19 May 2008

News and action update

Government - and Tories - deeply apathetic over animal cruelty

The Government response to Parliamentary initiatives to improve animal protection reveals deep apathy regarding cruelty to animals. Despite strong support from backbench MPs, three Early Day Motions (EDMs) calling for greater protection for animals are currently being dismissed out of hand by the Government. Meanwhile, despite sympathetic noises from the Conservatives, tangible Tory support for animal protection proposals is conspicuous by its absence. There are only 15 Conservative signatures on the EDMs compared to 188 Labour and 74 Lib Dem.

EDM 480 - Animal Protection Commission

114 MPs, from all three main parties, have now added their voice to our call for an Animal Protection Commission to overcome Government indifference to animal cruelty. Those who have signed EDM 480 so far include 79 Labour MPs, 28 Liberal Democrats and 5 Conservatives. We have entered into correspondence with a number of politicians, as have many of our supporters, so the word is spreading fast.

A range of academics and other professionals in the fields of science and ethics have lent us their support, and given us useful suggestions for our campaign and our plans for the Commission. The Government is resolutely refusing to engage with our arguments, but the brokenness of our current system is becoming increasingly obvious, and the movement for change is fast gaining momentum.

EDM 4 - Use of Animals to Test Food Additives

At the time of writing well over 100 MPs had signed EDM 4, which calls upon the Government to take a policy decision to no longer grant licences for animal experiments to test food additives and other foodstuffs. It was tabled by Bob Russell MP in response to new figures that showed a meteoric rise in the numbers of animals used for these purposes.

The Government's official response states that the work was conducted to fulfil regulatory requirements. However, the Government does not explain what it means by 'regulatory requirements'. Does it mean a requirement set out in legislation that animal experiments must be carried out, or simply a judgement by a regulator (such as the Food Standards Agency) that such experiments are, in its scientific opinion, needed for safety reasons? The distinction is an important one because non-legislative judgements can be challenged on scientific grounds (amongst other grounds). Although we believe that what is at issue, certainly with food additives, is a non-legislative judgement, the important point is that the Government should be clear what it means.

The Government's stock response also includes a paragraph that talks about how substances derived from fruit juices, Ginko biloba and Green tea " ...may be used as research tools particularly in investigating fundamental science or screening for novel treatments in relation to cardiac diseases, neurological diseases (especially dementias), other inflammatory induced disease or allergic conditions." Yet the EDM is quite precise in referring only to those tests that have been reported by the Home Office itself as for the purposes of safety testing "food additives" or "other foodstuffs". Any experiments for the purpose of fundamental science, or any other purpose, would fall under a different category in the Home Office's statistics and therefore outside the remit of this EDM; such experiments could not, in any event, fall under the rubric "regulatory requirements", whatever the Government means by this phrase.

(Thanks to Dave Powell at BUAV for this report on EDM 4.)

EDM 74 - Ombudsman and Suffering in Animal Experiments

This EDM identifies major flaws in an investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman ('the Ombudsman') into illegal animal experiments and calls on the Government to instigate an independent inquiry.

In 2003, Uncaged won a legal battle to publish leaked confidential documents describing pig-to-primate organ transplant experiments - the 'Diaries of Despair' (www.xenodiaries.org). Uncaged had successfully argued that the public interest in revealing misconduct by Home Office Inspectors justified the disclosure of the confidential information. For example, many primates suffered severe distress or were left to die, in breach of the rules supposed to govern these experiments. Uncaged subsequently lodged a complaint of 'maladministration' against the Home Office with the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman finally published a report at the end of 2006. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman's investigation has been shambolic and biased in favour of the Home Office. In particular, the investigation report makes a basic error when it confuses the facts of this case. The Ombudsman interpreted our complaint as being merely about the deaths of the animals, when in fact it concerns the degree of suffering before the animals die, which is the key issue in deciding whether legal limits on animal suffering have been broken. Under present animal research regulations, death, in itself, is not counted as a 'harm', so it is irrelevant to our complaint.

The Ombudsman's 'reasoning' is so bizarre that their conclusion cannot be sincere - it must instead be a deliberate ploy to exonerate their friends up the road at the Home Office. In other words, they can't be that dumb, can they? This impression is confirmed by the Ombudsman's repeated refusal to answer Uncaged's requests for an explanation of their decision.

Nevertheless, we're pleased to report that 49 MPs have signed this EDM at time of writing. That's a good figure because it is very tempting for busy MPs to place blind faith in the Ombudsman without actually looking at the facts of the case. Needless to say, the Home Office defends itself by avoiding the issues and simply referring to the Ombudsman decision.

The experience we've had with the Ombudsman is a sobering insight into the way political elites in the 'Westminster Village' stick together and have little genuine regard for the rule of law or the ethical concerns of the British public. At the same time, it strengthens our call for a new Animal Protection Commission to shake up the current institutional architecture which betrays the welfare and rights of animals.

Action for Animals

The Government and main political parties will only take the welfare and rights of animals seriously if voters raise their concerns and prioritise the issue at election time.

Constant public pressure is needed if animal protection is to be given meaningful weight in political decisions normally dominated by big business and other vested interests.

If you haven't done so already, please lobby your MP on these and other animal protection proposals. You can contact the parties about their policies here.

^