government organisations have indicated to the Scottish Executive that the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 has ceased to meet the needs of modern day society to look after the welfare of a range of animals. The pressure to amend the current legislation, and to consolidate and update it, is bound to increase if the Executive takes no action. This will be intensified in light of developments by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) which issued a draft Animal Welfare Bill in July 2004, and which is likely to be introduced into the Westminster Parliament after the May 2005 election. This Bill consolidates and modernises legislation in England and Wales. It would be undesirable to have outdated and outmoded legislation in Scotland which fails to meet modern day animal welfare needs and which is unwieldy and difficult to work with when these issues are being addressed in England and Wales.

53. Option 2: No benefits. Although there would be no statutory additional burdens, there would be no improvement in animal welfare.

54. The Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 deals with those who cause unnecessary suffering through either deliberate cruelty or neglect. This cannot be addressed through self regulation. There are already a number of voluntary Codes of Practice for commercial undertakings such as pet traders and livery yards but there is no evidence to suggest that they are fully policed. There are also businesses which are not members of a trade organisation and will therefore not be aware or these Codes or come under them.

55. Option 3: This option would bring a number of benefits.

56. The Bill will modernise, strengthen and consolidate animal welfare legislation and make it fit for the 21st century. Its overall benefit will improve animal welfare standards and the care of animals under its scope.

57. It embodies current thoughts and developments on animal welfare. The current legislation, which is centred on the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912, remains in many respects legislation designed to deal with the ill-treatment of animals during the 19th century and makes reference to activities which were relevant to that period such as the use of dogs for draught purposes on public highways, overloading horse drawn carts, beating and over-riding animals. The provisions of the 1912 Act and in other animal welfare legislation have been revised to embody standards of animal welfare which we expect to be met during the 21st century. A number of the provisions in the existing legislation which continue to remain relevant, have been updated, strengthened and clarified.

58. The Bill consolidates the existing law in relation to animal welfare in Scotland. It is clearer and written in modern legal language which is easier to read and understand. In turn, this will make it easier for the businesses that have to comply with it and the organisations that will have to enforce it to comply with its provisions.

59. The Bill is an enabling measure which sets out the broad fundamental principles of animal welfare and allows specific provisions to be made in secondary regulations. It also allows for Codes of Practice to be made and for Ministers to make any further provisions they think appropriate for animal welfare. Its structure will enable its provisions to be kept up to date and in line with developments in animal welfare and the sciences. This will allow its provisions to be easily revised, amended, kept up to date, and further, for the Scottish Executive to respond to changes more quickly than it can do at present. This will thus enable the Bill to be fit for purpose for a long period of time. It will be possible to use the Bill to implement EU and international obligations concerning the welfare of farmed and other animals and to produce Codes of Practice.

60. The benefits of the Bill and its major provisions are:

61. The modernisation, strengthening and extension of a number of provisions in the existing animal welfare legislation. For example:

• It strengthens the cruelty offence and the various prohibitions on animal suffering which are central to the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912.
• It extends the powers of the Scottish Ministers to make regulations to ensure the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible and their offspring.
• The makes animal fighting a specific offence and extends the offences which relate to animal fighting.
• It strengthens the offence of abandonment.
• It raises the offence to sell an animal to a person from 12 years to 16 years of age.
• The Bill extends the range of animals for which Codes of Practice can be made.

62. The consolidation of the existing legislation to clarify and make it easier to understand:

• It brings together the current regulations on mutilations which are contained in a number of Acts and regulations.
• It draws together the powers of Scottish Ministers to make regulations for the licensing and registration for a range of activities for animal welfare purposes. Existing activities and establishments which are regulated will continue to be regulated (performing animals, animal boarding establishments, riding establishments, breeding and sale of dogs and pet shops) and other ones will also be subject to regulation (these could include pet fairs, pet dealers, animal sanctuaries, livery yards, tethering, the rearing of gamebirds, and the couping or uneven shoeing of horses).

63. The introduction of a number of new provisions:

• A ban on the giving of animals as prizes, unless in a family context.
• An obligation on owners and keepers to take reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of animals in their care. This will allow action to be taken on welfare issues at an earlier time than can take place under existing legislation.
• The removal of an animal from its owner if the animal is in danger of suffering due to poor welfare but is not actually suffering.
• It makes the enforcement of animal welfare legislation easier to undertake. Existing provisions are modernised and strengthened and new ones introduced.
• It permits inspections to be made where there are grounds for suspecting that animals are being kept in circumstances where a licence or registration is necessary but none is in place.

64. It gives additional powers to take animals which are suffering or at risk of suffering into possession:

• It gives courts a range of options that will allow them to deal with animals in an appropriate way after they have been taken into care and before criminal charges are brought.
• It sets out maximum periods during which proceedings for an offence under the Bill or regulations made under the Bill can be brought. This will make the system for bringing proceedings to court to be more efficient and will also be clarified.
• It strengthens the provisions which related to the breach of a disqualification Order. It makes it more difficult to circumvent a disqualification Order made by a court.
• It revises penalties which better reflect the seriousness of the different offences.

65. As noted above, the overall benefit of the Bill will improve animal welfare standards and the care of animals under its scope. There is little doubt that the current regulation of existing licensing activities (pet shops, dog breeding establishments, riding establishment and animal boarding establishments) has already been seen to improve the welfare of animals in these establishments. It is reasonable to assume that as long as the more up to date regulatory controls are put in place for other activities that are currently unregulated, then similar improvements can also be made. In addition, as it will be easier to revise regulations, it will be possible to ensure that they are kept up to date to reflect current developments relating to these premises and activities. In turn, this will further raise overall standards. Better regulation will also lead to the closure of any inadequate businesses or activities where welfare standards are unacceptable.

66. The Bill will allow the enforcers of the animal welfare legislation to make a number of cost savings (the Scottish SPCA does not carry out enforcement work on an official basis and is the only body that carries out work in relation to the welfare of companion animals, a function which it has carried out effectively for over 150 years). As they will be able to intervene in welfare cases at an earlier stage than which they can currently do so, then the level of their work will be overall reduced. The Scottish SPCA estimates that an average of between two and four welfare visits need to be made to an animal, though a higher number of visits may also be required, depending on the circumstances of the animal. If action can be taken at an earlier stage than at present (currently action cannot be taken until an animal actually reaches the point of unnecessary suffering), then fewer visits will be required. It is, however, difficult to quantify the actual reduction in the costs that will be made by allowing action to be undertaken at an earlier stage as each welfare case has very different circumstances and their costs vary greatly: some animals only require minimal veterinary treatment and ownership of the animal can be quickly signed over to the Scottish SPCA, enabling it to re-home the animal, though others involve substantial veterinary treatment and for the animals to be cared for by the Scottish SPCA until the outcome of a court case, which may take some time.

67. The Bill will allow animal welfare organisations and enforcement organisations to reduce their costs in looking after animals which currently have to be kept during proceedings. These costs can be high. For example, seven puppies were treated and held by the Scottish SPCA for 18 months pending a court case, in which the owner was found guilty. The costs of £3,750 were not, however, recuperated. A total of 164 cattle were removed and cared for prior to disposal were held for 24 days. The costs of £24,000 were recovered. A total of 32 guard dogs were removed in a joint Police case were kept by the Society for over 8 months pending court proceedings. The costs of £55,000 were not recouped. These figures are based on actual costs borne by the Society for veterinary treatment and feeding.

68. It is anticipated that savings will also be made by reducing the number of cases that are actually brought to court. It may be assumed that there would be an initial rise in the number of cases brought to court after the new welfare offence comes into force. However, as owners and keepers become familiar with the new legislation, it is expected that they will respond positively to guidance issued under the Bill so as to avoid prosecution. It is considered that the number of prosecutions will eventually fall. As the welfare offence allows intervention at a much earlier stage, this will help prevent cases progressing to court as cruelty cases.

COSTS TO BUSINESSES

69. Option 1: There would be continued high costs to rehome inappropriately sold pets or care for mis-treated animals. Enforcers would continue to incur enforcement costs associated with repeated visits to cases where welfare is a concern but where actual suffering has not yet occurred. Such visits are necessary to establish whether, and at what point, suffering has occurred in order to start proceedings for cruelty. (See tables at Option 3)

70. Option 2: As option 1.

71. Option 3: The proposals will have a range of costs to businesses.

72. Businesses which are not currently subject to regulation, and which will be regulated by licensing or registration under the Bill, may incur additional costs to meet minimum welfare standards as set out in licensing/registration conditions. There will be a licence or a registration fee set by the local authority to cover administration, inspection (sometimes by a specialist inspector) and enforcement costs. It is anticipated that the cost of licences will vary between activities. Consideration is being given to revise the frequency of current licensing schemes so as to reduce the cost burden. Annual licences which require inspections each year, may be replaced by ones that apply over an 18 month interval. The cost of registration will be lower than licensing as this will not require regular inspections. Registration will consist of an initial inspection and fee. No further inspections or fees will be required unless the details of the registration change or welfare concerns are raised. The costs of licensing and registration are noted in the attached Annexes.

73. Overall, it is not expected that local authorities will have any significant additional expenditure. It is considered that an increase in responsibilities will be matched with reduced inspection requirements and increased revenue from a larger number of fees for licensing and registration. There may be some initial training costs to ensure that local authorities are competent to handle the new concepts and ways of working introduced by the Bill. Further details of the impact of the Bill on local authorities is contained in the attached Annex.

74. As regards the enforcement of the Bill by the courts, there would also be, at least initially, more animal welfare cases being brought before them. However, in the long term, there is likely to be significant savings on enforcement and judicial costs as the bill would encourage a more responsible attitude to animal ownership. The Bill puts in place a number of mechanisms which increase regulation and will make the public more aware about the need to be pro-active in good animal care; such provisions are central to the reduction in the number of prosecutions. It is recognised that this reduction will take time to take effect after the Bill is passed and comes into force. Any additional costs associated with Option 3 should be considered alongside the saving in costs associated with Option 1,

75. Most of the costs incurred under the Bill will be associated with the secondary legislation made under it. Regulations and Codes of Practice will be introduced in stages. Before any new provisions are introduced they will be issued for public consultation and will be subject to a separate RIA.

76. It is intended that the regulations and Codes of Practice made under the Bill will be introduced in two stages. Broadly, these sectors are spilt between the areas for which there is current regulation and those for which there is none. It also acknowledges that some areas, such as pet dealing, which is included in the first tranche of regulations, is urgently in need of reform. This two stage introduction ensures that the regulation and enforcement of new activities is phased in so that it will allow businesses to prepare for being regulated and help to spread the workload for organisations that have to enforce the regulations on these activities. For local government, the introduction of all these regulations at one time would impose an unacceptable level of expenditure and burdens on their available resources.

Timetable for phasing in regulations under the Bill

77. The attached Annexes list the estimated total costs for the proposals to businesses which will appear in the Bill and also for each issue/proposal in the first phase of regulations that will be introduced.

78. In each Annex, a range of costs have been given. In some cases a proposal is already being implemented on a voluntary basis and regulation would have a limited impact on the business/activity as a whole. The upper cost represents a figure for a 'worst case scenario' which gives a figure if every business/activity did not already meet the proposed standard set out in the regulations.

ISSUES OF EQUITY AND FAIRNESS

79. No responders to the consultation document considered that the new legislation would disproportionately affect any key group. The proposals were regarded to affect a wide range of sectors which own, manage, or in any way keep an animal, including buying, selling and transporting it.

80. The Bill will have initial cost implications for those with commercial interests in animals, enforcement agencies, the judicial system, animal sanctuaries and the general public. However, it will benefit society in general, as it will ensure that a much wider range of animals are better cared for under modern and updated legislation. For example, as a result of the duty of care, one of the key proposals, animals would be less likely to stray, create a public nuisance, display aggression and be prone to disease or injury. The Bill also addresses anomalies in the current legislation whereby some animal establishments are licensed and others are not. It will achieve a better regulation of a number of types of premises where animals are kept (such as pet fairs and animal sanctuaries), and welfare standards in pheasant rearing and livery yards. The Bill will also benefit society in a number of ways. It will have a variable impact on charities. As it aims to encourage the better care of animals through the duty of care, animals will be better looked after. In the long term, this will reduce the number of animals that are taken into care. Poorly run commercial establishments such as pet fairs, pet dealers, livery yards, and animal sanctuaries, some of which are currently unregulated and create welfare problems for the animal welfare and law enforcement bodies, would be forced to raise their standards or close. The raising of standards amongst the professions that have responsibility for animals and enforce animal welfare standards would increase the public perceptions and confidence of these professions.

81. It is likely that charities, such as the Scottish SPCA, which are actively engaged in taking action against those who are cruel to animals or neglect their welfare would find - at least in the short term - an increase in the volume of their work. This short-term additional work will be counter-balanced, in the long term, by the benefits of pro-active legislation which allows them to take action before more serious welfare problems arise.

CONSULTATION WITH SMALL BUSINESSES (THE 'LITMUS TEST')

82. A range of small businesses, small business organisations and business organisations were consulted. These included the Federation of Small Businesses, Forum of Private Business (Scotland), local enterprise companies, Institute of Directors, and Scottish Chambers of Commerce. In addition, a range of companies which represented small businesses within the various animal activity sectors were also contacted. Responders did not consider that the proposals will have a disproportionate impact on small businesses.

83. Consideration has been given as to the best way to reduce licence and registration costs for businesses that will require to be regulated under the welfare provisions of the Bill. It may be possible to extend the period of licences for businesses which are already licensed. This would be extended from 12 months to 18 months. In addition, it is being considered that it may be possible for certain types of premises to be registered. Responders to the consultation suggested that licensing costs may be prohibitive for small animal sanctuaries. It may be possible to register rather than licence small animal sanctuaries.

TEST RUN OF BUSINESS FORMS

84. New licences and Codes of Practice will be addressed with appropriate business organisations when they are drawn up to ensure they are clear, simple and easy to complete as possible.

COMPETITION ASSESSMENT

85. The Bill will not place undue additional burdens on businesses. Instead, it will promote good welfare and the best practice in the keeping of animals which all keepers should be undertaking. While the Bill places a number of obligations on the keepers of animals, such as the obligation of good welfare, many of the proposals relate to the regulation by licences/registration of a number of specific activities which are set out in the annexes.

86. The table below gives an assessment of whether there are likely to be any competition issues in the market affected by the proposals. It shows that the costs involved in this regulation are considered to be unlikely to affect a small business from continuing to compete. The Bill is unlikely to have a significant impact on firms in Scotland in the animal related industry. The cost of some of the additional burdens might affect some firms more than others (this would also depend on their size and turnover), but they would not have a detrimental affect on any. There may be a concern that the costs of licenses may vary from one local authority to another. Although the Scottish Executive cannot limit the cost of licences, the proposal to raise the licensing period from 12 months to 18 months should reduce the licensing costs for businesses. None of the proposals would place higher set-up or ongoing costs for new or potential firms that existing ones would not have to meet.

87. From this, it can be concluded that there are unlikely to be any competition issues with the welfare provisions of the Bill.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

88. The animal welfare proposals in the Bill contribute to the UK's guiding principles on sustainable development:

ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS

89. As with existing animal welfare legislation, the new welfare proposals will be enforced by local authorities, the State Veterinary Service and the police.

90. Local authorities and the SVS will continue to have powers to inspect those activities which are subject to regulation as well as those which it is proposed to regulate.

91. As with existing legislation relating to animal cruelty, there will be criminal sanctions for certain offences.

PART IV: ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE (SCOTLAND) BILL

MONITORING AND REVIEW

92. As most of the detailed proposals will be contained in secondary legislation or Codes of Practice, the opportunity to review and, if necessary, update the legislation will be easier to achieve than at present. It is proposed to review the new legislation three years after it comes into force. This review will be undertaken by SEERAD.

CONSULTATION

93. Stakeholders are invited to comment on the consultation on the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill and the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment and to provide information on the potential costs and benefits to them (both monetary and non-monetary) of the proposals to amend the Animal Health Act 1981 and the current animal welfare legislation.

94. After the responses to this consultation have been received and collated, they will be summarised, omitting those where confidentiality has been requested, and this summary will be circulated to consultees and be made available on the Scottish Executive website. The responses received will be used to review the provisions in the draft Bill and before a Bill is published and introduced into the Scottish Parliament.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE (SCOTLAND) BILL: DECLARATION

I have read the regulatory impact assessment and I am satisfied that the benefits justify the costs

Signed ……………………………..

Contact point

Tel: 0131 244 6462

ANNEX: ANIMAL WELFARE PROVISIONS

A: PROPOSAL THAT THE MINIMUM AGE AT WHICH A MINOR CAN BUY A PET ANIMAL BE RAISED FROM 12 TO 16

1. There are concerns that children can purchase animals on a whim and without parental consent. These purchases can arise from fads (eg, clown fish, owls and Dalmations). A child may not realise how to look after that animal or its needs. When they lose interest in an animal, its welfare may suffer or they may even abandon it. The more responsible pet shops and those which are members of some trade organisations already refuse to serve unaccompanied children under the age of 16.

2. The raising of the minimum age from 12 to 16 will have minimal costs.

B: BAN ON THE GIVING OF PETS AS PRIZES

1. There are no meaningful statistics available which show the financial impact which a ban on the giving of animals as prizes would have on those who undertake this activity. However, it can be reasonably assumed that a ban would be negligible. It would be possible to replace these prizes with alternatives.

2. The benefit of the proposal is to encourage greater responsibility towards animals and to encourage people to think carefully about taking on the responsibility of animal ownership. "Winning" an animal is totally inconsistent with the need for people to think carefully about an animal's needs before becoming its owner or keeper. A person may well not have anticipated their ownership of the animal and have given prior consideration to the welfare needs of the animal.

C: PROPOSALS FOR OFFENCES, PENALTIES, DISQUALIFICATION AND DEPRIVATION ORDERS

1. It is proposed that the Bill will have a range of penalties which will reflect the seriousness of the different offences. These are:

• With the exception of a person who commits an offence relating to animal fights, or an aggravated offence, a person who commits an offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment up to six months or to a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
• With the exception of a person who commits an aggravated offence, a person who commits an offence under regulations made under the Bill is liable on summary conviction to penalties made in regulations made under the Bill. These penalties will not exceed imprisonment of up to six months or a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
• A person who commits an offence relating to animal fighting or an aggravated offence, is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment up to 12 months or to a fine up to £20,000 or to both. An offence is aggravated if the offence involves cruelty to an animal.
• A person who commits an aggravated offence under regulations made under the Bill is liable on summary conviction to penalties set out in the regulations made under the Bill. These shall not exceed imprisonment for more than 12 months or a fine up to £20,000 or to both. An offence is aggravated if the offence involves cruelty to an animal.

2. In addition to these penalties, courts can make a number of orders after a person has been convicted of an offence under the Bill. These relate to an animal or animals that were involved in that offence.

3. Currently, anyone who is subject to a disqualification Order can retain control or contact with animals by claiming that the animals in question are owned by someone else in the same household. It is proposed that the wording of the legislation is amended so that the disqualification from "ownership" is broadened and extended to a range of activities: keeping, participation in the keeping of animals and being party to arrangements under which the keeping of animals may be controlled or influenced, dealing in animals, as well as transporting and arranging for the transport of animals.

4. A person subject to a disqualification and/or a deprivation Order shall be disqualified from having owning or keeping any animal (or any animal of a kind described in the Order). It is proposed that if a court does not issue a disqualification/deprivation Order, it will need to explain the reasons why it has not taken this course of action.

5. It is not expected that there will be any significant additional costs for prosecutors or the courts. It is expected that there may be an initial rise in the number of cases that are brought to the attention of enforcers during the period immediately after the Bill is enacted when people become familiar with the new legislation. However, it is considered that the overall number of cases brought before the courts will decline as people respond to advice issued. This will therefore negate the need for a prosecution either for failing to provide a duty of care or the more serious offence of cruelty.

D: REGULATION OF ANIMAL BOARDING ESTABLISHMENTS

1. Existing legislation provides for the regulation of the boarding of cats and dogs. There are no proposals to make any significant changes to the legislation. There are therefore unlikely to be any additional significant costs.

E: REGULATION OF RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS

1. Existing legislation provides for the regulation of riding establishments. There are no proposals to make any significant changes to the legislation. There are therefore unlikely to be any additional significant costs.

F: PROPOSAL TO LICENCE PET SHOPS

1. Pet shops are currently regulated under the Pet Animals Act 1951. It is proposed that they will continue to be licensed, and provision for their licensing will take place under secondary legislation. This will make a number of improvements to the existing legislation. For example, it will introduce minimum competency levels for pet vendors and will make it mandatory for them to provide care sheets to assist purchasers. These proposals were widely welcomed by responders to the consultation document "Proposals to revise existing animal welfare legislation".

G: PROPOSAL THAT SELLERS OF ALL PET ANIMALS PROVIDE WRITTEN

INFORMATION TO PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS

1. It is proposed that sellers of all pet animals should provide details on the care of animals to prospective purchasers. Responders generally welcomed this proposal which will be implemented in the licence conditions for pet shops. It is proposed that all commercial sellers of pet animals should issue information leaflets which will help educate prospective purchasers in the husbandry and care of the animal(s) they are considering owning. This will affect the estimated 360 pet shops and just under 153 dog breeding establishments in Scotland.

2. The pet trade representative body, The Pet Care Trust, currently provides information leaflets to its members to give to prospective buyers of most types of animals. In Scotland, approximately 75 pet shops are members of The Pet Care Trust, and supply their leaflets. In addition, approximately 20 shops that are not members also stock the animal care leaflets. The leaflets cost £3.50 for a pack of 50; there are 25 different leaflets about different animals.

All figures relate to Scotland

* cost to establishments include: licence fee, achieving minimum standards set by statutory Code of Practice, staff training, and any additional veterinary fees.

H: PROPOSALS TO LICENCE PET FAIRS

1. Pet fairs are short term events lasting one to a few days where usually birds, fish, reptiles/amphibians and small mammals are sold in makeshift premises. However, the law relating to the sale of animals at these sales is ambiguous. Some responders to the consultation "Proposals to revise existing animal welfare legislation" suggested that they are illegal under existing legislation, and some local authorities ban them. However, others consider that they can be licensed under existing legislation, and grant a one day pet shop licence to allow them to operate. It is estimated that there are 22 one-day pet fairs every year in Scotland. In 2004, 20 of these were for the sale of birds and 2 were for reptiles.

2. It is proposed that pet fairs should be placed on a similar regulatory footing as pet shops. Local authorities will license the organisers of these events. There may be some additional costs for organisers so that they can achieve minimum standards. As most pet fairs are one day events and the venues vary, it is likely that each event will require a licence.

All figures relate to Scotland

* cost of establishments include: licence fee, achieving minimum standards set by statutory Code of Practice, staff training, and any additional veterinary fees.

I: PROPOSAL TO REGULATE PET DEALERS

1. There have been concerns at the welfare of the transportation and sale of puppies in Scotland. Christine Grahame lodged her proposal for a Transportation and Sale of Puppies (Scotland) Bill on 25 November 2003, and the Bill was issued for consultation on 30 March 2004. However, changes to the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament and Members' Bills meant that all Member's Bills lodged prior to 12 November 2004 had fallen unless a Bill had already been introduced prior to that date. The broad proposals contained in this Bill will be incorporated into secondary legislation to be made under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill.

2. It is not clear exactly how many pet dealers operate in Scotland or bring animals into Scotland from other countries, notably Ireland. However, it is recognised that the trade from unregulated sources is a significant sized and a growing one. It is known that there are at least half a dozen individuals who regularly import puppies in and through Scotland.

3. It is estimated that a dealer would have to pay £200 to £300 for a licence fee. In addition, fees for the health requirements that will have to be met.

All figures relate to Scotland

*Cost to a dealer includes: licence fee, record, microchipping, health check, vaccination, cost of keeping an animal at a rearing establishment for 7 days.

J: PROPOSAL TO LICENCE LIVERY YARDS

1. One of the anomalies of the existing legislation is that riding establishments and animal boarding establishments for dogs and cats are regulated, but livery yards are not. Concerns have been raised at the standard of welfare provided at some of these yards and there is a recognition that some of these do not have as high a standard as other establishments which are currently regulated. However, as livery yards are rapidly growing in numbers, with new ones opening up daily, it is important that welfare standards are improved and also maintained at them.

2. The British Horse Society ( BHS) run a voluntary scheme for the licensing of livery yards. A small number of yards currently participate in this scheme. However, it is unlikely that a significant number of yards will join this scheme or incur its compliance costs. It is necessary to balance compliance costs against the risk that the worst of these establishments may currently be in breach of animal welfare legislation and liable to prosecution and closure.

3. As livery yards are not subject to any specific legislation, it is not clear exactly how many operate in Scotland. The BHS estimate that are may be between 3,000 to 4,000 of them.

4. If these establishments are licensed, each would have to pay a licence fee of about £165 and possible additional costs to achieve minimum welfare standards. The use of an 18 month licence instead of the traditional 12 month licence is being considered to reduce the costs for both businesses and local authorities. This would also enable inspections to take place at different times of the year. Some livery yards which have welfare concerns would face probable closure.

5. The BHS operate a scheme whereby livery yards can be 'licensed' by them and the members must adhere to a Code of Practice. This scheme would form the basis of an official licensing scheme.

All figures relate to Scotland

* cost to establishments include: licence fee, achieving minimum standards set by statutory Code of Practice, staff training, and any additional veterinary fees.

K: PROPOSAL TO ISSUE A CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE TETHERING OF

EQUINES

1. The proposal to introduce a statutory Code of Practice for the tethering of equines is required as there are concerns that they are tethered in situations which are likely to cause them suffering.

2. This proposal would have minimal costs to owners to ensure that their equines are tethered. Any significant costs needed to comply with a Code of Practice should already have been met for the welfare of the animals, such as the provision of cover in inclement weather.

All figures relate to Scotland

L: PROPOSAL TO BAN OR RESTRICT THE DOCKING OF DOGS' TAILS

1. It is proposed to ban or restrict the practice of the docking of dogs' tails. Arguments have been made that the practice should be retained for dogs which have tails that are particularly prone to tail injury (e.g. certain working dogs). It is considered appropriate that the Bill bans mutilations, the interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal, except for the medical treatment of an animal, but allows Scottish Ministers to have power to permit specified mutilations under regulations.

2. A ban on the tail docking of dogs will result in the reduction in the income of some veterinary surgeons who currently undertake this practice. Precise figures of these veterinary surgeons are not available. Vets which currently undertake this practice for non-therapeutic reasons are doing so in contravention of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct. Any reduction in veterinary income has to be balanced against the support given by the professional veterinary associations to a ban.

3. A mandatory ban on tail docking would produce virtually no compliance costs. It would have minimal impact on veterinary surgeons as the practice forms only a minor contribution to their income. The proposal on tail docking is likely to be supported by the veterinary associations.

4. Some responders felt that an undocked puppy of a traditional docked breed would be worth less or more difficult to sell than a docked puppy. Any drop in value would be temporary as the supply of docked dogs would reduce as the ban was enforced.

M: PROPOSAL TO INTRODUCE A STATUTORY CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE REARING OF GAME BIRDS FOR SPORT SHOOTING

1. Farmed birds primarily reared for consumption are subject to the provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. However, game birds reared for sport shooting are not subject to the same provisions. While there is generally little concern about the welfare of game birds, there is support for them to be subject to similar provisions. The proposal to introduce a statutory Code of Practice is in keeping with the principals of the Bill and would alleviate an apparent anomaly between birds reared for food and those primarily reared for sport shooting.

2. There are estimated to be 15 game farmers in Scotland. In addition to these, many gamekeepers rear their own birds rather than purchasing them from game farms. These may account for about 50% of the total game birds reared.

3. The introduction of a Code of Practice is unlikely to give any significant costs for the industry as a whole. About 70% of the game farmers in Scotland are members of the Game Farmers' Association ( GFA) and comply with their Code of Practice. The industry has agreed that a statutory Code of Practice should be based on the existing Code of the GFA. It is envisaged that this Code will form the basis for a Scottish Executive approved Code and be applied to all game farmers in Scotland. It is considered that most non- GFA members would be able to comply with a revised Code without significant costs.

N: POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO ENFORCE

ANIMAL WELFARE REGULATORY PROVISIONS

1. The Bill will introduce a larger number of regulations for businesses which local authorities will enforce. However, it is not expected that there will be significant additional costs for either. This can be achieved by extending some of the existing licenses from a 12 month licensing period to an 18 month one. In addition, it is expected that local authorities will be able to cover their costs by charging for licences or for registration. The extension of the licence period to 18 months will reduce inspection costs for both local authorities and businesses. It will also allow local authorities to inspect the activities which will become regulated by licensing or regulation under the Bill, without adding significantly to their costs. It will also permit premises to be inspected at different times of the year. This may assist in identifying welfare problems which have been influenced by weather conditions and seasonal variations. For example, animal boarding establishments are much busier over the summer months. Gamebird premises are not subject to routine welfare inspections by the State Veterinary Service ( SVS), which undertakes a range of inspections on agricultural holdings. If this body were to undertake this work, there would be no additional costs to the industry.

2. The table below sets out the costs associated with the inspection of licensed activities over a three year period compared with the inspection of licensing activities once all regulations under the Bill are in place over the same period.

Number of licensed activities per local authority in Scotland

3. The additional regulatory burdens will be phased in over a number of years to allow any additional costs to be spread out and to allow for the planning for the administrative and inspection work by local authorities. If all of these were to be introduced at the same time, it would impose an unacceptable level of expenditure on local government. Local authorities would find that it was difficult to locate and employ suitable staff, undertake all training requirements and to prepare for the licensing of activities that are presently unregulated.

4. The timetable for the proposed introduction of the regulations made under the Bill has been earlier noted. Local authorities will need to prepare for any changes in order to enforce the regulations, particularly in relation to the activities that are becoming regulated for the first time, such as livery yards, animal sanctuaries and pet fairs.

5. For the second group of regulations that will be introduced, local authorities will require to ensure that they have the necessary competent staff to ensure the new regulations are complied with. This may require some local authorities to recruit new staff to assist with inspections. They may need to contract with personnel from other organisations that have specialist knowledge in some areas of licensing. For example, the British Horse Society has experience with its system for licensing livery yards.

« Previous | Contents | Next »