The Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 Review: Survey report

Executive summary

Introduction

The Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 made a number of amendments to animal welfare, animal health and wildlife legislation. Under this 2020 Act, Scottish Ministers are obliged to review whether the provisions of this Act are sufficient to ensure appropriate standards of animal welfare, animal health and protection of wildlife. Analysts within the Scottish Government carried out a survey in July-August 2024 as part of this review.

Method

We sent an online survey to a range of stakeholders working in Marine Wildlife, Aquaculture and Fisheries, Terrestrial Wildlife, Animal Health and Welfare. We received 55 responses from a total of 46 organisations, including 26 local authorities and council areas. The majority of responses were from Enforcement, Legal or Non-Governmental Organisations. We also heard from Animal Welfare organisations.

The survey focused on three areas: Marine Wildlife; Terrestrial Wildlife and Animal Health and Welfare. Respondents answered questions relevant to the sector they work in.

Main findings

A range of organisations responded to the survey, to give their view on amendments to animal welfare, animal health and wildlife legislation made in the 2020 Act.

Overall, respondents agreed that the provisions in the 2020 Act have been, and continue to be, sufficient in the areas of both Terrestrial Wildlife and Animal Health and Welfare, but the way it is enforced and resources available need to be improved.

Respondents’ views on the need for further legislative changes were mixed overall, with some organisations identifying specific areas or ways to extend the current protections. Respondents stated that the survey results should be corroborated with other types of evidence in order to assess the impact of the changes in each area. In many areas, respondents stated that they were not able to comment in detail as their organisation does not have a role or involvement in this area, or they would require further information.

There were mixed views on whether new Animal Health and Welfare powers have been used or implemented effectively. Respondents highlighted both practical concerns, such as a lack of resources or the significant costs of enforcement, to specific aspects of the legal process, whilst Animal Welfare organisations were keen to recognise the positive impacts of these changes and to go further.

It should be noted that the increased penalties introduced by the 2020 Act only applied to offences committed wholly on or after 30 November 2020, when those provisions for increased penalties were commenced. This means, for example, that many trials undertaken after the 2020 Act came into effect may have been using the previous maximum penalties, not the new higher ones. This may have impacted the views of respondents on how effectively they considered the changes made by the 2020 Act to have been implemented.

The main findings for each section are as follows:

Marine Wildlife

• Respondents held mixed views on the impact of changes in this area, including the 2021 Parliamentary Report Acoustic Deterrent Device (ADD) Use in the Aquaculture Sector and the removal of exemptions for which Scottish Ministers previously could grant a license to kill or take seals.
• Whilst levels of awareness and understanding of the 2021 report appear to be fairly high, respondents highlighted its limited impact as the use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices in the Aquaculture sector ceased shortly after its publication. Over a third of respondents think the Parliamentary Report has had ‘No impact’. Others focused on the difficulty of measuring the impacts of these changes, either positive or negative.
• Views on the removal of exemptions to grant a license to kill or take seals were mixed, with respondents highlighting both positive impacts – such as seal welfare, and a push toward non-lethal measures – and negative ones, including the health and welfare of farmed fish and increased predation challenges.

Terrestrial Wildlife

• Respondents were supportive of several changes in this area, including extending the time available to investigate wildlife crimes, and the use of Fixed Penalty Notices. Respondents held mixed views on other changes to wildlife legislation, including whether the ability to choose between summary and solemn proceedings, and increased penalties, have been used effectively and the extent to which the latter have deterred animal welfare offences.
• Most respondents said that no concerns have been raised with their organisation regarding mountain hares becoming a protected species, and several felt that the language used provides adequate protection for falconers.
• The majority think the provisions in the 2020 Act have been, and continue to be, sufficient for Wildlife, but that there are areas in which either the way the legislation is enforced or resources available need to be improved.

Animal Health and Welfare

• Respondents held mixed views on the impact of changes in this area, and whether further legislative changes are required. They highlighted issues in enforcement, from the costs involved to aspects of the legal process.
• Views were mixed on whether either the ability to choose between summary and solemn proceedings for offences under Sections 19 and 23, or the higher maximum penalties, have been used effectively or acted as a deterrent. Respondents highlighted the lack of cases being dealt with under solemn proceedings. Views were mixed on whether further legislative changes are required in this area.
• Respondents largely felt that the change made in the 2020 Act to the facts that must be considered when trying an offence under Section 19 of the 2006 Act has been effective, but held mixed views on whether further changes are required.
• Respondents held mixed views on whether requiring Court reasoning around disqualification orders, and the new power to make permanent arrangements for animals seized to protect their welfare, have been used or implemented effectively. Whilst they agreed that this new power has been beneficial to animal welfare, they held mixed views on whether further legislative changes are required in this area.
• The majority of respondents think the provisions in the 2020 Act have been, and continue to be sufficient, for Animal Health and Welfare, and that whilst there are areas where the legislation itself is sufficient, the way it is enforced or resources available need to be improved.