Subordinate Legislation
Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equidae (SG 2009/20)
Item 2 is consideration of the Scottish Government "Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equidae", which, in accordance with section 37 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, is not a Scottish statutory instrument. However, it is subject to parliamentary consideration under the affirmative procedure.
I welcome the minister and the Scottish Government officials Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre, principal legal officer, Ian Strachan, head of animal welfare branch, and Alan Williams, divisional solicitor. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has commented on the code, and an extract of its report is in paper RAE/S3/09/9/5.
Under this agenda item, members can ask questions about the code's content and officials are free to speak, but the officials will not be able to participate when we debate the motion under item 3. I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.
I will be very brief.
The code has been made under section 37 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which allows the Scottish ministers to make codes of practice for the purpose of providing practical guidance on animal welfare. The aim of the code is to provide guidance to owners and keepers of horses, ponies, donkeys and hybrids on how to care for their animal. It details a set of underpinning principles of care, which are designed to cover the different management techniques that are used to keep equidae—I am not sure whether my pronunciation or the convener's is correct. It contains information and outlines good practice on horse welfare, and gives advice on how to meet the duty of care and the welfare needs of equidae as set out in section 24 of the 2006 act.
The code was developed with the assistance of the main equine and animal welfare organisations in Scotland, which have been involved in all stages of its preparation. Around 400 organisations and individuals were formally consulted on the draft code, and 69 organisations and individuals responded. The overwhelming majority of respondents welcomed the code and the helpful and detailed information that it contains.
The code provides practical advice and guidance to owners and keepers and will be a useful tool for those who are charged with investigating cases relating to animal welfare or cruelty. It sets the expected standards for the care of all equidae.
My officials and I will, of course, answer questions from committee members and from you, convener.
Do members have any questions?
I found the code extremely interesting—as the keeper of a horse which is, according to the diagram, fat.
My only point is that different breeds of horses have different physiques. For example, native horses naturally tend to be stouter than thoroughbreds. However, the guidance seems to be standardised; it does not seem to take account of the differences between different breeds of horse.
Ian Strachan (Scottish Government Rural Directorate):
You are quite right that there are different breeds and some horses are more naturally stocky than others. However, unless we prepared volumes of information, it would be impossible to cover everything. The code is designed to offer general and helpful guidance. It gives a little bit more than basic information to the keepers of horses, but not a great deal more.
As someone who has a little practical experience of the conditions of animals, I could offer Elaine Murray some instruction later, if that would help.
I note that the code does not mention passports being required for veterinary treatment. Issues relating to the licensing of farriers also arise.
I note the Government's response to the consultation on the code, and I welcome the guidance in principle. However, from reading it, I am not sure whether the differentiation between statutory obligations and non-statutory obligations is as clear as it might be. Despite that, I am sure that the guidance is adequate. For most conscientious owners of horses or donkeys, I am sure that the guidance will be unnecessary, but I welcome it.
Item 3 is the formal debate on the code of practice. I remind members that officials may not participate in the debate. I invite the minister to move motion S3M-3693.
Motion moved,
That the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommends that the Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equidae be approved.—[Roseanna Cunningham.]
Motion agreed to.
Licensing of Animal Dealers (Young Cats and Young Dogs) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (Draft)
Item 4 is an affirmative instrument. I welcome Christine Grahame MSP, who has joined us for items 4 and 5. She is the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on animal welfare, so she has a particular interest in this subject area.
I remind members that these amended regulations replace the regulations that were withdrawn by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment at the meeting of this committee on 25 June 2008, on the basis of concerns raised by members. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has made no comment on the amended regulations.
Members can ask questions about the regulations before we move to the formal debate, which is item 5. Officials can respond to questions now, but will not be able to participate in the formal debate. I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.
The impetus for these regulations came from Christine Grahame's member's bill of some years ago; the regulations are the culmination of a process that she started.
The regulations aim to address serious concerns about animal welfare in the trade in young cats and young dogs under the age of 84 days. Dealers who intend to sell such animals in Scotland will first have to obtain a licence from the local authority, which will remain in force for a maximum of three years.
Many such young animals are acquired by dealers from puppy farms outwith Scotland and are often in poor health because they have not been given proper care and attention. The regulations will require licence holders who take possession of such young animals to keep them separate from all other animals for 10 days and to have them examined by a veterinary surgeon in the first day of that separation period. That will ensure that treatment for any health problems can be administered before an animal is resold.
The regulations will secure the welfare of kittens and puppies that are sold in Scotland. They also address the concerns of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other organisations, which have received complaints from the public about the health problems of puppies and kittens that dealers have sold.
As the convener said, the committee considered the original regulations in June last year. I hope that the committee accepts the Subordinate Legislation Committee's verdict that the new regulations will do what they are supposed to do and are drafted properly. All the points that that committee raised have been fully addressed and I am happy to re-present the regulations for consideration.
Do committee members have questions?
I understand and welcome the aims of the regulations. What impact will they have on individuals who do not breed animals for sale but who, once in a while, have one or two puppies of a pedigree dog to sell? Would such individuals be required to be licensed?
Anyone who breeds such puppies or kittens will be exempt from the regulations. We have also exempted anyone who sells up to two puppies or kittens in a 12 month period. We deliberately included that exemption to allow for someone who buys a couple of kittens and discovers that doing so was a mistake because the kittens climb up their curtains.
Will the regulations cover rescue kennels and catteries, which sometimes have puppies and kittens to rehome?
No, those establishments are exempted. We exempt rescue sanctuaries, animal sanctuaries and rehoming centres, because whether they are asking for a rehoming fee or selling animals is an issue.
I will follow up Rhoda Grant's questions. I have a dog that came from a recognised breeder in Orkney. The breeder's dog is still a family pet, but breeding is perhaps more regular and routine than was suggested in Ian Strachan's response to Rhoda Grant.
Nobody disputes the seriousness of the problems. Perhaps the issue comes down to scale as much as anything else. Grey areas exist when breeders are involved in producing quite a number of puppies but when no welfare issue has been raised in the past. How is that being managed?
I was slightly concerned to note that the individual from whom we got our dog—that person is fairly well-informed and breeds puppies fairly routinely—was blissfully unaware of the regulations. The consultation appears to have been extensive, but one organisation that is not named as a consultee is the Kennel Club. Was it involved? Did it submit evidence and did it correspond with its members?
A limited number of licences is likely to be issued in my constituency. The problem with cost recovery is that recouping the base cost of the licensing structure is far more difficult when the number of people involved is low than when more people are covered by the regulations.
I think that the first point was about dog breeding. Someone who is dog breeding on a commercial scale, which means five or more litters a year, is covered by other dog breeding legislation. The problem was that no legislation covered people who trade in dogs and kittens rather than breed them. People buy litters of puppies from breeders, then sell them on. The dealer was not covered by legislation, but these regulations will plug that gap.
The regulations do not stipulate a cost for a licence. We leave it to each local authority to set its own licence cost. The cost needs to be appropriate and reasonable, but it should cover the cost of inspecting, policing and monitoring the scheme. As the minister said, the licence can last for three years, so it will be a one-off cost every three years.
I accept what you say, but it almost makes the point about local authority areas with low numbers of dealers, where the cost per licence could be significantly higher than that in other areas. I am not aware of any great incidence or history of dealing in kittens or puppies in Orkney, for example, but I am aware of any number of instances whereby licensing systems have been put in place that are more costly to set up and run in smaller local authorities.
The inspection of pet dealers' premises will be similar to the inspection of dog breeding premises. Although there will be few pet dealers, a number of local authorities will have pet shops and dog breeding establishments to inspect. I anticipate that the licence cost will be on a par with costs for those.
I feel like giving evidence on this issue, having lived with it for a long time. I very much welcome the regulations. I put on the record my thanks to Ross Finnie, a previous minister, who had meetings with me and undertook to produce regulations that would subsume my proposed bill, which is now happening. I also thank Ian Strachan for his tolerance and persistence. We had a number of meetings on the issue.
I have one question for clarification, which I am sure I will regret asking. Regulation 6(2) states:
"The licensing authority must, before reaching a decision as to whether or not to grant, renew, vary or refuse an animal dealing licence, consider a report made to the authority by an inspector, unless–
(a) the applicant does not have premises in Scotland on the date the application is received, in which case no report will be required as no inspection will be carried out".
That is obvious. However, regulation 7 states:
"The licensing authority may grant or renew an animal dealing licence which must be in writing and must state … the address of the premises where the animals must be kept during the period referred to in regulation 15(1)".
If there are no premises, how can there be an address? I am sure that there is a straightforward answer, but I just wondered about that point.
That aspect is to deal with dealers who do not have premises in Scotland but who have premises elsewhere, for instance in Ireland. It was not possible under European legislation legally to construct a regulation to insist that dealers had premises in Scotland. However, we wanted to ensure that, if dealers had premises in Ireland, for instance, the conditions that applied to those premises were the same as the conditions that would apply to premises in Scotland. Although it will not be practical for the licensing authority—in this case, the City of Edinburgh Council—to visit premises in Ireland, nevertheless the dogs must be kept at those premises, which will be detailed on the licence.
In addition, the dogs will still have to be seen by a veterinary surgeon within the first 24 hours of the dealer taking possession of them, and be kept in quarantine for 10 days at those premises. The paper trail with the dog will specify the name and address of the vet who conducted the initial examination and the date of the examination.
That is quite interesting, because you are really extending Scottish jurisdiction—strike that from the record! You have found a perfectly legal method of having some kind of regulation. This question may follow on from that. Will there be, or has there been, any kind of co-operation with the southern Irish Government? Are we looking to it to go down the same route? As we know, the evil starts in the euphemistically called puppy farms.
We have had no discussion with the Republic of Ireland Government on the issue. However, as an aside, we have had informal discussions with Republic of Ireland officials on their proposals to introduce new animal welfare legislation, which they are keen to base on the animal welfare legislation that we introduced in 2006.
Item 5 is formal consideration of the motion to recommend approval of the draft regulations. I remind members that officials cannot participate in the debate. I invite the minister to move motion S3M-3502.
Motion moved,
That the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommends that the draft Licensing of Animal Dealers (Young Cats and Young Dogs) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 be approved.—[Roseanna Cunningham.]
Motion agreed to.
I thank the minister, officials, Christine Grahame and members of the public for their attendance.
Meeting continued in private until 12:09.