|
Liberal Democrats
Compared to the Conservatives and New Labour, the
Lib Dems appear to have stronger and more detailed animal protection
policies.
It is, of course, easier to espouse progressive policies in opposition
than implement them in government, where the real test of commitment
is found in the face of fierce lobbying from vested interests. Nevertheless,
by raising awareness of their policies here, hopefully this will
encourage the Lib Dems to honour their pledges should they be in
any position of power after the election. Furthermore, some Lib
Dem MPs, particularly Norman Baker (Lewes), are among the most committed
defenders of animals in the House of Commons. |
|
| |
Principles
The Lib Dems provide a statement of underlying aims
and principles that advocates significantly enhanced consideration
for the welfare of animals in policy-making:
Liberal Democrats have the long-term aim of achieving the elimination
of poor welfare for animals kept or affected by humans. Every
animal has specific inherent needs, regardless of their circumstances.
Animal welfare legislation should therefore be focused on the
intrinsic welfare of the animal and not dependent on how an animal
may be used or perceived. (1)
It is also noteworthy that liberal political theory shares considerable
ancestry with animal welfare and rights, in the shape of the philosophers
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), author
of the seminal tract 'On Liberty'. Bentham is famous for arguing
that the ability to suffer should be the criteria for the possession
of rights, thus including animals within the sphere of moral consideration.
Mill also recognised the moral claims of animals and the justifiability
of legislation to protect them, stating:
It is by the grossest misunderstanding of the principles of liberty,
that the infliction of exemplary punishment on ruffianism practiced
towards animals, has been treated as meddling by government with
things beyond its province; an interference with domestic life...
Defenders of the 'liberty' of hunters take note.
If Lib Dem principles were put into action, this would mean a considerable
break with the Government's tradition policy approach which routinely
sacrifices the welfare of animals is for the sake of financial or
other self-centred and trivial reasons. On paper at least, the Lib
Dem policy approach seems to shift the burden of proof away from
animal protectionists on to those who intend to treat animals in
ways that cause suffering. |
|
| |
Institutional reform
Lib Dem proposals for institutional reforms could
have far-reaching consequences. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour
appear to countenance such reform.
The Lib Dem plan involves the establishment of an autonomous Animal
Protection Commission that will:
...bring all animal welfare related matters under the responsibility
of a dedicated, expert body, and will be regulatory and advisory.
The Commission will be answerable to Parliament via a Cabinet
Minister with environmental responsibilities, and the relevant
departmental Select Committee. The Commission will be both regulatory
and advisory and will investigate abuses, educate the public,
enforce the law and publish reports on its own initiative. (2)
Although the details of the composition of the Commission are somewhat
vague, providing a new department for animal protection in Government
could potentially break up the current bureaucracies (e.g. the discredited
Home Office Inspectorate) and counterbalance other departments (e.g.
Health, Trade & Industry) who tend to lobby for the industries
that abuse animals, such as the pharmaceutical industry.
However, more work needs to be done on the structure, composition
and powers of such a proposed Commission to ensure that it does
not come to be dominated by powerful industry lobby groups in farming
and biotechnology. (3)
Another crucial overriding factor influencing animal protection
policy is the World Trade Organisation. The Lib Dems declare that
trade rules should take greater account of animal welfare, and that
"countries should be able to resist the import of products
whose production caused poor animal welfare".
Probably one of the most important Lib Dem policies is for the
introduction of proportional representation for General Elections.
This would mean that everyone's votes really count and it would
give effective representation to the electorate's concern for animal
protection. Under the current first-past-the post system, Government
can easily ignore such concerns, especially when they command a
huge majority in the House of Commons. |
|
| |
Animal experiments
Unlike the Conservatives and Labour, the Lib Dems
are explicitly committed to reducing the number of animals used
in experiments.
In terms of how they would achieve this, the specific measures
appear to be limited to a pledge to repeal the legally enshrined
secrecy surrounding animal experiments (thereby minimising duplication
of research and allowing for greater public accountability) and
providing more money for developing non-animal methods of testing.
Apart from this, however, a lot would depend on the role of the
new Animal Protection Commission. There is some confusion over the
role of the Commission given the policy to increase the number of
Home Office Inspectors: the implication of the creation of the Commission
would be the abolition of the Home Office Inspectorate, a development
that should be welcomed by those concerned for effective and balanced
regulation.
There is no specific commitment to ban certain particularly controversial
forms of animal research, such as primate experimentation or household
products, though, arguably, these are more likely to come about
through the establishment of the Animal Protection Commission. However,
the recommendation to work internationally towards a ban on imports
of animal-tested cosmetics and household products (and their ingredients)
into the EU is potentially beneficial if implemented vigorously
and effectively.
Other pledges include a review of the Codes of Practice in relation
to the housing and care of animals. A potentially more progressive
move not mentioned by the Lib Dems (though it is not ruled out)
would be a review of the operation of the cost-benefit assessment
which is supposed to determine whether animal experiments are permitted
or not. Addressing this fundamental aspect of the regulatory system
could shed useful light on the arguments surrounding the ethical
and scientific problems with animal experiments, and possibly have
profound consequences for the number of animals subjected to research,
the intensity of their suffering, and the development of further
non-animal research technologies for the benefit of medicine.
Unfortunately, some Lib Dems argue that a recent House of Lords
Select Committee inquiry into animal experiments represented an
adequate investigation into this controversial area. However, the
inquiry's procedures were not sufficiently robust: it was denied
access to reliable, primary evidence of the true results of animal
experiments, and had to rely on hearsay evidence dominated by pro-vivisection
representatives. There are further concerns about the independence
of the Select Committee and the politics behind its establishment
by the House of Lords. The House of Lords does not have a good track
record on compassion for animals, as its support for hunting demonstrates,
and the Committee contained ardent pro-vivisectionists such as Baroness
Warnock and Lord Taverne. Significantly, while pro-vivisection lobby
groups welcomed the Inquiry, animal protection groups described
it as 'broadly pro-industry and conservative'. |
|
| |
Factory farming
The over-arching position adopted by the Lib Dems
with regard to farmed animals is as follows:
Liberal Democrats believe that intensive farming methods which
prevent animals from showing normal patterns of behaviour are
unacceptable and should be phased out.
This should have a major impact on factory farming.
In order to prevent cheaper imports with lower welfare standards
from entering the country, the Lib Dems propose to ban such imports,
create a voluntary labelling scheme and provide support and advice
for farmers who switch to free-range farming. The voluntary nature
of a labelling scheme could be criticised for potentially undermining
its effectiveness.
It is a positive sign that the Lib Dems also condemn the EU proposal
to allow enriched cages for egg-laying hens after the scheduled
banning of conventional battery cages in 2012. Their policy paper,
published in 2003, calls for 'cages which do not allow birds to
display normal patterns of behaviour' to be banned in the EU from
2008. One concern with this policy surrounds the wriggle room over
what constitutes a curtailment of normal behaviour, but there appears
to be a significant body of scientific evidence to confirm the common
sense notion that a cage cannot allow a hen a decent life.
On transportation, the Lib Dems support an eight-hour time limit
on journeys, as voted for by the EU Parliament but rejected by EU
ministers, including Britain's. Given the Farm Animal Welfare Council's
unequivocal condemnation of the extreme cruelty involved in religious
slaughter without pre-stunning, the absence of a clear commitment
to ban the practice is regrettable. However, the stipulation that
the Animal Protection Commission will carry out an investigation
into all aspects of slaughter may pave the way for such a measure.
|
|
| |
Hunting
The party as a whole supports the hunting ban, although
it allows its MPs a free vote on the issue.
A minority of Lib Dem MPs (16/55, all in rural constituencies)
voted against the ban in the recent House of Commons debate. However,
in general, a vote for the Lib Dems will retain the hunting ban. |
|
| |
Links
Links to Lib Dem animal protection policy statements:
Copies of a more in-depth policy statement - 'Respecting All Animals'
Policy Paper no.61 - are available from the party's Animal Welfare
spokesperson, Norman Baker MP.
REFERENCES:
- 'Respecting All Animals', Liberal Democrat Animal
Welfare Policy Paper No.61, July 2003. Para 1.1.
- Respecting All Animals, 3.1-3.2.
- For suggestions for the appropriate of such a
Commission, see the discussion of the second proposal in our candidate
questionnaire, 'Reform of Animal Protection Institutions'.
^ |
|
