Scottish Government

Consultation on amendments to the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007

The majority of the provisions of the Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (the "2006 Act") came into force 6 ^th October 2006. Section 20 of the Act contains a ban on "mutilations", except for medical reasons, as it was considered incompatible with the Act's aim of promoting responsible ownership of animals to permit owners to mutilate them or have them mutilated for non-medical purposes.

"Mutilations" are defined as "prohibited procedures" in Section 20(4) of the 2006 Act, being procedures which involve interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structures of an animal.

The Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 ("the 2007 Regulations") were made under the 2006 Act and came into force on 21 March 2007. The 2007 Regulations exempt a range of procedures, commonly used for farming or conservation purposes, from the application of the mutilations ban. Stakeholders were consulted on these Regulations and were asked to make a case for exempting procedures that they commonly used.

Since the 2007 Regulations came into force it has come to our attention that not all commonly used procedures have been listed in the Schedules to the Regulations, in particular, procedures for the control of reproduction and wing-tagging. In addition the Scottish Government's veterinary advisers have pointed out that the spaying of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, deer and horses, for non-medical reasons, should not be allowed and should be deleted from the relevant Schedules. It should be noted that these issues were not flagged up by stakeholders during the original consultation for the 2007 Regulations.

Consultation

Section 20(5) contains powers for Scottish Ministers to make regulations specifying procedures which will be exempt from the application of the mutilations ban. Under section 20(6) they must consult such persons as appear to have an interest before making regulations under section 20(5). Regulations made under section 20(5) may be amended and the duty to consult in section 20(6) also applies to the amending regulations.

The purpose of this consultation is to determine whether the named procedures should be added to (or in one case removed from) the list of exempted procedures for specific types of animals and for specific purposes. We are therefore proposing to amend the 2007 Regulations by inserting certain new permitted procedures on the basis that they are either recognised management practices or secure an overall welfare benefit. Responses will be used to determine whether any changes are required to the proposed amendments and the resulting draft Scottish Statutory Instrument will be fully considered by the Scottish Parliament

It should also be noted that the consultation is on the proposed amendments to the regulations only; we are not seeking comments on existing exempted mutilations already detailed in the legislation.

Scope

Any Regulations subsequently drawn up will apply in Scotland only. England and Wales are proposing similar amendments to their own legislation. The definition of a "mutilation" (referred to as a "prohibited procedure" in section 20 of the Act) excludes any procedures performed for medical treatment. Any procedure, whether listed or not in the Regulations, will continue to be permitted if performed for an animal's medical treatment. Such procedures are not within the scope of this consultation.

This consultation is of 8 weeks duration. This is because it is important to have the amended regulations in time of the next sheep and goat breeding season and to allow the wing tagging of young birds for conservation and breeding purposes. A shortened consultation period is also seen as acceptable as the amendments are of a technical nature and will only be of interest to a small number of stakeholders. In addition, the original consultation on the Regulations was carried out about this time last year so what we are proposing now is a re-consultation requiring a less wide-ranging consultation.

How to respond

As per the covering letter please send your responses to:

Iain Holt

By e-mail to animal.health@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
By fax to 0131 244 6616

The closing date for responses is 28 February 2008

Amendments to the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007

Procedures for controlling reproduction

Proposal

It is proposed to amend the Schedules to the above Regulations to include the following procedures:

• Ovum transfer (for all animals where embryo transfer is already permitted)
• Laparoscopic insemination for the purpose of breed improvement programmes only (for sheep and goats only)
• Implantation of a subcutaneous contraceptive for non-farmed animals as part of a conservation programme (e.g. zoo animals)
• Castration, ovidectomy and vasectomy in non-farmed birds in relation to conservation breeding
• It is also proposed to amend the Schedules to the above Regulations to exclude the following procedure:
• Spaying of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, deer and horses

Reasons for proposal

The Scottish Government considers ovum transfer a legitimate procedure that may be used in some circumstances, in relation to the improvement of certain types of farmed livestock and for conservation breeding. Since the Regulations came into force it has come to our attention that ovum transfer is a recognised technique therefore we wish to gauge the level of use of this procedure and any welfare implications for the animals involved. It should be noted that the current Regulations already permit embryo transfer.

Laparoscopic insemination is used mainly in sheep and goat breed improvement programmes due to their particular anatomy making other forms of artificial insemination impossible. It is therefore felt that this procedure is sufficiently necessary for sheep and goat breed improvement programmes to justify lifting the ban in this context.

We also believe there is a need to allow the implantation of a subcutaneous contraceptive for non-farmed animals for conservation purposes particularly for animals kept in zoos. Contraceptives are used in conservation breeding programmes to maintain genetic diversity within species or breeds by controlling reproduction of individual animals and avoiding unwanted offspring.

Similarly we believe there is a need to allow castration, ovidectomy and vasectomy in non-farmed birds as a method of controlling reproduction in relation to conservation breeding programmes. Such methods are used in conservation breeding programmes to maintain genetic diversity within species or breeds by controlling reproduction of individual animals and avoiding unwanted offspring.

In addition our veterinary advisors have pointed out that there is no need or justifiable reason to allow the routine spaying of cattle, sheep, pigs goats deer and horses. This procedure is rarely, if ever, performed on these species.

Question 1: Ovum transfer

(a) Do you agree that ovum transfer should be exempt from the mutilations ban?
(b) Do you agree that the exemption should be extended to all animals where embryo transfer is already permitted?
(c) Do you agree that it should only be permitted when anaesthetic is used?

Question 2: Laparoscopic insemination

(a) Do you agree that laparoscopic insemination should be exempt from the mutilations ban?
(b) Do you agree that the exemption should only apply to sheep and goats?
(c) Do you agree that it should only be permitted when anaesthetic is used and when it is for the purpose of a breed improvement programme?

Question 3: Implantation of subcutaneous contraceptives

(a) Do you agree that the implantation of subcutaneous contraceptives should be exempt from the mutilations ban?
(b) Do you agree that the exemption should only apply to non-farmed animals?
(c) Do you agree that it should only be permitted when anaesthetic is used and when it is for the purpose of a conservation programme?

Question 4:

(a) Do you agree that the castration, ovidectomy and vasectomy should be exempt from the mutilations ban?
(b) Do you agree that the exemption should only apply to non-farmed birds?
(c) Do you agree that it should only be permitted when anaesthetic is used and when it is for the purpose of a conservation breeding programme?

Question 5:

(a) Are there any other requirements you would like to see in place when carrying out these procedures?

Question 6:

(a) Do you agree that spaying of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, deer and horses should be considered as an unnecessary mutilation and be banned?
(b) Do you agree that the ban should only apply to cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, deer and horses?

Identification procedures

Proposals

It is proposed to amend the Schedules to the above Regulations to include the following procedures:

• The wing-tagging of non-farmed birds for conservation purposes
• The wing-tagging of farmed birds kept for breeding purposes

Reasons for proposals

In drawing up the 2007 Regulations it was felt that there were alternatives to wing-tagging of birds kept for farming purposes which did not constitute a mutilation, for instance leg rings. Since the Regulations came into force however, we have been advised that wing-tagging of birds for conservation purposes is an essential procedure in reintroduction programmes for certain species. Leg rings cannot be used for birds of prey, for example, as their relatively short legs render the rings insufficiently visible. It is felt that the welfare benefit to endangered birds under reintroduction programmes outweighs the welfare cost of any temporary discomfort to the bird resulting from wing-tagging. Similarly we have received information from the poultry industry that wing-tagging of breeding birds is a routine procedure and the simplest method of permanent identification of individual birds as there are practical difficulties in changing leg rings as birds grow and having to catch and handle birds to read leg rings.

Question 7: Wing-tagging

(a) Do you agree that wing-tagging should be exempt from the mutilations ban?
(b) Do you agree that it should be exempt for conservation purposes?
(c) Do you agree that it should be exempt for poultry breeding purposes?
(d) Do you agree that it can be carried out by a layman?
(e) Do you agree that it can be carried out without anaesthetic?