Chamber and committees

Yes. I get that some responses were not entirely supportive. We do not have all the details about why some people were not supportive of the regulations, although we can hazard a guess. However, I am confident that we have done the required work to make sure that the FPN legislation that is in front of you today is proportionate.

We will review that as we go along. I am looking at my officials, but I do not think that there is anything specific at the moment that says that we will look at them. If the SSI is approved, the fact that we have the power means that that will be a decision that will have to be taken two, five or 10 years down the line, depending on the circumstances at that time.

I will turn to Eilidh Wallace to answer those questions.

Currently, you would appeal to the authority that issued the FPN, but you would be dealing with a different person. If you wanted to appeal a notice that you had been issued by someone who had visited the farm or the hive, you would go back to the same authorising body, but a different person would consider whether the FPN was justified.

Yes, the penalties are proportionate. By and large, people do not want to commit crime—they do not want to do anything wrong. There are any number of circumstances in which people might get themselves into a difficult situation because they have not done something, perhaps because they ran out of time or because other things are going on in their lives. Proportionality is about us saying that we can impose the FPN.

I believe that the penalties are proportionate and in line with expectations. If, however, there is persistent and repeat offending, that is a different conversation. We now have an extra tool in the box—issuing an FPN—that we can use if someone does not comply. If they get it once, that will probably be more than enough, because they will have to pay money out of their pocket, which they will not want to do. I hope, however, that people will just get on with doing the things that they need to do instead of getting an FPN in the first place.

I will turn the question around. Do you have a concern about the early payment discount?

Okay. I see your point, but, as I said at the start, I hope that we will get to a position in which FPNs will not be needed, because the issues will have been resolved in the first place.

If early payment is an option, people might think, “Okay, I’ve crossed the line, so I’ll make an early payment to get this done, but I’m not going to allow it to happen again.” The SSI is not about prosecuting people for the sake of catching people; it is about allowing us to have negotiations with people in which we say, “This is the situation. This is the law that you have to comply with. We are giving you every opportunity to do that. If you do that, we’ll be fine.” We need to provide something to allow us to have that conversation.

People might be in the guts of lambing and calving, so there will be circumstances in which people physically cannot make a payment.

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.