10 Feb 2026
Dozens of experts and campaign groups have called for a ‘reset’ in how key legislation is interpreted 20 years after it was made legal.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image: Pixabay.
Dozens of welfare groups have called for a review of key legislation amid fears millions of animals are still suffering 20 years after its protections came into force.
Clinical and legal experts have also backed the call, led by the Animal Law Foundation and League Against Cruel Sports, to put animals “back at the heart” of the law.
A letter to ministers, released today (10 February), described the 2006 Animal Welfare Act as a “landmark achievement”.
But it also argued the law had not fulfilled its potential due to factors including an “overly permissive interpretation of what constitutes unnecessary suffering”.
It added: “As we mark the act’s 20th anniversary, there is a clear opportunity and responsibility to reset its interpretation, ensure consistency, and confirm the principle that all animals deserve adequate protection.
“Animals cannot wait another 20 years for the protections they are already legally entitled to receive.
“Now is the time to put animals back at the heart of the Animal Welfare Act, to ensure that unnecessary suffering is genuinely eliminated and that all animals can live lives that meet their needs.”
More than 30 separate organisations have signed the letter, including Animal Aid, the Born Free Foundation and Naturewatch Foundation.
Two vets – Marc Abraham and former RSPCA chief vet Caroline Allen – are also among 23 welfare and legal experts separately listed as signatories.
The initiative is being presented as a means of strengthening the Government’s Animal Welfare Strategy, which pledged a range of new measures when it was published in December.
But other key concerns relate to what campaigners see as the inconsistent interpretation of the legislation and the exclusion of whole groups, particularly wild animals, from its protection.
Emma Slawinski, executive director of the League Against Cruel Sports, argued the latter created a “two-tier” protection system that allowed for the abandonment of responsibility when some animals are at their most vulnerable.
She said: “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. This inconsistency is illogical and unjustified.”
Animal Law Foundation executive director Edie Bowles argued its work also showed the need for a “reset” in the law’s interpretation.
She said: “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 purpose.”
