Independent report

Animal Sentience Committee report on the due regard to animal welfare – legislative compliance and enforcement

Published 24 February 2025

There is strong support in the UK for laws and regulations to protect animal welfare, and the public expects these to be effectively administered in order to maintain trust in enforcement. Resource and regard for the implementation and enforcement of legislation is thus an essential part of the policy process, and a critical step in demonstrating that all due regard has been paid to the welfare of sentient animals.

Individual acts that cause unnecessary suffering can occur for many reasons including ignorance, desperation or loss of control. More systematic non-compliance with the law can be an intentional strategy by those who seek financial gain or social status or disagree with the underlying premise or rationale of certain legislation, particularly when they judge the risks of detection to be low. Desirable features of an enforcement system for monitoring compliance and reducing or preventing non-compliance include a system that:

• is based on a clear compliance requirement/specification that is visible and understandable to all
• is seen to be fair within and across sectors
• is broadly accepted and supported by stakeholders
• provides strong incentives to comply
• has appropriately trained and qualified staff, and effective data recording and management systems
• is amenable to relatively rapid and low-cost compliance assessment, with clear and measurable indicators of compliance and non-compliance
• has a high chance, sensitivity, and specificity of breach detection
• imposes penalties that reflect breach severity
• has outcomes that prevent individuals and bodies from repeat non-compliance, and which provide a clear deterrent for others

Progress in these areas has been made in recent years, with increasingly open reporting of breaches by some agencies (Home Office, Food Standards Agency (FSA). Updated sentencing guidelines (Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021) published in May 2023 have increased the maximum penalty for certain serious offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 from six months to five years custody, in cases that can be heard in either magistrates’ or Crown court. In addition, the introduction of the Fixed Penalty Notice Act for animal welfare offences may allow more breaches to be dealt with efficiently, and in a cost-effective way.

However, despite these advances, the Animal Sentience Committee (ASC) considers that an effective, structured, fair and integrated system of animal welfare surveillance and enforcement is lacking. This concern is widely recognised by some governmental and non-governmental organisations (NGO) such as the All-Parliamentary Group on Animal Welfare and the Animal Law Foundation. The issues surrounding animal welfare compliance and enforcement relate to inconsistencies in detection of offences, complexity of the legislative environment, resources, lack of coordinated inter-agency response, variable enforcer training and expertise, and transparency over the effectiveness of adequate reporting and enforcement. These are outlined in Section 1. We outline other main considerations in Sections 2 to 5 below.

1.1 Inconsistency in Monitoring and Enforcement

Detection of animal welfare offences relies on allocation of sufficient resources for surveillance of animals kept for domestic and commercial purposes, accessible mechanisms for third parties (such as the public) to report concerns, and systems to triage and investigate such complaints. The extent to which compliance is monitored and enforced also depends on the specific legislation governing an animal’s welfare. However, even under the same Act (for example, the Animal Welfare Act 2006), monitoring and enforcement varies greatly with context.

Adequacy of Resources

Resources are provided centrally for some contexts (for example, enforcement of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA)) by a trained Inspectorate) but not for many others. In many circumstances local authorities or agencies are responsible for many public services and a range of enforcement roles. In such cases, there will be competing priorities for public money which must be allocated according to perceived priorities. While this localised approach can be very effective in ensuring value to the taxpayer, unless budgets are provided and minimum levels of activity specified by central government, animal welfare surveillance and enforcement may not be prioritised.

The Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) aims to recover all costs associated with implementation and enforcement of ASPA via licence fees, currently £1,007 per annum for establishments and £329 for individuals. This gives a running budget of approximately £5,000,000 per year which should ensure that inspection and enforcement activities are safeguarded.

For local authorities, fees for licensed, animal premises appear to vary widely, both geographically and for different licence types, and it is not clear if actual costs are recouped. The autonomy of local authorities ensures that public spending is strategic and relevant to the needs of that area, but it increases the risk of inadequate resource or expertise for sectors or species in local authorities where animal population densities are low (for example, farm animals in largely metropolitan areas). It also means there is no oversight of resource allocation for inspections of non-licenced premises, where expenditure cannot be recouped from fees.

In broader terms, resources required to move forward with prosecutions can act as a bottleneck to enforcement. The barrier may be human resources (e.g. legal personnel within the local authorities) or financial considerations. For example, when animals are seized under Section 18 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, they must, to prevent unnecessary suffering, be provided ‘bed and board’ by the local authority until the case is resolved (including prosecution and any appeal). The resultant costs and practicalities surrounding animal care and housing may be prohibitive and act as a deterrent to enforcement. Some categories of livestock and zoo animals may be particularly expensive or difficult to keep. Under Section 18, livestock are treated in the same way as companion animal species. This means they cannot be sold or slaughtered after seizure to recoup costs, prior to a Section 20 (transference of ownership order) being applied. Costs associated with Section 18 seizures are further increased by delays in cases being seen by the courts due to capacity constraints of the legal system.

Local authorities have made great strides in addressing some of the potential weaknesses, including creating animal welfare forums, outsourcing animal welfare services to other local authorities who have specialised expertise in this area, and formalising training requirements for animal welfare officers (AWOs). However, there are opportunities for further refinement and greater integration. These include the centralisation of animal welfare training to ensure it is consistent across all AWOs and local authorities; expansion of forums to include other organisations involved in welfare (Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), police, RSPCA, ASRU); and contingency planning to ensure that at least two individuals in each local authority have training, to promote resilience and continuity and  reduce lags associated with staff turnover.

Routes for Third Party Reports

In many cases, there is uncertainty over the mechanisms for reporting suspected animal welfare offences, especially for those not actively involved in enforcement systems (for example, the public). Current online searches for ‘how to report an animal welfare offence’ or ‘how to report animal cruelty’ generally lead to the RSPCA, including from some areas of the Defra website. Some sources suggest contacting the police, APHA or the local authority, but most police and local authority websites direct people back to the RSPCA. Some local authorities state that they will only consider reports relating to licensed premises. The inconsistency in advice surrounding reporting concerns, and the lack of a centralised portal for reporting concerns will likely see some offences not reported.

It is striking that in the UK many potential animal welfare breaches are directed to an animal welfare charity (the RSPCA) rather than a government agency. While the ASC has no reason to believe that the RSPCA is not effective in this role of receiving and triaging welfare information, if charitable donations were to diminish, then the capacity of this organisation to deliver this public service could not be relied upon.

Breaches in compliance with animal welfare regulations will more likely be detected for animals kept on those licensed premises which undergo regular inspections. These animals may also be more visible to third parties (for example, farms open to public display are licensed, but most farms are not).

Discrepancies in Detection and Variation in Agencies Responsible

There is limited communication or standardisation of approach across these different vertical (central government vs local authority) and horizontal (local authorities in different geographical regions) bodies.

APHA have a regulatory role in the enforcement of animal welfare. They are able to apply enforcement directly through mechanisms such as warning notices and improvement notices. However, much of their role is in supporting other bodies including local authorities and the FSA, through investigation of complaints, provision of expert advice, statements or by acting as expert witnesses. Expanding their ability and resources to gather evidence, for example by adopting ‘bodycams,’ is likely to enhance their role.

The information below sumamrises the current animal welfare legislation enforcement. Note that the likelihood of third party detection depends on the ability of members of the public to come across welfare issues.

Animals in Science

Relevant legislation: Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Compliance authority: ASRU.

Frequency and regularity of inspections: Yes – facility inspections and systems audits to assure compliance with personal, project and establishment licences.

Likelihood of third party detection: very low.

Additional Information:

• licensing roles separated from monitoring and enforcement
• high level of self-reporting by the regulated communit

Animals at Abattoir

Relevant legislation:

• The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015
• Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009

Compliance authority: FSA.

Frequency and regularity of inspections:

• official veterinarians (OV) and CCTV present but have limited role beyond the abattoir
• full inspections, every 2 to 18 months depending on previous compliance

Likelihood of third party detection: very low.

Additional Information:

• collaborative approach between the FSA and the APHA. Reporting systems in place between the FSA and local authorities
• seasonal slaughter (for example, turkeys) is dependent on processors notifying APHA

Animals on licensed premises (zoos, boarding kennels, riding schools)

Relevant legislation:

• Zoo Licensing Act; Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) Regulations
• Balai Directive

Compliance authority: local authorities

Frequency and regularity of inspections:

• zoos yearly. (local authorities) with every three years by Secretary of State-appointed Inspectors Others every one to three years depending on star-rating
• Balai Directive Approved premises for import/export are inspected by APHA yearly

Likelihood of third party detection: medium

Additional information:

• Zoos yearly - (local authorities) with every three years by Secretary of State-appointed Inspectors Others every one to three years depending on star-rating
• Balai Directive Approved premises for import and export are inspected by APHA yearly

Companion Animals

Relevant legislation: Animal Welfare Act 2006

Compliance authority:

• Police
• RSPCA
• local authorities

Frequency and regularity of inspections: no.

Likelihood of third party detection: variable but relatively good signposting for public to report..

Animals on Farms

Relevant legislation:

• Animal Welfare Act 2006
• The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007
• The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007

Compliance authority:

• local authorities
• Defra
• APHA

Frequency and regularity of inspections:

• rare
• undertaken by local authorities or APHA on “risk based” basis or in response to complaint

Likelihood of third party detection:

• variable
• very low for animals kept indoors

Additional information:

• APHA can provide expert and veterinary advice - a small percentage of farms are inspected
• RSPCA no longer involved - many farms belong to industry or NGO assurance schemes

Animals Being Transported

Relevant legislation:

• The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006
• Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council
• Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

Compliance authority:

• APHA
• local authorities
• Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA)

Frequency and regularity of inspections: rare.

Likelihood of third party detection: low.

Additional information:

• APHA issues transporter authorisations and approves journey plans for long journeys over 12 hours.
• enforcement depends on reports of non-compliance being made to Trading Standards

Animals crossing borders (imports and exports)

Relevant legislation:

• The Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011 (Balai directive)
• The Pet Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements) (England) Order 1999
• Wildlife Trade Regulations

Compliance authority:

• APHA
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) management authority (CITES)

Frequency and regularity of inspections:

• live animals inspected at Port of Dover only
• other Border Control Posts (BCPs) not yet operational

Likelihood of third party detection: very low.

Additional information:

• BCPs managed by the Home Office Border Force
• some concern expressed by NGOs that imported animals do not proceed to BCPs
• bill on import of dogs, cats, ferrets passed second reading but did not complete before July election

Wildlife Targeted for Destruction or Removal

Relevant legislation:

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
• Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996
• Deer Act 1991
• Animal Welfare Act 2006
• Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Compliance authority: Natural England (Defra issues general licences for killing and taking protected species).

Frequency and regularity of inspection: may depend on nature of licence but for many rare or never.

Likelihood of third party detection: very low.

Additional information:

• cruelty is usually related to method of killing or removal
• the police have dedicated officers to investigate wildlife crime but do not take an active role in monitoring activities of gamekeepers or animal control professionals
• HSE has a role in regulating use of rodenticides to protect humans and non-target species

1.2 Variation in training of animal welfare inspectors

Also related to (1.1), there is great variation in the level of qualifications and training expected of animal welfare inspectors, when monitoring or enforcing relevant animal-related legislation. Measuring animal welfare requires detailed knowledge and an ability to integrate information across different domains. An appropriate level of training is essential.

Home Office inspectors, responsible for animals and establishments involved with animals in scientific procedures, must have a veterinary or medical qualification and extensive training; this level of professional membership and expertise represents an appropriate level of safeguard for those animals involved in scientific procedures and in reassurance of the general public.

Official veterinarians working in abattoirs must have a veterinary qualification and undergo some additional training (OV13: Policy for the authorisation of OVs in Great Britain - GOV.UK). Larger abattoirs must employ an AWO (with certificate of competence for procedures they oversee), Meat Hygiene Inspectors must have certificate or diploma from the Royal Society for Public Health, which includes training on animal welfare legislation and the recognition of signs of poor welfare.

For zoos, the inspection team is made up of trained Secretary of State (Defra) Zoo Inspectorate (vets or zoo managers) plus local authorities ‘inspectors’ with variable or no specific expertise or training in animal welfare.

APHA has a role in safeguarding animal health and welfare and delivering the animal health and welfare policies of Defra, Scottish, and Welsh governments (DAERA has an equivalent role in Northern Ireland). Official veterinarians, Animal health officers (AHOs) and Veterinary Inspectors employed by APHA undergo training related to specific duties (for example, TB testing, export certification, surveillance) and a tailored role-dependent field development framework. Training packages (General Learning Pathways) are available for new APHA staff providing an introduction to various work areas including animal welfare. AHO applicants only require an agricultural background, knowledge, or qualification (vaguely defined).

While local authority inspectors responsible for implementation of The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 (LAIA) must undertake appropriate training (a Level 3 certificate or equivalent granted from a body recognised and regulated by Ofqual) if not a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, this is not standardised, and variability exists between different courses. Other duties involving investigation into animal welfare offenses or enforcement, not covered by LAIA do not have clear training requirements and vary between local authorities.

There are some examples of networking and communication (for example, government veterinary service, or a local government animal welfare group) but these appear informal, voluntary or engage only certain groups and activities (for example, the Welfare Referral Working Group is concerned with FSA referrals from abattoirs to local authorities or APHA). The National Animal Health and Welfare Panel also has a role in communication of enforcement issues, but this is a small part of its very broad remit.

1.3 Data Availability

Also related to (1.1), there is great variation in information available on enforcement activities and outcomes. In brief:

• Home Office – publishes data on non-compliance, actions taken and more
• FSA Defra – The FSA publishes a Manual of Official Controls and quarterly data on non-compliance at abattoirs and actions taken. Defra also publishes information on the thresholds used to trigger investigations in broiler production based on levels of mortality or post-mortem conditions detected at abattoirs. Data on the number of times thresholds are exceeded per year has previously been released following specific freedom of information (FOI) requests but is not otherwise readily available.
• APHA/ local authorities – the ASC understands that targets for inspections have been developed by APHA using a stratified, risk-based approach. However, information on the approach and the resulting targets is not easily accessible. Data on farm visits was previously reported (until 2017) and reinstatement of publishing would be welcomed by stakeholders. The ASC spoke to the Animal Law Foundation who had obtained limited information via FOI requests. However, obtaining information in this way from local authorities is extremely time-consuming and only partially effective.
• Local authorities – no easily available data on responses to complaints or access to inspection reports that raise animal welfare/non-compliance issues. RSPCA provide some data, but this is not adjusted for the changing size of human or pet population.

There is no “complete chain” of monitoring/enforcement events in any context. Even the Home Office does not “close the loop” by reporting the ultimate outcome of actions taken. A complete chain would enable monitoring of proportion of cases taken further and alternative outcomes.

In conclusion, the availability of relevant data is highly variable. A degree of transparency on enforcement by the Home Office and FSA is not replicated for most other animal welfare contexts for example, on farm.

2. Codes of Practice

Codes of Practice for animal welfare provide guidance on some legislative requirements in force when the Codes were published. Codes also provide additional non-binding guidance that can be considered by enforcers and the courts to inform whether relevant welfare standards have been met. The requirement to issue Codes varies according to Act. For example, ASPA states that Codes ‘shall’ be issued as to the care of protected animals and their use for regulated procedures but does not specify how often these should be revised.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 states that Codes ‘may’ be issued to provide practical guidance and may be revised “from time to time” under the Act and are agreed by parliament after consultation, subject to a negative parliamentary approval procedure. Codes issued under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 currently cover dogs, cats, horses/equids, privately kept primates and most livestock species on farm and at market. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 states that standards of zoo practice “may be issued,” that cover the welfare of animals in zoos, although the Animal Welfare Act 2006 also applies. Standard operating procedures also exist to guide good practice in abattoirs.

The Codes vary in format between different species, but for the main farmed species they provide a summary of the various legislative requirements surrounding animal welfare, as well as guidance surrounding ‘good practice.’ The Codes are not updated regularly enough and some farm animal codes are over 20 years old. Zoo Standards (codes) are 12 years old, with a minor update in 2017 and full update underway, but as yet unpublished. The criteria for revision are unclear; while it is always the owners’ responsibility to be aware of legal requirements, given their practical use as a summary of the legislation for animal keepers, it is clearly important that changes in the law trigger immediate revisions.

Given the advancement of what is considered ‘good practice’ in some species and industries, older Codes may fail to keep pace with societal/industry norms and developments in animal behaviour and welfare science. For example, the Cattle Welfare Codes make no recommendations as to the use of local anaesthesia and longer-term pain relief in calves under two months of age undergoing castration. There are no easily available data to show the extent to which the Codes have been used as evidence of reasonable practice in prosecutions, or any other enforcement context; neither is it clear the extent to which animal keepers are aware of/abide by the Codes. Generally, codes do not provide information on how owners can monitor the overall welfare of their animals. There is a discrepancy in that some codes mention that psychological/mental suffering is an offence, while others do not.

3. Substantial enforcement gaps

The information above demonstrates that there are enforcement gaps across all species and sectors. However, as next discussed, these gaps are particularly notable for livestock kept for farming purposes and for wild animals targeted for destruction or removal.  

Livestock kept for farming purposes

Farm business owners and animal keepers are directly responsible for large numbers of sentient animals. Their knowledge of the legislation and willingness and ability to implement can have significant impacts on the welfare of these animals. Farms are not currently licensed, unless open for public display (petting farms) and the onus lies with animal keepers to inform themselves of their obligations and legal requirements to animal welfare. Farm premises are inspected on a ‘risk based’ interval by local authorities and APHA as this is considered more efficient than previous ‘random proportion’ approaches. The details of risk-based models undergo frequent revision but tend to incorporate data on previous non-compliances and other risk-factors (for example, mortality, Farm Assurance Scheme membership). In practice, premises previously reported to the authorities by the public or vets are more likely to be inspected. Premises are also more likely to be inspected if breaches have been detected elsewhere, for example during transport, at slaughter or at markets. Farms considered low risk based on these criteria have a low probability of receiving inspections, although the extent of non-compliance on these farms may still be relatively common. Some sectors such as farmed fish and game birds are not included in risk-based models at all. Farmed fish and gamebirds (prior to release) may be inspected in response to complaints. Gamebirds are controversially considered ‘wild’ after release and will not be inspected.

Where objective thresholds for investigation exist, notably for broiler production, they have been set at very high level. Annex 3 of the Code of Practice for the welfare of meat chickens specifies that a trigger report will be issued only when post-mortem conditions present at an “exceptionally high” level (6 standard deviations ((sd)) above the mean), or when mortality is “unusually high” (3 sd above an expected mean of 7.37%) and accompanied by above-average levels of other post-mortem conditions. These levels are a concern for some stakeholders.

Farm Assurance schemes provide external inspections of many farm premises, but the primary purpose of such visits is to ensure scheme compliance and not to check legal status. Visit frequency varies between schemes but is typically every 12 to18 months unless significant non-compliances are found and not addressed. Unannounced audits are rare compared to scheduled audits, which may lead to the farm being seen in a state less representative of normal practice and reduce the effectiveness of the assessment. Other issues are that different schemes cover different species, and the focus of some schemes (as well as FSA or APHA registration) is on disease control and traceability, which is a necessary but not complete aspect of overall animal welfare.

It is unclear what actions are taken if legal breaches are detected by assurance scheme auditors, what processes are used to decide whether to pass information to local authorities, or the processes in place for assurance schemes to pass information to local authorities or the police.

The proportion of farms that participate in an assurance scheme varies by sector. In 2022, 51% of laying hens and 27% of pigs were reared under the RSPCA assured scheme. Currently 95% of dairy farms but only approximately 50% of beef and lamb producers participate in the Red Tractor scheme. Dairy farms also receive FSA inspections, but these focus on animal health only as far as it may affect food safety, and not wider animal welfare law compliance. For the large number of smaller producers not participating in an assurance scheme, it is possible that no external oversight takes place, especially if in an area with little public access.

Wild Animals targeted for destruction or removal

Many wild animals are regarded as unwanted, problematic or “pest” species (UPP) by particular communities and when found in particular situations or locations.

Acts such as the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 and increasing restrictions and proposed bans on the use of snares, mean that the industries involved are having to adapt rapidly. The control of many UPP animals is primarily conducted by gamekeepers and farmers (birds, foxes, stoats, or deer out of season). Killing of rodents, and species such as moles, is commonly undertaken by commercial pest control companies as well as the public. Some traps and rodenticides are on free sale, even though they can cause prolonged death and suffering.

General licences, issued by Defra under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), are permits that allow users to kill or take certain species of birds or mammals for defined purposes, such as preventing damage, conserving other species, or to protect public health or safety. General licences exist for situations which are considered to pose a “low risk to the conservation or welfare of a protected species”.  Users do not need to apply for these general permissions but must comply with their terms. Licences require that humane techniques are used to trap or kill protected species, and that persons operating under general licences should be competent. However, there is no requirement for demonstration of, or monitoring of, competence. The ASC understands that few, if any, compliance checks take place. A 2019 review for the Wild Animal Welfare Committee raised serious concerns about the welfare of birds killed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). Individual licences must be applied for from Natural England for the killing or taking of protected species in contexts not covered by the default permissions of a general licence. A level of competence is required before an individual licence is issued and users are required to report their activities.

For rats, mice and moles, there are few restrictions or licences required relating to methods of killing, with the exception of the Glue Trap (Offences) Act 2022. The contrast in enforcement of potential welfare breaches against rodents kept for scientific research compared to UPP rodents is stark.

4. Changes within the Enforcement Landscape

The landscape of enforcement has recently changed, with the RSPCA - previously responsible for a large proportion of animal welfare prosecutions – exploring the possibility of ceding this responsibility to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). It is unclear whether the CPS has the necessary resource or expertise to assume this responsibility, and whether this is likely to become adopted policy. The RSPCA has indicated a rise in animal welfare offences linked to organised crime, which it feels ill-equipped to take on through private prosecution; this would suggest a need for the State to take a greater role to protect animal welfare.

Broader licensing requirements were brought in by 2018 affecting dog breeding, pet selling, hiring out horses, dog and cat boarding and day care, and keeping or training animals for exhibition. A post-implementation review of the 2018 licensing Act was due in 2022/2023 but has not yet appeared.

To control the spread of disease, owners of livestock, including poultry and other birds, whether kept commercially or as pets, must register their ownership and location details with APHA. Registration allows livestock owners to obtain a flock or herd mark. Premises registered specifically for disease control purposes will not generally be inspected or contacted unless there is a relevant disease outbreak. Dairy farms must additionally register with the FSA which entails an inspection of hygiene and health standards every 10 years (more frequently for raw milk production). Although these registration initiatives fall short of a licensing requirement with regular welfare inspection, they provide a potentially helpful foundation for future initiatives to improve farm animal welfare.

The deterrent effects of the newly implemented Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 are not yet clear. These sanctions may have positive effects, but close monitoring is needed to evaluate the contexts in which these new enforcement tools are used. Guidance on the use of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) was issued in Jan 2024 and applies to offences across broad range of animal welfare Acts. FPNs may fill a gap in enforcement between advice, guidance or warning letters (for minor breaches of relevant regulations) and statutory notices, cautions and prosecution (for more serious offences). Data will be needed to monitor how widely they are used, in what contexts, and whether they supplement or replace other enforcement routes, including CPS prosecutions. The impact of requiring proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ when issuing FPNs compared with a lower standard based on ‘balance of probability’ (used in previous cross-compliance contexts) is not yet known.  If FPNs are applied to some commercial animal enterprises, the size of the fine may be less than the financial benefits to the business from breaching the regulations.  It is therefore important that there is a limit on how many times a FPN can be issued for an offence before alternative enforcement avenues are used, or that FPNs can adapted to scale with business turnover or number of animals kept.

It is not clear to the ASC who will have an overview of the effect of all these changes.

5. Animal Welfare Science could have a greater input into Risk-Based Assessments and Assessments of Severity of Harm

Science could play a greater role in enforcement activities, including threshold-setting, identification of triggers for investigation, and in developing more appropriate risk-based approaches to inspection. Some local authorities have transparent categories for risk-based award of licences (with lower risk premises being awarded licences of longer duration). The ASC understands that effort is being invested in internal analysis of the effectiveness of current risk-based approaches to inspection. Open sharing of this information would be beneficial for transparency and external oversight.

Codes of Practice are generally evidence-based but would be improved by the inclusion of validated welfare-assessment frameworks. Producers could use these to monitor the welfare of their animals across all domains as a regular exercise or to assess the effects of management changes or breed choices. Standardised welfare-assessment frameworks could be more widely used in other enforcement contexts. Examples include assessing physical or mental harm when issuing Fixed Penalty Notices, improving the validity, reliability and efficiency of inspections and developing thresholds for acceptable levels of animal-based welfare indicators such as tail-biting or injurious pecking. There is a lack of awareness by local authorities of science-based initiatives such as the “innate health” checklist for dogs in relation to the licensing of breeding establishments.

ASC Conclusions

The ASC considers that although due regard to animal welfare has been given in policy decisions, we conclude the current structures are, in part, inconsistent for effective enforcement of animal welfare. Below we list recommendations for Parliament to consider to improve future animal welfare policy implementation and enforcement.

ASC recommends a wholesale review of the enforcement of animal welfare legislation. Such a review will provide a timely and authoritative resource for policymakers, to further improve or enhance existing consistency and delivery of animal welfare legislation enforcement and maintain public trust in the enforcement process. Points that could be considered in that review, or in the interim.

• A central body responsible for directing and coordinating animal welfare law surveillance and implementation, working collaboratively with other governmental organisations (the police, APHA, FSA, local authorities, and the CPS, the ASRU) and, where necessary, NGOs (for example, the RSPCA).
• Setting out minimum resource allocation for animal welfare enforcement activities in agencies (such as local authorities), for example, budget, adequately trained and qualified personnel.
• The introduction of licensing of farm businesses, with a regular inspection process of all farm businesses for legal compliance. The ‘audit burden’ on farmers could be minimised by cooperation with, and streamlining of, farm assurance and disease control auditing bodies, and an element of documented self-assessment. Smallholders could have a much-reduced inspection frequency and a more declaration-based approach.
• Publication of criteria used to undertake risk-based inspections and audits.
• A review of animal premises registration systems to ensure comprehensive data is available to all government bodies.
• Development of inspection protocols to ensure compliance with animal welfare regulations in pest control operations.
• An independent review as to whether current scientific evidence suggests the trapping and killing activities conducted under general licences represent a low risk to welfare. In addition, whether the current system of general licences is fit for the purpose of protecting animal welfare.
• A risk-based approach to compliance and competence checks for users relying on individual licences for the killing or taking of protected animals, and open reporting of user-reported data.
• A centrally recognised reporting mechanism for the public and other third parties to report potential animal welfare offences (separate from injured wildlife).
• Central reporting of animal welfare offence reports, investigations, and prosecutions (or fixed penalty notices, improvement notices) which is available as an open-access annual report, broken down by species and sector and local authority.
• Appropriate and effective use of fixed penalty and improvement notices; including limits on the number of times they can be applied to an individual or business, before other routes of prosecution are applied (or scaling fines to business turnover).
• Centralised training packages for relevant personnel, shared training across sectors and expansion of the number of individuals within each local authorities who are trained at any one time (to at least two).
• Revision of requirements set out in Section 18 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (powers in relation to seizure of animals in distress) and 16E of the Zoo Licensing  Act 1981 (welfare of animals following closure of a zoo)  to allow  greater provision for the sale, rehoming or slaughter of commercially-kept animals prior to a Section 20 being applied.
• A review of APHA’s enforcement remit, particularly with respect to on-farm inspections, including improved capacity for evidence gathering and ability to apply fixed penalty notices. APHA may be well-positioned to take an overarching role in the enforcement of farm animal welfare enforcement.
• A minimum period for review of Codes of Practice with amendments of ‘good practice;’ timely revision to reflect changes in legislation, developments in animal behaviour and welfare science, and current industry best-practice. Movement to a digital platform would enable timely updates, easier editing and wider dissemination.
• Route for incorporation of relevant animal welfare science into codes of practice, inspection regimes and use of animal welfare assessment tools in enforcement activities.

Governance   

The Animal Sentience Committee members who were responsible for developing this report are:   

• Professor Anna Meredith OBE 
• Richard Cooper 
• Professor Christine Nicol 

This report was produced between November 2024 and February 2025. Find out more about the ASC.