Scottish Government

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 'PROPOSALS TO REVISE EXISTING ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION'

The structure of the written responses

The consultation document was structured in a way which promoted consistency in the form responses were received. Many of the responses were broadly organised around the 19 subject areas listed in it. They followed the general format of the document and discussed issues in the order listed. A number also made comments on subjects that had not been specifically raised. Responses ranged from short letters, under a page in length, to long discussion papers, with much detail on each of the proposals which extended to tens of pages. Some sent supporting attachments which included guidance documents and videos.

There was a close relationship between the status of the responder and the manner in which they responded to the consultation document. A total of 135 individuals who responded wrote on only one subject. Their responses were largely confined to the single most-widely discussed subject, tail docking and mutilations. Most organisations and businesses wrote on a number of specific subjects, and in many cases on all the 19 subjects listed in the document while a number of further organisations from across a broad range of sectors discussed a range of specific subjects. Indeed, their introductory letters pointed out that they were responding on areas which affected their organisation and their members and that they believed that by responding in this way, they would provide an authoritative response, based on their knowledge and experience. Responses from local authorities and welfare organisations were the widest ranging, with nearly all of them commenting on all or most subjects. These responses were informed by their extensive work with existing animal welfare legislation. In one or two instances they noted the extent of their experience with subjects raised in the consultation.

Table 3 shows the number of responses to each question (or subject area) in the consultation document. Tail docking and mutilation was the subject raised most frequently, with a total of 232 responses or 68 per cent of responders commenting on it. All other subjects had between 55 and 103 responses, or a response rate of between 16.9 per cent and 31.6 per cent. The lowest number of responses were for relatively specialist areas that affected a specific type of activity, establishment or species of animal. Three of the lowest response rates related to the subjects on equines, the shoeing of horses ('couping'), tethering and livery stables and yards. Markets had one of the smallest response rates. Subjects relating to pets, including specific types of species (dangerous wild animals or exotic or dangerous animals as pets), and methods of sale had the highest response rates. In this subject area, the lowest response rate was recorded for pet fairs and exotic or dangerous animals as pets, specialist areas within the pet sector, while the broader subjects of pet shops and the sale of young companion or pet animals, which have attracted a range of media attention within recent months and have been the subject of review by animal welfare organisations, attracted the highest interest. The subject of pet shops received one of the highest number of responses (100), though this figure was much smaller than that of docking and mutilations. Two of the fundamental subjects which will form basic underlying principles in the new legislation, the definition of animal and the obligation to ensure good welfare, also had high response rates, with that of the definition having the highest number of responses.

Table 3. Response rates for the different subject areas in the written consultation paper by overall number of responders

The responses included a number of collective responses which took a number of forms. The first was the circular letter:

• One canine organisation issued a circular letter to its members informing them of the consultation and the open consultation meetings. It stated its stance on tail docking and the way that the Executive should take this subject forward. Eight responders, all individuals, submitted identical copies of this circular letter.

• A circular letter was issued on docking and mutilations and was circulated by email around south-east England, especially in the counties of Kent and Sussex. The 23 responses, all sent in by individuals by e-mail, were not identical but followed very similar lines of argument and included a photograph of the owner's dog. The majority of these responses were also submitted within a very short time period.

• A campaign also took place in the Caithness and Caithness-Sutherland border area. Nine responses on the subject of docking were submitted, most of which were issued within a few days of one another.

• In another five instances, the same response was submitted by two individuals. Two of these were submitted by a husband and wife, and a further one by two individuals. Among the organisations, the same response was issued by a national canine organisation and a regional office, from a breed club and a local canine club and a further one was issued by a local authority body and a police force. This last one was an extensive response.

The second collective response was the petition. This related to the subject of docking and mutilations:

• Three separate petitions were submitted, two from Scotland, and a third one from Wales. The Welsh petition, submitted by a canine breed organisation, had the same name of sponsor as the organiser of one of the Scottish petitions. Although it stated that it was a United Kingdom wide petition, the addresses were recorded from only England and Wales. The third petition was collected from individuals throughout Scotland. Each petition was well supported. The Welsh one had 94 names, the Scottish one with a United Kingdom jurisdiction had 223 names and the Scotland-wide one had 97 names.

In addition to these collective responses, it was evident that a number of responses had been circulated among a range of responders. For example, a number of the local authorities, their representative body and police forces, had circulated their responses and drew on their collective experience. A number of their responses on subjects were the same or very similar. Responders also noted that they agreed with the recommendations and conclusions that had been recorded in a response issued by another organisation.