In the Animal Aid article, they catalogued the decisions Jim Paice had made over the last 12 months, which revealed a striking precedence for animal welfare being of no concern to him. In all cases, the decisions he's made have an obvious negative impact on animal welfare, and indicate to me a clear agenda to remove legislation that benefits animals, in order to financially benefit the agricultural industry.
I find it dubious that an individual that is openly pro-hunting and pro-shooting would be chosen as the appropriate person to enforce animal welfare standards. Jim Paice has committed to a repeal of the hunting act, despite 75% of the UK population and 65% of Conservatives believing that hunting should remain illegal.
I felt it appropriate to contact Caroline Spelman, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, AKA the head of Defra. I raised the concerns I have regarding Jim Paice specifically, as well my concerns regarding the proposed badger cull. The letter is supplied below for you to read:
Mrs Spelman,I sent the above letter as an open one, also sending it to Animal Aid, as well as a number of news organisations. Given the recent scandal involving Jim Paice deceiving MPs over the refusal to ban wild animals being used in circuses, I feel his position within Defra should be reviewed.
I'm emailing you to express my concerns over Minister of State for Agriculture and Food Jim Paice. It is my understanding that as part of his role as Agriculture and Food Minister, he is responsible for the welfare of all agricultural and wild animals, and is commonly referred to as the Animal Welfare Minister. In the time since he took up office at Defra, he has made a number of decisions that will clearly have a detrimental effect on animal welfare in their applicable areas. The decisions I refer to are detailed below:
I'll tackle each of the above points one by one.
- Overturning the code of practice that banned the use of battery cages in game bird production.
- Prematurely ending vaccination trials for badgers, instead deciding to press ahead with a badger cull "as soon as practically possible".
- Committing to reducing on-farm inspections, and lessen the regulations governing the farming industry.
- Openly supporting 'sustainable intensification' in the animal farming industry.
- Openly supporting the repeal of the Hunting Act.
- Refusing to enforce a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses.
- Dropping criminal charges against offenders who committed animal cruelty in slaughterhouses.
- Reducing the number of vets present in livestock markets.
- Declaring support for the offspring of cloned farm animals to be killed and their meat and milk sold.
Overturning the code of practice that banned the use of battery cages in game bird production. - I can see no benefit to this decision whatsoever. It certainly has a detrimental effect on the welfare of the animals concerned. The code of practice was strongly supported by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which I believe is Britain's leading pro-shooting lobby group. I'm also under the impression that at the point Jim Paice withdrew this code of practice, he was still a Director of the Game and Wildlife Conservancy Trust. This indicates to me a clear conflict of interest.
Prematurely ending vaccination trials for badgers, instead deciding to press ahead with a badger cull "as soon as practically possible". - This decision indicates a preformulated desire to carry out the badger cull. The 8 year Krebs trial showed substantial evidence that a badger cull would in no way prevent the spread of Bovine TB. The fact that Jim Paice has taken his earliest opportunity to cease the majority of the vaccination trials would indicate he has no interest in the outcome of them. The only reason to cease these trials prior to a decision being announced on the possible cull, is that the decision has already been made. Surely if these trials produce promising results (which I believe they have), they should be considered as an alternative to culling? At this point in time, all the scientific evidence indicates a cull is the least viable option, and yet it is being pushed forward as the most viable one? There is a clear disparity between the logical (scientifically backed) solutions, and the Defra proposed one. Surely an entire government body cannot blindly proceed with a rash course of action based solely on the motivations of one minister, especially if they go against proven scientific facts? It's clear to see that Jim Paice is favouring the welfare of farmers over the welfare of animals, which contradicts his position as Animal Welfare Minister.
Committing to reducing on-farm inspections, and lessen the regulations governing the farming industry. - This decision appears to be have been made to benefit farmers and farmers alone. This in no way benefits the animals they keep. The irony here is that the spread of Bovine TB can be attributed to poor farming practices, and this change will surely have a negative impact in controlling it. With the badger cull being used as a short sighted solution to appease farmers, the real problem of lax standards and poor herd control will be made worse by these changes.
Openly supporting 'sustainable intensification' in the animal farming industry. - I can see no possible justification for this decision. This is a direct blow to animal welfare standards. Building animal farming 'factories' with huge numbers of animals being intensively farmed for their produce, keeping them in cramped conditions and never letting them outside? Given the huge focus that's been given towards battery hen farming being unacceptable, and the growing popularity of free range produce, surely this is extending the battery farming practices to include cattle? The practice of battery farming should be being phased out, not endorsed by the Animal Welfare Minister. Once again, this seems to be a decision made to benefit farmers and farmers alone.
Openly supporting the repeal of the Hunting Act. - I expected talk of repealing from the Conservative Party on taking power, but not from the Animal Welfare Minister. The fact that the government official in charge of the welfare of all animals is supportive of fox hunting astounds me. The are no acts of hunting or shooting for sport that would be considering acceptable by animal welfare bodies. I feel genuinely concerned that the Conservative Party on the whole are willing to try for a repeal, when over 70% of the UK population are against fox hunting. The arguments used to justify fox hunting are flawed and idiotic, and the government shouldn't bend to the minority that wish to maintain their barbaric and unnecessary practices.
Refusing to enforce a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. - The issue here is more a matter of integrity. The blatant deception that has taken place here is well documented, and points to a reluctance to take the appropriate action, both morally, and in line with most other EU member states. It defies belief that the decision was made to introduce a costly and complex licensing scheme rather than the more appropriate outright ban.
Dropping criminal charges against offenders who committed animal cruelty in slaughterhouses. - This particular decision absolutely disgusts me. The investigations by Animal Aid uncovered appalling cruelty that could have been considered torture. Defra making the decision to drop the charges on the basis of 'legal advice' suggesting the prosecutions may not have been successful is a travesty. The decision of prosecutions being successful or not should be made by the courts, not Defra, and certainly not a Minister with a predisposed favour for the farming industry. I would consider this to be another breach major breach of integrity, both at the level of Jim Paice himself, and the whole the Defra.
Reducing the number of vets present in livestock markets. - Once again this change clearly favours farmers, and no one else. There is no justification for this when animal welfare is concerned. If Bovine TB is of concern enough that a vast badger cull is suggested, surely livestock markets should be far more heavily regulated to prevent possible cross-herd contamination. Once again it would appear the badger population is being used as a tragic scapegoat, while Jim Paice is intent on reducing regulations and standards in the farming industry, thus allowing Bovine TB to spread far more easily.
Declaring support for the offspring of cloned farm animals to be killed and their meat and milk sold. - This practice is clearly unethical, and poses serious concerns for the welfare of both the animals carrying the clones and their offspring. Given the views held by Jim Paice on intensified farming, I would expect the treatment of cloned animals would be no better. The routes taken for ensuring animals deliver the highest yield of produce should be an ethical one, guaranteeing the animals' welfare above all else. Under no circumstances should any human being compromise the life quality of another creature for their own personal gain.
As I mentioned above, it is my understanding that Jim Paice is also designated the Minister for Hunting and Shooting. This title in my view directly contradicts the title Minister for Animal Welfare. I would consider those roles mutually exclusive. It's dubious that someone openly pro-hunting, pro-shooting and pro-intensified farming would be considered an appropriate choice for Animal Welfare Minister. It's clear to me that Jim Paice has little or no regard for the welfare of animals, and for that reason should not remain in this role. The role of someone in charge of agriculture, farming, forestry and animal welfare should be filled by someone that actually displays some concern for the well being of creatures other than human beings. The majority of the decisions Jim Paice has made over the last 12 months have a clear motivation to benefit the farming industry, while neglecting the welfare of the animals that industry profits from.
I believe it would be appropriate for you to review Jim Paice's position within Defra, as he does not seem to be accomplishing the logical objectives for his role. His decision making has clearly been compromised by his own agenda.
I also urge you to review your current plans regarding the proposed badger cull. Lengthy scientific investigation has shown that a badger cull will in no way prevent the spread of Bovine TB. The badger cull would be a tragic and unnecessary loss of life. It is clear to me that badgers are being used a scapegoat, to shift the attention away from the failings of farmers. Poor herd control and poor standards are the primary catalysts in the spread of Bovine TB. If Jim Paice is successful in his goals of de-regulating the farming industry, reducing on-farm inspections and reducing the number of vets in livestock markets, surely the spead of Bovine TB will become much more prevalent? It amazes me that these changes are even being considered given the impact the disease has at present. It seems illogical to lower or abolish farming regulation while trying to combat the spread of any disease. If Defra continues to support the culling, it will paint itself as short sighted, narrow minded, and willing to use the most easily available scapegoat, while clearly demonstrating it holds scientific study in no regard.
I'm sending this as an open letter, as I believe these issues should also be investigated by persons other than Defra, and they deserves more publicity than it has so far received. A number of these issues have been reported on individually by assorted publications, but only Animal Aid has collated these issues together to highlight the overall concern.
I would appreciate it if you will consider the above and get back to me with an appropriate reply.
Sincerely,
Ben Bartolf
As soon as I receive a response, I'll update everyone here.
Ben
