Across England and Scotland, nearly 2,400 licensed dog breeders operate under regulations designed to prevent the breeding of animals destined for health and welfare suffering—yet local authority inspectors tasked with enforcing these rules are working with wildly inconsistent guidance and support.
A new report from researchers at Naturewatch Foundation and the University of Exeter, working alongside legal experts and animal welfare advocates, reveals that the current system for protecting dog health through breeding regulations may not be working as intended. The research, based on Freedom of Information requests sent to 326 local authorities across both nations in August 2025, shows that while some councils conduct thorough, multi-faceted assessments of breeding compliance, others describe only vague methods—and some reported having no clear assessment process at all.
The regulations in question exist to prevent breeders from using dogs with genetic predispositions to disorders like hip dysplasia, extreme physical features such as shortened muzzles or protruding eyes, or behavioral issues that would compromise the health or welfare of offspring. In England, this protection is mandated through schedule 6, paragraph 6(5) of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) Regulations, known as LAIAR. Scotland introduced an equivalent provision in 2021, with the additional consideration of behavioral factors.
What the data reveals is sobering inconsistency. Between October 2018 and August 2025, English local authorities recorded just 31 instances of non-compliance with breeding welfare standards across 2,217 licensed breeders—a number researchers suggest is implausibly low. Those 31 cases resulted in 17 license refusals, six variations, two suspensions, two prosecutions and two convictions, with zero license revocations. In Scotland, where 173 breeders hold licenses, no instances of non-compliance were reported at all between September 2021 and August 2025.
The report argues that this scarcity of findings does not reflect reality but rather indicates that current licensing provisions are not being fully understood or utilized. When non-compliance was identified, it typically involved inherited genetic conditions, conformation-related health issues, inadequate health testing, or concerns about dogs' temperament or general health. Yet many councils reportedly responded by simply excluding problematic individual dogs from licenses rather than treating the issue as a serious breach requiring formal action.
The researchers call for clearer statutory guidance to help inspectors conduct holistic assessments of breeding compliance. They emphasize the critical role veterinarians should play: English law already requires vets to attend all initial breeder inspections, yet this is not consistently happening. Scotland lacks such a requirement entirely. Better support for these professionals—clarifying their appointment, involvement, and authority—could transform how effectively regulations protect the millions of dogs bred each year.
Some local authorities are already demonstrating the approach the report advocates: drawing on multiple sources of information, including veterinary input and behavioral assessment, to evaluate whether breeding decisions align with animal welfare standards. Making this comprehensive approach the standard, rather than the exception, would mean that licensing rules designed to prevent suffering actually prevent it.