07/04/2026
The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC) appear hell bent on damaging their professional reputation further.
One would have thought that, after the catastrophe that was their attempted roll-out of controls on cat ownership in Scotland, they might have learned their lesson. But alas, no. The fact that, within a day of their announcement, the First Minister himself, John Swinney, had to step in publicly to reassure cat owners that their pets were not under threat should have been warning enough.
Last week, at a meeting with SAWC attended by The Reptile and Exotic Pet Trade Association (REPTA) and Responsible Reptile Keeping (RRK), it became clear that their increasingly anti-pet rhetoric has not diminished. This is despite the considerable embarrassment they have already endured, and the serious questions raised about their ability to promote pragmatic, realistic and proportionate policy. Those concerns are not limited to stakeholders, but extend to those with real authority in Scotland, namely ministers and, more importantly, the voting public.
The First Minister’s intervention was damage control. The government does not need that kind of cock-up, particularly in the run-up to an election. SAWC’s reputation in government is already tarnished, yet stepping aside and reassessing does not appear to be within their skillset. Nor, it seems, is meaningful engagement with stakeholders on subjects where their own knowledge is demonstrably limited. The arrogance and hubris are plain to see.
The meeting itself focused on so-called “exotic pet” ownership, a term they still cannot properly define. Despite counter-narrative contributions from REPTA Chair Jim Collins and RRK’s Tony Wigley, SAWC remain intent on pursuing a permitted list in Scotland. When policy is driven by ideology rather than evidence, it shows. Even basic questions regarding the lack of evidence for such a list were met without any meaningful rebuttal. They were just ignored, or body-swerved. The truth it seems, or indeed the presentation of facts and statistics, totally unimportant to them.
Positive or permitted lists are a failed, utopian concept rooted in the more extreme end of the animal rights movement. In practice, they are widely ignored, are effectively unenforceable, and are undermined by open borders across Europe. The result is predictable. Ownership moves underground, veterinary oversight diminishes, and overall welfare suffers. That outcome stands in direct contrast to the stated aims of those AR organisations promoting such measures, a group that now, regrettably, appears to include SAWC.
It is disappointing that such thinking has found its way into the machinery of governmental advisory bodies. SAWC’s position is increasingly aligned with animal rights ideology, while appearing indifferent to practical animal welfare outcomes, despite what their name might suggest. Their stance and the potential list extends well beyond reptiles and amphibians to fish, birds, parrots, raptors and a range of mammal species.
What SAWC seem to have underestimated is the scale of opposition they are likely to face. The backlash over cats, a population of some 12–13 million animals across the UK, should have made that clear. If they believe that a sector representing well over 100 million animals, supported by a coordinated alliance of advocacy organisations, will simply acquiesce, they are greatly mistaken. Legal challenge thorough judicial review will be pursued, and persistently, until better judgement prevails.
A body composed of individuals with limited practical experience of the species in question, yet proposing sweeping legislative change, reveals a striking degree of overconfidence. The loss of composure by members of the commission when subjected to even mild scrutiny in the meeting was telling. That was in a time-limited situation. In a court setting, where evidence and expert testimony carry full weight, their position would be tested far more rigorously.
Scottish keepers across all affected sectors must continue to engage with their MSPs and the next government, making clear the shortcomings of a permitted list approach. There are real opportunities to build on education, husbandry standards and professional development, areas where UK keepers are widely recognised as leaders. Scotland, in particular, has a strong reputation for expertise and quality across multiple sectors.
That reputation should not be jeopardised by poorly conceived policy. There are genuine welfare issues that merit attention, such as livestock losses in upland areas or the ongoing problems associated with irresponsible dog breeding. These are areas where resources could be directed more effectively, rather than attempting to impose blanket restrictions on well-regulated and responsible sectors that demonstrably contribute to conservation, breeding excellence and international standing. Such work streams would also be in the wheelhouse of expertise for SAWC and would stop them trying to promote legislative overreach upon animal groups they have no meaningful understanding of.
If it is the intention of SAWC to continue looking at a broader animal base than their experience and knowledge allow it is imperative they engage with figure heads from the sectors they are looking at and should be represented as permanent members of the SAWC council. This would be proportionate and ensure that robust, pressure tested decision making is possible, thus ensuring balance and the avoidance of being led down an increasingly animal rights orientated path.
This increasing influence of extreme animal rights thinking appears to have led SAWC towards what is presented as a simple, headline-grabbing solution. It is a blunt and impractical instrument. The consequences, both for animal welfare and for SAWC’s own credibility, appear to have been overlooked. The objective seems less about workable policy and more about establishing a precedent that can be replicated elsewhere.
This of course is the main aim of the animal rights organisations, installing positive/permitted lists in various territories to proliferate the severing of the human animal bond in as many countries as possible. They are not concerned with SAWC’s reputation or the irreparable damage they do to it, nor with the monumental tasks of governments trying to make it work (which they cannot). Merely that it exists as a precedent so that it may be spread to another country. The fact it doesn’t work, cannot be resourced, is therefore unenforceable and widely ignored is immaterial.
Pet advocacy organisations such as REPTA, RRK, FBH, OATA, The Hawk Board, The Parrot Society, The National Council for Aviculture and more will oppose this robustly. That effort will only be effective, however, with the support of the wider community. Those who value their ability to keep and work with the species they care about must be prepared to engage, speak up and defend that position.
Will you stand with us?
Charles Thompson
