When most of the nations constituencies have returned MPs representing parties with firm policy commitments to animal welfare, including an impressive 19 per cent vote share by the Liberal Democrats who returned MPs to Hereford and Ludlow, can we remain complacent about the problem of animal suffering in the traditional trade in animals?

The foot-and-mouth epidemic may have temporarily put a halt to the export of livestock and the ordeals inflicted on certain domestic species in markets, but the lifting of restrictions is bound to encourage a resumption of distressing and clearly brutal practices.

On of the most appalling aspects is the abuse that goes on in horse markets.

In theory, the 1990 MAFF order on The Welfare of Horses at Markets (and other places of sale) prohibits the exposure for sale of unfit horses or foals without their mothers of injuring or inflicting "unnecessary suffering".

In practice, after the order was issued, horse rescue organisations were faced with Dartmoor pony foals separated from their mothers and transported to market with no food or water for 24 hours. There were also foals rescued from abattoirs in a traumatised and critically weak condition and a Welsh foal transported to market in a severely ill state with rickets-like symptoms and unable to stand up.

Clearly, existing controls are not enough to protect the vast number of horses and ponies changing hands at markets and horse fairs. The Liberal Democrat manifesto states an intention to initiate a Protection of Animals Act.

The fact that the majority of the public voted in MPs representing parties sympathetic to animal protection, and so much of the large volume of mail received by MPs concerns animals, powerfully indicates that commercial abuse is no longer tolerable.

Those concerned about this and similar trades can contact their MPs and Equine Market Watch (Tel 01886 833329).

KATHERINE WATSON, Stockport, Cheshire