The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Part 2: Animal Welfare

Overview

64 responses were received on this question. These were received from 13 animal welfare organisations, 11 enforcement organisations, 4 agriculture organisations, 4 canine organisations, 4 country sports organisations, 4 rural organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 livestock organisations, 2 government agencies, 2 pet organisations, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 legal organisation, 1 equine organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 fisheries organisation. A further 8 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 38 responders agreed with the definitions.
• 1 responder agreed with "protected animal" but not with "animal". (individual)
• 2 responders disagreed with the provision to include invertebrates in the definition.
  (2 country shooting)
• 2 responders agreed with the definitions, but had reservations. (academic, animal welfare)
• 9 responders disagreed with the definitions. (3 animal welfare, agriculture, academic, pet, 3 individuals)
• 1 responder had reservations about the definition. (country sports)
• 11 responders commented on the proposals, the majority of them pointing out the limitations of the definitions and ways in which they thought they could be improved. (2 country sports, 2 rural, 2 livestock, veterinary, academic, enforcement, pet, canine)

Responders made comments on a number of aspects of the definitions:

Comments on the definition of "animal"

Some responders suggested that cephalopods and crustaceans should be included in the definition. They noted that there was scientific evidence to show that they felt pain. (5 animal welfare, 5 individuals) Some responders cited extensive evidence to support their views; others simply noted that it was known that these animals felt pain. They also pointed out that they were included in legislation in other countries such as New Zealand and Australia. (2 animal welfare, 2 individuals) It was also suggested that there is a legal precedent to support the inclusion of certain cephalopods and crustaceans in the Bill as the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 includes the Octopus Vulgaris in the definition of "protected species" on the basis that these animals can feel pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. (animal welfare, 2 academic) It was further pointed out that there was no live trade in cephalopods and the live trade in crustaceans would still be excluded as it was a fishing activity. (fish)

Two organisations did not want the definition to include invertebrates. One considered that it would "lead to a whole list of special pleadings on behalf of lobsters, cuttlefish, tarantulas and crickets". (country sports) Another simply noted that it was "entirely inappropriate for the term to extend to these creatures". (pet) However, some responders noted that the Bill should be permitted to extend the definition to include other animals where scientific evidence shows that they are capable of experiencing pain or suffering. (4 enforcement, fishing, academic)

Definition of "protected animal"

• A number of responders commented "the role of wild animals. Deer were seen as being problematic owing to the definition in the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. They had a range of different status according to whether they were a farmed animal, a wild animal or an animal released into the wild. (animal welfare, country sports, agriculture, livestock, pet)
• There were concerns that some species of animals such as rabbits and deer, occurred both as domesticated and as wild types and that this would have implications on the definition. This was considered to be confusing. (2 rural)
• The drafting of the definition of protected animals caused some confusion. Some thought that it was not clear whether the three classes were separate or whether the animal had to fulfil all three characteristics. (3 country sports, 2 rural, 2 animal welfare, academic, legal) It was considered that this difficulty would affect the scope of species, and in particular whether a feral cat was covered by the legislation. (academic, animal welfare)
• It was not considered to be easy to define the line between animals being in a wild state and being under the control of man. It had been possible to obtain a conviction under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 for cruelty to a wild animal that was captured by humans for the purpose of tormenting it. However, there were concerns about pigeons or seagulls caught in nets laid as deterrents, but which can act as traps. (animal welfare)
• It was suggested that the question of "maiming or hindering" a wild animal, as provided in the 1912 Act, may not be adequately covered by section 15(b). (animal welfare)

Pre-term animals

• One academic pointed out that there was evidence to suggest that pre-term animals are likely to be sentient and that adequate protection for these could cover potentially sensitive periods of development when inappropriate assaults could result in lasting harm. It was also suggested that neonates should also be included in the Bill. (animal welfare)

Scientific evidence

• Some responders were concerned at the way section 14(4) was presented. They considered that the evidence should be peer reviewed (rural, country sports) or be regarded as scientific opinion or scientific advice. (academic) It was also suggested that there should be the "probability" of the animals feeling pain, rather than the certainty of them doing so. (academic) One individual thought that scientific proof of pain and suffering was a very high burden of proof.

The following comments were also made:

• One livestock organisation considered that the Bill was drawn up as an animal rights charter rather than as a practical and realistic way of improving animal health and welfare of farmed livestock. An individual suggested that it was unacceptable that the term "welfare" should only include "pain and suffering", as they considered that there was more to welfare than simply avoiding pain and suffering.

Overview

53 responses were received to this question. These were received from 10 animal welfare organisations, 10 enforcement organisations, 4 canine organisations, 4 country sports organisations, 4 pet organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 rural organisations, 2 agriculture organisations, 2 equine organisations, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 livestock organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 6 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 30 responders agreed with the definition of the person who is responsible for an animal.
• 4 responders agreed with the definition, but had a reservation. (pet, academic, enforcement, country sports)
• 14 responders commented on the definition, but did not state whether they agreed or disagreed.
• 5 responders disagreed with the proposal. (2 country sports, pet, rural, equine)

The responders often noted the reasons for their reservations or disagreement with the proposal. These are:

Reservations

• A responder was concerned at the scope of the definition and considered that it should reflect all practices and situations. This could include a landowner who rents land to another party for the use of an animal. It was felt that he could not relinquish responsibility for what was happening on his land if that person subsequently does not look after the animal properly. (enforcement)
• Responders pointed out that there were a number of different levels of responsibility. They did not consider that it was not justified that if a dog was stolen from a kennel and subsequently harmed or injured, then the owner would have responsibility. (country sports, also noted as a comment by rural) They suggested that a business which accepts a dog, cat or other animal into its professional care, where the owner is not present, should accept responsibility for the animal, and act accordingly. (pet)
• A prosecution should take into account whether an individual was acting against company procedures. (academic)
• There were concerns about the responsibility for animals in traps or snares. As a result, it was considered that the section should refer to "protected animals" rather than "animals". (country sports)

Reasons for disagreement

• Three responders suggested that the subclauses should refer to a "protected animal" rather than an "animal". They did not accept that a person does not have responsibility for an animal which is not a protected animal. (rural, 2 country sports)
• The terms "responsible" and "in charge of" should be more clearly defined. (equine)
• Responders advocated that people should not be responsible for an animal if they left the animal with a suitable keeper, business or organisation, which they believe to be fully competent in its care. The person would have no control over their actions, and therefore should not be responsible. (pet, rural, animal welfare, equine, rural) (also noted as a comment by enforcement and veterinary)
• There can be absent owners. This is noted, for example, where ownership is syndicated. In these cases, it is rare for an owner to be in direct control or charge of a protected animal. There was, therefore, a need to avoid potential problems in establishing responsibility in cases of remote absentee ownership. (rural)
• Section 16(5) could make the release of gamebirds and fish for re-stocking illegal, as their needs could not be ensured when they were released. (2 country sports)

Responders also gave the following comments on the proposal:

• Both the owner and the person who has responsibility for an animal should be under the same obligation. (performing animals)
• The definition ignores the fact that at some time, most pets are looked after by someone other than the owner, at the owner's request, during the owner's absence, usually a holiday (pet, individual) and that further consideration should be given to the leasing or hiring of animals, or fostering of animals. (2 agriculture, equine,
  2 enforcement) The definition should clarify the responsibility for an animal where it is shared and there may be more than one person having responsibility for an animal. (academic)
• In section 16(3), it would be helpful to clarify that the owner is "always to be regarded as being a person responsible" for an animal. They should be able to satisfy themselves that they have relinquished control to people who are informed and competent at looking after the animal. (pet)
• Persons who are responsible for an animal should explicitly include anyone who has care or control of an animal, persons who manage animal enterprises and anyone who buys or sells animals. (3 enforcement)
• Owners must be able to show that they have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that the animal has been left in the care of a responsible person. (2 enforcement)
• The drafting in section 16(4) is confusing as the word "person" appears three times and applies to two separate individuals. (academic)
• There are equines in wilderness areas for which no one is responsible. How would this situation be dealt with? (equine)
• It is difficult to define exactly who owns or is responsible for a trapped wild deer in the context of this draft legislation. (rural)

Overview

57 responses were received on the scope of unnecessary suffering. These were received from 12 enforcement organisations, 10 animal welfare organisations, 5 canine organisations,
4 country sports organisations, 4 livestock organisations, 3 pet organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 rural organisations, 2 agriculture organisations, 2 veterinary organisations,
2 equine organisations, 1 performing animals organisation and 1 government agency.
A further 5 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 26 responders agreed with the scope of unnecessary suffering.
• 6 responders agreed with the scope, but had reservations. (3 animal welfare, 3 country sports)
• 4 responders disagreed with the scope of unnecessary suffering. (2 animal welfare, rural, individual)
• 21 responders provided a range of comments on the scope but did not state whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposal.

A range of responders commented on why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "Section 17(3) of the draft Bill is welcomed. This will be of great assistance to enforcement authorities and importantly the Crown Office as it lays down benchmarks of the proof required to establish what constitutes "unnecessary suffering". Also, importantly, these benchmark safeguards for animal owners/keepers will assist in protecting them from malicious complaints of animals being caused unnecessary suffering." (Central Scotland Police - AHWD)
• "I am strongly in favour of the retention of the "unnecessary suffering" test, and I am of the view that clause 17 as drafted retains the strengths of the existing statutory provisions relating to the general offence of cruelty, successfully incorporates into legislation the established principles laid down in the relevant law and includes additional guidance. Taken together, I am of the view that these factors will underpin and further enhance the offence of cruelty in relation to both its interpretation and application. Those responsible for this drafting are to be congratulated for their efforts." (Mike Radford)
• "Section 17 is well written and appears to be both fair and practical." ( BASC Scotland)

A number of responders noted their reservations or disagreement with the proposals:

Reservations

• One responder expressed concern over whether this provision is workable. (2 country sports)
• The definition of "unnecessary suffering" should be clarified. (animal welfare, country sports)
• Responders were concerned as to whether this provision is adequately covered in section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. The title of the section "prevention of harm" was regarded to be ambiguous; the term "deliberate cruelty" which is noted in section 43(5) is not incorporated into section 17, and should be clarified; the section does not cover mental suffering which may take place to an animal; it should be an offence to "terrify" an animal as the mental element of cruelty is a serious offence and causes unnecessary suffering to an animal (also commented upon by enforcement); the term "appropriate and humane" in section 17(4) should be clarified. (animal welfare)
• The provision should apply to "protected animals" and not to "animals". (2 country sports)
• It was suggested that the courts would find it difficult to decide what constitutes suffering among different species unless they could refer to relevant codes of practice of such animals. (country sports)
• As humane killing can be consistent with the duty of care, it was proposed that the exemption for humane killing should be qualified to require an appropriate justification involving a benefit to humans or animals greater than the loss of the animal's life. Ideally, an animal should only be killed on welfare grounds on the advice of a veterinary surgeon. (animal welfare)

Reasons for disagreement

• One responder suggested that consideration should be given to the mental or physical wellbeing of the animal, including the effect on future wellbeing of the animal in question. (animal welfare)
• The reference to "animal" should be amended to "protected animal". Section 17(2)(b)(ii) could imply that a person who was responsible for a protected animal would be liable for unnecessary suffering caused by another person even if the other person was engaged in an unauthorised criminal activity which affected the animal. (rural and noted by 2 country sports as a reservation; also by pet organisation as a comment)
• It was noted that the term "unnecessary suffering" was not defined and the term "suffering" is used as a separate term from "pain, injury and disease". (animal welfare, also commented on by rural)

The following comments were also made:

• Everyone has a different opinion on what is "likely to cause suffering" (enforcement) and the phrase seems to be subjective, depending on the person who is carrying out the treatment. Some practices which are carried out legally may cause suffering. (equine)
• The basis of the welfare provisions is based on the ability of an animal to feel stress and injury. Although birds are included in the Bill, as they are vertebrates, the part of their brain which measures pain does not exist. (agriculture)
• The prevention of direct acts of cruelty should be better linked with the greater emphasis on the positive duty of care in section 22. (academic)
• The section falls short of legislating against the acts of wilful cruelty which still exist in the country. (equine)
• There should be a "cruelty" offence inserted and defined in a similar way to section 17(3). (enforcement)
• Section 17(3)(c)(ii) creates a loophole to allow suffering, for example where dogs are used for guarding purposes. (canine)
• There is no reference to an attempt to commit any of the offences in the draft Bill. This could be resolved by adding the wording "or likely to cause unnecessary suffering" or clarifying that an attempt to create unnecessary suffering is an offence in itself. (enforcement)
• This section will make it illegal to feed live vertebrates to any animal. The diet of many reptiles is comprised solely or largely of live vertebrates and many will not accept pre-killed vertebrates. (pet)
• This section should be accompanied by a set of guidance or practice notes which will assist with consistency and help with legal interpretation. (enforcement)
• It was suggested that if a dog owner does not dock his dog's tail, and it damages its tail then he could cause the dog unnecessary suffering and would cause an offence. (individual, canine)

Overview

88 responses were received on this question. Responses were received from 13 animal welfare organisations, 11 canine organisations, 5 enforcement organisations, 5 country sports organisations, 5 pet organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 livestock organisations, 3 agriculture organisations, 2 veterinary organisations, 2 equine organisations, 2 rural organisations, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 legal organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 30 individuals also responded.

Of these responses, 35 specifically dealt with tail docking of dogs. (23 individuals, 8 canine, 3 animal welfare, 1 pet) Some 7 of these responses stated that they wanted tail docking to be banned, and 26 noted that they did not want a ban; 1 stated that they wanted an exception for working dogs; 1 made no comment.

Of the other responders who commented on mutilations in general, a further 12 (4 animal welfare, 3 country sports, 2 canine, 1 enforcement, 1 veterinary, 1 law) reported tail docking in their responses. Of these, 2 wanted docking to be banned or for a ban to be placed on it for cosmetic reasons, 3 wanted to retain the practice, and 4 wanted an exemption for working dogs. A further 3 responders simply commented on the proposal.

Of the 53 responses which dealt directly with the question of mutilations, the following details show how they responded:

• 25 responders agreed with the proposal. (4 animal welfare, 4 enforcement, 2 country sports, 3 academic, 2 pet, canine, livestock, performing animals, agriculture, veterinary, equine, government agency, 3 individuals)
• 2 respondents agreed with the proposals, but expressed a reservation. (livestock, individual)
• 1 responder was concerned at the proposals. (animal welfare)
• 1 responder was uncertain of their view. (animal welfare)
• 6 responders disagreed with the proposals. (country sports, livestock, animal welfare, canine, 2 agriculture)
• 18 responders neither agreed or disagreed with the question but commented on it. (3 pet, 2 animal welfare, 2 enforcement, 2 country sports, 2 rural, legal, veterinary, zoo, canine, equine, 2 individuals)

A number of responders commented on why they believed that the proposals were important or why they agreed with it:

• "Welcome the prohibition of mutilations and agree with the definition of mutilation. Recognise that regulations will specify exceptions to the prohibition." (Advocates for Animals)
• "Welcomed the offence of carrying out or causing a mutilation. The definition is concise and clearly applies to procedures such as tail docking." (Dogs Trust)
• "The League welcomes the proposed ban on mutilating animals, other than for medical treatment as stated in the consultation document." (League Against Cruel Sports)
• "The Scottish SPCA welcomes section 18 which prohibits the carrying out of procedures otherwise than for the medical treatment of an animal, which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal, whilst understanding that there must be some exemptions to the ban." (Scottish SPCA)

A number of responders noted their reservations, concerns or disagreement with the proposals:

Reservations

• These practices should only be undertaken by a vet. (individual)
• Owners should be able to continue to carry out procedures to prevent animals' tails from being a health risk. (livestock)

Concerns

• Any person dehorning cattle could be regarded as undertaking a mutilation and is not undertaking it in the interests of animal health. (animal welfare)

Reasons for disagreement

• The definition "interference with sensitive tissue or bone structure" should be clarified. (2 agriculture)
• The term "mutilation" was disliked. (2 agriculture)
• It was considered to be desirable to see which mutilations will be permitted before the section is made into a regulation. (comments were also made that it was unclear what mutilations will be permitted). (country sports - see also comments below)
• The regulations should consider the overall well being of the animals. (livestock)
• A range of activities such as tattooing, dehorning, decorative dentistry or neutering for non-medical reasons will become banned. (animal welfare) But operations such as tail docking, castration and dehorning operations which deliver welfare and health benefits to livestock should be permitted to continue. (agriculture)

Responders also made a number of general comments about the proposals:

• The opportunity to update the list of exemptions is welcomed. (agriculture)
• The exemptions should be published before full consideration can be given to this section of the Bill. These should also "set out" the regulations before the Bill is introduced into the Scottish Parliament. (academic, country sports, animal welfare)
• Teeth should be included in the definition. (individual)
• There was concern that the definition may be too prescriptive. (pet)
• The section should also cover the person carrying out the technique or practice. (equine)
• Exemptions should not be permitted unless there are very strong veterinary reasons (animal welfare) and they should benefit the animal concerned. (veterinary)
• Once the Bill comes into operation, there will be a need to clarify what will happen to animals that have undergone procedures which have become prohibited in this country, though the animals were imported into it. (pet)
• As a number of current procedures will become illegal under section 18, the regulations should come into force at the same time as the Bill. (country sports, animal welfare, rural)
• There should be stakeholder involvement in drawing up the list of livestock-based mutilations. (agriculture)
• Exemptions must be accurately drafted to assist in the uniformity of interpretation. (enforcement)
• There should be accompanying guidance to allow for consistent interpretation. (enforcement)

Mutilations permitted/prohibited under the Bill

Responders suggested a range of procedures which should be permitted or prohibited. In some cases, procedures fell into both headings:

Mutilations which should be permitted

• Tail docking of dogs.
• Tail docking of working dogs such as those used in hunting, shooting, falconry and pest control.
• The castration and spaying of all protected animals where this has been accepted practice.
• Tail docking and ear tagging of livestock.
• Teeth clipping and tail docking of pigs when veterinary authorisation has been obtained.
• Beak and claw trimming, wing-clipping and the use of bits and spectacles as laid out in the Game Farmers Association Code of Good Practice.
• Dew claw removal in puppies, especially those likely to become working dogs.
• Tipping of ears in feral cats and ear clipping.
• Tattooing of animals as a means of identification.
• Wing-tagging.
• Branding.
• Micro-chipping.
• Disablement of venom delivery apparatus in venomous snakes.
• Procedures relating to certain species of birds (mainly ducks, geese and swans) in zoos.
• Exempted practices already covered by the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1996.

Mutilations which should be banned

• All mutilations for human pleasure ( e.g. tail docking and couping).
• All tail docking except for medical/surgical reasons.
• Tail docking of dogs.
• Ear cropping/ear removal.
• Beak trimming of farmed birds.
• De-barking of dogs.
• De-clawing.
• Docking of horses (other than where it is deemed a necessary treatment by a veterinary surgeon).
• Firing and blistering to tighten the skin around tendon injuries on the leg of a horse.
• Wing clipping.
• Strasser Technique of horses.

Overview

43 responses were received to this question. These were received from 9 animal welfare organisations, 6 enforcement organisations, 4 country sports organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 livestock organisations, 3 canine organisations, 2 agriculture organisations,
2 equine organisations, 2 pet organisations, 1 performing animal organisation, 1 legal organisation, 1 rural organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 zoo organisation, and
1 government agency. A further 3 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 29 responders agreed with the scope of cruel operations and administration of poisons.
• 4 responders agreed with the scope of the proposal but had one or a number of reservations. (2 animal welfare, enforcement, academic)
• 8 responders did not state their agreement or disagreement, but noted comments on the proposal.
• 2 responders wanted the clause to be dropped. (2 country sports)

One responder commented on why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "The Scottish SPCA welcomes the replacement of section 1(1)(e) of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act [1912] with section 19. The Society considers that, combined with the strengthened offence of mutilations, this will serve well to protect animals from harm." (Scottish SPCA)

Responders noted their reservations to the proposal:

• The term "cruel operation" should be defined. (enforcement, 2 animal welfare)
• The express provision to constitute an offence under section 1(1)(e) of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 should be included. (academic)
• There is a potential relationship between sections 18 and 19 which should be considered. (academic)
• The provisions are weaker than those in the 1912 Act regarding poisonous or injurious substances. (animal welfare)
• Section 7 of the 1912 Act should be repealed and provision made in the Bill. (animal welfare)

The following comments were made about the need to remove the clause:

• If anyone does anything that causes unnecessary suffering they will already be guilty under section 17, and therefore the clause is superfluous. (2 country sports)

The following comments were also made:

• It is hoped that the ingestion of ragwort by horses will be considered an offence under section 20(b). (2 equine, 2 animal welfare)
• The term "poisonous drug or substance" is not defined. (pet, legal)
• The word "cruel" should be removed. (rural, agricultural) The phrase "without due care and humanity" should be replaced with "which causes unnecessary suffering". (rural, agricultural) The phrase "due care and humanity" should be quantified. (canine)
• The word "humanity" should be changed to "compassion". (country sports)
• All operations should be banned unless they are carried out by a qualified person using a professionally acceptable form of anaesthesia. (canine)
• It may become an unintended consequence of the clause that it would become an offence to use a rodenticide to kill rats and mice. (2 rural)
• It is not clear how section 19 relates to the Veterinary Surgeons Act. (rural)
• The owner of an animal could be prosecuted for the negligent work of his veterinary surgeon. (rural)

Overview

49 responses were received to this question. These were received from 11 animal welfare organisations, 11 enforcement organisations, 4 canine organisations, 3 country sports organisations, 3 pet organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 livestock organisations,
2 agriculture organisations, 2 rural organisations, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation and 1 government agency. A further 5 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 41 responders agreed with the scope of animal fights.
• 4 responders agreed with the proposal, but noted a reservation. (rural, academic, animal welfare, country sports).
• 4 responders did not state whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposal, and noted a range of comments. (enforcement, pet, 2 country sports)

Three responders commented on why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "Strongly support the increased breadth of offences related to dog fighting, which we regard as an abhorrent activity in every respect." (Dogs Trust)
• "The League is pleased by the widened scope of the animal fights offence, as described in the consultation document." (League Against Cruel Sports)
• "The Scottish SPCA regards animal fighting as one of the most serious offences of causing unnecessary suffering, and welcomes the inclusion of a separate offence of animal fighting under the draft Animal Health and Welfare Bill." (Scottish SPCA)

Responders frequently noted the reasons for their reservations or concerns with the policy. These are:

Reservations

• Reassurance should be given that the offence will not be committed as a result of lawful activities such as falconry, ratting, rabbiting and terrier work. (rural, country sports)
• Those responsible for animals could be accused of an animal fight where they did not mean their animal to fight. (animal welfare)
• There could be some doubt as to which offences the anticipatory element applies to. (academic)
• The circumstances under which an animal fight takes place should be considered. The definition of an animal fight should be amended to "an occasion on which a protected animal is placed, or is intended to be placed, with an animal, or with a human, for the purpose of fighting, wrestling or baiting". (academic)

Comments

• It will, in many cases, be extremely difficult to prove the intent for which the animal is to be used. It may be necessary to change the phrase to "possess without any lawful authority or reasonable excuse", the proof whereof lies with him. (enforcement)
• The wider implementation of the provisions could be considered to catch countryside activities such as the natural behaviour of animals including birds of prey, terriers, ferrets, etc. (2 country sports)
• Certain animal "fights" form part of the normal behaviour patterns of some animals, and these should be taken into account. For example, some animals may have a rough courtship which is a normal behaviour pattern. (pet)

Other comments by responders included:

• It is essential that legislation on animal fighting should be consistent on both sides of the border. (animal welfare)
• The offence should include any person attempting to promote animal fighting (animal welfare) and to include the possession of, and all activities related to, the sale of visual images of dog fighting, (animal welfare) the recording of animal fights and being in possession of such a recording. (animal welfare)
• The offence of being in possession of anything capable of being used in connection with an animal fight with a view to it being used should be clarified, as should the proposal about anything that has been used in connection with an animal fight. (canine)
• Section 21(1)(b) should be extended to include equipment used in connection with an animal fight. The possession of equipment such as treadmills, breaking sticks, unprescribed veterinary drugs or other veterinary equipment would be sufficient grounds for a prosecution. (animal welfare)
• The scope of the offence could result in welfare groups being prosecuted for having a "cruelty museum" containing equipment used in animal fights. It would also make it difficult to use the equipment for educational or campaigning purposes. (2 animal welfare)
• Section 21(2) and 21(3) may pose difficulties for enforcement agencies, and these sections should be clarified in relation to those taking part in the listed activities. (enforcement)
• Enforcement authorities could be overwhelmed with the number of people involved in an animal fight as all present at a fight could be commiting an offence.
  (3 enforcement)

Overview

66 responses were received to this question. These were received from 17 animal welfare organisations, 11 enforcement organisations, 6 pet organisations, 4 livestock organisations,
4 canine organisations, 4 country sports organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 rural organisations, 2 agriculture organisations, 2 veterinary organisations, 2 equine organisations, 1 zoo organisation, 1 performing animals organisation and 1 government agency. A further
6 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 37 responders agreed to the provision to ensure the welfare of animals in sections 22 and 23 of the Bill.
• 2 responders agreed with section 22 but expressed reservation with section 23. (2 animal welfare)
• 6 responders agreed to the proposals, with a reservation. (2 academic, agriculture, canine, 2 animal welfare)
• 1 responder did not agree with the proposals. (performing animals)
• 1 responder reserved their judgement. (livestock)
• 16 responders commented on the proposals without stating whether they agreed or disagreed with them.
• 3 responders wanted clause 22 to be dropped. (rural, 2 country sports)

A number of responders commented on why they believed that the proposals were important:

• "This is the most important and forward looking element in the Bill. We strongly support the concept enshrined in this section of the "duty of care". The definition is good and based on established animal welfare principles. We consider it important that it is on the face of the Bill and not in secondary legislation, as we consider inclusion in the Bill gives it additional force". (Dogs Trust)
• "Particularly agrees and welcomes provisions to ensure the welfare of animals." (British Horse Society - Scotland)
• "The principle of a positive duty of care is a very welcome innovation." (Scottish Rabbit Club)
• "The Scottish SPCA recognises that enabling Scottish Ministers to legislate specifically on animal welfare under section 23 allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness in law-making. The science of animal welfare, like all sciences, is an evolving area of scholarship. Therefore any legislation on this area must be flexible enough to accommodate new scientific research and developments. The Scottish SPCA therefore commends the Scottish Executive for adopting an approach that will allow for such flexibility." (Scottish SPCA)
• "Particularly welcome is the recognition that an animal's needs must be met in order to ensure its welfare." (Scottish SPCA)

Responders sometimes noted the reasons why they had reservations or disagreed with the proposals These are:

Reservations

• There should not be any reservations. If the needs of an animal could not be met by the relevant person, then that person should not "keep" that animal. (animal welfare)
• The duty of care for livestock should be based on existing welfare codes. These should not be gold plated, but be based on a sound scientific and veterinary basis. (agriculture)
• Responders suggested that sections 22(1) and 22(2) may require further consideration to convey clearly the meaning and effect of what is attended. (academic) It was suggested that there will probably never be an occasion when all the provisions in section 22(3) can be complied with for non-domesticated species. (academic)
• Section 23(1) should refer to "promoting or ensuring". The word "ensure" may prove to be too high a hurdle, and may result in regulations being declared ultra vires. (animal welfare) (also made as a comment by a rural organisation)
• Section 23(3) appeared to be exhaustive. Instead, it should relate to "any other matter or purpose relevant to, or connected with, promoting or ensuring the welfare of animals". (animal welfare)
• Section 23(3)(c) could make permanent identification compulsory. As this was a matter of concern, it was suggested that the Executive should inform dog owners of the benefits of microchipping and responsible dog ownership generally. (canine)

Reasons for disagreement

The following comment was made by a responder who disagreed with the proposals:

• Issues should be provided for in primary rather than secondary legislation. (performing animals)

Reasons why section 22 should be dropped

• It is impossible for some animals to "exhibit normal behaviour patterns" and to fully protect an animal from pain, suffering and disease. The needs of animals were considered to be unquantifiable and unachievable. (rural, similar comments by
  2 country sports)

The following comments were also made:

• All animals should be afforded in law the five freedoms as defined by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. (animal welfare)
• Section 22(3) suggests that an animal's needs only need to be considered if good practice is written down for a particular species. (3 enforcement)
• The term "good practice" should be stipulated (animal welfare, rural) and the term "normal behaviour" patterns should be clarified; (2 country sports, 3 pet, enforcement) the term "reasonable" should be defined. (rural)
• An important element of animal welfare was seen as the adaptation of animals to their environment. Some breeds of animals are adapted to extreme habitats which may fall outside conventional definitions of "suitable". (livestock)
• The term "suffering" had a narrow definition and should be widened. (livestock) Suffering should include mental suffering such as fear or distress. Assurance should be given that the primary provisions for the protection of livestock on agricultural land from unnecessary pain and distress will be adequately replaced by the new legislation. (2 animal welfare, equine)
• There should be an additional need which relates to the appropriate human care of an animal. (academic)
• There is no provision which allows for the prohibition of "shock collars" or other electrical devices which can be cruel or harmful. (animal welfare)
• It was questioned who would make the decision if an animal (not just a farmed animal) was not displaying normal behaviour. It was queried whether this would be an Inspector or a Veterinary Officer. (enforcement)
• Necessary controls should be made to address concerns such as standards of captive care and animal welfare, pet suitability, species conservation and human health. (animal welfare)
• The responsibility for the duty of care in section 22(1) must lie with the person who cares for the animal. If the owner is present they must also be responsible. (equine)
• The powers of Scottish Ministers in section 23 are very wide. (country sports)
• Scottish Ministers should only be able to make further regulations if this is necessary to deal with a real proven issue of animal welfare, and following upon proven scientific and/or veterinary advice. (rural)
• Section 23 should allow the Minister to simply endorse codes of practice developed by stakeholders. There are already a number of codes developed by stakeholders. (country sports) There should be the widest possible consultation with animal keepers and other key stakeholders throughout the drafting of any proposed regulations. (pet)
• There was concern that people who represent "relevant interests" did not necessarily have knowledge or expertise. As a consequence, the term in section 23 should refer to "such persons appearing to them to have relevant knowledge and expertise acknowledged by their peer group". (rural)
• Guidelines should be flexible to allow changes in the knowledge of animals. (pet)
• Existing codes of practice relating to farmed animals should be regularly reviewed and should also be used. (2 enforcement, agriculture)

Overview

53 responses were received to this question. These were received from 12 animal welfare organisations, 12 enforcement organisations, 4 canine organisations, 4 pet organisations,
3 academic organisations, 3 agriculture organisations, 3 country sports organisations, 3 rural organisations, 2 livestock organisations, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 31 responders agreed to the proposal.
• 2 responders agreed with the proposal but expressed a reservation. (enforcement, performing animals)
• 3 responders expressed concern. (2 animal welfare, canine)
• 2 responders disagreed. (country sports, canine)
• 15 responders commented on the proposal but did not note whether they agreed or disagreed with it. (2 pet, canine, 2 animal welfare, zoo, 4 enforcement, country sports, 2 rural, 2 individuals)

Comments on specific regulations or licensing regimes are not included in this section, and are included in the analysis of the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment.

Some responders commented on why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "The broadening of the licensing and registration requirements for animal related activities is welcomed and will assist in bringing animal welfare standards on premises not currently required to be licensed into line with those that do." (Central Scotland Police - Animal Health and Welfare Department)
• "We welcome the consolidation of welfare standards and the present multiplicity of licensing and registration in one comprehensive framework and support the principle that detailed requirements are put in place through regulations making it easier to update and amend these where circumstances require it." (East Dunbartonshire Council)
• "We believe the powers to make regulations are broad enough to encompass most current and envisaged areas of concern." (East Dunbartonshire Council)
• "The powers appear to be sufficient and satisfactory and the proposals to create a broad framework which will provide a consistent approach is welcomed." (East Renfrewshire Council and Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland)
• "The Scottish SPCA welcomes the powers given to Scottish Ministers under section 24 to license and to register animal related activities. … welcomes 24(4)(d), which allows for authorised persons to enter, search, inspect and seize premises in which breaches of licences is suspected. Currently, legislation is somewhat deficient in this respect, as the authorities do not have powers to seize or remove animals from an unlicensed establishment. This often results in animals being left in inappropriate circumstances until the court rules on the original offence of operating without a licence." (Scottish SPCA)
• "The potential, through the enabling Act, to require licensing of activities involving animals is a powerful piece of legislation." ( FAWC)

Responders frequently noted the reasons why they had reservations or disagreed with the proposal:

Reservations

• Concern was expressed at empowering "specified people" with search and inspection powers. (enforcement)
• The drafting was considered to be undertaken in very general terms. It was thought that licensing should be based on veterinary opinion and not on political or personal views. (performing animals - comment also made by an animal welfare organisation)

Concerns

• This section should include the regulation of specific items such as electric shock collars. (canine, animal welfare) There should also be a provision to regulate any activity, procedure, treatment or equipment which may be used on or applied to an animal. (animal welfare)

Reasons for disagreement

• This proposal appeared to give the Ministers power to ban any animal-use activity, even though it may confirm to good animal welfare standards. (country sports)
• The proposal would have an impact on the licensing activities of The Kennel Club which regulates specific canine activities. (canine, also noted as a concern by another canine organisation)

The following comments were also made:

• It was considered that if licensing could only be made for the purposes of "ensuring" the welfare of animals, then difficulties would arise. This should include "promoting" their welfare. (2 animal welfare) Licensing or registration should only be used where there are acknowledged health or welfare problems associated with a particular way in which a protected animal is used. (rural)
• There should be "standards of modern practice" for the separate licensing regimes. These would have centrally produced standards. (animal welfare)
• Licensing should not affect the Zoo Licensing Act. (zoo)
• A condition of all licence holders should be that they have undergone a recognised form of training commensurate with their particular business and be able to show a level of competency. There should also be a grandfather right. (enforcement)
• There should be proper consultation and an appropriate discussion forum. (2 pet, canine, rural) Stakeholders should be fully consulted and cognisance taken of their experience and expertise. (canine) Where expert opinion is required, a range of sectors should be consulted, not only vets. (pet)
• An enforcing body must have adequate powers of entry, including entry to unlicensed premises, which has caused problems in the past. (4 enforcement, pet)
• Local authorities must be able to set their own fees for licensing activities. (4 enforcement)
• The adequacy of specialist knowledge required by a local authority to carry out appropriate licensing inspection and registration is not always sufficient. (2 animal welfare)
• The existing loopholes in the current licensing legislation should be remedied before new provisions are introduced. (enforcement)
• The bureaucracy and costs involved in licensing and registration should not be so prohibitive as to threaten the continued validity of legitimate farming and sporting activities. (pet, rural)
• It would be a great step forward if animal gatherings licensed. (livestock)
• The trapping of wild deer should be licensed, as in England and Wales. (rural)

Overview

51 responses were received to this question. These were received from 13 animal welfare organisations, 4 pet organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 agriculture organisations,
10 enforcement organisations, 2 livestock organisations, 3 canine organisations, 2 country sports organisations, 2 equine organisations, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 rural organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further
5 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following view:

• 32 responders agreed to the proposal.
• 4 responders agreed to the proposal, but expressed a reservation. (animal welfare,
  2 enforcement, individual)
• 7 responders disagreed with the proposal. (country sports, 4 pet, performing animals, individual)
• 8 responders simply commented on the proposals, without stating whether they agreed or disagreed. (2 animal welfare, enforcement, academic, zoo, livestock, country sports, rural)

Two responders commented on why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "Warmly welcomes the power for Scottish Ministers to prohibit, by regulation, the keeping of animals of a specified kind at domestic or other premises." (Advocates for Animals)
• "The Society … welcomes the powers given to the Scottish Ministers under section 25." (Scottish SPCA)

Responders frequently noted the reasons for their decisions. These are:

Reservations

• Expert advice should be taken. (animal welfare, individual)
• Additional guidance should be provided. (enforcement)
• There may be problems with definitions. Sellers should have a responsibility for whom they sell to. (enforcement)

Reasons for disagreement

• There is no reason why Ministers should be given this power. Animals are already covered by CITIES and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. (pet)
• This issue would be better dealt with in other legislation such as the Dangerous Wild Animals Act. (pet)
• Provision for this is already contained in section 22 and there is no need to duplicate this power. (country sports)
• There is potential for a Minister with a grudge against certain animals to push for a specific animal from being kept. This could interfere with the Human Rights Act. (pet)
• People should be able to enjoy their pets and as long as the animal's welfare is satisfactorily catered for, there is no need for a prohibition. (pet)
• Restricting the right to hold animals must be a matter of general debate. (performing animals)
• The clause would be used by anti-pet keeping organisations in order to attack peripheral areas of the pet trade. (pet)

The following comments were also made:

• Section 25 could conflict with the Zoo Licensing Act and its accompanying standards. (zoo)
• It should be obligatory for the Scottish Ministers to consult all interested parties in advance of a regulation being made. (animal welfare, country sports, rural)
• There should be further consultation on the extent of this prohibition. (academic)
• Decisions should be based on welfare or disease control reasons. (enforcement)
• The owner, rather than the premises, should be the key target. (livestock)
• The provision to prohibit certain animals should be included in the Regulatory Impact Assessment. This will have an impact on organisations involved in buying, selling or care for that animal. (animal welfare)
• There is a need to clarify what would happen to animals that were prohibited by Scottish Ministers and which were currently being kept as pets or otherwise. (animal welfare)
• Scottish Ministers should publicise any prohibition. (animal welfare)
• The circumstances to which this power might be applied should be considered. (academic)
• The consideration of the inappropriateness of monkeys (and other unsuitable pets) is welcomed. (animal welfare)

Overview

53 responses were received to this question. They were received from 13 animal welfare organisations, 11 enforcement organisations, 4 agriculture organisations, 4 canine organisations, 4 country sports organisations, 3 livestock organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 rural organisations, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 equine organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 36 responders agreed with the scope of the offence of abandonment.
• 4 responders agreed with the proposal but had reservations. (3 enforcement, country sports)
• 5 responders disagreed with the proposal. (rural, 3 country sports, animal welfare)
• 1 responder expressed concern with the proposal. (canine)
• 7 responders commented on the proposal, without stating whether they agreed or disagreed with it. (2 equine, 2 livestock, animal welfare, agriculture, enforcement)

Some responders commented on why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "Very pleased to see that the Scottish Executive has decided to keep abandonment as a specific distinct offence." (Advocates for Animals)
• "The problems which have arisen in relation to the wording of The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 have centred on the concept of temporary abandonment and the nature of the mental test to be applied to the offence (specifically, whether it is necessary to demonstrate that a person intended to abandon the animal at the time they left it). I think the proposed wording neatly addresses both these points." (Mike Radford)
• "Section 26(3) of the Draft Bill will also assist enforcement authorities and help protect animal owners/keepers from malicious complaints." (Central Scotland Police - AHWD)

Responders sometimes noted why they disagreed, or had reservations and concerns with the proposal. These are:

Reservations

• The term "fail to make adequate provision for its welfare" could be subject to debate as the section is open to misinterpretation. (3 enforcement) The progressive release of game birds into the wild could be regarded as a form of abandonment. (country sports)
• Guidance is needed on the length of time when animals can be left unattended.
  (3 enforcement)

Concerns

• The clause does not prohibit the abandonment of an elderly animal, or an animal in poor health. These animals are the most vulnerable and therefore require protection. The scope of abandonment should be revised to ensure the best welfare standards for the animal in question. (canine)

Reasons for disagreement

• It was suggested that the offence weakens the existing legislation on abandonment. The offence of abandonment is defined by the commission, not the eventual outcome, which is beyond the control of the offender. It is undesirable to attempt to qualify
  the offence by referring to standards of care. These standards are not applicable once an animal is no longer under the owner/keeper's control. Leaving an animal unsupervised for an excessive period is relinquishing control. Under the current legislation, the offence is committed as soon as the animal is abandoned, although the expression "likely to cause suffering" is open to interpretation by an enforcement agency or the courts, of what is appropriate in the case in question. If an animal is left with food, the 1960 Act makes it an offence of abandonment, regardless of what provisions were made for the animal. The current proposals would not make it an offence to leave an animal with food or other provisions. (animal welfare)
• The current legislation gives protection to captive-reared or rehabilitated wild animals released without the ability to fend for themselves. The abandonment offence should be extended to catch the abandonment of animals temporarily in circumstances likely to cause unnecessary suffering. (animal welfare)
• This section effectively bans the release of game birds and the release of fish for re-stocking. This would have a great impact on game shooting which contributes significantly to the rural economy and to Scottish biodiversity. (3 country sports, rural) Exemptions must be made to allow certain protected animals to be released into the wild. This must be for the purposes of boosting an established wild population in a local area. (rural)

The following comments were also made:

• The provisions in The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 should be included in this section as they have been used successfully in prosecution cases. (equine)
• There are many farming practices which leave animals unobserved for long periods of time although the animals have not been abandoned. (enforcement) In the case of farm livestock, this issue should be considered in the context of adaptation to the environment. (livestock)
• It is not clear as to how a farmed deer can be abandoned if it becomes wild once it is outwith its fenced enclosure. (livestock)
• The phrases "temporary" and "permanent" abandonment should be more clearly defined. (equine)
• There are few powers available to deal with abandoned dogs. (animal welfare)

Overview

53 responses were received to this question. These were received from 12 enforcement organisations, 11 animal welfare organisations, 5 canine organisations, 4 pet organisations, 4 agriculture organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 livestock organisations, 1 country sports organisation, 1 rural organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 equine organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 5 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 39 responders agreed with the proposal.
• 2 responders disagreed with the proposal, and suggested another age for prohibition. This was either 17 or 18 years. (individual, animal welfare)
• 1 responder disagreed with the proposal. (pet)
• 2 responders noted that they were concerned with the proposal. (agriculture, livestock)
• 9 responders commented on the proposal, but did not note whether they agreed or disagreed with it. (4 enforcement, agriculture, livestock, canine, rural, country sports)

Some of the responders commented on why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "We … believe it is right to raise the minimum age for buying an animal to 16, in line with our own charter, as an age at which people are deemed capable of making major decisions including leaving school and marrying. Sole responsibility for the life and good welfare of an animal is an important matter. Many parents encourage their children to own pets before the age of 16 as preparation for such responsibility and will continue to do so, but the parents will be the purchasers and people responsible in law for ensuring the duty of care is properly discharged, rightly so." (The Pet Care Trust)
• "The Scottish SPCA strongly welcomes Section 27 of the draft Animal Health and Welfare Bill. The Society has long campaigned for the age at which children can buy pets to be raised from 12 to 16. The Society is aware that some local authorities have already made this provision a condition of licences for pet shops. By including it so comprehensively on the face of the Bill, the Scottish Executive will achieve consistency throughout Scotland." (Scottish SPCA)
• "Welcomes the Scottish Executive's commitment to promoting responsible animal ownership through prohibiting the selling of animals to persons under 16 years of age, and prohibiting the giving of pets as prizes." (Scottish SPCA)
• "Pleased to see that there is to be a prohibition on the selling of animals to persons under 16 years of age." (Advocates for Animals)

Responders noted their reservations or concerns at the proposal as well as the reasons why they disagreed with it:

Reservations

• The issue does not relate to the age of the purchaser but more to the person who is responsible for the purchased animal. From time to time people under the age of 16 buy stock at auctions and these purchasers are usually overseen by a parent. (agriculture)

Concerns

• An exception should be made for agricultural livestock. Markets were considered to actively encourage young people to take part in shows and sales. This was regarded to be a valuable tool for giving young people practical experience in the selection and preparation of cattle for show and sale, and offered participants the chance to learn, first hand, the business, financial and animal husbandry skills required to operate a successful beef finishing enterprise. These skills were seen to be both integral and fundamental to the future viability of the agriculture industry. It was imperative that young people are encouraged in these events. (agriculture, livestock)

Reasons for disagreement

• This proposal would harm the ability of animal clubs from interesting teenagers in keeping birds or other pets. (pet)

The following comments were also made:

• It would assist enforcement officers if there was a specific offence for a person under 16 years to try to purchase an animal unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. (enforcement)
• The proviso "reasonable cause to believe" is problematical and the offence should be absolute and of strict liability. The tendency for similar age controlled supply offences has been to remove provisos like this one from existing legislation, rather than create grey areas which can be exploited by irresponsible traders to avoid prosecution. (6 enforcement)
• Where a vendor is in doubt, they should be able to require proof of age. It is not unreasonable to require vendors to take all reasonable precautions to ensure that they do not sell an animal to a person under 16 years; a licensee in a public house has to request proof of age. (enforcement)
• Guide dogs are currently "sold" to their owner for a nominal fee. If the sale of animals to under 16 year olds prevents young and partially sighted people using the guide dog service, then there should be an exemption for the "sale" of guide dogs. (canine)
• Responders were concerned that the clause would apply to persons who already owned animals. For example, many children of livestock farmers own livestock and acquire valuable experience in this way. Children under this age should be able to care for animals. (livestock, agriculture, country sports)
• Sections 27, 28 and 29 appear to conflict: an animal can be given by a member of a family to another member. (rural)

Overview

45 responses were received to this question. These were received from 12 enforcement organisations, 10 animal welfare organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 canine organisations, 2 country sports organisations, 2 agriculture organisations, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 legal organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 livestock organisation, 1 equine organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 6 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 37 responders agreed that animals should not be used as prizes unless given in a family context.
• 1 responder agreed with the proposal but expressed reservations. (agriculture)
• 1 responder disagreed with the proposal. (animal welfare)
• 6 responders did not state whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposal, but made comments on it. (2 animal welfare, 3 enforcement, law)

Some of the responders suggested why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "Welcomes the proposal to prohibit the giving of animals as prizes." (Advocates for Animals)
• "Agree that animals are not short term as would be a bottle of wine or a box of chocolates. This does not promote good responsible ownership." (Dumfries and Galloway Council)
• "The Scottish SPCA strongly welcomed the prohibition on giving pets as prizes, except in a family context. While giving animals as prizes is not as common in Scotland as it has been in the past, there is still evidence that this practice does continue. … the Society particularly commends the Scottish Executive's intention to extend this ban to the giving of goldfish as prizes. The Scottish SPCA has long argued that this is at odds with the responsibilities that animal owning requires." (Scottish SPCA)

Responders sometimes noted their reservations or why they disagreed with the proposal:

Reservations

• There are a range of circumstances in which animals can be given as pets. Although goldfish should not be given at fairgrounds, it is common for farm animals to be raffled or auctioned for charity, and this should be allowed to continue. The responsibility issues need to be clarified. (agriculture)

Reasons for disagreement

• The proposal was regarded to be a loophole. (animal welfare)

The following comments were also made:

• The term "family context" should be clarified. (2 animal welfare, 4 enforcement, law)
• The exception should be removed. There was concern that the exception is for reward for good behaviour. For example at Christmas, the novelty of the animal may wear off. (animal welfare)
• Exemptions should be permitted. There have been instances where organisations have based promotional or charity activities on the presentation of high value breeding animals as a prize. (agriculture)
• The proposal does not specify that the animal given as a prize should be alive. (country sports)
• The person who is giving the animal as a prize in a family context must be responsible for checking the welfare issues. (enforcement)
• Auctions should be banned. (animal welfare)

Overview

56 responses were received to this question. These were received from 14 enforcement organisations, 12 animal welfare organisations, 4 country sports organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 agriculture organisations, 3 canine organisations, 2 livestock organisations, 2 pet organisations, 2 equine organisations, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 rural organisation and 1 zoo organisation. A further 7 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 35 responders agreed to the powers that an inspector or a constable will have to deal with animals in distress.
• 4 responders agreed with the proposal, but had a reservation. (enforcement, country sports, performing animals, canine)
• 2 responders disagreed with the proposal. (agriculture, pet)
• 2 responders were concerned at the proposal. (enforcement, rural)
• 13 responders noted comments, but did not state whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposal. (2 animal welfare, 5 enforcement, 2 country sports, livestock, equine, zoo, pet)

Two responders commented on why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "Welcome the new powers that an inspector or constable will have in order to deal with animals in distress." (Advocates for Animals)
• "This will remove the dubiety that has previously existed as to where responsibility and enforcement duty lies between Ministry vets and local authority officers. (East Dunbartonshire Council)

Responders noted their reservations, concerns or reasons for the disapproval of the proposal:

Reservations

• There are resource and consistency issues. These must be addressed before the legislative process is concluded. (enforcement)
• The procedures should only be undertaken under the advice of a veterinarian (country sports) and should have the safeguard of independent veterinary opinion. (performing animals)
• Care should be taken not to make the rescue and rehoming activities of breed clubs illegal. (canine)

Concerns

• It was considered to be impractical for most local authorities to take possession of animals. It was not clear whether or not local authorities have facilities or staff with which to seize animals and provide welfare. The cost recovery in the consultation document does not sufficiently address this point, and it should be made clear whether local authorities or other bodies are responsible for dealing with certain categories of animals. (enforcement)
• There should be an option for the owner to provide alternative cover on a temporary basis, by a competent person. (pet)

Reasons for disagreement

• The seizure of farm livestock was regarded to be a matter of concern for a number of reasons: it could be undertaken by a person who may not be a qualified vet; there is the question of where seized animals are kept; associated biosecurity problems from moving livestock; the importation of infection onto a farm; and the losing of a herd's closed status. It was suggested that livestock farmers could find that they were harassed by members of the public who were reporting concerns which they had about their livestock and that they would have further anxiety from Inspectors visiting his animals, which could have been caused by false alarms. (agriculture)
• The welfare issue of birds was considered to be a difficult area. Birds should not be moved unless on the advice of a vet. (pet)

The following comments were also made:

• It was noted that different organisations have a range of roles and experience in welfare, and it was essential to ensure that expertise was consistently available. However, it was pointed out that the SVS did not have the facilities to arrange removals and ongoing care. Local authority animal health officers had specific areas of knowledge, but did not always have access to the manpower, facilities for looking after animals, and experience that the Scottish SPCA were able to provide, for example in the removal of companion animals. (animal welfare)
• There was a need to ascertain the role of the SVS and whether it would be looking after companion animals. (3 enforcement) It would be advantageous if the role of the SVS was extended to include companion animals, especially in remote areas and islands where there are very few veterinary practices. The practice may come into conflict with veterinary surgeons and their customers. (3 enforcement)
• The Scottish SPCA would not consider itself obliged to provide free housing facilities for any animal seized by any other agency under the new Act, but would continue to meet the cost of caring for animals brought into its care through joint operations, subject to a relevant protocol. (animal welfare)
• Legal advice to the Scottish SPCA was that, if express powers were to be given to local authorities and to the police and not to the Scottish SPCA, a defence solicitor might well challenge Scottish SPCA evidence, based on the manner in which the evidence was collected. This would be both undesirable and damaging for animal welfare, for the prosecution of malefactors, and for the standing of the Scottish SPCA. (animal welfare)
• Sections 29-32 of the draft Bill would adversely affect the practices carried out on a daily basis by Scottish SPCA inspectors. (animal welfare)
• The powers should be exercised by agents of the Government. It was not considered to be appropriate for inspectors of non-government bodies to have authority. (livestock)
• Inspectors and constables should be able to seek assistance from experts. (equine)
• Concern was expressed that those that care for seized animals may not always have enough knowledge to do so. (pet)
• It was preferable to involve a veterinary surgeon than to proceed without one. (enforcement, agriculture) If a veterinary surgeon was not involved in taking possession of an animal, then the animal should be seen by a vet as soon as possible thereafter. (animal welfare)
• There should be clarification as to when an animal can be taken into possession. (equine)
• Statutory improvement notices should be made available and complied with. (equine)
• There should be a statutory right of appeal in each case. (2 country sports)
• The cost of attending an animal in distress can be high. (animal welfare)
• The finances involved in looking after seized animals can be substantial. (4 enforcement) Cost burdens for seizure could not simply be landed on enforcement authorities. Charities such as the Scottish SPCA must not be relied upon. (enforcement) Consideration should be given to having access to a central fund, especially where there is no hope of recouping any costs. (enforcement) Compensation should be made available where animals are taken without veterinary certification and are subsequently found not to be in distress. (academic)
• The reimbursement of expenses will be fraught with difficulties. (enforcement) Although costs can be reclaimed, it may take some time to be recompensed and the owner or other person may not have the means to repay any expenses. (enforcement)
• Section 29(1) of the Bill appears to conflict with 32(2). (4 enforcement)
• There should be appropriate guidance and an approved code of practice. (enforcement)

Overview

44 responses were received to this question. These were received from 10 enforcement organisations, 8 animal welfare organisations, 4 country sports organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 canine organisations, 2 agriculture organisations, 2 equine organisations, 2 livestock organisations, 2 pet organisations, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 31 responders agreed with the powers that are available to courts to deal with animals taken into possession.
• 5 responders agreed with the proposal, but noted reservations. (animal welfare, 2 enforcement, canine, pet)
• 2 responders disagreed with the proposal. (pet, individual)
• 6 responders commented on the proposal but did not note that they agreed or disagreed with it.

One responder commented on why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "We have supported such a reform in the existing farm animal legislation since proposals were brought forward in March 2003. This proposed legislation will bring Scotland into line with similar legislation south of the border. There is clear evidence that such legislation is urgently required." ( SAC)

Responders sometimes noted the reasons for their reservations or their disagreement of the proposal:

Reservations

• It is hoped that the court would give a far greater priority to the welfare of an animal than its value (animal welfare) or it should carefully balance these. (enforcement) (these are also noted as general comments by 2 animal welfare, enforcement, equine)
• There should be a "fast track" procedure in place to deal with applications to the court to ensure that cost burdens are minimised. (enforcement)
• Care must be taken not to make the rescue and rehoming activities of breed clubs illegal. (canine)

Reasons for disagreement

These were not always noted. However, the following ones were:

• The owner should be permitted to provide alternative accommodation. (pet, individual)
• The confiscation of birds was regarded to be a difficult area. It was considered that birds should not be moved on welfare grounds unless a vet had decided or agrees. (pet)

The following comments were also made:

• There should be procedures published for drawing up a centrally held list, used by courts, of people to whom animals may be transferred for care. (pet)
• It is essential that courts should deal promptly with applications. (3 enforcement)
• There should be a statutory right of appeal. (2 country sports)
• Animals which have been neglected or ill-treated to the extent that it has been necessary to remove them from their owner without consent are unlikely to benefit by being returned to them. Courts should be able to issue orders to release animals which have been taken. (animal welfare)
• It is assumed that the Scottish SPCA would be able to apply to look after an animal under section 30(3)(d). (animal welfare)

Overview

40 responses were received to this question. These were received from 9 animal welfare organisations, 7 enforcement organisations, 4 canine organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 country sports organisations, 2 equine organisations, 2 agriculture organisations, 2 livestock organisations, 1 pet organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation and 1 zoo organisation. A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 29 responders agreed with the extent of the powers available to courts to take an animal into possession.
• 6 responders agreed with the proposal, but noted reservations to it. (2 animal welfare, 2 canine, livestock, individual)
• 1 responder disagreed with the proposal. (equine)
• 4 responders did not state agreement or disagreement with the proposal but made a number of comments. (animal welfare, 2 country sports, academic)

Responders noted their reservations with the proposal:

• The timescale should be extended to 28 days. (animal welfare) (a comment was also made by an equine organisation that the timescale should be extended to 21 days)
• It was hoped that the court would make the protection of the welfare of an animal a greater priority than protecting its value. (animal welfare, canine) (also noted as a comment by animal welfare)
• An animal should only be destroyed in exceptional circumstances. (canine)
• There was concern at whether an owner would have a right of access to their pet during a case of appeal. (individual)
• Care should be taken to ensure that the animal is not sold to anyone who has had an animal cruelty conviction or a record of having an animal removed for its protection. (canine)
• The powers that would be exercised by agents of the Government should be qualified. (livestock)

The following comments were also made:

• The phrase "disposed of in another manner" is vague and should be clarified. (animal welfare)
• There should be greater clarification of the stage at which any animal may be taken into possession. (equine)
• It is not clear how a healthy animal which is to be returned to the owner is to be dealt with by the Inspector who is required to make the application. (academic)
• Statutory improvement notices should be used to assist in cases where animals are "likely to suffer". Where these are not complied with, an order for seizure could be requested through the courts. (equine)
• There should be a statutory right of appeal. (2 country sports)
• It should be permissible to dispose of animals by sale, or where appropriate, by slaughter, as expenses can build up rapidly where large numbers of livestock require to be looked after. (animal welfare)
• Companion animals should not be held for prolonged periods in animal welfare centres. (animal welfare)
• Proceeds from the sale of an animal should not be returned to the owner. (pet)
• The price obtained from the sale of animals does not always meet the costs of caring for them. However, the provisions in the Bill should go some way towards this. (animal welfare)

Overview

42 responses were received to this question. These were received from 11 animal welfare organisations, 9 enforcement organisations, 4 canine organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 agriculture organisations, 2 country sports organisations, 2 livestock organisations,
1 veterinary organisation, 1 rural organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 equine organisation and 1 government agency. A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 28 responders agreed to the provisions which allow an animal to be destroyed.
• 1 responder agreed with the proposals, but also noted a reservation. (enforcement)
• 1 responder disagreed with the proposals. (enforcement)
• 1 responder disagreed with one of the provisions, but did not comment on any other ones. (animal welfare)
• 1 responder agreed with the provisions, but disagreed with one. (canine)
• 10 responders commented on the proposals, but did not state whether they agreed or disagreed with them. (2 enforcement, 4 animal welfare, veterinary, livestock, canine, individual)

A responder commented on why they believed that the proposals were important:

• "That in exceptional circumstances it can be necessary to destroy a protected animal and welcomes the Executive's attempt to set out provisions for this." (The Kennel Club)

Responders noted their reservations or the reasons why they disagreed with the proposals:

Reservations

Reasons for disagreement

The following comments were also made:

• There was concern that "another person" should be able to destroy an animal.
  (2 canine)
• Different people will have different ideas of what "exceptional circumstances" are (enforcement) and these were not defined. (animal welfare) This section may lead to judgements being made to destroy animals needlessly. (enforcement, animal welfare)
• It should be the circumstances of the animals, not the person, that are exceptional, and the interest of the animal must be the only motive in seeking to destroy it. (animal welfare)
• Section 32(2) in the draft Bill contradicts section 29(1). (enforcement)
• It is important that if an animal is destroyed by a person other than an inspector or a veterinary surgeon, that this should be carried out in a humane manner and by a trained person. (enforcement, rural)
• Policemen and other agents should have adequate training to undertake the emergency killing of animals. (livestock) It was felt that not every inspector or constable would have expertise, or the equipment ( e.g. lethal barbiturates or humane stunning devices) to undertake properly humane destruction. (animal welfare) It was also considered that it may be difficult for non-veterinarians to get access to controlled drugs and firearms so that they can "humanely" kill an animal. (animal welfare) In addition, it was also felt that local authorities may have difficulties in moving equipment around an area to destroy animals. (enforcement)
• The words "appropriate and humane" in section 32(3)d should be defined and there should be a reference that the person who is destroying an animal should be appropriately trained and competent. (2 animal welfare) Although animals have been killed on welfare grounds, it has not always been possible to prove that an offence was committed. (animal welfare)
• The requirement to destroy an animal in a humane manner should be included in the generality of the section. (animal welfare)
• In exceptional circumstances a constable or veterinary surgeon may not be able to find an appropriate means of destruction to relieve suffering. (animal welfare)
• The situation whereby a veterinary surgeon will not always come out to treat a dog that has been hit by a car and for which its owners are not known should be resolved. (individual) The owner of a lost or stray dog should be traced before it is destroyed. (canine)
• Horses should only be destroyed by a slaughterman or a licensed slaughterer as this is a skilled procedure. (veterinary)
• The need to inform an inspector or a constable that they have destroyed an animal may deter individuals from attempting the destruction of animals. (animal welfare)
• Guidance should be issued on section 32(3). (enforcement)
• If the Scottish SPCA is not recognised by the Bill, it would not be able to recover the costs for humane destruction, where it carries this out, and where there are situations in which this is appropriate. (animal welfare)

Overview

52 responses were received to this question. These were received from 11 animal welfare organisations, 10 enforcement organisations, 5 pet organisations, 4 country sports organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 canine organisations, 3 livestock organisations,
2 agriculture organisations, 2 rural organisations, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 zoo organisation, 1 equine organisation and 1 government agency.
A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 31 responders agreed to the powers given to the Scottish Ministers.
• 7 responders agreed to the proposals, but noted reservations. (academic, animal welfare, country sports, 2 pet, performing animals, individual)
• 1 responder disagreed with the proposals. (country sports)
• 13 responders did not specifically state whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposals but commented on them. (2 animal welfare, livestock, 3 enforcement, 2 pet, canine, 2 country sports, zoo, rural)

A responder commented on why they believed that the proposals were important:

• "The Scottish SPCA welcomes the proposal for Scottish Ministers to make regulations establishing animal welfare advisory bodies. The flexibility of the draft Bill as an enabling Bill is such that up-to-date and expert knowledge will be required in order to keep the legislation in line with the latest scientific and other research." (Scottish SPCA)

Responders frequently noted their reservations or reasons for disagreeing with the proposals: These are:

Reservations

• It was considered that bodies should comprise people who had the correct expertise and experience. (individual) This should also be balanced. (2 pet) There should also be transparent nomination procedures using best national practice such as the Nolan Principles. (pet, animal welfare) (some comments also made by responders which commented on the proposals)
• There should be consideration given to the relationship with existing UK-wide advisory bodies. (academic) (also noted as a comment by academic, canine)
• There should be consultation with all the interested bodies. These should have a degree of independence. (performing animals)
• Have reservations about the establishment of a welfare co-ordination body. (country sports)

Reasons for disagreement

• It was pointed out that there are already a large number of organisations which have the ability to provide expert advice and therefore, little need for Scottish Ministers to establish their own advisory body. However, it was pointed out that there may be a need to set up an advisory committee. (country sports) (the need for "working groups" was noted as a comment by pet)

The following comments were also made:

• A number of organisations welcomed the opportunity to participate in the proposed advisory bodies (agriculture, animal welfare, equine, canine) and sought assurance that they would be consulted. (animal welfare)
• Responders were concerned that they needed to have more details about these bodies before the proposal could be widely supported. (country sports, pet, country sports, rural)
• The powers that would be conferred on Scottish Ministers were very wide-ranging. (livestock)
• Advisory bodies should have representatives of all enforcement authorities, (enforcement) local authorities, (enforcement) animal-keeping societies and other key stakeholders and traditional animal welfare organisations (pet), those concerned with the breeding and production of animals, (livestock) and zoo experts. (zoo)
• There was a need to clarify whether there will be new bodies or whether existing ones will be given statutory status. (canine)
• It was considered that in many instances it would be appropriate to work through existing animal welfare bodies. (animal welfare) FAWC hoped that it could continue to discharge its primary responsibility to the Scottish Executive by offering advice on farm animal welfare issues in line with its remit. (livestock)
• It would be best to separate organisations which deal with farm animals and companion animals into different advisory bodies. (5 enforcement, livestock)
• The co-ordination of bodies that have functions relating to animal welfare should not impede the operation of independent organisations such as the Scottish SPCA. (animal welfare)
• Codes on a responsibility of care for managed wild deer should be set up. This would reflect the additional responsibility that falls on those who interfere more intensely in the management of the wild population. (rural)

Overview

56 responses were received to this question. They were received from 12 animal welfare organisations, 12 enforcement organisations, 5 canine organisations, 5 pet organisations,
4 country sports organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 agriculture organisations,
2 livestock organisations, 2 equine organisations, 1 rural organisation, 1 performing animal organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency.
A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 41 responders agreed to the procedures outlined for the issue of animal welfare codes of practice and the legal status of these codes.
• 2 responders agreed to the proposals, but had a reservation. (animal welfare, performing animals)
• 4 responders disagreed with the proposals. (2 animal welfare, 2 individual)
• 9 responders commented on the proposals, but did not note their agreement or disagreement with them. (2 rural, 3 animal welfare, 2 pet, enforcement, academic)

A number of responders commented on why they believed that the proposals were important:

• "We are in favour of the use of codes of practice to give guidance to animal owners, and to establish liability where welfare offences are suspected." (League Against Cruel Sports)
• " BASC has always supported the use of voluntary codes of practice, and continues to do so. We are pleased to note that Ministers will consult on these issues and that consideration will be given to reviewing existing codes." ( BASC Scotland)
• "The ILPH believes that codes of practice are essential in determining a minimum standard of care, and we welcome the opportunity for further participation during the consultation on secondary legalisation." ( ILPH)
• "The benefits of codes of practise are recognised and the current status of these should be maintained." (East Renfrewshire Council & Royal Environmental Institute of Scotland)
• "The Scottish SPCA welcomes section 34 and its giving powers to Scottish Ministers to enable them to make animal welfare codes of practice. The Scottish SPCA considers that the welfare codes as provided under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 have been beneficial for farm animal welfare, and looks forward to a similar set of codes for other protected as animals." (Scottish SPCA)
• "Consider the manner in which codes may be written and used to be an excellent balance of powers." (Dogs Trust)

Responders frequently noted their reservations with the proposals or the reasons for their disagreement:

Reservations

• Responders believed that codes must only be made in consultation with recognised animal welfare groups (animal welfare) or that they should have a full consultation. (performing animals)

Reasons for disagreement

Responders did not always note why they disagreed with the proposals. However, they did note the following ones:

• Codes of practice appear to be routinely flouted. (individual)
• • Animal welfare should be protected by laws and enforceable regulations, rather than voluntary codes. (animal welfare, individual)

The following comments were also made:

• It should be a condition that Ministers shall make codes of practice. (animal welfare)
• Codes will aid consistency with enforcement. (2 enforcement) However, it was also believed that they should be used proportionately and reasonably by the Scottish Ministers as they could threaten farming and sporting interests. (rural)
• They should be produced in accordance with the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy and must be based on best scientific advice. (enforcement)
• A number of organisations considered that they should be fully consulted and involved in the formulation of codes. (equine, animal welfare, country sports, pet)
• Safeguards should be put in place to ensure that the process under which Scottish Ministers can issue codes is ethical and that the views of a range of organisations are taken into account. (animal welfare)
• There should be full consultation with the industry. (livestock, animal welfare)
• As a wide range of organisations have a relevant interest, the Ministers should consult "such persons appearing to them to have relevant knowledge and expertise acknowledged by their peer group" (rural) or "with relevant professional and specialist authorities, agreed upon the Government and user groups" (pet) or all the direct shareholders (pet) or stakeholders. (2 animal welfare)
• The Scottish Executive should consult animal keeping societies and draw on expertise of animal keepers in establishing new codes. (pet)
• There was concern about some of the "interest" groups that would be consulted. It was suggested that bodies should be developed by independent and appropriately qualified experts that had no vested interest links to commercial or hobby sectors. (animal welfare)
• Codes should apply to both livestock and other animals (enforcement, legal) as well as those kept under extensive systems of management and those that are kept intensively. (livestock)
• Codes should be drafted and consulted on as soon as possible after the Bill comes into force (canine) and that existing ones should be brought in under the Bill.
  (4 enforcement)
• The references to "animal" should be changed to "protected animal". (country sports)
• The SVS has monitored compliance with codes made under the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, but is primarily concerned with agricultural animals. Clarification is needed for the monitoring of other animals. (animal welfare)
• The codes will have training implications for local authority staff. (enforcement)

Overview

42 responses were received to this question. These were received from 11 animal welfare organisations, 10 enforcement organisations, 3 canine organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 agricultural organisations, 2 veterinary organisations, 2 equine organisations, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 country sports organisation, 1 livestock organisation, 1 rural organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 3 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 25 responders agreed with the proposals. (5 animal welfare, 5 enforcement,
  3 academic, 2 agriculture, 2 canine, country sports, veterinary, equine, performing animals, zoo, government agency, 2 individuals)
• 17 responders commented on aspects of the orders, with individual ones. (veterinary, 7 animal welfare, rural, country sports, canine, equine, 4 enforcement, individual)

The following comments were made on the proposals:

• There was concern that these orders would apply to mutilation offences. (animal welfare, canine)
• The making of an order should not be seen as part of the punishment: they are properly to be regarded as a measure to protect one or more animals from the risk of cruelty or inadequate care in the future, made against a person who has been convicted of an offence involving animals. The decision of whether to make an order or orders should be separate and distinct from any consideration involving any other sanction to be imposed on the convicted person. Therefore, this position should be made clear on the face of the Bill. (academic)
• Where a person is guilty of an offence, a disqualification order should be granted rather than a deprivation order as there are no circumstances which lead to a disqualification order. (animal welfare)
• There should be an adequate right of appeal. This should be extended to 21 or
  28 days. (rural)
• Although there should be appeals against orders, an order should not become effective until the court processes, including appeal, has been determined. (animal welfare)
• There should be a transitional provision so that deprivation and disqualification orders which are made in existing legislation will continue to apply after the new legislation comes into force. (animal welfare)
• There should be consideration given to the rehousing of animals in certain circumstances. (enforcement)
• The welfare of animals awaiting a court appearance was seen as a matter of concern. (2 animal welfare, canine)

Deprivation orders

• Welcome the ability of the court to make a deprivation order (animal welfare) and that

deprivation orders should apply to any animal. (animal welfare, canine) However,
2 responders considered that provision should not be made for these. (animal welfare, canine)

• The extension in section 35(3) to any dependent offspring was welcomed. (animal welfare)
• The proposal that a court must state its reasons for not making a deprivation order was welcomed. (2 animal welfare, enforcement) Courts should be required to impose a deprivation order on any type of animal involved where a person is convicted of animal fighting, and the discretion to make an order in relation to any other type of animal which the convicted person may own. (academic) Welcome the provision that a deprivation order can be imposed on someone who breaches a disqualification order. However, this should be subject to further penalty. (animal welfare)
• A deprivation order could result in the destruction or disposal of an animal. (animal welfare, canine)
• The policy in clause 35(6) is written the wrong way round: there should be a presumption that such an order will be made unless the court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the animal(s) involved not to make such an order. (academic)

Destruction orders

• For animals involved in an animal fight, a court should not make a destruction order unless it was satisfied that this was in the best interests of the animal. (canine)
• There should be veterinary evidence that the destruction of an animal in an animal fight would be in the best interests of the animal. It was noted that not all animals were specifically trained for animal fighting. (animal welfare)
• Destruction should be used as a last resort measure. (animal welfare, canine) It should be considered whether it is possible to re-home dogs after they have been used in fighting, rather than simply destroy them. (canine)

Disqualification orders

• Responders were pleased that some of the loopholes which enabled disqualified persons to circumvent the disqualification order had been closed. (animal welfare, equine, veterinary) There was provision for the better enforcement of disqualification orders and the extension of current powers. (2 animal welfare)
• However, it was also suggested that a person should be disqualified from "having control of, or the power to control, animals" (2 animal welfare, individual) as also from riding, driving, or working with horses. (equine) It should also include other animals under the ownership of the person responsible. (equine)
• The proposal that a court must state its reasons for not making a disqualification order was welcomed. (4 animal welfare, enforcement) However, one responder went further to suggest that a court should state its decision for not making a disqualification order in open court. (animal welfare)
• There was concern expressed at the care of an animal. (animal welfare, canine, 2 enforcement) It was suggested that courts should be able to direct that the animal be removed by a responsible organisation to a place of safety. (equine)
• A court should be able to impose a disqualification order in respect of any animal involved in an animal fighting offence, with a discretion to make such an order in relation to any other type of animal which the convicted person may own. (academic) There should be a presumption that a disqualification order will be imposed, unless the court is satisfied on grounds of animal welfare that such an order would be inappropriate. (academic) There should be some means by which interested parties can appeal to have the decision about a disqualification order re-opened. (equine)
• Courts should have better guidance to ensure that offenders are disqualified from keeping animals for substantial periods of time. (animal welfare)
• It was considered that bans on the keeping of livestock should apply for life (veterinary) and there should be automatic disqualification for repeat offences. (equine)

Breach of disqualification orders: seizure orders

• This provision was welcomed. However, it was considered that an authorised person must have power to immediately seize an animal owned or in the possession of a person subject to a disqualification order (animal welfare) and that the clause should refer to a person convicted of an offence by reason of owning or keeping "or participating in the keeping" of an animal. (animal welfare)
• However, it was also suggested that provision for seizure orders were not required as they appeared to undermine disqualification orders. If a disqualification order was to be breached, then the offender should be subject to fines or imprisonment. (canine) It was also pointed out that as the definition of ownership was complex, the provision appeared to be unenforceable. (animal welfare)
• There was concern at the state in which seized animals would be kept. It was suggested that they should not be kept in inhumane conditions. (animal welfare)
• There was concern that the value of the animal would be given more importance than its welfare. (animal welfare, canine)
• A person who breached a disqualification order should be disqualified for breaching that order. For example, if a person breached a 5 year disqualification order, a court may wish to impose a further disqualification order on that person. (animal welfare)

Suspension of orders under appeal

• More thought is needed on the suspension of disqualification orders. (enforcement)
• There was concern about the suspension of a disqualification order while an appeal is heard. (4 enforcement)
• It was considered that the suspension of orders could prolong the suffering of animals and increase expenses incurred. (enforcement) Therefore, mechanisms should be put in place to ensure the appeal process was not protracted, thereby increasing costs for caring for animals. (enforcement)
• Courts should be given flexibility to extend the period as it sees fit and for this to be dependent upon the severity of the original offence. (animal welfare)
• The court should have regard to the seriousness of the original offence when applying for a termination of a disqualification order. (animal welfare)
• The proposal that the termination of a disqualification on an annual basis is qualified by virtue of section 39(5) was welcomed. (academic)
• Where a person applies to have a disqualification order terminated or varied, the original prosecuting authority should be put on notice of this application and have an express right, if it wishes, to make representations to court. (academic)

Overview

41 responses were received to this question. These were received from 10 enforcement organisations, 9 animal welfare organisations, 4 canine organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 pet organisations, 2 agriculture organisations, 1 livestock organisation,
1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 equine organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 29 responders agreed with the timescales for bringing proceedings for an offence under the Bill.
• 5 responders disagreed with the proposals. (2 animal welfare, canine, 2 individuals)
• 7 responders commented on the proposals without stating whether they agreed or disagreed with them. (6 enforcement, animal welfare)

A responder commented on why they believed that the proposals were important:

• "This section will be of great assistance to Scottish SPCA Inspectors, particularly in fighting and baiting cases. There have been cases in which evidence of a dog fight has come to the Inspector's attention several months after the actual offence was committed. One such incident involved a video of a dog fight, in which a person known to the Society as a dog fighter was present at a location that could be clearly identified. The Scottish SPCA was unable to submit the video as evidence due to it falling outside the 6 month timescale." (Scottish SPCA)

Responders noted the reasons why they disagreed with the proposal:

Reasons for disagreement

• The period of three years was considered to be greater than the life expectancy of certain animals. (individual)
• Offences should not be time barred. (2 animal welfare, canine)
• It was proposed that there should be a longer timescale allowed, such as 5 years. (individual)

The following comments were also made:

• There should be an assurance that a specific time period is set to take the proceedings forward. (animal welfare)
• The term "Prosecutor" in section 41(1) should be defined. If it is the Procurator Fiscal, then the 6 months is sufficient. However, if it is the enforcement authority, the time ban should be extended to 1 year. (enforcement)
• The Procurator Fiscal should be required to state in writing why a case has not been pursued, following a report being submitted to them within the correct timescale. (enforcement)
• Responders were concerned with the workload of officers. It was suggested that it was more realistic for the timescale to prepare cases and obtain evidence from witnesses to be extended to 1 year. It was also pointed out that it can also be difficult to trace relevant witnesses. (4 enforcement)
• There may be a case for the period being 1 year instead of 6 months. (enforcement)

Overview

40 responses were received to this question. These were received from 9 animal welfare organisations, 7 enforcement organisations, 3 agriculture organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 canine organisations, 2 pet organisations, 1 country sports organisation,
1 livestock organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 rural organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 equine organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 5 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 35 responders agreed that bodies corporate or Scottish partnerships and the individuals within them should be guilty of an offence.
• 3 responders disagreed with the proposals. (2 pet, individual)
• 2 responders did not note whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposals, but commented on the proposals. (enforcement, agriculture)

Responders noted the reasons why they disagreed with the proposals:

• If a person acts outwith the remit of their employment, the corporate body should not, as long as certain procedures are in place to monitor animal welfare, be guilty of an offence. If a person acts under the instructions of their employer and in doing so breaks the law, the corporate body and not the individual should be guilty. (individual)
• Each case should be considered on its own merits. (2 pet)
• The question raises a number of issues such as acts of gross misconduct, exclusion of an employee from employment on the basis that they have previously been convicted of failing in a duty to care for an animal, and the appropriateness of a legal challenge against a business that is neither a body corporate nor a Scottish partnership, but a private company established in Scotland. (pet)

The following comments were also made:

One animal welfare organisation noted that it had lobbied for a similar provision under The Badgers Act, as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. Another suggested that the offence was a standard procedure in Scottish legislation. (country sports) It was further suggested that the terminology used in the offence should be the same as that found in other legislation. (enforcement) Responders also considered that there would be enforcement difficulties, suggesting that clear guidance would be necessary if its application was to prove successful in practice. (enforcement) One further responder commented that this proposal would give a background of draconian litigation "against those who have done their best to support livestock farming and through no fault of their own, find themselves with a criminal record and unable to continue as directors of a company that includes the support of livestock farming." (agriculture)

Overview

35 responses were received to this question. They were received from 7 animal welfare organisations, 7 enforcement organisations, 4 canine organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 equine organisations, 1 country sports organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 livestock organisation, 1 rural organisation, 1 pet organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 26 responders agreed with the range of penalties for the different offences.
• 6 responders disagreed with the proposals. (4 animal welfare, 2 individuals)
• 3 responders commented on the proposals but did not state their agreement or disagreement. (equine, rural, individual)

A number of responders commented on why they believed the proposals were important:

• "The higher provisions for offences as detailed under sub-section (3) are very much welcomed." (Dogs Trust)
• "The Scottish SPCA strongly welcomes the range of different penalties for different offences. The distinction between aggravated and other penalties is in line with the understanding that animal cruelty occupies a spectrum from neglect and carelessness at one end, to deliberate cruelty and animal fighting at the other." (Scottish SPCA)

Responders who disagreed with the proposal noted the reasons for their disagreement. They believed that there should be higher penalties. (3 animal welfare, 2 individuals) One responder believed that the penalties were not severe enough given the scale of the profits that were involved in animal trading. A further responder suggested that imprisonment should be for a maximum of five years. (animal welfare) An animal welfare organisation believed that penalties under existing legislation were not severe enough and also that the maximum penalty was avoided. It considered that, for persistent offenders, penalties should be unlimited, or at least equivalent to the penalty for a comparable crime against a human. It also suggested that there should be an emphasis on sufficient regulation and enforcement by all relevant parties.

The following comments were also made:

• There is a large difference between a 12 month sentence and a fine of up to £20,000. (individual)
• The difference between 6 month imprisonment for knowingly introducing a disease to healthy animals contrasts to 12 months for the aggravated offence of promoting animal fights.
• This could be questioned. (rural)
• There should be a distinction made between those who are negligent and those guilty of a malicious act. (rural)
• The maximum penalties are very severe and should be used proportionally. (rural)
• The court should be required to state its reasons for imposing the penalty that it chooses. (animal welfare)
• Provision should be made for repeat offenders to be referred to a higher court. (equine)

Overview

40 responses were received to this question. These were received from 9 animal welfare organisations, 7 enforcement organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 country sports organisations, 2 agricultural organisations, 2 rural organisations, 1 canine organisation,
1 livestock organisation, 1 performing animal organisation, 1 legal organisation, 1 equine organisation, 1 zoo organisation, 1 fisheries organisation and 1 government organisation.
A further 6 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 24 responders agreed that fishing should be excluded from Part 2 of the Bill.
• 10 responders disagreed with the proposal. (4 animal welfare, 2 academic, country sports, performing animals, 2 individuals)
• 6 responders commented on the proposal without noting their agreement or disagreement. (2 animal welfare, rural, legal, 2 individuals)

Some responders commented on why they believed that the proposal was important:

• "The Scottish SPCA understands the reasons for excluding fishing from the welfare part of the Bill. If commercial fishing and angling were to be included in the new legislation, enforcement would be virtually impossible to achieve. The Society considers that the exemption of fishing as an activity rather than fish as a species is appropriate given the ability of fish to experience pain, suffering and distress." (Scottish SPCA)
• "Arguments made to support our case include that the Bill would apply inappropriate requirements that cannot be met in practice, that commercial fishing is a valuable industry and that the human health benefits of fish consumption are increasingly recognised. Consumer demand is strong and even if these inappropriate rules were applied in the UK to the detriment of our industry, demand would increase our already large imports of fish from around the world which is caught and handled according to normal fishing practices, over which we have no control." (Sea Fish Industry Authority)
• "To include it would be impractical and unworkable." (East Renfrewshire Council and Royal Environmental Institute of Scotland)

Responders sometimes noted the reasons why they disagreed with the proposal:

• There is no justification for excluding fishing. (performing animals, academic)
• It was considered that a general exemption was not required. If this was permitted, then other provisions should also be made, such as excluding wild caught animals that are retained temporarily prior to release or dispatch. (country sports, also a comment made by animal welfare and 2 country sports)
• It should not be possible to disregard the basic welfare needs of an animal. (animal welfare, individual)
• Provision should be made in the Bill to provide for the protection of fish. Provision should also be made to allow fishing to be humanely undertaken at a commercial level. (animal welfare, 2 individuals, also commented on by an individual)
• The drafting of section 45 is very broad. As a result, it could appear that fish farming is excluded from the Bill. The section should be reworded so that it is clear that farmed fish are included in the Bill. (individual, animal welfare, also commented on by animal welfare, country sports, rural and academic)
• The use of live bait should be banned. (2 animal welfare, 2 individuals)
• One responder disagreed with the proposal as a matter of principle. However, they recognised that this is a politically sensitive issue, and if this was required to help secure the passage of the Bill, it was probably a price worth paying. (academic)

The following comment was also made:

• The term "fishing" should be further clarified as anglers who return fish to the water might be caught by the "protected animal" clause. It was also possible that
  re-stocking a trout loch or releasing reared game birds could be caught in relation to abandonment. (law)

Overview

52 responses were received to this question. These were 11 animal welfare organisations,
9 pet organisations, 8 enforcement organisations, 3 country sports organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 canine organisations, 2 livestock organisations, 2 agricultural organisations, 2 rural organisations, 2 equine organisations, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 20 responders agreed to the system for appointing inspectors and that inspectors would not incur any civil or criminal liability. (6 enforcement, 4 animal welfare,
  2 academic, 2 individuals, livestock, canine, veterinary, equine, country sports, government agency)
• 1 responder disagreed with both proposals. (rural)
• 4 responders agreed to the system of appointing inspectors. (animal welfare, performing animals, 2 enforcement)
• 5 responders agreed that inspectors would not incur civil or criminal liability. (animal welfare, canine, 2 pet, academic)
• 5 responders disagreed that inspectors would not incur civil or criminal liability.
  (2 pet, agriculture, 2 country sports)
• 17 responders commented on the proposal without noting their agreement or disagreement. (8 pet, 4 animal welfare, livestock, rural, agriculture, individual, equine)

Responders frequently noted why they agreed with the proposals and the benefits which they would have:

• Greater action is required to ensure that inspectors have greater powers and the means and access to use them. (individual)
• Any inspector would be accountable to the authority appointing them and would carry out his functions under the law to the best of his ability. (animal welfare)

One responder noted why they agreed with the proposal that inspectors should not incur civil or criminal liability:

• It would allow inspectors to properly carry out their enforcement duties, provided they act reasonably and in good faith. (enforcement)

Responders noted why they disagreed with the proposals. Their reasons for disagreement are noted under each of the proposals:

Appointment of inspectors

• The Bill delegates an unlimited power to Scottish Ministers and local authorities to decide who may act as an inspector. It does not specifically state the character of the inspectors. (canine, 2 country sports)
• There were serious concerns about local authorities being given powers to appoint inspectors (rural, pet) as this would cause imbalances in the enforcement of regulations and the standards accepted as best practice in the different local authority areas of Scotland. (rural)
• Inspectors do not have universal knowledge appropriate to every species. (pet) (see further comments under comments below)

Disagreement with the proposals on liability

• It was considered that this proposal seemed to be "totally unjustified". (animal welfare)
• No one was above the law, not even the police. Everyone should be responsible for their actions. (pet, rural, country sports)
• There was concern that a newly appointed inspector, who perhaps had little experience, would be able to enter a premises and be able to wrongly to seize an animal. (rural, pet, country sports)
• Each case of an inspector incurring civil or criminal liability should be judged on its own merits. (pet)
• Individual inspectors should incur civil or criminal liability, especially if they acted negligently or maliciously. (pet)
• An individual should have the right to recourse should there be appropriate or malicious action on behalf of the inspector. (agriculture)
• It should be possible to take proceedings against the employers of the inspectors, if a civil or criminal act was made by such inspectors when they were undertaking their functions. (academic)

The following comments were also made about the proposal in general:

• The proposals are very general, and have no detail. (2 pet, animal welfare) It is not clear what "system" is proposed for the appointment of inspectors. (animal welfare) Further, the definition of "inspector" varies between the two parts of the Bill. It was recommended that they should be the same, with the definition at section 5 of Part 1 being more appropriate. (legal)
• Inspectors should acquire the confidence of animal keepers, key stakeholders and the public. (2 pet)
• Inspectors should be suitably qualified and have suitable experience (5 animal welfare, country sports, enforcement, 3 pet, zoo, agriculture, rural, equine) so that they can act appropriately with different species. (3 pet) It was considered that a national qualification for animal welfare inspectors should be put in place. (canine)
• All inspectors must be accountable to a professional code of conduct. (enforcement) Appropriate staff could be shared between local authority areas (agriculture) or be able to consult other qualified persons or take them with them to an inspection. (agriculture, rural, animal welfare) There was a need to ensure the character of the inspectors. For example, it was important to ensure that they were not an animal rights zealot, (2 country sports), did not have views that that were against animal welfare, (pet) or had been convicted of animal cruelty. (animal welfare, canine)

Appointment of inspectors

A range of comments were made on the ways in which inspectors were to be appointed:

• The appointment of inspectors should be centralised and made by the Scottish Ministers. (rural, animal welfare)
• An inspector should be an independent individual appointed directly by the Minister in question. (animal welfare)
• The Scottish Ministers should be empowered to maintain a list of competent persons and these may only be appointed. (2 animal welfare)
• Local authorities should be taken out of the appointment process. This would increase confidence that the measures were being used sensibly. (country sports)
• It is unclear where the inspector posts will be located within the local authority structure, though local authorities are the logical place for them. (pet)
• There was concern that animal welfare bodies or other non-statutory bodies could be appointed as inspectors. (3 pet, performing animals)
• Inspectors should only be appointed by democratically accountable bodies, such as local authorities. (pet)
• Scottish SPCA Inspectors should be able to be appointed to similar status by Scottish Ministers and enjoy the same powers and immunities. Scottish SPCA Inspectors would require to be appointed in terms of sections 23(2), 24(4), 29, 30, 31, 32, 35(4), 36(3), 38(3), 38(5), 38(6), 40(5), 41, 46(1) and Schedule 1. (animal welfare)
• The ascertaining of what a person deems to be "reasonable grounds" will depend on his level of knowledge and expertise. (rural)
• There will need to be measures in place to deal with malicious or false accusations. (pet)

Overview

44 responses were received to this question. These were received from 11 enforcement organisations, 8 animal welfare organisations, 3 academic organisations, 3 pet organisations, 3 canine organisations, 2 agriculture organisations, 2 livestock organisations, 1 country sports organisation, 1 rural organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 legal organisation, 1 equine organisation, 1 zoo organisation and 1 government agency. A further 4 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 30 responders agreed to the powers of entry, search, inspection and seizure which authorized persons would be given.
• 3 responders agreed to the proposals, but expressed a reservation. (canine, enforcement, performing animals)
• 1 responder disagreed with the proposals. (pet)
• 10 responders commented on the proposals but did not state their agreement or disagreement. (3 enforcement, zoo, 2 pet, law, rural, 2 individuals)

A range of responders commented on why they believed that the proposals were important. The following two are examples of their comments:

• "Welcome specific powers of entry under the proposed legislation. Existing powers conferred on a police officer under PACE (The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) are generally considered and are frequently a source of comment in court." (Dogs Trust)
• "The powers of granting warrants are proportionate and comprehensive … it is valuable also to see powers being made available for the gathering of evidence … The Scottish SPCA agrees with the grounds for granting warrants under this section. … The Scottish SPCA considers that the conditions for granting warrants are fair. … this is clearly helpful if the driver is unwilling to stop or co-operate. … welcomes the provisions of paragraphs 7-20." (Scottish SPCA)

Responders frequently noted the reasons for their reservations and why they disagreed with the proposals. These are:

Reservations

• It should be possible for an inspector to enter domestic as well as non-domestic premises to inspect and search them, even without a warrant, if those persons consider that this is necessary, and also be able to search for, examine and seize and animal, equipment, document or anything else that may provide evidence of a relevant offence. (canine)
• A warrant should not be required for offences under section 22 and under section 37(6). (canine)
• It may be preferable to encompass all the necessary powers under section 23 and 24 within schedule 1, paragraph 19, by referring to "a provision of the Act or regulations made under the Act", rather than to "a provision of this schedule". (enforcement)
• The "relevant power" in schedule 1 is defined in relation to a provision of the schedule rather than a provision of the Act. (enforcement)
• There is no test of "reasonable grounds". (performing animals)

Reasons for disagreement

• The powers should be qualified and clearly defined. It would be acceptable if entry was always decided upon by a JP on the advice of a vet or knowledgeable inspector in possession of a legal warrant then the situation would be accepted. (pet)

The following comments were also made:

• It should be possible to have access to unlicensed premises. (pet)
• It was suggested that powers should include domestic premises. (individual, canine)
• It should be made clear that the exclusion of domestic premises is the only premises used solely as a dwelling place. (2 enforcement)
• The position regarding premises that are partially domestic and partially commercial ( e.g. a farm) need to be clarified. (animal welfare)
• There is a legal implication in "where immediate entry is justified". (enforcement)
• Powers to grant warrants under schedule 1, paragraph 2 and 4 should be restricted to the sheriff. (law)
• Although local authorities have been given a range of powers, there is nothing relating to power of arrest. (enforcement)
• The police should be the only enforcement body with powers of entry, search, inspection and seizure. (pet)
• There is a need to consider whether schedule 1 would not adversely affect the ability of the Scottish SPCA to apply for a warrant. (animal welfare)
• The Scottish Minister and local authorities should have regard to the relevance and degree of a person's knowledge, expertise and competence in appointing a person to become an inspector. (academic, rural, zoo)
• The powers to stop vehicles in specified areas provided they have a Police Officer with them seems to be unnecessary. It was thought that it would be preferable that the Police Officer must be there to use the powers already available to him. (legal)

Overview

34 responses were received to this question. These were received from 8 animal welfare organisations, 7 enforcement organisations, 3 academic organisations, 2 agriculture organisations, 2 canine organisations, 1 country sports organisation, 1 performing animals organisation, 1 veterinary organisation, 1 livestock organisation, 1 rural organisation,
1 equine organisation, 1 zoo organisation, 1 pet and 1 government agency. A further
3 individuals also responded.

These responders gave the following views:

• 29 responders agreed with the provisions for making regulations under the Bill.
• 1 responder agreed with the proposal, but had a reservation. (animal welfare)
• 2 responders disagreed with the proposal. (performing animals, canine)
• 2 organisations did not state their agreement or disagreement and made comments about the proposal. (pet, animal welfare)

Some responders commented on why they believed that the proposal was important. The following two give examples of their views:

• "Support this power because it gives Scottish Ministers the power to rapidly respond to changing circumstances or circumvent "loopholes" in the law, which will be of great value to animals." (League Against Cruel Sports)
• "The inflexible nature of the 1912 Act has meant that it has not adequately stood the test of time. The Society considers that the powers to make regulations by Statutory Instrument will allow this piece of legislation to accommodate new developments in animal welfare and will ensure accountability and transparency through being laid before the resolution of the Scottish Parliament." (Scottish SPCA)

Responders sometimes recorded the reasons for their reservations or their disagreement with the proposal:

Reservations

• The proposal was agreed with, but only as long as the democratic process is followed. (animal welfare) It would be better to put definitive clauses into the Bill.

Reasons for disagreement

• Ministers should have further consultation with interested parties before they make regulations. (canine) There should be public debate as the regulations are being laid before the Scottish Parliament. (performing animals)
• These powers could lead to businesses being closed down. (performing animals)

The following comments were also made:

• The proposals are vague and could be used against activities such as bird keeping. (pet)
• It is difficult to assess the significance of the regulations as they are not recorded on the face of the Bill. (animal welfare)
• The regulations should receive appropriate scrutiny and only follow upon scientific advice and consultation. (rural)

The following subjects should be addressed in the Bill

• Factory farming.
• Vivisection.
• Racing kennels and dog breeding establishments which do not cater for pet animals.
• Animal sanctuaries.
• Performing animals - a thing of the past.
• Potential animal owners should be aware of the responsibility of the pet they are taking on.
• Ritual slaughter should be banned.
• Farriers code of conduct should be made under the Bill.
• Trade in cat and dog fur should be banned.
• Use of exotic animals in entertainment should be banned.
• Use of animals in entertainment should be regulated and phased out.
• The condition of animals should be stated on food packaging.
• Licensing of livestock farmers.
• Proposals relating to the Transportation of Puppies Bill should be included in the Bill.
• The Dangerous Dogs Act should be reviewed and incorporated within the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Welfare Bill.
• The Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 should be reviewed with a greater emphasis on breeding for commercial gain rather than those who breed infrequently as a hobby. There is also a need to review the "business test" element.
• External independent regulation of all greyhound racing tracks.
• Non-domestic rates on facilities that house animals.
• A code of practice for bird sales should be introduced.
• Couping of Clydesdale horses should be subject to legislation.
• Control of advertising.
• Internet trade in pet animals should be regulated as should car boot sales and other means of selling animals.
• Need to clarify whether local authorities have a duty to enforce the provisions of the Act.
• Consideration of whether the Scottish SPCA will have enforcement powers.
• Ban of animals in performing circuses should not be completely opposed.
• Pets' corners, garden centres and children's areas of "open farms" should be licensed.
• Pets should not be sold in pet shops.

Concerns associated with animal welfare and proposals in the Bill

• Greyhounds will be included in the second tranche of regulations.
• Pet fairs will become de-criminalised.
• Licensing and regulation costs will affect pet fairs for birds.
• Pet shops/supermarkets are still selling hutches that are too small, incorrect bedding and in inadequate food for small animals.
• People should be responsible for working and retired greyhounds.
• Enforcement of legislation that applies to livery stables/yards.
• There is a need to better educate the public in the proper manner to look after animals.
• There should be better enforcement of current legislation.
• Local authorities are inconsistent in their current enforcement of animal welfare legislation.
• There should be better training of police officers with respect to animal welfare.
• The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 should be better enforced as regards the commercial transport of companion animals.
• There is a need for changes in sentencing as penalties are very low.
• There should not be breed specific legislation for dogs.

There should be a greater number of inspections of premises. This should also apply to animal charities.

« Previous | Contents | Next »