The Scottish Government

Page: [1] [2]

Background

1. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") received Royal Assent on 11 July 2006 and came into force on 6 October 2006. Section 20 of the Act was not fully enacted at the same time as the rest of the Act, in order to allow Scottish Ministers to consult fully with interested parties. Certain procedures which were carried out as part of general animal management would not have been allowed had Section 20 come into force immediately and could have meant that those carrying out animal management procedures would have, in effect, been acting illegally.

2. On 16 October 2006, a consultation paper was issued on The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006: The Prohibited Procedures (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007. This consultation was issued to more than 2900 interested organisations and individuals. When the consultation closed on 5 January 2007, 164 responses had been received.

3. Although the consultation sought views on a number of animal management and husbandry procedures which it was proposed would be allowed to continue as exemptions from Section 20 of the Act, it was the issue of whether or not an exemption would be allowed for the tail docking or shortening of working dogs which provoked the greatest reaction and illustrated the great divide in opinion.

4. The consultation outlined the following:

(1) the procedures it was proposed to exempt from Section 20(1) and (2) subject to compliance with any specified conditions;

(2) the proposed conditions on procedures such as the purposes for which these procedures may be carried out, the manner in which these procedures may be carried out and; the conditions under which the procedure is performed;

(3) the way in which the Regulations will be enforced and;

(4) offences.

5. Under Section 20 of the Act, procedures which interfere with the bone structure or sensitive tissue of a protected animal would become illegal, if certain exemptions were not allowed through regulation. These procedures can broadly be classified as taking place for the following reasons:

• Control of reproduction: including castration, ova transplantation by surgical methods, spaying and vasectomy

• Identification: including ear notching, clipping and tagging

• General Animal Management: including dehorning, disbudding, beak and tusk trimming, as well as tail docking.

Scope of the Regulations

6. These Regulations will be applicable in Scotland only. Defra and the Welsh Assembly are preparing regulations for application in England and Wales.

Species covered by the Regulations

7. The Regulations will cover "protected animals" as defined in Section 17 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. In the consultation paper, definitions were offered of the specific terms to be used in the Regulations. The following definitions of species were given:

• A "bovine animal" is any animal of the Genus Bos, Bison or Bubalus.
• A "domestic fowl" is any domesticated member of the species Gallus gallus.
• An "equine animal" is any animal of the Genus equus. This includes hybrids.
• A "farmed pig" is a pig which is kept, fattened or bred for the production of food.
• A "farmed sheep" is a sheep kept, fattened or bred for the production of food or wool.
• A "laying hen" is a hen of the species Gallus gallus which is kept or to be kept for the production of eggs which are not intended to be used for hatching.
• A "pig" is any porcine animal.
• "Poultry" is any bird of the following species: domestic fowls, turkeys, guinea fowls, ducks, geese, quails, pheasants and partridges.

Questions raised in the consultation paper

8. In total, 7 specific questions were put forward in the consultation paper, relating to exemptions that it was proposed would be allowed for the purposes of animal identification, control of reproduction and general animal management. It should be noted that not all responders addressed each question, some choosing only to respond to questions which covered their field of expertise or particular interest.

Definitions used in the consultation paper

Question 1: Are the definitions of the specific species of animal outlined in Regulation 2 sufficiently clear? Do other terms need to be clarified?

9. 38 responders commented on this question. Those who responded generally agreed that the definitions were sufficiently clear, although it was suggested that there should be provision for Scottish Ministers to add to definitions as required.

10. The Scottish Kennel Club did not agree with the definition of docking as amputation. The Principal Curator of Mammals and Birds at the National Museum of Scotland also suggested minor amendments to some of the definitions and these were largely taken forward. The Scottish SPCA suggested that the regulation should clarify what is permitted by each procedure in order to eliminate the possibility of abuse.

Proposed permitted exemptions under Section 20(5)

11. The following procedures were identified for the purposes of animal identification:

• Freeze branding of bovine animals, horses and fish
• Hot branding of horses
• Chemical branding of fish
• Tattooing
• Ear notching and clipping
• Ear tagging
• Microchipping
• Pit tagging of fish
• Ear tipping of feral cats
• Insertion of subcutaneous tracking device
• Removal or perforation of parts of the fin, adipose fins or fin rays of fish
• Any other method of identification required by law

Question 2: Are there any other procedures used to identify animals that should be included in the Regulations? If so, what should these include?

12. There were 38 responses to this question. The procedures were largely accepted as a comprehensive list. However, some organisations identified the following as omissions:

• Horn branding of sheep (Quality Meat Scotland)
• Toe clipping is an important method of identification for amphibians (British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums)
• Would support DNA sampling of dogs for identification purposes in the future (Dogs Trust)
• There must be other methods of identification currently in their infancy (International League for the Protection of Horses)
• Inclusion of hot branding requires thought (British Horse Society)
• Concerned that some tags cause pain if snagged on fences and bushes (Scottish SPCA)
• Electronic ear tagging may be included (National Beef Association)
• Exemptions should cover products which allow tagging of cattle through fatty tissue of the dewlaps (National Farmers Union Scotland)
• Inter-ruminal boluses containing electronic transponders as currently used under the National Scrapie Plan
• Seek clarification of term "Any other method required by law" (Advocates for Animals)

Question 3: Should additional restrictions be placed on any of the procedures used to identify animals?

13. In total, 29 responded to this question and several agreed that there was a need for additional restrictions on welfare grounds. Comments from individuals included the need for all procedures to be undertaken by a qualified veterinary surgeon and the need for hot branding of horses was questioned when freeze branding as a method is available. Pit tagging of fish and tattooing as a method was also seen as unnecessary and it was suggested that ear tagging and ear notching should only be carried out with the use of anaesthetic and analgesia. It was further suggested that microchipping of companion animals should be made compulsory and that breed specific organisations should be able to check that procedures are being carried out in accordance with the Regulations. Comments from organisations included the following:

• Hot branding of equine animals should only be permitted where other approval methods of identification are impractical (Trekking and Riding Society of Scotland)
• Hot branding, tattooing and pit tagging methods should be banned
• Queries the need for hot branding of horses, when freeze branding might be sufficient (Argyll and Bute Council)
• Hot branding of horses should not be allowed, when the alternative of freeze branding is available. Microchipping should only be carried out by qualified individuals and on horses, only by a qualified veterinary surgeon.
• There is no need for additional restrictions on tattooing or microchipping (The Kennel Club)

Page: [1] [2]