Call for renewed focus on anniversary of of animal welfare law

A letter written by The Animal Law Foundation argues that the Act was a landmark piece of legislation when it was introduced but that its full potential has never been realised. Weak interpretation, inconsistent enforcement and the exclusion of entire categories of animals have allowed widespread and avoidable suffering to continue. 

This follows the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission opening a review of the Act and how it is promoting animal welfare and preventing harm. Three sub-working groups were formed in August 2025.

The letter, coordinated by the Animal Law Foundation and The League Against Cruel Sports and supported by 39 animal protection groups, including organisations, such as OneKind, Compassion in World Farming, Born Free Foundation and Scottish SPCA.

The letter highlights the following “key weaknesses” in the Act:

• Misinterpretation of “unnecessary suffering”. Practices such as selective breeding of chickens for unnaturally rapid growth or dogs and cats for extreme appearances, and the use of animals in sport or entertainment that compromises welfare, continue because they are considered “necessary” for profit or tradition. Yet legal precedent is clear: financial gain cannot justify cruelty.
• Failure to enforce welfare needs. Animals are legally entitled to a suitable environment, diet, social contact, and the ability to express natural behaviour. Many farmed and companion animals live in conditions that fail these basic standards, from an inability to express normal behaviours from snakes in cramped conditions and birds unable to fly and confined pigs and chickens to isolated social animals such as rabbits and guinea pigs.
• Exclusion of some species from meaningful protection. Certain animals are excluded from the Act, such as wild animals and invertebrates, such as crabs and lobsters. This means they are not protected from unnecessary suffering.

Edie Bowles, executive director of The Animal Law Foundation, said: “The Animal Health and Welfare Act was a historic achievement, but 20 years on, many common practices still cause unnecessary suffering.

“The Animal Law Foundation has a growing body of work demonstrating that correct legal interpretation works. In a landmark victory, The Animal Law Foundation has ended boiling lobsters and crabs alive in England by showing that it is illegal under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015, which prohibits avoidable suffering at the time of killing for these animals.

“Our success demonstrates a critical point: common practice is not the same as lawful practice. It is entirely possible, and necessary, to reset interpretations of the law so that they reflect both its wording and its purpose.”

Emma Slawinski, executive director of The League Against Cruel Sports says “Excluding animals not ‘under the control of man’ creates a two-tier system of protection, allowing responsibility for welfare to be abandoned when animals are most vulnerable. 

“Gamebirds such as pheasants and partridges are protected while farmed, then reclassified as wild, and so unprotected, on release, leaving them to suffer lingering injuries after being poorly shot for sport. Stabbing, or stoning a wild animal like a rabbit is illegal under a different law, but could be punished far less severely than if the animal were a pet. This inconsistency is illogical and unjustified.”