Protecting Animals in Democracy


       


Liberal Democrats logo

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:

  1. 'Respecting All Animals', Liberal Democrat Animal Welfare Policy Paper No.61, July 2003. Para 1.1.
  2. Respecting All Animals, 3.1-3.2.
  3. 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'.

^

Are you supportive of our mission and methods? Have you found the information on this site useful, enlightening and/or inspiring? Is this website valuable at all? If the answer is 'yes' to any of these questions, then please make a contribution to the PAD campaign today.

Protecting Animals in Democracy, 5th Floor, Alliance House, 9 Leopold Street, Sheffield, S1 2GY, UK
phone +44 (0) 114 272 2220, fax +44 (0) 114 272 2225, email pad@vote4animals.org.uk