Animal Health Fixed Penalty Notice Scheme: consultation analysis

Executive Summary

The Scottish Government carried out a public consultation on proposals for an animal health fixed penalty notice (FPN) scheme between 7 March 2025 and 30 May 2025.

This report presents an analysis of the 69 consultation responses received. 53 responses were from individuals and 16 from organisations. Respondents were roughly split into three groups: those that agreed with FPNs and advocated for their use, those that could see the benefits of FPNs but remained cautious about proposals, and those that were against the introduction of FPNs for animal health offences. Two organisations were against the introduction of FPNs, but all other organisations agreed with FPNs or could see the benefits of having them as an enforcement option.

A number of responses throughout the consultation, commonly from those that agreed with FPNs and advocated for their use, mentioned animal welfare. Although animal health and animal welfare are linked, offences that relate specifically to animal welfare are outwith the scope of the animal health FPN scheme^[1].

The consultation was split into three sections and contained 28 questions. Section 1 of the consultation explored the general characteristics that were proposed for the Animal Health FPN scheme. This included considerations for who should be empowered to issue FPNs and how they would be issued, how FPNs would be paid and the effect of doing so, and how FPNs could be appealed or withdrawn. Respondents broadly:

• Agreed that all inspectors currently involved in the enforcement of animal health legislation should be empowered to issue FPNs. Respondents generally disagreed that we should allow FPNs to be issued electronically
• Supported the proposal that when a FPN has been issued and has not been paid by the end of the payment period, the matter should be referred to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Respondents agreed that the payment period should be 28 days and supported the proposal to allow those issuing FPNs to extend the payment period if they considered it appropriate to do so. However, respondents generally did not consider there to be any circumstances where a shorter payment period would be necessary
• Agreed that FPNs should be paid to and retained by the issuing enforcement agency
• Supported the proposal that appeals should be made in writing before the end of the payment period to the enforcement agency that issued the notice. However, respondents broadly disagreed that unsuccessful appeals should be automatically referred to COPFS^[2].
• Agreed that it should be an offence to obstruct an enforcing officer when that person is gathering information about an alleged offender for the purposes of reaching a decision about whether a FPN should be issued and that it should be an offence to obstruct the service of a FPN. Respondents also agreed that the maximum penalty for obstruction offences should be, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale

Section 2 of the consultation considered the proposed penalty levels and amounts that should be applicable for the animal health FPN scheme, and the circumstances in which a penalty amount could be increased or decreased. Respondents broadly:

• Agreed that £100 was the right amount for the minimum penalty, but disagreed that £1,000 was the right amount for the maximum penalty (respondents considered this to be too low)
• Agreed that the animal health FPN scheme should have multiple levels of penalty and agreed that the amount proposed for Level 1 (£100), Level 5 (£500) and Level 6 (£750) were the right amount. However, respondents generally disagreed with the amount proposed for Level 2 (£150), Level 3 (£200), Level 4 (£300), and Level 7 (£1,000) as they considered the amount to be too low
• Agreed with the principle of scale of harm for animal health offences, where FPN levels are proportionate to the risk of disease spread associated with the circumstances of the offence. Respondents also agreed that the scale of harm, which would be based on the number of animals, proportion of herd/flock traded and disease presence in the establishment, area or country, would strike a balance of simplicity and proportionality to risk in a scale of harm FPN model
• Agreed with the proposed escalation process, where FPNs issued for second offences are double the value of the first, and third offences are automatically referred to COPFS. Respondents also agreed that three years would be an appropriate time period for considering second and third offences
• Were split on whether the FPN amount should be discounted if it is paid early but disagreed that the discount for early repayment should be as much as 50%. However, respondents broadly agreed that if a discount is offered for early repayment, then the early repayment period should be 14 days
• Agreed with the partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) conclusion that there will be minimal cost impact in the introduction of the FPN scheme

Section 3 of consultation considered the legislation that meets the FPN criteria and the proposed offences that should be eligible for FPNs. In general, respondents:

• Supported the proposal that FPNs should be introduced for selected pieces of legislation initially before being expanded to cover more animal health legislation that meets the criteria set out in the FPN power
• Agreed with the high priority offences and identified some offences from legislation that does not meet FPN criteria but that would benefit from having the ability to offer a FPN in order to aid enforcement. Some respondents also suggested circumstances where an offence may occur but where a FPN should not be applicable
• Provided comments on the interaction between FPNs and Cross Compliance, with a small number noting that they have equally important purposes, whilst a few were concerned about the interaction.

Overall, there is broad support for the proposals in the consultation. The views and ideas shared by those that participated have provided useful information to help finalise plans for the animal health FPN scheme. Scottish Ministers have therefore decided to bring forward a Scottish Statutory Instrument (SSI) to introduce the animal health FPN scheme broadly following the proposals set out within the consultation.

The partial BRIA has been updated and finalised based on responses received. The final impact assessment will be published alongside the SSI.