11-05-2010 Conservatives likely to put on hold animal protection progress
Animals Count is extremely disappointed about the Conservatives forming the next UK Government, as animal protection is very likely going to be put on hold, if not repealed by the Tories.
The 131-page 2010 Conservative manifesto pledged to “promote high animal welfare standards”, but few additional details were provided. Wildlife protection and habitat conservation are emphasised – particularly wildlife trafficking, whaling, ivory sales and the creation of marine conservation zones. While these issues are undoubtedly important, and while elephants and whales enjoy iconic status, some may consider that, in welfare terms, they pale into relative insignificance, compared to the welfare problems faced by nearly a billion UK farm animals.
The only details provided of any programme to address farm animal welfare is a commitment to a “carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of [bovine tuberculosis]”. The Conservatives have previously committed to culling badgers. Additionally, they promised to dedicate government time to providing a free parliamentary vote on repealing the Hunting Act 2004. More positively, they stated their intention to work toward a reduction in scientific animal use, and to promote responsible pet ownership via codes of practice under the Animal Welfare Act, and through targeting of irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs.
At the time of writing, neither animal welfare nor protection was included within the list of policy areas on the Conservative Party website. However, a booklet on farming (accessible from the “Countryside and Farming” section) includes some animal welfare policies. While primarily focused on the promotion and protection of British farming, the booklet states the Conservatives “remain committed to upholding and improving welfare standards” for farm animals. The party asserts its support for welfare reforms, such as the 2012 ban on conventional cages for laying hens, with the proviso that such standards are raised equally across the EU.
Significantly, it states its intention to work toward the inclusion of production standards within World Trade Organisation negotiations. To date, countries seeking to ban the importation of cruelly produced animal products have risked falling foul of free-trade agreements, and incurring severe financial penalties. Allowing such bans would be likely to significantly assist animal protection campaigns within the UK and abroad.
Most of the booklet, however, focuses on disease control among agricultural species. The Conservatives would develop an animal health policy in partnership with farmers and veterinarians, and would seek to share, with the farming industry, the responsibility and cost of tackling animal disease. They place particular emphasis on border controls. No obvious mention is made of the overwhelming majority of animal welfare policy areas, however, including most farmed species, long-distance animal transportation, religious slaughter, companion animals, animals in laboratories, and animals in sport and entertainment (including zoos and circuses).
Additional insights into Conservative policy on animal welfare were provided to us during a meeting with former MP Roger Gale, president of the Conservative Animal Welfare (CAW). Since 1994, CAW has offered a focal point for Conservative Party members interested in animal welfare. Its policies on animal welfare appear to have been provided by a veterinary advisor. A positive example is: “The conditions in which all farm animals are reared, grown and slaughtered should be considered, and particular attention should be given to stocking densities, transport and slaughter. Animals should always be slaughtered as near to the point of production as possible, and the means of slaughter should always cause as little psychological or physical trauma as possible. Where the means of slaughter is dictated by religious traditions, this should not be a valid argument to disregard trauma to the animals concerned.”
Additionally, CAW states that: “The Conservative Party is the first political party in the UK to designate a specific front-bench spokesman for animal welfare.” This was Andrew Rosindell MP, the former shadow home affairs minister, with special responsibility for animal welfare.
Other aspects may be considered disturbing. An example is the statement: “[It is a] biological fact that man is an omnivorous animal and, as such, needs to eat meat. It follows… that there is a need to farm, kill and eat other species for our own biological needs… A vegetarian diet… is not optimal for humans.” While this may once have been considered true, we believe this demonstrates ignorance of current nutritional knowledge. Balanced vegetarian diets are well established as offering the potential for significant health benefits. Ample published medical papers and the positions of relevant professional associations support this.
Another statement suggests: “If we did not rely on animal cultivation for a major food source then there would theoretically be no need for any other mammal to be preserved except for aesthetic purposes… It is easy to envisage a planet virtually devoid of other animals if they did not provide a biological advantage for us.” Statements such as this may be considered to demonstrate a lack of awareness of:
- the intrinsic value of other species and individuals, which provides a fundamental ethical basis for attempting to conserve them, and of considering their interests, independent of possible human benefit; and
- the ecological interdependence of most (if not all) species, and their role in supporting the planetary life-support systems on which we all depend – surely a planet “virtually devoid of other animals” would be similarly devoid of humans?
Additionally, CAW appears to be more interested in ensuring good welfare for laboratory animals, rather than in finding alternatives to their use: “We should be prepared to accept that it will not be possible to eliminate the use of live animals for the development and testing of some procedures, pharmaceuticals and equipment.”
CAW does not necessarily support additional regulation: “Over-enthusiastic regulation on research animal conditions does not always produce the best conditions for those animals.”
Roger Gale believed all major parties considered the big political issues to be the economy, health, education, defence and policing, and that voters would be unlikely to give much weight to animal issues. The impression given was that, in the current economic climate, animal welfare was likely to be a very low priority for any incoming government.
We regret the recent turn of events and hope that a possible change in electoral reform may help to finally make people’s vote count, and thereby ensure that animals count!
