New Labour

With New Labour having been in power for the last eight years, their position on animal protection issues is open to the most detailed analysis.

While Labour MPs traditionally tend to be relatively sympathetic to animals (1), the similarities in government policy between Conservative and Labour administrations are striking. This reveals the lack of democratic accountability of policy-makers in departments such as the Home Office and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Both the wishes of parliament, and public opinion, are often ignored.

While small positive steps have been made with the cessation of cosmetic testing on animals, the ban on fur farming and the hunting ban, these have probably been outweighed by the strong support that New Labour has shown for the industries responsible for the vast majority of animal suffering in Britain today: factory farming and animal experimentation.

At the time of writing, New Labour appears to offer no animal welfare policy for voters to consider at the Election. This does not bode well for New Labour's commitment to compassionate policies, notwithstanding the concerns of many of its backbench MPs.

Animal experiments

Before coming to power, Blair claimed that Labour was committed to the reduction and eventual elimination of animal experiments. But instead they have overseen a huge increase in vivisection, with 150,000 more animals being sacrificed every year compared to when Labour came to power in 1997.

In New Labour's pre-1997 election leaflet 'New Life for Animals', the party proclaimed:

"Labour will insist on the highest possible standards of welfare in the laboratory, and ensure that they are used only when essential for medical and other scientific purposes."

The pamphlet goes on to make a number of specific promises designed to implement this pledge, which is similar to the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for a cost-benefit assessment of animal research proposals. (2) This means weighing up the likely suffering of animals against the potential benefits of the research. In fact, New Labour's record shows that they have betrayed their promise to the British people to ensure a strict and fair approach to animal experimentation. They have failed to:

1. ensure that validated humane alternatives to animal tests are used

In fact, the Government had to be threatened with legal action to force it to stop animal tests for which there were alternatives. The National Centre for the 3Rs, established in May 2004, has been condemned by animal welfare organisations as an empty PR exercise. The RSPCA has pointed out that the centre lacks independence and may have no real impact on animal experiments.

2. ban experiments to test non-essential items such as household products

New Labour introduced a voluntary cessation of cosmetic testing through 1997 and 1998. While welcome, this initiative had little impact because this type of testing had almost died out anyway. The Government has refused to ban animal testing for other non-essential items such as household products: a clear breach of its pre-election promise. In fact, the most recent figures (for 2003) show that 117,359 animals were subjected to poisoning tests for unequivocally non-medical purposes.

3. control suffering or intervene to prevent research that clearly failed to achieve its objectives

Normally, it is impossible to assess the adequacy of animal experiment regulations. However, a number of incidents have provided a unique insight into this secretive policy area. For example, in 2003 Uncaged won a historic legal battle against Imutran and Novartis to publish confidential details of pig-to-primate organ transplant experiments. Uncaged had argued, on public interest grounds, that the documents revealed wrongdoing on the part of both the researchers and Home Office Inspectors. The records for the dying primates showed that legal limits on suffering had been breached, resulting in severe pain and distress. However, the Home Office has refused to carry out a special investigation into the affair or allow an independent inquiry. (Further information at www.xenodiaries.org)

4. where illegal suffering has been acknowledged, punishments have been derisory

The punishments handed out for breaches of regulations have done nothing to deter illegal cruelty. For example, the severity limit infringements acknowledged (as a token gesture) by the Home Office in the Imutran case prompted 'letters of admonishment'. Illegal experiments at Cambridge University that caused death and brain injury to animals resulted in a similarly feeble reaction from the Home Office.

5. ensure that the inspection process is independent and adequate

With only 20 Inspectors (most of whom have previously been involved in animal experiments) to monitor nearly 3 million experiments, there is no effective independent regulation of animal research in the UK. Each inspector has a maximum of one and a quarter days per years to assess, monitor and review each project licence, which involves an average of 690 animals and can include many different kinds of experiment. The inspectorate has also been strongly criticised by the official advisory committee for appearing to seek to cover-up breaches of regulations. The confidential Imutran documents show Inspectors colluding with researchers to underestimate levels of animal suffering and referring to the 'rubber-stamping' of research applications.

6. establish a Royal Commission to investigate whether animal experiments are necessary and/or justified

   Once again, New Labour has failed to fulfil a major promise. The question of the effectiveness of animal experimentation has been highlighted by the Government's recent admission that it has "not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments." The failure to conduct an independent review of animal research strengthens the impression that this policy is dictated by commercial interests and that both animal welfare and public health are grossly neglected. Indeed, Tony Blair has caved in to economic blackmail and joined forces with drug company executives - in a shadowy body called the Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force - to water down animal research regulations.

Factory farming

In 'New Life for Animals', New Labour made a number of claims in relation to the welfare of farmed animals.

1. Firstly, they promised that:

   "Labour will place a new emphasis on improved husbandry, and less intensive production".

   However, animal welfare campaigners detect no evidence of this in practice, and it is hard to identify a single measure that has reduced intensive production. When the public write to DEFRA's animal welfare division on the subject, the Government actually defends intensive farming.

2. Labour also pledged:

   "We will give a strong role to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) and we will seek improved welfare at slaughter".

   Once again, there is no evidence of them paying any more attention to the FAWC. Indeed, their response to FAWC's report on slaughter accepted all the minor recommendations which will improve welfare slightly, while rejecting the meaningful proposals: FAWC's call for a ban on slaughter without prestunning, the phasing out of aversive gases and better monitoring of stunning to ensure compliance with welfare codes. In other words, they ignored the substance of FAWC's recommendations and made only cosmetic changes. (3)

3. Labour said that:

   "a comprehensive labelling scheme should be introduced so that shoppers can, if they choose, purchase products which come from animals that have been reared in high-welfare systems."

   No sign of this at all. Labelling is an issue for the Food Standards Agency they say, whenever it comes up. Again, on slaughter they are supporting only voluntary labelling of religiously slaughtered meat, even though they accept it is "likely to cause very severe pain and distress".

4. Labour stated that they were committed to the:

   "phasing out of battery systems as currently practiced in Europe"

   Shifty language here. Yes, traditional battery systems are currently scheduled to go EU-wide in 2012 but the Government has rejected calls for all battery systems to go and supports the use of enriched cages, which are basically battery cages with nicer furniture. Hens will still be crammed into a cage.

5. Labour promised to:

   "... outlaw debeaking of poultry except for veterinary reasons".

   They haven't.

6. Labour also told the electorate:

   "The routine tail-docking and tooth-clipping of pigs are illegal, but current legislation has many loopholes that allow these painful practices to continue. Labour will ensure that the law is enforced to end these practices, except when they are carried out for veterinary purposes."

   This statement of intent is somewhat misleading. They imply that they're going to close "loopholes" in the law but actually just say that they are going to "enforce" the law. Tail-docking and tooth-clipping can still be carried out by farmers at their own discretion, so long as they can produce evidence of damage caused to skin, teats or tails. In practice, there is no evidence that this is ever enforced and it appears that no-one has ever been prosecuted for it. Welfare campaigners routinely observe docked tails and clipped teeth when conducting random farm visits.

Farrowing crates
Pigs on factory farms are not granted the most basic conditions for decent animal welfare, leading to psychological and physical suffering. Farrowing crates - where breeding sows are confined for weeks before and after giving birth - intensify the distress caused to pigs by preventing them from expressing normal behaviour.

The farrowing crate breaches the welfare standards that the Government purports to promote. However, the Government refuses to ban or amend the farrowing crate because of its close relationship with factory farming interests, who put profits over compassion for animals. (4)

Live exports
In November 2004, New Labour Ministers Ben Bradshaw and Margaret Beckett voted for the continuation of live exports, allowing the long distance transport of millions of animals across Europe each year. In particular, the minister ignored scientific evidence in refusing to improve the law on journey times, rest periods and stocking densities for animals during transport - and they refused to even look at ending live exports for a another six years. Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Sweden and Luxembourg all refused to support this cruel policy. So much for Britain's 'proud record' on animal welfare. Respected campaign group 'Compassion in World Farming' condemned the British ministers for their 'cowardice'. (5)

Broiler chickens
Every year in Britain, 800 million chickens are selectively bred to reach slaughter weight as quickly as possible, usually within seven weeks of age. These growth rates result in high rates of heart failure and painful leg problems, and are so damaging that parent breeder birds have to be half-starved so that they live long enough to breed. These animals spend a significant period of their short lives in chronic pain. Furthermore, around 100,000 chicks/birds die every day because of a number of ailments related to their lack of fitness. (6)

The Government has refused to implement welfare regulations that are supposed to require an adequate diet to satisfy animals' needs and maintain good health. Because these birds are so mutated through breeding that they either die within a few months of birth or have their food intake severely restricted (by 75%) to keep them alive longer, enforcing the welfare laws would require banning the breeding of animals with such obscene growth rates. But the Government has backed this extremely cruel method of farming rather than implement its own welfare regulations.

In consequence, six million chickens are condemned to hunger and suffering every day. (7)

Hunting

New Labour has finally delivered on its pledge to ban hunting almost eight years after coming to power.

One of the main reasons for the delay is that the Government - centred on Tony Blair and his advisors at No. 10 - made it clear that their preferred option was for a so-called 'middle way', with hunting continuing under licence. The commitment of the Government to the legislation appears to be weak, despite the genuine concern of most Labour backbenchers. This further highlights the sharp divisions between many Labour MPs and the governing clique within the party.

However, the hunting ban represents one of the few animal welfare advantages of a Labour Government over a Conservative administration, because of the Conservative pledge to repeal the ban. Unfortunately, the foxes and other animals who benefit from a hunting ban represent a tiny proportion of the animals that suffer in the major institutionalized areas of cruelty in farming and vivisection.

Fur farming

According to anti-fur campaigners, this is one of the most positive areas of New Labour policy. New Labour delivered on its pledge to end fur farming in Britain through legislation passed in 2000 that took effect in England and Wales in 2003.

Labour had also pledged to: "support measures to halt the trade in fur of wild animals trapped by leghold traps..." Unfortunately, the Government's efforts in this area appear to have stumbled due to lack of support across the EU.

As with the cessation of cosmetic testing on animals, banning fur farming was politically straightforward because of the small size of the fur industry in the UK.

Links

• Labour Animals Welfare Society: www.labouranimalwelfare.org

REFERENCES:

1. For example, 105 Labour MPs signed a House of Commons motion calling for an independent inquiry into cross species organ transplant experiments, despite aggressive opposition from the Government. See http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/
   motion.html/EDMI_SES=03/ref=685)
2. See section 5(4) of the Act.
3. See www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/
   fawcdefraresponse.html for more details on this issue.
4. For more information on farrowing crates, see: www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/pigs/farrowing/farrowing.htm
5. www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/prs/nr4204.pdf
6. Personal communication, RSPCA. See also www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/
   Satellite?pagename=RSPCACampaigns/Broilers/Broilers
   Homepage&articleid=1073984417069
7. www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/prs/NR2604.pdf

^