Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020: provisions and requirements for additional animal welfare, animal health and wildlife offences - review

Executive summary

Introduction

The Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 (“the 2020 Act”) made amendments to:

• Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”)
• Animal Health Act 1981
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
• Protection of Badgers Act 1992
• Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994
• Deer (Scotland) Act 1996
• Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996
• Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (now repealed)
• Marine (Scotland) Act 2010

The majority of these amendments related to increasing penalties for the most serious wildlife and animal welfare crimes. Other amendments included changes to the rules around service animals, disqualification orders, seal licensing, aquatic acoustic deterrents, the protection of certain wild animals, the time available to investigate crimes, and the processes by which they may be tried.

Section 16 of the 2020 Act sets out that Scottish Ministers must conduct a review of whether the provisions of this Act are sufficient to ensure appropriate standards of animal welfare, animal health and protection of wildlife. The review must in particular consider whether provision should be made for a specific offence of theft of a pet, and to prohibit the use of wearable devices designed to administer an electric shock to animals. The report must include a statement of the action, if any, the Scottish Ministers intend to take as a result of the review. Where the Scottish Ministers do not intend to take steps to make provisions regarding pet theft or wearable devices that administer electric shocks, the report should include their reasons for this.

Approach

The Scottish Government review of the 2020 Act addresses:

• The use of provisions made by the 2020 Act and whether there is a significant need to refine them (Section 2).
• Whether provisions should be made for pet theft and/or for electronic collars using static pulse as a stimulus (Section 3).
• What further legislation or other action may be required to improve animal welfare, animal health and the protection of wildlife in response to current key challenges (Section 4).
• Some areas of related work that have been completed by the Scottish Government since the 2020 Act came into force (Section 5).

Methods

Provisions in the 2020 Act

In order to review whether the provisions of the 2020 Act are sufficient to ensure appropriate standards of animal welfare, animal health and protection of wildlife we:

• Surveyed key stakeholders, including animal welfare organisations, and those involved in industry, enforcement and court processes, regarding their views on the wide range of changes made by the 2020 Act and on whether they consider that further primary legislation is required in the areas affected.
• Examined the disposals handed out by the Courts before and after the 2020 Act came into effect for all those charges under offences for which maximum penalties were increased by the 2020 Act.
• Examined the Courts use of disqualifications under Section 40 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 before and after the 2020 Act came into effect requiring Courts to consider their use in relation to charges under the 2006 Act, and requiring them to state the reasons for their decision.

Pet Theft

In order to consider whether there is a need for specific provisions for pet theft, in August 2024 we sought views from a number of stakeholders (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust and the Scottish Sentencing Council) on:

• The current approach to pet theft, including the law (or laws) used
• The effectiveness of this law (or these laws).
• Any proposal to introduce a new statutory offence of pet theft

Wearable devices administering electric shocks

Remote control dog training collars that use a static pulse as a stimulus, otherwise known as shock collars, have been a controversial topic for a number of years. Other types of collars using static pulse as a stimulus, for example anti-bark collars or those associated with invisible fencing, have received less attention over the years, but are included in our considerations here, as per the requirements set out in the 2020 Act.

In order to consider whether there is a need for specific provisions for these devices, we considered the evidence that the Scottish Government has gathered over the last two decades.

To date, the Scottish Government has undertaken two consultations, in 2007 and 2015. We have also undertook a review of the Guidance on Dog Training Aids, published in 2018. In addition, we considered a number of external reports, including:

• The Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) report on The Use of Electric Pulse Training Aids (EPTAs) in Companion Animals
• Defra-funded Project AW1402 commissioned to assess the effect of pet training devices, specifically remote-controlled static pulse systems, on the welfare of domestic dogs.
• Defra-funded project AW1402a, a field study of dogs in training.
• The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC) report on the use of handheld remote-controlled training devices in dog training

Conclusions

2020 Act provisions

After considering the matter, the Scottish Government concludes that no legislative changes to the 2020 Act provisions are required. This review has, however, highlighted other further action that might merit consideration:

• More time, and therefore data, and a detailed look at individual Court cases would be required to determine the true impact of the changes to proceedings and penalties of animal welfare and wildlife legislation implemented by the 2020 Act. Given the independence of the justice system from Government, this level of analysis and commentary is not something that it would be appropriate for the Scottish Government to be involved in. However, we are aware that the Scottish Sentencing Council are intending to create sentencing guidelines for animal welfare and wildlife offences in due course, and the suggested further analysis may be something that they undertake as part of this work.
• In light of the calls for a further extension to the time available for the investigation of wildlife crime, it is suggested that this be looked at again by the Scottish Government, enforcement agencies and the Crown Office for the Procurator Fiscal after more time has passed, more cases have been tried, and more data is available.
• In light of the ongoing issues at the intersection of seal conservation and farmed fish welfare, it is suggested that the Scottish Government continue discussion with stakeholders in the aquaculture and conservation sectors regarding alternative seal management strategies with stakeholders.
• Given the relatively low recognition by the stakeholders surveys of the clear and significant impact that the 2020 Act had on the use of disqualification orders for offences under Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, it is suggested that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Courts Tribunal Service discuss whether it would be possible to make the reasoning behind decisions on disqualifications more accessible, and whether it would be appropriate and possible to develop a database of disqualifications accessible to enforcement agencies.
• Regarding concerns raised about the inadequate resources available for enforcing animal welfare and wildlife legislation in general, and for taking possession of animals to protect their welfare in particular, it is worth noting that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is currently considering the matter of enforcement. Once their report is available, it is suggested that the Scottish Government and enforcement agencies should hold discussions regarding how the prioritisation and resourcing of animal welfare and wildlife related enforcement could be improved.

Pet theft

After considering the matter, the Scottish Government has concluded that it will not currently seek to legislate on pet theft. There does not appear to be a consensus on whether such a move is necessary at present, and there is a related Member’s Bill under current consideration by the Scottish Parliament.

Static pulse collars

This Review has carefully examined the evidence gathered over the last two decades and finds that:

• There remains no consensus within the dog training industry or the dog owning population on either the need for or merits of such a move.
• Opinion is also divided amongst wider organisations such as dog breeding organisations, pet training and pet advisory organisations, veterinarians, police, the Kennel Club, farmers and other bodies.
• While there is a risk of mis-use of these devices, as there is with many other training tools, the scientific evidence does not indicate that static pulse collars are inherently harmful to all dogs, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are more harmful than other aversive training devices in common use.
• There have been no reported written warnings, prosecutions or convictions arising from the misuse of, and harm caused by use of a static pulse collar in Scotland.

However, given the clear recommendation by SAWC in 2023, and the fact that the last relevant Scottish Government consultation undertaken was 10 years ago, we will consult on a proposal to ban remote controlled training collars using static pulse as a stimulus.

We will also carefully consider the recently completed SAWC report on the welfare impact of a wider range of aversive training devices but note that this report does not recommend the prohibition of devices other than remote controlled static pulse collars.