Animal Health Fixed Penalty Notice Scheme: consultation analysis

Responses to the consultation questions

Section 1: General Characteristics of the Animal Health FPN Scheme

This section 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FPNs and how they would be issued, how FPNs would be paid and the effect of doing so, and how FPNs could be appealed or withdrawn.

Question 1: Do you agree that all inspectors currently involved in the enforcement of animal health legislation should be empowered to issue FPNs under the animal health FPN scheme?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	41	59.42%
No	23	33.33%
Don't know	4	5.80%
Not Answered	1	1.45%

Of those that responded to this question, the majority (60.29%) agreed that all inspectors currently involved in the enforcement of animal health legislation should be empowered to issue FPNs under the animal health FPN scheme. 33.33% of respondents disagreed, and 5.8% said they don’t know.

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide reasons for their answer, with 36 respondents providing additional comments.

Of those that agreed with the proposal, some respondents suggested this would streamline processes and ensure issues would be resolved quickly. Of those that disagreed, two respondents commented on the role of government employees. Whilst one respondent considered that government employees should not be allowed to issue fines and that this should be reserved for the legal system, another respondent suggested that a single government agency should be responsible for issuing fines to ensure a standardised process.

The training of inspectors and concerns regarding consistency in how FPNs would be used was raised by some respondents that agreed, disagreed, and were unsure about the proposal. A small number commented on the need for guidance and training to be provided. In addition, one respondent suggested that “all issuers should have their FPNs calibrated periodically to ensure standards are adhered to”, whilst another suggested that a report should be published showing the number of FPNs issued and whether any previous enforcement action had been taken.

Although this question asked about animal health inspectors that should be empowered to issue FPNs, many respondents used this question to provide comments on the concept of animal health FPNs generally. Several respondents agreed with FPNs, suggesting they would be an appropriate enforcement sanction. Several respondents disagreed with FPNs, with one individual commenting that “the introduction of an FPN process risks bringing in an enforcement route that would be better dealt with by education and does not address animal health or welfare.

If there is sufficient evidence of criminality they should be referred to COPFS.”

Question 2: Do you think we should allow FPNs to be issued electronically (i.e. by email)?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	31	44.93%
No	32	46.38%
Don't Know	5	7.25%
Not Answered	1	1.45%

Marginally more respondents that answered the question disagreed (47.06%) that we should allow FPNs to be issued electronically than agreed (45.59%). 7.35% of respondents said they don’t know.

27 respondents provided additional comments.

Several respondents that agreed and disagreed highlighted risks in using email to deliver a FPN, including concerns of fraudulent activity and risks that it may not be delivered or that it could be more easily ignored than a hard copy. Those that agreed with the proposal suggested measures to reduce risk including requirements to check junk/spam folders, tracking emails to ensure they had been opened, requiring confirmation of receipt, and if confirmation is not received within a set period that a hard copy of the FPN should be sent by post or hand delivered.

Some respondents noted the accessibility of email, with one respondent against the proposal citing concerns that it may not be suitable for elderly or disabled individuals. Others that agreed suggested that the accessibility of email could be a positive as it would provide flexibility. West Lothian Council commented that it “will allow greater flexibility in issuing the FPN. It can be difficult at times to locate individuals in person to serve the notice.”

A few respondents commented on the benefits of utilising new technology, with one organisation suggesting that “if implemented correctly, this is a more immediate form of communication and should give greater certainty that they’ll receive and read the notice within the time period (for example they may be on an extended holiday).”

Question 3: Where a FPN has been issued in relation to an alleged animal health offence, do you support the proposal that the matter should be referred to COPFS if the FPN has not been paid by the end of payment period?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	46	66.67%
No	19	27.54%
Don't know	3	4.35%
Not Answered	1	1.45%

Overall, the majority of respondents that answered this question (67.65%) 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 COPFS. 27.94% of respondents disagreed, whilst 4.41% said they don’t know.

34 respondents provided comments alongside their answer.

Many of the comments agreed that the proposal was reasonable and proportionate, and reflected the serious nature of animal health offences. NFU Scotland commented “FPNs should only be issued as an alternative to prosecution, where there is sufficient evidence to merit prosecution. It therefore makes sense that if someone fails to appeal or make payment within the allotted time the next step could be referral for prosecution.”

Several respondents provided alternative suggestions such as increased penalties for late payments and referring unpaid penalties to debt collection agencies. A small number of respondents suggested that FPNs should only be referred to COPFS if the enforcement agency was certain that the FPN had been received.

Some respondents that disagreed with the concept of FPNs reiterated their opinion that existing enforcement measures could be used. One individual commented that “If it warrants a prosecution then a fixed penalty should not be issued, they should just be prosecuted”.

Question 4: Do you agree that the payment period should be 28 days?

Option	Total	Percent
I agree - The payment period should be 28 days	39	56.52%
I disagree - The payment period should be more than 28 days	20	28.99%
I disagree - The payment period should be less than 28 days	6	8.70%
Not Answered	4	5.80%

65 consultees responded to this question, with the majority (60%) agreeing that the payment period should be 28 days. 30.77% thought the payment period should be more than 28 days, whilst 9.23% thought the payment period should be less than 28 days.

There were 28 additional comments from respondents.

Several respondents agreed that a 28-day payment period was reasonable and in line with timescales used for FPNs in other areas. One organisation commented that “a period of 28 days is appropriate, particularly where a FPN has been issued by post, as it can take time for it to be delivered.”

Some respondents thought the payment period should be longer than 28 days, with a small number suggesting this would account for any financial difficulties experienced by the offender, whilst two respondents suggested that it should vary depending on the offence and penalty amount. Respondents suggested alternative time scales of 6 weeks, 60 or 90 days. Shetland Animal Health Schemes noted “60 days would be a reasonable time period to allow for extremely busy periods in the farmers year such as lambing, calving, harvesting. If a suitable reminder system could be put in place which would include option for farmers and crofters to be reminded by text message it would be helpful.”

Two respondents considered a shorter payment period necessary to ensure fast enforcement and encourage compliance.

Question 5: Do you support the proposal that those issuing FPNs should have discretion to extend the payment period in any particular case if the person considers it appropriate to do so?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	40	57.97%
No	21	30.43%
Don't know	6	8.70%
Not Answered	2	2.90%

Of those that answered this question, the majority (59.7%) supported the proposal to allow those issuing FPNs to extend the payment period if they considered it appropriate to do so. 31.34% disagreed with the proposal, whilst 9.23% were unsure.

There were 31 additional comments made by respondents.

Some respondents raised concerns that this proposal could be applied inconsistently. One respondent that disagreed with the proposal commented that “28 days is a reasonable period, and the fees are low - introducing discretion without strict regulation will end up making an imbalanced system.” Two respondents that agreed with the proposal suggested well defined circumstances would be necessary to reduce the risk of inconsistencies.

Some respondents noted that the proposal could be useful in certain circumstances including cases where the keeper is facing financial difficulties, or bereavement or injury. One respondent commented that there “could be personal problems such as bereavement or injury which would be taken into account in any normal court procedures”.

A small number of respondents questioned whether this proposal was necessary, with one commenting that “if person inspecting can see or know reasons why there needs to be an extension. Then it is their discretion not to issue in the first place and issue a warning letter instead?”

Question 6: Are there any circumstances where you feel a shorter payment period would be necessary?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	22	31.88%
No	29	42.03%
Don't know	16	23.19%
Not Answered	2	2.90%

43.28% of respondents that answered this question did not consider there to be any circumstances where a shorter payment period would be necessary, whilst 32.84% thought there could be circumstances warranting a shorter payment period, and 23.88% were unsure.

20 respondents went on to provide further comments.

Some respondents suggested that a shorter payment period could be necessary for those not resident in the UK. An individual highlighted that “shorter payment period may be necessary where the person served with the FPN is not a resident of the UK and it may be necessary to consider alternative course of action quicker if nonpayment is a possibility.” Two respondents suggested using shorter payment periods for repeat offenders.

Of those that considered a shorter payment period unnecessary, two respondents noted that payment periods need to be sufficient before proceeding to further action and that “people have the right to sufficient time to consider a FPN”.

Question 7: Do you agree that FPNs should be paid to and retained by the enforcement agency that issued the notice?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	32	46.38%
No	28	40.58%
Don't know	7	10.14%
Not Answered	2	2.90%

Of those that responded to this question, 47.76% agreed that FPNs should be paid to and retained by the enforcement agency. 41.70% of respondents disagreed, whilst 10.45% were unsure.

38 respondents provided further comments.

Several respondents raised concerns that FPNs would become an income generator for enforcement agencies^[3]. One respondent commented that “who retains the payment will determine how aggressively fines are issued. Particularly if it becomes a critical part of the department’s budget”, whilst another suggested “tying FPNs directly to agency budgets could unfairly weight the likelihood of an agency issuing FPNs based on it's budget constraints”.

Several respondents suggested that income generated from FPNs should be utilised for animal health education and enforcement. Whilst some respondents argued that, once costs had been deducted, money should be pooled into a central resource and redistributed nationally for animal health causes, others argued that the money should be retained by the enforcement agency, but ring fenced for animal health enforcement budgets. The National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) commented:

“Ideally, we would like to see the money recycled back into animal health budgets. Given one of the industry’s big concern is the lack of resources available for enforcement of important animal health legislation, it should be retained by the enforcement agency with a requirement that it stayed within the department responsible for enforcement of animal health rules.”

A small number of respondents suggested money raised from FPNs should be used to improve animal welfare by distributing to animal welfare charities such as the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) or to charities abroad.

Question 8: Do you support the proposal that appeals must be made in writing before the end of the payment period to the enforcement agency that issued the notice?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	52	75.36%
No	10	14.49%
Don't know	4	5.80%
Not Answered	3	4.35%

The vast majority of respondents (78.79%) that answered this question 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. 15.15% of respondents disagreed, and 6.06% responded “don’t know”.

28 respondents provided comments to support their answer.

Several respondents agreed that the proposal was simple and worked well in other areas. A small number also commented on the need to ensure the appeals process and timescales are clear and that any appeals made should be acknowledged by the enforcement agency.

Comments from some respondents provided alternative suggestions for the appeals process. A few respondents that disagreed with the proposal suggested that appeals should be referred to an independent agency instead of the enforcement agency that issued the notice, with one organisation suggesting:

“It would be preferable to have a second level of appeal beyond the original enforcement agency before referral to the COPFS. It is debateable as to whether an appeal to the same agency that sent the original notice is a genuine appeal and it is unlikely that farmers and crofters would be able to risk the cost of a highly expensive court process to dispute a FPN. A genuine right of appeal would ideally sit within an independent agency at lower cost than COPFS.”

Some respondents that agreed and disagreed with the proposal suggested that email should be used as an alternative or in addition to being made in writing. A small number of respondents raised concerns that the requirement for appeals to be made in writing could impact those with dyslexia or other literacy difficulties, a disability, or where English is not their first language. It was also suggested that appeals could be made verbally. In contrast, one respondent cautioned against using email and verbal appeals, commenting that “the appeal process must be clear and accountable. Verbal and email appeals will have the problem of evidenced accountability of the appellant.”

Question 9: Do you agree that unsuccessful appeals should be automatically referred to COPFS for potential prosecution?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	22	31.88%
No	39	56.52%
Don't know	6	8.70%
Not Answered	2	2.90%

Of the respondents that answered this question, the majority (58.21%) disagreed that unsuccessful appeals should be automatically referred to COPFS, whilst 32.84% agreed, and 8.96% were unsure.

39 respondents provided comments to support their answer.

It should be noted that this question did not match the proposal set out in the consultation text which stated: “Should the enforcement agency reject an appeal, then the FPN will still stand and they will have 28 days to accept this decision and pay the fine in full or reject this decision, we will accept early repayment within 14 days. Once this time period is concluded the enforcement agency must then refer the case to COPFS for consideration for prosecution.”

Many of the comments received for this question provided suggestions that were in line with the proposal set out in the consultation text, where someone that has made an unsuccessful appeal should have an opportunity to pay the FPN before the case is referred to COPFS for consideration of prosecution. There were variations in the time period for paying the FPN following an unsuccessful appeal, with suggestions of immediate payment, a week, 14 or 28 days. NFUS commented that “FPNs are intended to ease the burden on the court system, unsuccessful appeals should require full payment within a specified time frame, perhaps a week, before being automatically referred to COPFS.”

A small number of respondents agreed with the consultation question which incorrectly proposed that unsuccessful appeals should be automatically referred to COPFS for potential prosecution. The comments suggested it was beneficial to refer to COPFS quickly, with one also suggesting that it would allow for a second review of evidence.

Some respondents provided alternative suggestions to the correct and incorrect proposals. A few respondents suggested that unsuccessful appeals should be referred to an independent authority with one individual commenting that “there should be independent review prior to referral to COPFS”.

Question 10: Do you agree 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?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	46	66.67%
No	15	21.74%
Don't know	6	8.70%
Not Answered	2	2.90%

The majority of respondents (68.86%) that answered this question 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. 22.39% of respondents disagreed with the proposal, whilst 8.96% responded “don’t know”.

There were 31 additional comments provided.

Several respondents agreed with the proposal, noting that obstruction offences are common in legislation and are necessary to ensure investigations can take place. One respondent noted that “Many aspects of farming, especially beekeeping are transient. It therefore needs to be an offence to hamper investigations as doing so would significantly hamper the ability to enforce FPNs.”

A small number of respondents considered it unnecessary to create an offence for obstructing 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.

A few respondents provided alternative suggestions for obstruction offences, including two respondents that suggested obstruction should result in a FPN.

Question 11: Do you agree that it should be an offence to obstruct the service of a FPN?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	47	68.12%
No	14	20.29%
Don't know	6	8.70%
Not Answered	2	2.90%

Of those that answered this question, the majority (70.15%) agreed that it should be an offence to obstruct the service of a FPN, whilst 20.9% disagreed and 8.96% were unsure.

There were 21 additional comments provided.

Some respondents provided comments supporting the proposal, suggesting that having an offence for obstructing the service of a FPN was sensible. One respondent noted that “it's an offence to obstruct the service of a notice so why would this which is higher up the scale, be any different?”.

A small number of respondents commented on the training of inspectors, highlighting the need for de-escalation techniques and understanding where there might be mitigating circumstances.

The consultation document stated “we also propose to make it an offence to obstruct the service of a FPN. This could include providing false information or failing to provide information, such as a name and address required for the issuing of the FPN”. However, a few respondents questioned the definition of obstruction and thought this could be open to interpretation. One respondent commented “you must first establish what you mean by "obstruct the service of a FPN" and if it was an offence it requires immediate and direct action, not a further financial penalty.”

Question 12: Do you agree that the maximum penalty for obstruction offences should be, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	35	50.72%
No	24	34.78%
Don't know	8	11.59%
Not Answered	2	2.90%

The majority (52.24%) of respondents that answered this question agreed that the maximum penalty for obstruction offences should be, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. 35.82% disagreed with the proposal, whilst 11.94% answered “don’t know”.

27 respondents provided comments to support their answer.

The consultation question proposed the maximum penalty for obstruction offences to be, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. The standard scale is scale of fines available for summary offences set out in Section 225 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Comments from a few respondents suggested the scale of fines should be published and should increase with inflation. In addition, comments from two respondents indicated they believed it would be enforcement agencies that would determine if an offence had been committed and issue the fine. If an enforcement agency considered that an obstruction offence had been committed, they would refer the case to COPFS to consider prosecution. If prosecution was warranted, the judicial process would be followed and if convicted, the appropriate penalty would be determined the judge. The consultation proposal suggested the maximum penalty for an obstruction offence should be no more than a level 5 fine on the standard scale. This would mean a maximum penalty of £5,000 if convicted of an obstruction offence.

Some respondents that disagreed with the proposal provided alternative suggestions. A few suggested the fine should be higher, two suggested the amount should depend on the severity of the offence, whilst one suggested a lower fine and proposed a level 3 fine on the standard scale.

A small number of comments agreed with the proposal, stating that it was proportionate and consistent with other legislation.

As with question 11, a small number of respondents questioned the definition of obstruction.

Section 2: Penalty levels and amounts

This section 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.

Question 13: Do you agree that the minimum penalty for the animal health FPN scheme should be £100, and the maximum penalty should be £1,000?

This question was split into two parts – the first considering the minimum suggested penalty of £100, and the second considering the maximum suggested penalty of £1,000. More respondents answered the first part of the question than the second.

Minimum penalty: £100

Option	Total	Percent
This amount is too low	21	30.43%
This is the right amount	23	33.33%
This amount is too high	20	28.99%
Not Answered	5	7.25%

Of those that answered the first part of the question, marginally more respondents (35.94%) considered the £100 minimum penalty amount to be the right amount compared to 32.81% of respondents that considered this amount to be too low, and 31.25% of respondents considered this amount to be too high.

Maximum penalty: £1,000

Option	Total	Percent
This amount is too low	24	34.78%
This is the right amount	22	31.88%
This amount is too high	17	24.64%
Not Answered	6	8.70%

Of those that answered the second part of the question, 38.1% of respondents considered the proposed maximum penalty of £1,000 to be too low. 34.92% of respondents considered the proposed maximum to be the right amount, whilst 26.98% of respondents considered the amount to be too high.

Respondents were invited to provide comments on parts one and two of the question, with 39 responses received.

Several respondents suggested the minimum and maximum amounts proposed were too low and that higher penalties would be more of a deterrent. By contrast, some respondents considered the proposed minimum and maximum penalties were too high. A few of these respondents reiterated their disagreement with the concept of FPNs, with one individual stating “There should be no FPN or fines” but no reason was given for this viewpoint.

A few comments suggested the minimum proposed penalty amount was too low and raised concerns that it may not be enough of a deterrent nor would it cover the cost of investigating and issuing a FPN. One organisation commented:

“We would suggest that the minimum penalty is too low. In a good proportion of the cases, we would expect the enforcement body to have engaged with the offender either through education or a warning notice, meaning that they will have been given an opportunity to comply without any monetary sanctions against them. An FPN should only be issued immediately in cases where it is particularly serious nature or the offender has already committed a separate, but linked, offence. The enforcement body will therefore already have committed fairly significant resource to helping ensure compliance and £100 will not cover costs or, we believe, be a sufficient deterrent given the potentially serious nature of any offence that fails to control, or even enables, disease spread. We would agree with the higher amount proposed, if the offence is serious enough to warrant a higher monetary sanction then we would suggest it should be prosecuted.”

A small number of respondents considered the maximum amount proposed to be too low and instead suggested the maximum permitted in legislation (£5,000) should be used. One organisation commented:

“A maximum penalty of £1,000 is not a big enough deterrent to tackle the most serious types of breaches. Raising the maximum penalty to £5,000 allows enforcement officers a better range of penalties dependent on the nature of the breach. Repeat offenders for example should be issued higher penalties. Lower financial penalties should be restricted to technical breaches without deeper impact.”

Two comments considered both amounts to be proportionate.

Alternative suggestions were received from some respondents. Suggestions included escalating fines depending on the severity of the case or for repeat offending, calculating penalties based on the value of the sale of the animal or as a percentage of the offenders income, and offering discounts for early repayment.

Question 14: Do you agree that the animal health FPN scheme should have multiple levels of penalty to account for the variety of offences that will be covered?

Option	Total	Percent
I agree - there should be multiple levels of penalty	49	71.01%
I disagree - there should be a single fixed penalty amount	7	10.14%
I don't know	10	14.49%
Not Answered	3	4.35%

The majority of respondents (74.24%) that answered this question agreed that the animal health FPN scheme should have multiple levels of penalty, 15.15% of respondents were unsure and 10.61% thought that there should be a single fixed penalty amount.

27 respondents provided comments to support their answer.

The consultation stated “the specific penalty level assigned to each offence will be set in legislation”. However, there were concerns from some respondents, mostly from those that agreed with the proposal, that it would be for the enforcement officer to decide which level of penalty should be issued. One respondent noted “the penalty fixed should not be down to an individual. As what is considered severe by one individual may only be considered medium by another.”

Of those that agreed there should be multiple levels of penalty, some considered that this should be based on the severity of the offence, with one respondent commenting that “some offences result in a higher risk to animal health and public health so a variable level of fine is applicable”. A small number suggested that repeat offending should be penalised with a higher penalty level.

Question 15: What do you think of the penalty amount proposed for each level?

This question was split into seven parts to consider the penalty level proposed for each level. Not all respondents provided an answer for each level.

Level 1: £100

Option	Total	Percent
This amount is too low	16	23.19%
This amount is just right	20	28.99%
This amount is too high	14	20.29%
Not Answered	19	27.54%

Of those that responded to this part of the question, a small majority (40%) agreed that a penalty of £100 for Level 1 was just right. 32% of respondents considered this amount to be too low, whilst 28% thought this was too high.

Level 2: £150

Option	Total	Percent
This amount is too low	17	24.64%
This amount is just right	15	21.74%
This amount is too high	14	20.29%
Not Answered	23	33.33%

36.96% of respondents that answered this part of the question considered £150 for a Level 2 FPN to be too low. 32.61% considered this to the right amount, whereas 30.43% considered it to be too high.

Level 3: £200

Option	Total	Percent
This amount is too low	17	24.64%
This amount is just right	16	23.19%
This amount is too high	13	18.84%
Not Answered	23	33.33%

Of those that answered this part of the question, 36.96% of respondents thought £200 for a Level 3 FPN was too low, whilst 34.78% thought it was just right, and 28.26% considered it to be too high.

Level 4: £300

Option	Total	Percent
This amount is too low	18	26.09%
This amount is just right	16	23.19%
This amount is too high	12	17.39%
Not Answered	23	33.33%

Of respondents that answered this part of the question, 39.13% considered £300 for a level 4 FPN to be too low. 34.78% considered it to be just right, and 26.09% considered it to be too high.

Level 5: £500

Option	Total	Percent
This amount is too low	14	20.29%
This amount is just right	24	34.78%
This amount is too high	10	14.49%
Not Answered	21	30.43%

50% of respondents that answered this part of the question thought £500 for a level 5 FPN was just right. 29.71% thought this was too low, whilst 20.83% thought £500 was too high.

Level 6: £750

Option	Total	Percent
This amount is too low	16	23.19%
This amount is just right	21	30.43%
This amount is too high	10	14.49%
Not Answered	22	31,88%

Of those that answered this part of the question, 44.68% considered £750 for a Level 4 FPN to be the right amount, compared with 34.04% that considered it to be too low and 21.28% that considered it to be too high.

Level 7: £1,000

Option	Total	Percent
This amount is too low	21	30.43%
This amount is just right	20	28.99%
This amount is too high	11	15.94%
Not Answered	17*	24.64%

* Three respondents selected two answers for this part of the question. As we are unable to ascertain which answer should be correct, we have included these respondents in the “Not Answered” total.

Of respondents that answered this part of the question, 40.38% considered £1,000 for a Level 7 FPN to be too low. 38.46% considered this to be the right amount, and 21.15% considered this to be too high.

Respondents were invited to provide additional comments on all seven penalty levels, with 25 responses received.

Some respondents provided alternative suggestions to the penalty levels proposed. A small number of respondents advocated higher penalties ranging from £200 or £250 for a Level 1 offence, to £2,500 or £5,000 for a Level 7 offence, whilst one respondent advocated for lower penalties starting at £100 for a Level 1 offence and reaching £350 for a Level 7 offence.

A small number of comments suggested the penalty should reflect the circumstances of the case, considering repeat offending and any mitigating circumstances.

Question 16: Do you agree with the principle of scale of harm for animal health related offences, where FPN levels are proportionate to the risk of disease spread associated with the circumstances of the offence?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	43	62.32%
No	15	21.74%
Don't know	7	10.14%
Not Answered	4	5.80%

Of those that answered this question, the majority (66.15%) agreed with the principle of scale of harm for animal health offences. 23.08% of respondents disagreed, whilst 10.77% answered “don’t know”.

21 respondents provided additional information to support their answer.

From some comments that agreed and disagreed with the proposal, there were concerns that any scale of harm could be inconsistent to apply. Two respondents that agreed with the proposal highlighted the need for legislation and guidance to be clear in the scale of harm criteria and how this would be applied.

A small number of comments disagreed with the principle of scale of harm. One organisation commented that it “becomes too complicated and farmers don't know what to expect. It also becomes more difficult, time consuming and so expensive for enforcers to calculate. One of the main advantages of a FPN is that it is a simple system.”

Question 17: Do you agree 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?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	42	60.87%
No	15	21.74%
Don't know	8	11.59%
Not Answered	4	5.80%

The majority (64.62%) of respondents that answered this question, agreed that the proposed scale of harm would strike a balance of simplicity and proportionality to risk. 23.08% disagreed, whilst and 12.31% were unsure.

20 respondents provided additional comments.

Some respondents that disagreed with the proposal raised concerns regarding the scale of harm. In particular, the comments stressed the challenges of applying the proposed scale of harm criteria to different types of animals, with one organisation noting:

“It is challenging to compare equines with livestock, and we would suggest the risk profiles are not the same, as they are generally owned (if not kept) in smaller numbers and are primarily kept for leisure purposes. Yet, they are also travelled much more frequently, for example to competition, therefore the risk of disease spread should not be underestimated.”

In addition, a few comments suggested that conditions on the premises would be a more accurate measure of risk. One respondent stated:

“Using metrics like herd size or trading frequency as proxies for harm is deeply flawed, as they do not account for actual animal welfare standards or biosecurity practices on-site. A smallholding with high welfare standards and robust disease controls may pose less risk than a poorly managed smaller operation, yet under this framework, they could face harsher penalties based solely on scale.”

There were comments from some respondents that agreed with the proposal that suggested it was appropriate to consider the overall risk when determining the penalty amount.

Question 18: Do you agree 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?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	45	65.22%
No	16	23.19%
Don't know	5	7.25%
Not Answered	3	4.35%

Of those that answered this question, the majority (68.18%) 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. 24.24% disagreed with the proposed escalation process, whilst 7.58% were unsure.

This question did not provide an opportunity for respondents to provide comments or evidence to support their answer. This was an error in designing the consultation on Citizen Space.

Question 19: Do you think three years would be an appropriate time period for considering second and third offences for the animal health FPN scheme?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes I agree - three years would be appropriate	29	42.03%
No I disagree - the time period should be longer than three years	14	20.29%
No I disagree - the time period should be shorter than three years	18	26.09%
Not Answered	8	11.59%

A small majority (47.54%) of respondents that answered this question agreed that three years would be an appropriate time period for considering second and third offences. 29.51% of respondents disagreed and thought the time period should be shorter than three years, whereas 22.95% disagreed but thought the time period should be longer than three years.

24 respondents provided further information to support their answer.

Comments from some respondents suggested that the time period for considering second and third offences should be longer, with suggestions that a five- or seven-year period would be more appropriate and would reflect the ongoing responsibilities of animal keepers and the cumulative nature of some offences. One respondent considered the “seasonal and variability of farming may mean that offences may be committed regularly, but only unfrequently. For example, a beekeeper may only encounter a notifiable disease every 5 years, but always commit an offence related to moving those colonies.”

Some respondents advocated for a shorter time period for considering second and third offences, suggesting that a two-year period in alignment with the FPN scheme used by Marine Scotland would be preferable.

A small number of respondents used this question to provide general comments on the proposed escalation process as there was not an opportunity to do so at Question 18. Two respondents disagreed with the escalation process where FPNs issued for second offences are double the value of the first, and third offences are automatically referred to COPFS, and provided alternative suggestions. One respondent considered that FPN should be handled on a case by cases basis, while the other considered:

“It would be preferable for a fixed penalty notice to be a fixed notice at a fixed fee and then referred to the COPFs at the third offence. The multiplier on cross compliance leaves farmers and crofters living in fear of inspections resulting in severe penalties. It also adds to the complication and time taken for enforcers to calculate the level of penalty. A fixed penalty should be fixed.”

Question 20: Do you agree that the FPN amount should be discounted if it is paid early?

Option	Total	Percent
I agree - the FPN should be discounted for early repayment	28	40.58%
I disagree - the FPN should not be discounted for early repayment	28	40.58%
I don't know	7	10.14%
Not Answered	6	8.70%

From respondents that answered this question, equal amounts (44.44%) agreed and disagreed that the FPN should be discounted for early repayment, whilst 11% answered “don’t know”.

Additional comments were received form 24 respondents.

Some respondents disagreed with the proposal as they did not consider it appropriate to offer a discount for animal health offences. A few suggested that a discount for early repayment would not alter behaviour, with one respondent suggesting it “would create a system that rewards the ability to pay and does nothing to make individuals rethink what they are doing”.

Some respondents agreed with the proposal to offer a discount for early repayment as it would incentivise payment: “It allows those that freedom of choice and would not incur any admin costs for chasing nonpayment so a good incentive.”

Two respondents agreed with the proposal but suggested that repeat offenders should not be offered a discount for early repayment.

Question 21: If a discount is offered for early repayment, do you agree that the discount should be 50%?

Option	Total	Percent
I agree - the discount should be 50%	22	31.88%
I disagree - the discount should be less than 50%	26	37.68%
I don't know	13	18.84%
Not Answered	8	11.59%

There were 61 responses to this question, with 42.62% disagreeing that the discount for early repayment should be 50%. 36.07% of respondent agreed with the proposed discount for early repayment, whilst 21.31% were unsure.

27 respondents provided additional comments.

Several comments disagreed with the proposal to offer a discount for early repayment, with one respondent stating “I just don’t think it should be discounted. A fine is a fine”.

Some comments agreed that the discount for early repayment should be 50%, with one comment suggesting this should only be offered for first offences. Conversely, some respondents thought the discount for early repayment should be less than 50%: “The discount given should not be as generous as 50%. At that level, you are diminishing the effectiveness of the penalty. This may also reduce the seriousness of the offence in the mind of the offender.” A few comments suggested a 20% or 25% discount would be more appropriate.

Question 22: If a discount is offered for early repayment, do you agree that the early repayment period should be 14 days?

Option	Total	Percent
I agree - the early repayment period should be 14 days	23	33.33%
I disagree - the early repayment period should be more than 14 days	7	10.14%
I disagree - the early repayment period should be less than 14 days	4	5.80%
I don't think a discount should be offered	21	30.43%
I don't know	9	13.04%
Not Answered	5	7.25%

There were 64 responses to this question. 35.94% agreed that the early repayment period should be 14 days, whilst a further 32.81% responded “I don’t think a discount should be offered”. 10.94% of respondents thought the early repayment period should be more than 14 days, and 6.25% thought the early repayment period should be less than 14 days.

Additional comments were received form 15 respondents.

Some comments agreed with a 14-day period for early repayment, suggesting that this was appropriate given it would be half of the proposed 28-day payment period.

A small number of comments were received from those that did not think a discount should be offered.

Two comments advocated for the discount period to be 7 days.

Question 23: Do you agree with the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) conclusion that there will be minimal cost impact in the introduction of the FPN scheme?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	30	43.48%
No	21	30.43%
Yes, partially	7	10.14%
No, partially	4	5.80%
Not Answered	7	10.14%

There were 62 responses to this question. A small majority (48.39%) agreed with the BRIA conclusion that there would be minimal cost impact in the introduction of the FPN scheme whilst 33.87% disagreed with that conclusion. 11.29% agreed partially with the BRIA conclusion, and 6.45% partially disagreed.

23 respondents provided additional comments.

Several comments suggested the BRIA only partially covered the impact FPNs would have on enforcement agencies. Some comments considered the administration and resourcing costs, in particular noting that issuing, recording, and monitoring FPNs would increase costs for enforcement agencies. In addition, some comments considered the cost of training that would be required to ensure consistency in the way FPNs are issued by different enforcement agencies. One comment suggested using a central unit to administer all FPNs to ease costs.

A small number of comments reflected on the impact FPNs may have on investigations and referrals to COPFS for obstruction offences or as part of the escalation process for repeat offending. One respondent commented “as this is a new legal mechanism, there may be a rise in challenges or refusals to pay from those who dispute the offence or penalty. This could lead to more time-consuming correspondence, internal reviews, or onward referrals to COPFS—adding indirect costs.” The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) noted that the proposals could impact the SCTS in relation to “court time and relative court programming, associated staff and accommodation resources, costs involved in relevant IT changes.”

A small number of comments suggested the potential impact of a FPN scheme on alleged offenders had not been fully considered in the BRIA, with one respondent noting:

“The scheme, particularly if based on generic criteria like flock size or regional disease status, may disproportionately affect smaller or more vulnerable businesses. The cost of a fine - even if “low-level” - can have a high operational impact, especially when compounded by reputational damage. If these businesses seek legal advice or contest the notices, this also generates wider economic ripple effects.”

A few comments disagreed with the BRIA conclusion and suggested that it underestimated the cost of a FPN scheme generally but provided no further details.

Section 3: Offences

This section of consultation considered the legislation that meets the FPN criteria^[4] and the proposed offences that should be eligible for FPNs.

Question 24: Do you support 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?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	41	59.42%
No	19	27.54%
Don't know	6	8.70%
Not Answered	3	4.35%

The majority (62.12%) of respondents that answered this question supported the proposal that FPNs should be introduced for selected pieces of legislation initially. 28.79% disagreed with the proposal, whilst 9.09% answered “don’t know”.

Additional comments were received from 23 respondents.

Some comments agreed with the proposal, noting that it was appropriate to consider the effectiveness of FPNs before expanding the scheme. Conversely, some comments considered the limitations of introducing FPNs for only selected pieces of legislation and advocated that it should be expanded to cover more or all animal health legislation: “the legislation selected is in areas where very few notices will be served. This will create a false impression that they do not work or are not welcomed.”

Two respondents that agreed with the proposal reflected on the review process, suggesting that regular meetings should be held between enforcement agencies to discuss cases and feedback should be provided to the Scottish Government.

Question 25: Are there any additional high priority offences, that meet the FPN criteria, you wish to see included in the Animal Health FPN scheme when it is introduced?

There were 30 responses to this question.

Several comments agreed with the high priority offences selected and advised there were no additional offences to consider. A few comments provided examples of high priority offences that will be included when the FPN scheme is introduced, including offences relating to sheep scab, bee pests and diseases, and the Markets, Sales and Lairs Order 1925.

A small number of respondents advocated for the scheme to cover all animal health legislation when it is introduced. Two respondents provided specific examples of high priority legislation: the Animal Gatherings Order 2010 and the Equine Viral Arteritis Order 1995.

A few comments referred to animal welfare legislation that cannot be included in the animal health FPN scheme. Two comments specified offences or legislation that does not meet FPN criteria, including animal by product offences, and animal identification offences.

Question 26: Are there any offences that you think should not be eligible to receive a FPN?

This question received 32 responses.

Several respondents stated they had no additional comments.

A small number of comments suggested FPNs would not be suitable for cases of animal cruelty or neglect. However, it should be noted that cases that result in animal cruelty or neglect would likely be considered offences under animal welfare legislation and so would be out of scope of the animal health FPN scheme.

A few comments provided examples of circumstances where an offence may occur but where a FPN should not be applicable. This included cases that might suggest organised crime, minor offences which could easily be rectified, cases where there is disputed evidence, and cases that are egregious.

In addition, a small number of respondents provided specific examples of offences. However, when viewed alongside previous answers and comments made by these respondents, it was considered that the examples related to offences that should be applicable for FPNs rather than offences that should not be eligible.

Question 27: Are there any offences contained in this legislation that you think would benefit from having the ability to offer a FPN in order to aid enforcement?

25 respondents answered this question.

Several respondents stated they had no additional comments.

A few comments advocated that all offences contained in the legislation would benefit from having the ability to offer a FPN. Two comments specified that it would be beneficial to have FPNs for failing to properly dispose of carcasses of animals that die on the farm which is an offence under the Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.

A small number of respondents provided examples of offences that were from legislation that will be included in the FPN scheme when it is introduced or from other legislation that meets FPN criteria.

Question 28: Do you have any comments about the interaction between FPNs and Cross Compliance?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	10	14.49%
No	37	53.62%
Not sure	13	18.84%
Not Answered	9	13.04%

Of those that answered this question, the majority (61.67%) did not have any comments regarding the interaction between FPNs and Cross Compliance. 21.67% were unsure and 16.67% answered that they had comments.

18 respondents went on to provide comments.

A small number of comments raised concerns that an offender could be penalised twice for the same offence and considered this to be unfair. However, it should be noted that Cross Compliance arrangements operate separately from any proceedings for a criminal offence.

A few respondents considered cross compliance penalties and FPNs to be separate issues with different but equally important purposes. Two comments advocated for clearly defined guidance to aid compliance.