Back to Legal Overview

Challenging Section 58

The government claims MBR Acres is exempt from animal welfare law. Here’s why they’re wrong.

Important: This page presents legal arguments based on publicly available legislation. Some arguments are untested in court. This is not legal advice.

Animal Welfare Act 2006, Section 58(1):

“Nothing in this Act applies to anything lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (c.14).”

Section 58(3):

“The Secretary of State may by order make provision for this Act not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to—(a) an animal of a kind kept for purposes connected with the carrying on of a regulated procedure...”

In plain English

Section 58 supposedly exempts anything done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) from the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA). The government has relied on this to argue that MBR Acres — a facility that breeds beagles for sale to laboratories — sits entirely outside the scope of the Animal Welfare Act.

But Section 58 is not a blank cheque. It contains specific language that limits its scope, and there are strong arguments that it does not provide the blanket protection the government claims.

STRONG

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 defines a “regulated procedure” as any experimental or scientific procedure applied to a protected animal that may have the effect of causing that animal a level of pain, suffering, distress, or lasting harm equivalent to, or higher than, that caused by the introduction of a needle in accordance with good veterinary practice.

Breeding dogs is not a regulated procedure. It is a natural biological process.

What MBR Acres actually does

MBR Acres breeds beagles and sells them to laboratories. They do not conduct any scientific experiments. The animals at MBR Acres are not undergoing regulated procedures — they are being bred, housed, and transported. These are activities of animal husbandry, not scientific research.

The day-to-day reality

The daily care of breeding dogs at MBR Acres — feeding, cleaning, housing, veterinary attention — is ordinary animal husbandry. It is indistinguishable from the care provided at any other commercial dog breeding operation. There is no rational basis for exempting this from the Animal Welfare Act simply because the eventual buyer is a laboratory rather than a member of the public.

If breeding is not a regulated procedure under ASPA, then Section 58 of the AWA does not exempt it. The breeding operation at MBR Acres should be subject to the full force of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

STRONG
STRONG
MODERATE
DEVELOPING

Section 58 has never been properly tested in court. The government’s interpretation — that it provides a blanket exemption for commercial breeders — is just that: an interpretation. Here are the legal avenues available to challenge it.

A

FOI Litigation

Legal action to force the release of inspection reports for MBR Acres. If the facility is compliant, the public has a right to know. If it is not, Section 58 may not apply.

B

Judicial Review

A judicial review of the government's blanket interpretation of Section 58. The courts could rule that Section 58 does not exempt commercial breeding operations from the Animal Welfare Act.

C

Animal Sentience Committee Petition

A formal submission to the Animal Sentience Committee arguing that the government's application of Section 58 fails to give due regard to animal welfare as required by the Sentience Act 2022.

D

Parliamentary Amendment Campaign

A campaign to amend Section 58 to explicitly clarify that commercial breeding operations are not exempt from the Animal Welfare Act, regardless of who they supply.

E

Private Prosecution

If evidence of welfare failures at MBR Acres can be obtained, a private prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act could directly test whether Section 58 provides immunity.

The law is not settled. The arguments are strong. What is needed now is the will to test them.

This analysis presents legal arguments based on publicly available legislation. It does not constitute legal advice. Some arguments are untested in court. Independent legal counsel should be sought.

Back to Legal Overview