Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4267, in the name of Ross Finnie, that Parliament agrees that the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill be passed.
The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill is an important vehicle that will ensure that the vision that is set out in our animal health and welfare strategy can be realised in Scotland. That strategy sets a goal for raising animal health and welfare standards for the benefit of animals, animal keepers and society as a whole. In particular, it provides for the raising of standards being progressed through partnership between all stakeholders: the Government, the veterinary profession, the livestock sector, other animal keepers and animal welfare organisations.
From its inception, partnership working has been at the heart of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill, so the consultation process enabled us to refine the first draft of the bill. That process of refinement has continued during the bill's progress through the parliamentary and committee stages. I believe that we now have a bill that will make a significant difference to animals and animal keepers in Scotland, and which is flexible enough to stand the test of time.
Part 1 of the bill, which we have considered again, will amend the Animal Health Act 1981. It reflects advances in science and risk assessment since that time. The recent disease outbreak shows us how real the threat of an outbreak of an exotic animal disease is here in Scotland. If the bill is passed today, we will have enhanced the legislative framework. That framework, combined with our existing contingency planning process, means that we will be even better prepared to prevent, and to respond quickly and effectively to, an outbreak of an exotic disease. We will be in a better position to protect animal health and to minimise the impact on our economy, environment and society.
During the committee stages of the bill, it became clear that there was a significant desire to ensure maximum transparency in the exercise of the new slaughter powers. I believe that amendment 14, which was lodged by Maureen Macmillan and which we have accepted today, will provide that greater transparency. It will ensure that ministers will be held responsible for enacting their powers and that, in particular, they will have to show Parliament that they have met the requirements of the 1981 act. They will have also to demonstrate that there is a disease and that the powers that they are exercising will result in control of that disease.
The majority of the provisions in part 2 of the bill have been universally welcomed. The committee stages have allowed us to clarify certain issues and to strengthen provisions following the Environment and Rural Development Committee's stage 1 report.
During the stage 1 debate, I commented that the key provision in the welfare part of the bill is that it will introduce a general duty on a person to ensure the welfare of any animal for which he or she is responsible. To comply with that duty of care, owners and keepers will need to understand their responsibilities and take all reasonable steps to provide for the needs of their animals, to the extent that will be required by good practice. The importance of the duty of care cannot be exaggerated; it is at the heart of the welfare part of the bill. Once that duty is established, it is clear how the other provisions in the welfare part will flow from it. I believe that the amendment at stage 2 that introduced care notices will help to ensure that the duty of care is implemented appropriately and proportionately. A care notice will give an individual who is failing in his duty of care the opportunity to comply with that duty and thereby to avoid prosecution. We strongly believe that the provision will encourage early intervention and prevent animal welfare problems from escalating.
Overall, the welfare part of the bill illustrates Scotland's commitment to modern animal welfare legislation and shows that we take seriously individuals' responsibility for their animals.
However, the bill is only the start. It provides the essential flexible statutory framework, but the true test of the legislation will be in how the new provisions are implemented and in the wide programme of secondary legislation that will be required after enactment.
The bill is important—I commend it to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I thank all the members of the Environment and Rural Development Committee and its clerks for the huge amount of work that was carried out in scrutinising and debating the bill at stages 1 and 2. I agree with Ross Finnie that our discussion during those stages was detailed; in a sense, it reflected the complexity of the bill's provisions. The bill is much stronger for the responses that we had from the Executive and from the input of the organisations, members of the public and key interest groups who helped the committee to deal with issues that were often very difficult.
The debate on tail docking today did not give a full sense of the huge weight of evidence that we considered at committee, or of the difficulty of some of the decisions. The committee did not take those decisions casually; its members—who are from different political parties—took them only after much consideration. The bill is better for that level of discussion.
In the stage 3 debate today, we did not discuss a number of the important issues in the bill. Although we debated the framework of provisions that set out where responsibility for care of animals lies, we did not have many of the other detailed and comprehensive discussions that are needed to make the bill better legislation; for example, we did not debate in any depth one of the key provisions of the bill, which is the creation of the new offence of not preventing harm or unnecessary suffering, and we did not spend much time debating the fact that people under 16 will no longer be able to own pets. That provision is important and says that only an adult can be responsible for looking after the welfare of a family pet.
We also have not fully debated some of the biggest and most long-lasting benefits of the bill. Maureen Macmillan's contribution on animal fights was passionate and powerful and I was glad to hear the minister say that Parliament will revisit the issue. Trade in such animals is abhorrent; anyone who is involved in it needs to be clear that it is illegal and that it will be stamped out. I am grateful to Maureen Macmillan for continuing to push on that issue today.
There is much in the bill that is important and not all of it is about punishing people for not taking care of animals. It is much more about encouraging people to meet higher standards of animal welfare. The long-term benefits of the bill will come from the codes, regulations and licensing powers that will be important in regulating the bill's provisions. If I have a regret, it is that it will take so long to put in place some of those regulations and codes. The framework of the bill is excellent—the Executive has moved forward on animal welfare. In the minister's summing up, I would be keen to hear reaffirmation of the importance of ensuring that the codes and regulations are put in place.
For people who are involved in pet fairs, people who run livery yards and pet sellers the issues need to be addressed. That is also the case in relation to animal sanctuaries and the use of wild animals in circuses, about which concerns were raised at committee and today. Those issues need to be addressed urgently and not left for years to come. We still do not have provisions on snaring that were discussed some years ago during the passage of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. Parliament needs to ensure that good legislation is followed swiftly by implementation measures.
In addition to the introduction of codes, there will also be processes around inspection and enforcement, which are crucial and are needed as a backstop. There are people out there who will not take responsibility for the welfare of their animals and there are those who will make animals suffer. Parliament needs to tell them very clearly that society does not accept that. Local authorities will be responsible for enforcing the regulations—much work needs to be done in that regard.
All of us should welcome the passage of the bill, so I hope that that will happen at decision time today. The bill will lead to the improvement of animal health and welfare, which the whole Parliament should celebrate.
I welcome this final debate on the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill. Along with my Green colleagues, I look forward to voting for it tonight.
As a Parliament, we often underestimate the strength of compassion and concern that the people of Scotland feel towards animals, and the strength of their horror when abuse takes place. Our attitude to animals seems to be the barometer of a civilised society. The animal welfare legislation that was passed at the beginning of the 20th century came at a pivotal period of change, so it is appropriate that the young Scottish Parliament should engage in constructing legislation that is fit for a new century.
I am delighted that Parliament stood firm and listened to logic on tail docking. The issue is small in the context of the bill, which covers many health and welfare issues, but the debate focused minds on the barometer of what is acceptable in modern Scotland. The ban will be monitored and I hope that veterinary surgeons, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Scottish Kennel Club and the responsible people who work dogs in the countryside will help the Executive to carry out monitoring in the coming years.
More significant than the ban on tail docking is the new duty of care that the minister outlined. The approach will allow cases of animal abuse, which are currently extremely difficult to prosecute, to be brought to court. I have talked to people at the sharp end of animal welfare and I know that the new duty will be a significant new tool that sets the tone of much of the rest of the bill. It is clear that animals suffer at the hands of people who are ignorant about how to keep them or who are insensitive to their needs. Such a situation cannot be tolerated in 21st century Scotland.
I remain concerned about the choices and decisions that will be made during a major animal disease outbreak—which is surely a matter of "when", not "if". During consideration of the bill, ministers heaped assurances on us about their intention to seek advice, about their innate accountability to Parliament and about the lessons that have been learned from the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 2001. I trust that everything that has been promised will come to pass when the next major disease outbreak happens, but I am concerned that the bill, like other bills that Parliament has passed, represents a style of legislation that is dependent on faith in ministers and subordinate legislation to deliver a raft of goodies after a bill is passed.
Only one subject committee in Parliament deals with more subordinate legislation than the Environment and Rural Development Committee, of which I am a member, and I am concerned that parliamentary scrutiny of much subordinate legislation is becoming weaker as the second session of Parliament continues. The stacking up of as many as five pieces of subordinate legislation per week presents an impossible challenge for committees. For example, there is uncertainty in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the financial implications for local authorities of much of the subordinate legislation that will flow from the bill. The Environment and Rural Development Committee has not been able fully to consider and scrutinise such matters. I am a little bit uncomfortable about that.
Overall, the bill is good. I look forward to its becoming an act, and to seeing how its many constructive provisions will directly improve the welfare of our much-loved animals in Scotland.
We are dealing with a large bill and today we have reached the final stage of scrutiny. I echo Mark Ruskell's remarks: the bill is of such a size that we have not been able to consider every aspect of it in detail in the time that has been available, which is a difficulty not because the provisions are necessarily controversial but because it is important that members understand how the provisions will be implemented.
Local authorities will have a major role in implementing many of the regulations that will be made. Local authority officers will have much extra work and must take on new roles, which will have training implications. COSLA is right to question whether the new burdens have been taken on board and the extent to which local authorities will be funded to carry out their new functions. It would be useful if ministers could reassure us that they will keep a close eye on the matter.
On animal health, members of all parties think that if there is an outbreak of an exotic disease there should be maximum communication between the Government—which must control and eradicate the disease—elected members of Parliament and the public, who will expect a proportionate response. We had a good debate on amendments to section 1 and there were close votes on amendments that would include in the bill a requirement to consider scientific and veterinary advice.
We took our decisions knowing full well that ministers will be given powers that are wider than any they have had previously. We hope that ministers will operate within the spirit that Parliament intends and that they will take a more communicative approach than has been the case in the past, and one that involves learning from the experience of other countries.
The bill raises many controversies. I am concerned about the resources that are available in the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department to produce all the required secondary legislation. I recall Sarah Boyack's remarks on that during the stage 1 debate on the bill. I am also concerned about the time that will take. Do the ministers believe that we have enough civil servants who can write the material in as short a time as possible? Given the time that we had to discuss the bill, it will be of great interest to us to know how soon the regulations will be in place.
Tail docking has caused considerable controversy. I am glad that we will now have time to look for peer-reviewed evidence on both sides of the argument—the committee could not find such evidence. It is interesting to hear people persisting in the suggestion that custom outweighs the arguments of science and reason. I hope that ministers will be able to justify any decisions that they make.
I thank members for the debate on a most important bill that will affect a large number of living beings in our countryside. One has only to look round the countryside to see how many animals the bill will help.
The bill is sound and I will vote for it at decision time. However, we must reflect on the fact that Scotland has a relatively good record on animal welfare. Therefore, there is nothing in the bill that should not impact positively on those who keep or who are responsible for animals. It is interesting that the great debates that we have had during the passage of the bill have not been about whether ensuring animal welfare in particular policy areas is good or bad; they have been about how we can best legislate to ensure that animal welfare is upheld. There is no greater example of that than the debate on tail docking, in which people have lobbied consistently for a considerable period on the basis that tail docking is for the welfare of working dogs because it ensures that they are not subject to tail injuries in their working environment. I am glad that there will be further opportunity to make representations before the secondary legislation is introduced.
That leads me to one of my concerns about the bill, which is about the volume of decision making that is yet to be done through secondary legislation. It is good to have a debate in Parliament about amendments and suggestions, but it is difficult to offer input in the secondary legislation process, particularly with instruments that are subject to the negative procedure, in respect of which the only option is to move for annulment. It is important that we ensure that the debates that have begun today are continued and widened when the secondary legislation is produced and considered.
On disease outbreaks and similar circumstances, I am pleased that the minister will have the right to act on the spur of the moment. I saw closely what happened during the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak some years ago, so I know that it is absolutely essential that ministers have the right to act. Thereafter, they will be accountable to Parliament, but they must not be required to consult before decisions are made. I am therefore delighted that we rejected the idea of an across-the-board plan to which ministers would have to stick at times of crisis. It is essential that ministers have the right to decide in the event of an emergency.
I am pleased that we have addressed a number of other issues, including circuses. I had hoped to participate in the debate on that, but unfortunately did not push my button in time. It is important that in the future we address the issue of wild animals being kept by, and travelling with, circuses. There is no place for wild animals in circuses. However, circuses have a role in celebrating the symbiotic relationship that has for millennia existed between human beings and certain other species. For that reason, I am concerned, when Mark Ruskell starts talking about wild animals, that he includes elephants. Outside Africa, throughout the rest of the world, elephants are more a domestic than a wild species.
There is some dispute about what constitutes a wild animal, but the legislation has attracted unanimity in most areas. That is highlighted by the fact that there have been few areas that we have had cause to debate. I look forward to supporting the bill at decision time.
I had the opportunity to speak in the stage 1 debate and I am impressed by how far we have travelled since then in framing the bill.
I thank the Environment and Rural Development Committee for the work that it has put into the bill; indeed, the rigorous scrutiny that the committee undertook enabled greater clarity to be brought to the bill. The committee was right in the way in which it evaluated the information on tail docking. How we treat our animals is a measure of how humane we are as a society. The bill contains a raft of measures that will drive forward animal welfare standards and bring legislation into the 21st century. I am particularly pleased that Parliament has voted to ban tail docking without exemption. In doing that, we have shown that in Scotland we are not afraid to be different. We are leading the way in animal welfare.
That brings me to my next point regarding animals in circus performances. Alex Johnstone and I rehearsed some of the arguments in the stage 1 debate. I have not changed my mind, although I think Alex Johnstone has moved a little bit since stage 1. The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development made it clear that she would introduce secondary legislation to deal with performing animals, including those in circuses. I accept what the minister has said today about the need for consultation. In relation to circuses, I have found very little support in my constituency and throughout Scotland for the continued use of wild animals in that way. I trust that the deputy minister will conclude the consultation as soon as possible and introduce the secondary legislation that she promised us.
Mr Finnie said in his opening remarks that this is only the start and that a number of issues will be revisited. I urge the minister to consider further a point that I raised at stage 1 in relation to the definition of "animal". The scientific panel on animal health and welfare of the European Food Safety Authority—a highly reputable body—has concluded, after examining the scientific evidence, that crustaceans feel pain and distress. I ask the minister to reaffirm that that evidence will be examined once again. It is for that reason that Austria, New Zealand, Queensland, Norway and the Australian Capital Territory have all recognised that in the definition of "animal" in their legislation.
I conclude by referring to the duty of care that will be imposed by the bill, which I also mentioned at stage 1. It is at the heart of the bill and I hope that it will send a clear message that we as a society will not tolerate animal cruelty. In passing the bill, we represent the views of civic Scotland and, in particular, we represent the views of our young people. I commend the bill to Parliament.
Liberal Democrats welcome and support the bill. It is a good bill that should stand the test of time. It has been framed to allow the law to change as scientific knowledge and understanding advance and as social attitudes to a range of practices and our treatment of animals change.
The first part of the bill will update the legislative framework within which we prevent or, if necessary, deal with outbreaks of animal disease. The recent experience of such an outbreak meant that we were in no doubt about the importance and seriousness of the provisions of that part of the bill.
Some concern was expressed about the wide powers that will be given to ministers and about how parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of the powers could be achieved without putting barriers in the way of rapid and effective action. I believe that that has been addressed by Maureen Macmillan's amendment 14, which was passed this afternoon.
The second part of the bill will fundamentally change how the law will deal with the welfare of animals. It signals a move from punishing cruelty to animals to the more positive and effective ethos of promoting animal welfare. That said, I welcome the increase in maximum penalties for cruelty to animals, which reflects the seriousness of such offences.
Punishment is at one end of the spectrum—the end at which we deal with instances in which we have failed to protect animals. At the other end of the spectrum, however, is the provision to allow inspectors to issue care orders, which is a provision that inspectors welcome. It will allow a much more sensitive and proportionate response to situations in which the owner or keeper of an animal is endangering the welfare of an animal not through deliberate cruelty, but through lack of knowledge or awareness. That has been an excellent addition to the provisions in the bill.
This is a brief debate. As Sarah Boyack said, there are many issues that must be pursued further as we deal with the secondary legislation and, perhaps, as we deal with other legislation that will involve, for example, the recording of violence.
I agree with Rob Gibson about the need to ensure that there are adequate resources, including of manpower and training, to implement the measures in the bill. On the issues that Irene Oldfather raised about circuses, performing animals and exotic pets, I flag up the fact that it will be important to bear in mind that animals whose only experience has been as a captive or a performing animal must be dealt with carefully. Any legislation that is brought in to stop such practices must have some sort of tapering period or some other way of ensuring that we are not inadvertently cruel to animals in such circumstances.
The bill will consolidate, modernise and strengthen animal welfare legislation and it provides proportionate and enforceable sanctions against animal cruelty and neglect. I am happy to say that it delivers Liberal Democrat manifesto commitments and commitments that were made as part of the 2003 partnership agreement. It will, therefore, be no surprise that Liberal Democrats whole-heartedly commend the bill to Parliament.
Today's debate has been robust and—as it has been the first stage 3 debate that I have led for my party—enjoyable. It is important that the proper framework for animal health and welfare is achieved in Scotland. We are not only a major agricultural nation; we also operate a valuable and healthy game sport industry. The existing legislation was outdated and confusing and, although aspects of the proposed new legislation might also lead to confusion, I am in no doubt that what is proposed is a considerable improvement on what exists at the moment.
The evidence that the committee took was wide ranging and challenging, if, at times, contradictory. As Mark Ruskell reminded us, in its widest sense, the bill should improve the general welfare of animals in Scotland. That is no mean ambition.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that I profoundly disagree with the Executive's decision not to exempt working dogs from the tail-shortening provisions in the bill. The Conservatives will certainly monitor injuries to the tails of working dogs. Of course, that evidence could take up to three years to find because pups left undocked now will not be ready to work for at least two years.
On animal health, we agree with the Executive that a key objective in any disease-control strategy is to minimise the number of animals that need to be slaughtered. We accept that the minister has to be able to act with great speed in deciding on extended powers of slaughter. However, despite what he has said, I still find it hard to understand why he is opposed to the inclusion in the legislation of the simple phrase that would ensure that such powers would be taken by the minister
"only after appropriate scientific and veterinary advice".
Although ministers today poured scorn on my attempt to introduce licensing for falconries, let us hope that their ribaldry does not come back to haunt them. In my view, unsupervised, unskilled falconry in Scotland is an accident waiting to happen. Today, the Parliament failed to send the right signal and refused to consider the licensing of falconers. However, I look forward to having further discussions with the minister or deputy minister about how my fears—and those of many falconers—might be addressed.
As Alex Johnstone said, we will support the bill today. I regret that such a well-meaning and, in part, well-crafted bill is undermined by what I believe to be an ill-considered and wrong-headed proposal on tail docking. However, despite that reservation, we will of course vote to pass the bill today.
When a member is the second-last person on their feet in a stage 3 debate, most of what they wanted to say has often been covered by the other speakers. However, I start by saying that those of us who campaigned for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and voted for it in the referendum in 1997 did so because we wanted a Parliament that would modernise legislation in Scotland and bring new, progressive legislation on to the statute book as well as making sure that it was up to date with public opinion in Scotland. The bill that we will—I hope—pass in a few minutes' time achieves those aims.
The debate has been controversial and complex at times. I pay tribute to all those who gave evidence, particularly to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, of which I am a member. We received an enormous amount of evidence, much of which conflicted, and it was difficult to sort out which evidence we should use to reach conclusions on some of the difficult questions. As the member for Moray, I was contacted by constituents on both sides of the debate on, for example, tail docking. Such debates are difficult, and we cannot please all the people all the time. When legislation comes before us, we have to consider complex issues and sort out what is right at the time.
The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill is an enabling bill, so many of the issues that we have debated today will come before the Parliament again. I hope that there will be full consultation with the committees and an opportunity for maximum input. The secondary legislation on some issues will take a few years to come through, as has been discussed, but we hope that the Government will bring forward many of the most important provisions, which we have celebrated today, as soon as possible.
Part 1 of the bill is on animal health, which is extremely important to the livestock industry and the wider agricultural sector in Scotland, both socially and economically. That is why part 1 is so important. It is horrible to contemplate the idea that we could experience another outbreak of an exotic disease, but of course Scotland has been through that as recently as 2001; we also had the recent avian flu scare. The bill gives ministers huge powers of slaughter and we urge the minister to use them wisely should there be a call for him to do so.
Amendment 1 sought to insert the following provision:
"Before exercising a power of slaughter conferred by paragraphs 1 to 6 the Scottish Ministers must be satisfied, on the basis of veterinary and scientific advice, that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the spread of disease."
The amendment was defeated by only four votes. The Parliament sent the Government a message on the issue. The minister must be aware that the committee and members from all political parties take the matter seriously and believe that a condition should have been attached to the licence to kill that the Parliament has given ministers. The images of bonfires of burning carcases that we saw in 2001 were not popular. We are not complaining about the fact that such scenes took place, but we all want to make sure that steps are taken to ensure that they are not repeated and that the power to slaughter is regarded as a power of last resort.
Part 2 of the bill is on animal welfare. Like others, we welcome the introduction of a duty of care on those who keep animals and the powers that the bill gives inspectors to seize animals who are suffering or to make pre-emptive moves to seize animals that are likely to suffer. That is a welcome step forward. Society generally is becoming a lot more intolerant of animal cruelty, and that is reflected in the bill.
I—indeed, we—must pay tribute to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with which many of us spent a day in the run-up to stage 1, for its work to promote animal welfare and prevent cruelty wherever possible.
I hope that the deputy minister will refer to resources, particularly for local government, which have been mentioned. COSLA and others have said that until the secondary legislation is produced, they will not know what resources are required to meet their obligations under that legislation. I hope that the dialogue will continue with local government.
One issue that has not really been discussed today but which was discussed at stage 1 is the need to prevent diseases from entering Scotland in the first place—that relates to preventing the spread of diseases under part 1. To prevent diseases from entering Scotland, the Parliament needs powers to prevent the importation of illegal meat, for example, which was a big issue during the foot-and-mouth outbreak in 2001. I am interested to hear from the deputy minister what our Government is doing to ensure that our ports of entry in Scotland are policed and made secure against the importation of illegal meat and other items that could bring exotic diseases into Scotland.
House of Commons committees have made many recommendations, some of which have been implemented and some of which have not been implemented. I would welcome ministers' feedback on those important issues, because the best way to prevent diseases from spreading in Scotland is to stop them from arriving in Scotland.
The Scottish National Party commends the bill to Parliament.
This afternoon, we have come to the end of a legislative process that began with the partnership agreement commitment to introduce animal welfare legislation in this parliamentary session.
I thank all members for what has been at times a passionate debate. For the record, I give special thanks to the stakeholders who worked closely with us on the bill, both constructively and critically, and I draw special attention to the SSPCA and the British Veterinary Association in that regard.
The bill provides us with the flexibility to deal with an exotic animal disease outbreak and a solid framework for animal welfare legislation in Scotland for the next 100 years. Our initial proposals attracted widespread support and elicited many useful contributions and, as members have said, the parliamentary process has allowed us to refine the bill to reflect issues when appropriate.
I will touch on some of the more controversial issues that relate to the bill. Ross Finnie spoke of the disease control slaughter statement, which must explain why a decision to slaughter to prevent disease spread has been made before any measures are taken. We know that a decision to slaughter animals can have far-reaching consequences and is therefore never taken lightly. We believe that the bill as amended will provide the process for making a decision to slaughter with the necessary transparency for Parliament and the public.
One of the most controversial issues in relation to the animal welfare part of the bill has been the docking of dogs' tails. Like Ross Finnie, I accept that sincere opposing views are held on that matter, but I must state that it was the stage 1 evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee that persuaded the Executive that no conclusive case existed for an exemption to allow the docking of working dogs.
Other matters have been raised further through the parliamentary process, such as electric shock collars, and I believe that we have taken the correct approach to such issues. We have listened carefully to the arguments, examined the evidence and agreed to take action where necessary.
The bill represents the most significant revision of animal welfare legislation for almost 100 years, and it is understandable that animal welfare organisations and animal interest groups have used the opportunity to raise the profile of topics. As members have mentioned, the framework approach of the welfare part of the bill enables those topics to be dealt with in secondary legislation, which is entirely appropriate. Using secondary legislation will allow us to respond quickly to future advances in animal welfare without having to wait for a suitable gap in the timetable for primary legislation.
We have not touched on some important principles in the bill that I feel deserve a mention. One is that responsibility for animals must lie with adults—Sarah Boyack mentioned that. The bill makes it clear that parents or guardians are responsible in law for the treatment of their children's animals.
It is also important that the bill allows inspectors for the first time to take pre-emptive action to remove an animal from situations in which it is likely to suffer. That is a significant step forward from the existing law, which allows action to be taken only after an animal has suffered.
We have listened throughout the legislative process and consequently amended the bill in a number of ways. We have clarified the offence of abandonment and increased the range of penalties that it attracts; introduced care notices to be served by an inspector where they believe that doing so is appropriate; increased the penalties that are available for the most serious acts of animal abuse; and introduced offences relating to recordings of animal fights. There has been criticism that the animal fight recording provision does not go far enough—some people want an offence of simply possessing an animal fight recording to be created—but I hope that we have reassured members that there should be an opportunity to consider the possession of recordings of animal fights in the context of the work on extreme pornography.
Sarah Boyack was right: delivering the bill is only the first step. In the next few years, our officials will undertake a huge programme of secondary legislation that will include in the first instance provisions on mutilations, pet animal dealers, animal sanctuaries, livery yards, riding establishments, travelling circuses, animal gatherings, pet fairs and animal boarding establishments. We have brought forward the timing for regulations on animal sanctuaries following the issue's high profile in committee, and, following concerns that have been raised, we intend to consult further on issues such as electric shock collars and the private keeping of unusual pets.
I reassure Irene Oldfather that we will keep a close eye on the current European Union review of the sentience of cephalopods and crustaceans. If evidence becomes available, the Executive will, of course, consider those findings and review our policy.
The bill will begin to make its true contribution to improving animal health and welfare in Scotland through the delivery of that programme of secondary legislation. The Executive is committed to meeting the challenge that has been presented, and I know that the committee is looking forward to working with us in that respect.
I commend the motion to the Parliament.
Earlier, we extended the time for proceedings by 10 minutes, which means that decision time will be at 17.10. I therefore suspend the meeting for just over a minute.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—