UKIP Policies

Latest

Animal Welfare: UKIP Policy

Wednesday, 7th April 2010

UKIP believes that all the animals that share our planet, whether as pets, farm stock domesticated or wildlife, deserve to be valued as part of our global diversity, treated compassionately by humans and should be spared unnecessary suffering.

UKIP recognises that animals are sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain and suffering and that animal welfare is an issue of great importance as part of the ethical stance and social development of all nations.

UKIP recognises our compelling responsibility to sustain the amazing biodiversity of our planet, including all forms of animal and bird life, and agrees that we must use every means at our disposal to protect this abundance for future generations.

THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT, VIVISECTION AND ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

In the UK, the 2006 Animal Welfare Act was instrumental in establishing defined parameters and responsibilities towards animals, and was a real step forward. UKIP would like to see minor additions to this Act, such as measures to give greater protection to exotic animals imported or exported as pets, and to establish parity between cats and dogs which are hit by cars; by making injuring to both species an incident that is reportable to the police.

However, European legislation, such as the EU’s REACH Chemicals Directive, with its requirement for repeat and duplicate animal experimentation and chemical testing, together with the continued lobbying by the chemicals industry, has meant millions more animals are being used for vivisection for no good reason.

Despite the use of 115 million animals worldwide, on average less than 30 new drugs are made available to patients via the main drug regulator every year. This is hugely wasteful. Alternatives to animal testing are often cheaper, quicker and more reliable.

Sometimes animal research has even hindered progress. When independently reviewed, animal tests predicted less than 50% of the results found in humans; odds on a par with tossing a coin. The infamous ‘Elephant Man’ case, using drugs which had already been exhaustively tested on animals but which reacted with almost fatal results when used on humans, is just one of the better-known examples.1
With the advance of stem cell and genetic research, vivisection and animal experimentation has now become even more morally unacceptable as it involves the deliberate infliction of suffering on another individual species and not for their benefit.

This research has already given us reliable and practical data on bone marrow transplantation which treats leukaemia, lymphoma and other inherited blood disorders including inherited conditions. In the near future it may provide treatments for Diabetes Type 1 patients and those with advanced kidney cancer. Stem cell research is also bringing us closer to a cure for many other conditions including: Parkinson’s disease Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, stroke, spinal cord injuries and the replacement or repair of damaged organs.

UKIP MEPs voted against the appalling REACH legislation, not just once, but twice. Unfortunately other MEPs did not (including British MEPs) and the legislation was passed by the EU Parliament.2

UKIP believes that 21st century scientific advances are increasingly making unreliable animal testing unacceptable on both medical and ethical grounds.

RITUAL SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS

The UK Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) regulations 1995 expressly require all animals slaughtered in the UK to be rendered unconscious first, thus minimising pain and suffering for the animal. This tenet has been enshrined in successive legal statutes since 1928.

However, exemptions to this legislation have been put in place for certain religious groups, despite the fact that no religion places an obligation on its followers to reject humane practices in the slaughter of animals and these methods of slaughter are not prescribed in the Bible or Koran. The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FWAC), an independent advisory body established by the government in 1979, has produced numerous reports expressing its dismay at the suffering caused by lack of pre-stunning prior to ritual slaughter, and documented in great detail the distressing length of time before an animal loses consciousness. It recommended that, “Ministers should require Jewish and Muslim communities to review their methods of slaughter…… and legislative provisions which permit slaughter of animals without pre-stunning be repealed within the next three years”. The government, however, refuses to accept its recommendations.

Denmark and New Zealand have similar animal welfare regulations to the UK and refuse to exempt religious groups from the regulations.

UKIP believes that the UK should examine the pros and cons of proposals to insist on pre-stunning through a Royal Commission. The Commission should study examples from Denmark, New Zealand and others and evaluate whether the religious exemptions which cause suffering to animals should be repealed or not, or whether a requirement for pre-stunning be introduced.

TRANSPORTATION OF LIVESTOCK

In this age of refrigerated lorries it is totally unacceptable that live animals are still being transported vast distances in the most appalling conditions. Transported animals often experience stress and exhaustion, rough handling, hunger and thirst, extreme temperatures and unsanitary conditions during these journeys. As a result the animals can suffer horrific injuries, diseases are widespread and many die before reaching their destination.

We already have the technology to transport fresh, chilled and frozen meat and the science to prove the welfare benefits of local, humane slaughter. For these reasons, long distance transport is not only cruel, it is unnecessary.

EU regulations forced the closure of hundreds of local abattoirs meaning that even within the UK animals are unnecessarily transported over long distances.3
UKIP believes that local abattoirs should be re-opened and animals slaughtered as near to their farms as possible. No live exports from or live imports into the UK should be permitted and all meat should be shipped in refrigerated conditions to its ultimate destination.

FARM ANIMALS

Public opinion has had a very powerful effect on such practices as factory farming of chickens and mistreatment of pigs, calves and other livestock. Conditions have been improving as the public becomes better informed about the rearing of farm animals. There is still much to be done, but the treatment of livestock has significantly improved over the past few years.
UKIP believes that all farm animals should be kept in conditions which permit the ‘Five Freedoms’ as specified by the Farm Welfare Council. UKIP supports these Freedoms which are:

1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour

2. Freedom from Discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area

3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment

4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind

5. Freedom from Fear and Distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.4

HUNTING

As regards hunting, the issues centre around problems caused by the indiscriminate killing of livestock such as lambs and chickens (and sometimes domestic pets) by foxes and the need to control such behaviour in as humane a manner as possible.

The Hunting Act 2004, which came into force in 2006, made the hunting of all mammals with dogs illegal. It also included a ban on hare-coursing.

UKIP feels this Act is very badly drafted, riddled with anomalies and extremely difficult to police and enforce. It has been a practical failure. We note that the hunting debate in Parliament took considerably more time than parliamentary approval for the Iraq war – which is indicative of the passions aroused on both sides.

However, consistent with our clear localist agenda, UKIP will not support a blanket overturning of the ban in UK law as some other parties will, but allow the issue to be debated and developed at the local, county level. UKIP believes that this is a matter best decided at the local level by local communities, balancing animal welfare and freedom issues. UKIP will therefore allow county-based referenda to overturn the ban within county boundaries on the basis of a simple majority. Where hunts cross county boundaries, co-terminus referenda could be promoted.

THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT AND DOGFIGHTING

The current legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 ( DDA ), contains breed-specific legislation which bans certain breeds and outlaws dogs by ‘type’, meaning a dog is deemed dangerous and illegal simply based on what it looks like and not because of any offence actually involving the dog. Many experts and legislators now acknowledge the problems caused by this hastily introduced breed-specific legislation.

The current Act also ignores the fact that any animal can become aggressive and dangerous if mistreated. In the past few years there has been a massive increase in the incidence of dogs ill-treated and brutalised in order to be used as ‘weapons’ by gang members against both people and other dogs. In the West Midlands, for example, the RSPCA reports that between 2004 and 2008 there has been a 12-fold increase in reports of dog fighting.5

UKIP believes that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be amended and action should be taken against all dogs that are shown to be dangerous, rather than concentrating solely on specified breeds. Police and animal welfare organisations must be given effective powers to address the problem of dogs being bred and reared specifically as dangerous weapons, or for fighting, and stringent penalties should be introduced and enforced for this.

UKIP would also welcome the closing of the legal loophole which allows crossbreeding of dangerous dogs with other breeds as a means of avoiding the DDA 1991.

IN-BREEDING OF PEDIGREE DOGS

UKIP is concerned that the health of many pedigree dogs is being severely compromised by reckless in-breeding. The practice of using small numbers of successful show dogs for breeding purposes and selective breeding of close relatives to achieve desired characteristics is harmful and has caused much suffering. The commercial breeders who run ‘puppy farms’ and who have little regard for the health of their animals are also to blame for many of the deformations which have been bred into various breeds.6
UKIP supports the January 2010 Bateson Report’s recommendations, which include compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs, the introduction of a Code of Practice on breeding, and improved breed standards to promote health and welfare over extreme conformation, and believes these should be implemented as soon as possible.
UKIP supports measures to reduce and eliminate theft of pedigree dogs, often to order, by increased legal penalties and the proper recording of pedigree animals.

UKIP AND THE EU DIMENSION

UKIP does not accept the primary authority of the EU over UK law and the default position of UKIP MEPs is always to vote against increasing its legislative powers. However, where EU legislation involves relief of cruelty to animals, UKIP MEPs will be free to follow their consciences and vote for the ‘greater good’.

Examples include such issues as the REACH chemicals directive, the ban on cat and dog fur imports; ban on seal fur products; bear bile farming; experimentation on primates and many other issues where UKIP MEPs have voted against animal cruelty, whilst resolute in our belief that these animal welfare issues are better handled at an international or national, but not an EU, level.
UKIP MEPs will vote against all ‘traditions’ involving cruelty to animals. A notable example is bull-fighting, which should be left to national decisions and control within the countries which practice this activity (UKIP would not support any form of bullfighting within the UK). UKIP will oppose subsidies paid by the EU for bullfighting however.

UKIP will always support the principle that nation states should govern themselves and that the EU should not be introducing more and more legislation, increasing the burden on business and citizens throughout Europe. UKIP MEPs will press for rapid withdrawal from the EU. However, in the interim, where EU legislation is clearly designed to alleviate animal suffering, UKIP MEPs will be free to follow their conscience.