Chamber and committees

I know that we could do that, but I do not know the details. How would we do that?

I am pleased to appear before the committee to discuss the Animal Health (Fixed Penalty Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2026. These regulations introduce a new enforcement tool for the relevant enforcement bodies to address specific breaches of animal and bee health legislation.

Under the regulations, fixed-penalty notices are financial penalties that may be offered to a person believed to have committed a relevant offence under the Animal Health Act 1981 or the Bees Act 1980 by breaching a relevant requirement. They are intended as an alternative to referring the case to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for consideration of criminal prosecution under the relevant legislation.

We acknowledge that FPNs will not be appropriate in all circumstances, particularly where there has been repeat offending or a more serious breach of animal or bee health requirements. We have therefore consulted on and given careful consideration to the relevant requirements that have been included in the regulations. The intention is that FPNs will be issued by authorised officers in circumstances that might not merit prosecution but where enforcement action should still be taken in order to protect animal or bee health.

It is important to note that the regulations introduce a power for authorised officers to issue an FPN when relevant requirements are believed to have been breached, but there is no obligation on the officer to do so. Instead, the authorised officer will be able to decide whether to issue an FPN in each case or whether other enforcement action might be more appropriate. For example, there might be circumstances in which the officer considers that verbal advice or a written warning is likely to be sufficient to resolve the issue. FPNs will therefore complement existing enforcement options rather than replace them. Prosecution will remain an option for more serious or repeat offending.

There are several reasons why we are introducing FPNs. They provide a proportionate enforcement tool, ensuring that enforcement action is fair and balanced. They allow for quicker resolution of cases, reducing the burden on enforcement agencies and courts of cases taken forward for prosecution. They encourage compliance without imposing the stigma or resource demands of a criminal conviction. They also have the potential to act as an additional deterrent in support of enforcement bodies, correcting behaviour or encouraging compliance with regulations more quickly. Finally, they help to maintain consistency and fairness by offering a clear, structured alternative to prosecution. In short, FPNs strengthen the enforcement framework by providing an additional, flexible option that supports compliance while preserving the ability to take stronger action when necessary.

The regulations set out the framework for how FPNs will operate. They identify the authorities that will be empowered to issue FPNs and explain the process for issuing them, as well as the circumstances in which an FPN cannot be issued. They detail how an FPN can be paid and the effect of payment, the process for appealing or withdrawing a notice, and the procedure for notifying an intention not to pay. They specify the relevant requirements and offences in relation to which a FPN can be issued, the relevant penalty levels and amounts, and the circumstances in which a penalty amount could be increased or decreased.

In addition, the regulations create an offence of obstructing an authorised officer exercising functions in relation to FPNs. They also amend the Animal Health Act 1981 and the Bees Act 1980 to exclude the payment period for a FPN from the time limit for bringing criminal proceedings for an offence.

I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions the committee may have.

This is a health issue rather than a welfare one, and it should be clear that the two things are legislated for separately. The regulations relate directly to health issues rather than welfare issues. I put that on the record because you asked about welfare as opposed to health.

I would always expect education to be the first port of call. If, for instance, somebody goes on to a farm and finds health-related issues, the first thing that should happen is a conversation. The ability to issue an FPN is an additional tool in the box, but I would expect it to be used only if, as a result of having that conversation—that education, if you want to call it that—it is felt that somebody who is being asked to do something does not give the required response. The FPN is there so that, if somebody turns up at a farm and says, “You have not done this, and it would be better if you did,” and the response is, “Not interested,” it can be issued.

Those are precisely the kind of things that I want to be sure that we have got around. Carole Stewart nodded when you set out that example, so she clearly understands it; it might already be in the code.

Transport Scotland would have to take a view on the situation. It is not an automatic—

I asked the very same question during meetings in the early stages about whether the removal of a bus pass was necessary. The operators, passenger organisations, this committee and members in the chamber asked us to look at the removal of a bus pass as a result of people’s antisocial behaviour. Yes, the operators have the ability to use their conditions of carriage. I made that point on a number of occasions when we were having early discussions, but we were asked to introduce the ability to remove a bus pass because people thought that that would solve the problem with antisocial behaviour, and that is what we have now done.

I take on board the point that Kevin Stewart makes.

All those things that you said, particularly about context, are vitally important to making sure that we get the code right.

We are not disagreeing on the principle of being able to remove the entitlement to travel. As I said, we have just received the response from Young Scot. Again, I apologise for not having the code in front of me, but I wanted to be sure that we could get as many of the potential problems, issues, loopholes and concerns fed into it as possible. I am finding this meeting incredibly useful, because we can now feed some of the points that have been raised into what the code will look like, and the code will then come back to the committee.

I would dispute that young people have not been consulted. They have been consulted.