LoginAnalysis: Crying Out for Change
CTSI’s latest policy paper calls for urgent reform of the Animal Welfare Act – and for an increasingly vocal group of supporters, it can’t come soon enough.
Richard Young, Editorial Lead Writer
Posted 26 May 2025 | JoTS Online
Content Tags: Analysis|Animal Health and Welfare|National
“When you look at some of the animal welfare cases that we’ve had, they are extreme. You couldn’t sleep at night if you did nothing about it.” So says Stephanie Young, CTSI Lead Officer for Animal Health. “You see dying animals, animals which are emaciated – you really do see some of the most horrific things when we’re taking animals into possession. The press don’t publish a lot of the photos for a reason,” she adds.
Those cases can involve malnourishment and mistreatment of livestock, failure to provide adequate bedding and shelter, and lack of basic veterinary care. All of these can result in pain and suffering for animals, as well as heightening the risk of devastating disease outbreaks – the social and economic costs of which can quickly spiral out of control.
It is estimated that the UK’s 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak, which necessitated the destruction of millions of animals and effectively shut down entire swathes of the countryside for the best part of a year, cost the economy £8bn. The subsequent inquiry traced the outbreak’s likely origin back to a farm where pigs were being fed with contaminated meat.
“If you’re not picking up on animal welfare issues, there’s a chance that disease goes unseen and before you know it, we’re into a full-scale outbreak,” Young says. “And that then really does become a significant burden on the wider economy.
“There have recently been cases of foot-and-mouth in Europe – it’s been found in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, so we know it’s in circulation,” she adds.
The law needs to be strengthened. We can’t be letting it go on for another 20 years or more before the legislation is reassessed and made fit for purpose
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was brought in by the then-Labour government, partly in response to the issues raised by the 2001 epidemic. Now, almost 20 years after that legislation was introduced, and with a Labour government back in power, the time seems ripe for a rethink.
Under the current legislation, animals which have been mistreated or neglected on farms – or in other commercial operations, such as puppy breeders – can be taken into the possession of a local authority to prevent further harm as part of a section 20 order granted by a court in England and Wales, and under section 32 of the Act in Scotland.
But with increased costs of animal feed, and with court backlogs prolonging proceedings, those animals can sometimes end up being housed at councils’ expense for months or even years. Some local authorities can spend upwards of £100,000 on animal welfare cases and, in one extreme example, the costs have run to more than £1.5m.
And incredibly, under the law as it stands, there is nothing to prevent farms or other businesses against which there is strong evidence of welfare offences from restocking their pens and repeating the process over and over, leading to further costs and yet more animal suffering.
“Is it appropriate that there is only a post-conviction sanction of disqualification [from keeping animals]?” Young asks. “It could take years to get somebody into court for disqualification or for the trial to be heard. In between me taking animals from that individual up to the point where the court reaches a decision, they can still keep on taking on more animals. Repeatedly we’ve had some farms where we’ve had to go back again and take more animals while we’ve got an ongoing criminal case.
“Obviously, we don’t want to take animals into possession unless we really have to. But if their welfare is compromised, and we don’t do something about it, we’re complicit in the offending,” she adds. “The law needs to be strengthened. We can’t be letting it go on for another 20 years or more before the legislation is reassessed and made fit for purpose.
We’ve got an opportunity. The Government needs to revisit it and make it a priority. Labour say they’re an animal-friendly political party – so they need to put their money where their mouth is.”
Enough is enough
Responsibility for farm animal welfare is split between local authority Trading Standards services, which enforce the legislation, and the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) under the umbrella of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and its devolved counterparts. Trading Standards teams also often work with Environmental Health colleagues and charities such as the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare.
Now, as a leading voice within that framework, CTSI is calling for the introduction of a set of practical measures to strengthen the existing legislation. When putting together its recently published policy paper, ‘(Tackling) Animal Harm’, the Institute examined the weaknesses in the current rules and, with input from animal welfare experts and local authorities, suggested measures including:
- the introduction of interim disqualification orders;
- provisions for the voluntary surrender of animals by farms and other businesses;
- mandatory timeframes for court hearings;
- the provision of funding for complex cases to help local authorities cover the costs of care and legal action when animals are taken into possession;
- provision for the transfer of animal ownership without lengthy court hearings (in line with current legislation in Scotland);
- reassessment of farm subsidies to ensure small and medium-sized livestock farmers can maintain welfare standards amidst rising costs;
- and the introduction of independent valuations of seized animals to prevent disputes and potential litigation.
CTSI’s proposals have won cross-party support, with a coalition of MPs and other concerned parties stepping up to back the call for reform. Gill Furniss, MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, and Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Consumer Protection, said: “I strongly support the calls made within CTSI’s ‘(Tackling) Animal Harm’ paper. It clearly identifies the critical issues undermining effective animal welfare enforcement, particularly highlighting how delays in court proceedings are enabling enforcement costs to escalate significantly, placing further strain on already overstretched local authorities.
“It’s known that the vast majority of farmers and animal keepers in the UK maintain the highest standards of care and responsibility to their animals. Yet, there remains a small minority whose neglect or cruelty disproportionately burdens local authorities, exacerbated by lengthy court delays which allow costs to spiral. Additionally, current financial support mechanisms for farmers, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, are inadequate,
contributing to an environment where animal welfare can unintentionally become compromised.”
Peredur Owen Griffiths, Member of the Senedd for South Wales East, said: “Comprehensive and urgent reform of animal welfare legislation is needed to address the prolonged suffering inflicted upon animals as a result of significant delays within the judicial system and critically under-resourced enforcement mechanisms.
“We commend CTSI for bringing forward this important report and for highlighting long-standing concerns that have yet to be adequately addressed. Crucially, the financial burden borne by local authorities has reached unsustainable levels.
“Wales has historically led the way in advancing animal welfare policy, but the scale and complexity of the challenges now necessitate a coordinated and well-resourced approach across all administrations. Reforms can ensure that every animal receives the care, protection, and dignity they deserve, and that the rule of law in animal welfare is not undermined by procedural and fiscal inertia.”
Carolyn Thomas, Member of the Senedd for North Wales and Chair of the Cross Party Group for Animal Welfare, added: “I am grateful to CTSI for bringing this paper forward and
for highlighting concerns that have been raised for many years. This legislation requires a comprehensive update to reflect the evolving needs of our society and to ensure robust protection for our animals.
“Court delays, although not a devolved responsibility, are causing significant challenges for devolved areas, undermining our priorities to safeguard animal welfare. The ramifications of these issues have a serious impact to rescue centres, local authorities, public trust and increased costs to all organisations involved. Wales has led the way in many areas, but we now need a combined approach to modernise our outdated laws, empowering our local authorities with pre-conviction measures and improved funding to prevent abuse and ensure every animal receives the care it deserves.”
Facts of the matter
In a survey of local authorities, CTSI found that budgetary constraints are preventing Trading Standards teams from confiscating animals, with 84% of respondents citing costs as the main barrier to enforcement. More than a third of respondents (39.4%) also reported that the prolonged duration of the court process is a substantial obstacle.
There is also a significant semantic flaw in the current legislation, which states that a local authority ‘may’ appoint animal welfare inspectors – not that it must. As a result, there is no statutory obligation upon local authorities to enforce the law. This get-out clause contradicts the requirements of assimilated Regulation (EU) 2017/625, which places an expectation on the local authority (as a ‘designated authority’) to enforce animal welfare.
There are other obstacles – and vested interests – which result in further delays and mounting costs. As CTSI’s policy paper notes, ‘too many section 20 hearings are taking many months to be heard due to defence lawyers turning a civil matter into a pseudo-trial prior to any criminal case. This is expensive, is not good for animal welfare, and goes against the spirit of the legislation.’
As Young points out, “Even when we come to be given a section 20 order, the defence may appeal, and it could be another 12 months before an appeal is heard. You’ve got experts out there who are intent on making a lot of money from defending poor animal welfare when actually it is indefensible.
“It just racks up costs and it makes it so the legislation isn’t doing what it should be doing. Animal welfare’s being compromised. That can never be right.”
The Animal Welfare Act does contain provisions for a local authority to recoup some of its costs by selling confiscated animals. However, even if they are fit to be sold on, the market value of such animals is often minimal, and once veterinary bills and other costs are taken into account, most local authorities still see a loss. When seizing animals, “I’m never, ever looking at the commercial value of the animal because we’re not a commercial entity,” says Young. “All we’re looking for is making sure the welfare needs of that animal are met.”
This legislation requires a comprehensive update to reflect the evolving needs of our society and to ensure robust protection for our animals
Finding solutions
One potential glimmer of light has recently come from a change to the law in Scotland, and CTSI believes that could provide a template for reform in the rest of the UK. The Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 introduces new provisions regarding the transfer of ownership of an animal. It means local authorities no longer have to apply to courts for a section 32 hearing, instead placing responsibility on businesses to get a decision notice appealed. This alleviates some pressure on the court system and avoids lengthy delays. It also ensures that costs are kept to a minimum to protect any commercial value of animals taken.
That shift in emphasis, away from the judicial doldrums and towards a more agile, proactive approach which recognises the urgent nature of animal welfare cases is vital, Young believes. “If I need to take animals because the welfare is that bad, there should be an immediate capability to stop that person having any more animals until the courts have decided whether they’re a fit and proper person or not,” she says. “We shouldn’t be waiting until months down the line when the courts have got availability to maybe hear a case and then adjoin it.
“It shouldn’t be a post-conviction sanction,” she adds. “We may not necessarily prosecute somebody in the end anyway; there are two tests for prosecuting – evidential standards and public interest – and a case may never meet those standards. But at the
moment, unless we prosecute, we can’t stop that individual from having animals. There’s got to be some way of making sure that we can protect animal welfare through out-of-court settlement.”
Maurice Golden, MSP for North East Scotland and Deputy Convener of the Cross-Party Group in the Scottish Parliament on Animal Welfare, is among those supporting CTSI’s calls for reform, and he believes that even with the recent change to the Scottish legislation, there remains much room for improvement. “I welcome this report as an important step in helping strengthen animal welfare legislation and enforcement,” he said. “[It not only identifies] where existing legislation needs to be strengthened, but also shines a light on how insufficient resources are creating extra costs for local government whilst risking increased animal suffering. The public is rightly concerned with ensuring the highest levels of animal welfare, and this paper offers policymakers an insight into where best to act.”
Marisa Heath, Director of the All-Party Group on Animal Welfare (APGAW), agrees: “As it stands, animal welfare cases are costing local authorities significant sums and often posing a great threat to our biosecurity, which impacts everyone.
“With a better enforcement process that can both use preventative tools, and a more efficient system, we can reduce the number of cases and deliver better outcomes for animal welfare and relating public health. We look forward to working with CTSI and Government to act.”
Although it is unlikely that substantial legislative change will happen any time soon, with a slight chance of secondary legislation being introduced by 2026 at the very earliest, and more substantial primary legislation probably off the table until at least 2028, it is clear that the momentum for change is building.
And reform of the Animal Welfare Act can’t come soon enough. Without it, CTSI warns, ‘animals will remain trapped in a system woefully unfit to meet the demands and expectations of the twenty-first century, making the animal welfare framework unfit for purpose’.
PLEASE NOTE: This content originally appeared on our standalone Journal of Trading Standards website (www.journaloftradingstandards.co.uk), which we are gradually migrating over to the Journal's new home on the CTSI website. Please bear with us while we complete this process. This will not affect the production of our Print Edition.
Share this Article: X|LinkedIn|Facebook
Content Tags: Analysis|Animal Health and Welfare|National
