 |
Conservative animal welfare policy
Fundamental Values
Historically, the Conservative Party has tended
to argue that individuals and businesses should be at liberty to
treat animals as they deem fit, a belief reflected in their policies
when they were in Government.
The pro-hunting policy of the Conservatives is an obvious example
of the low priority it gives to animal welfare. Their position seems
incompatible with the principles of liberty, which hold that humans
should be free to act as long as others are not harmed in the process.
Either most of the Conservative Party believes that animals cannot
suffer harm - which is not plausible - or they are adopting a flawed
notion of 'liberty' for political reasons as they seek to defend
the self-interest of those involved in animal exploitation.
Either way, the belief system that currently forms the foundation
of the Conservative Party does not consistently place significant
weight on animal protection.
In a study of MPs, Conservative members were found to be much less
committed to animal welfare initiatives. (1)
Honourable exceptions who voted for the ban on hunting with hounds
are David Amess (Southend West), Roger Gale (North Thanet), Ann
Widdecombe (Maidstone and the Weald), David Atkinson (Bournemouth
East), John M Taylor (Solihull) and Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend
East). (Unfortunately, Teddy Taylor is retiring at this Election
and the new Conservative candidate does not support a ban on hunting.) |
|
| |
Animal experiments
Out of 165 MPs who signed a House of Commons motion
(2) for an independent inquiry into Government
misconduct over animal experiments, only 11 were Conservative members.
Current Conservative proposals on animal experiments are minimal
and too vague to count as an effective commitment to tackle this
particularly severe area of cruelty:
"We want to limit the need for animal testing to an absolute
minimum. We would support measures to facilitate more data sharing
within the EU and a greater commitment to alternatives to animal
testing wherever possible."
In fact, this is probably meaningless, given a recent claim (3)
by their Home Affairs Spokesperson David Davis. He repeatedly the
discredited cliché: "Animal experimentation is tightly
regulated in the UK". This is a disappointing and ill-informed
comment, especially in light of evidence that shows that the regulatory
system is, quite literally, a 'rubber-stamping' exercise (4),
and that illegal cruelty goes unpunished. (5) |
|
| |
Factory farming
Other recent statements from leading Conservative
politicians indicate a similarly complacent attitude towards animal
welfare laws and their enforcement.
For example, on January 4 2005, Conservative leader Michael Howard
stated in a speech to the Oxford Farming Conference (6):
"British food is produced to some of the highest standards
in the world, in terms of animal welfare..."
In reality, research into welfare conditions on British factory
farms for pigs (7), turkeys (8),
chickens (9), and millions of other animals
indicates widespread, severe suffering. The Conservative proposal
to introduce compulsory food labelling regarding animal welfare
conditions could, in theory, help consumers to support less cruel
forms of farming, wherever it takes place. But there are question
marks over its practicality and effectiveness: significant consumer
awareness and understanding of such a scheme may be hard to achieve.
What is really needed is Government leadership and tough decisions.
However, the Conservatives display little appetite for substantial
measures. On the contrary, their fondness for oxymoronic 'self-regulation'
is likely to lead to greater suffering and thus outweigh any minor
benefits for animals from their peripheral pledges. 'Self-regulation'
is a euphemism for weakening what little legal protection animals
already have, for the sake of helping farmers, experimenters and
bloodsports enterprises to cut costs. |
|
| |
'Free trade' over national sovereignty on animal
protection issues
Ironically, a major flaw in Conservative party policy
is revealed by one of their few successes for animals when in power
back in 1990s.
They claim to have achieved an EU ban on the importation of fur
from animals caught using the viciously cruel steel-jaw leghold
trap. However, this ban is now almost completely undermined following
threats from the major exporters of such fur - Canada, US and Russia
- to prosecute the EU under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.
WTO rules mean that even if a country bans a cruel practice in
its own territory, it cannot ban the import of products coming from
animals treated in that cruel way in other countries. This means
that producers in the progressive country are reluctant to improve
their behaviour for fear of being undercut by cheaper, crueller
imports. The scheduled EU ban on cosmetic testing is under threat
because of this situation. Despite this, the Conservatives appear
to have no commitment to reforming these trade rules, which many
consider to be the most significant obstacle to improving the plight
of animals across the world. Indeed, the Conservatives appear place
greater importance on the notion of so-called 'free trade' than
on a country's sovereign right to ban the import of unethical products.
|
|
| |
Some positives
On a more positive note, the Conservatives did criticise
the Government for voting against improved welfare measures for
cruel live exports and long distance transport (10).
They have also pledged to oppose the international trade in endangered
species such as bears, dolphins and tigers.
They also promise to extend existing trade bans to animals such
as the Asiatic brown bear and marine mammals targeted by commercial
aquariums. Current Conservative policy includes opposition to 'any
resumption of commercial whaling' and 'destructive fishing techniques'
that harm dolphins and other cetaceans. However, one has to wonder
how this last pledge will sit with the Conservative's tendency towards
a profit-first mentality.
The Conservative shadow agriculture spokesperson, James Paice,
has tabled Early Day Motion, that have been signed by members from
all parties, calling for:
- improved animal welfare throughout the European Community and
for consistent enforcement, 'thus allowing British farmers to
compete on a level playing field'
- parliamentary time to allow the proposed Animal Welfare Bill
(which does not cover the main areas of suffering: factory farming
and vivisection) to be passed into law
- a ban on electric shock training collars for dogs
|
|
| |
|
