EDM 116 - 'Hunting Act 2004'

Dear <MP>

Like the vast majority of people in Britain, I am appalled by gratuitous cruelty to animals and believe that hunting foxes, stags, hares and other wildlife should remain consigned to history.

The Coalition Government has confirmed that the House of Commons will be offered the opportunity to 'express its view' on repeal of the Hunting Act, through a vote on a parliamentary motion. I ask you to vote against any such motion to return to cruelty. Polling by YouGov on behalf of the Protecting Animals in Democracy campaign shows that 87% of the public believe that the way we treat animals is an important measure of the state of our society. Repeal of the Hunting Act would therefore mark a barbaric and backward step for a civilised society.

The Hunting Act is an important, historic piece of legislation which protects and promotes animal welfare, and which – with over 130 convictions – is workable and enforceable. Indeed, the Hunting Act has already been used to obtain more convictions than other wildlife legislation such as the Badgers Act or the Deer Act.

This law is a significant step in terms of reducing society's indifference to animal cruelty. The Act does not breach civil liberties any more than legislation banning dog-fighting and badger-baiting. There is no human right to inflict pain and suffering on others for fun.

I therefore ask you respectfully to sign Early Day Motion 116 which supports the Hunting Act 2004. If you are unable to sign EDMs then I would be very grateful if you could let me know your position on this matter.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

EDM 176 - 'Procter and Gamble and Sponsorship of London 2012 Olympics'

Dear <MP>

I write to you concerning reports that Procter & Gamble (P&G) are in talks about sponsoring the London 2012 Olympic Games. However P&G continue to conduct toxicity tests on animals for the sake of cosmetics and household products. I therefore urge you to sign EDM 176 which asks the Government to express its opposition to this deal and work to prevent it being completed.

P&G’s unethical practices are in fundamental conflict with the values of the United Kingdom and the Olympic movement. By accepting sponsorship from P&G, the London 2012 Olympics would effectively be promoting gratuitous cruelty to animals that is heavily opposed by the majority of the British public.

The UK banned animal testing for cosmetics on the grounds of unnecessary cruelty back in 1998. That ban has now been extended across the European Union. Procter & Gamble evade this ban by testing cosmetics on animals in the USA and other countries with weak animal welfare laws. Before the May 2010 UK General Election all three main parties pledged to end household product testing on animals, and this intention is in the Programme for Government.

Testing consumer products on animals puts P&G in opposition to the fundamental principles of both British society and of Olympism, which uphold ‘universal fundamental ethical principles’ and promote ‘a peaceful society’. It is hard to think of anything less ethical or peaceful than P&G’s practice of poisoning animals to death for trivial purposes.

Any association with P&G will tarnish the reputation of the Olympics, London and the UK. It will suggest that the noble principles of Olympism are just window dressing, ready to be sacrificed for a quick buck. P&G are incompatible with the Olympics’ mission to promote fair play, oppose violence and encourage respect for our environment. I understand the need for the Olympics to gain income from sponsorship, but the Government and other involved in delivering London 2012 must have some basic ethical standards.

If you are ineligible to sign EDMs, could you please write to the Minister at the Department for Culture Media and Sport to ask him to speak out against P&G’s proposed sponsorship of London 2012.

I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours sincerely,

^

EDM 435 - 'Animal Experiments'

Dear <MP>

I am writing to you to ask you to sign EDM 435 - 'Animal Experiments'.

The EDM calls on the House to support the pledge published in the Programme for Government to work to reduce the use of animals in laboratory experiments. It goes on to ask the Government to develop a strategy which identifies and implements targets for sustained reductions in the number of animals used annually in experiments in the UK in order to fulfill this pledge.

I am deeply concerned by the rise to over 3.5 million per year in the number of animals in Britain who are subjected to experiments that the regulatory system defines as 'likely to cause pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm'. This is the highest figure since the current legislation was introduced in 1987.

I hope you agree with me that in a civilised society, inflicting pain and suffering on animals cannot be viewed as a matter of moral indifference. I would also like to bring to your attention emerging evidence indicating the difficulties in applying the results of animal experiments to human medicine. Therefore, the long term upward trend in animal experimentation is of serious concern for ethical and scientific reasons, and betrays the industry's lack of genuine commitment to reform their practices in line with ethical and scientific developments.

I am therefore heartened by the Government's stated intention to take action to reduce animal experiments. It is important for the Government to take a lead on this in order that essential ethical and public interest considerations are the strongest influence on animal research policy. The traditional 'laissez faire' approach is undemocratic, unethical and ineffective.

If you cannot sign EDMs, please let me know whether you support the EDM in principle and what action you will take to move this agenda for compassionate reform forward.

I very much look forward to receiving your response

Yours sincerely,

^