Government threatens to cut protection for animals in laboratories

British animal experimentation laws may be explicitly weakened for the first time since Queen Victoria’s day

A new EU Directive (2010/63/EU) to govern animal experimentation across Europe was finalised last autumn. Now, each country has to update their own laws so they are consistent with the new European Directive. In some areas this could reduce animal suffering in British laboratories, but in other ways it may make things worse.

Up until now, the UK Government has assured Parliament and the public that they will keep any British rules that are stricter than the EU Directive. However, we have discovered that the Government is now prepared to rip up measures that give animals at least some protection from the very worst cruelty.

In other words, the Government is prepared to sacrifice British sovereignty and the lives of innocent animals to serve the interests of big business. This could have terrible consequences:

• More primates could be imprisoned and killed in research for trivial conditions such as baldness, hangovers, mild allergies or the common cold.
• Secret proposals to conduct chemical poisoning tests on dogs would be approved without public knowledge.
• The Government could start allowing researchers to inflict excruciating injuries on animals such as head trauma, burns or infected fractures without pain relief.
• Abandoned and stray cats and dogs could end up in vivisection labs once again, over a 100 years after the practice was banned in Britain. This could open the door to companion animals being stolen by animal dealers and sold to labs.
• It will be easier for researchers to repeatedly starve, mutilate, stress, poison and give cancer to the same individual animal.
• The Government could give the animal testing industry carte blanche to abuse animals with impunity, free from independent oversight.
• Animal research establishments will no longer have to even consider whether the pain they inflict on animals is justified by the expected test results.

The impact of these changes would be devastating – more pain, more suffering, more distress and more killing. Human health will also suffer as there will be even less incentive for researchers to replace crude animal tests with more effective and reliable non-animal methods.

The Government is hoping to push these appalling measures through by exploiting a loophole which allows them to change UK laws without Parliamentary scrutiny.

This is a major battle which will affect the fate of animals and medical research for years to come. Please stand up for animals at this pivotal time.

Action

Click here to download a template letter to send to your MP. You can find out who your MP is by typing in your postcode top right. 

Published 28 February 2011  

Government spending cuts may worsen lab cruelty

Uncaged have found ourselves in the odd position of defending the Home Office Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate from the impact of the swingeing spending cuts. In response to alarming media reports, we have written to Home Secretary Theresa May to warn her that any proposed cuts to the Inspectorate could potentially make things even worse for animals at threat from painful vivisection.

Why is this important, you may ask? Well, in practice, it is the Inspectorate which decides whether animal experiments will take place and if so under what conditions. For those concerned about animal experiments, you can’t get more crucial than that.

One of the major problems with the Inspectorate is that for the most part they have a background in animal experimentation and share the same culture and worldview as the researchers they are supposed to regulate. As a result, they have a cosy relationship with the vivisection industry and tend to rubber stamp animal research applications. At best, they may suggest tweaks to experiments to make them a little less agonising, but they very rarely challenge the whole validity of a research programme.

So why bother complaining about spending cuts, you might ask? Currently, the equivalent of 22.3 full time Inspectors are supposed to conduct continuous cost-benefit assessments of 2,658 'projects' of animal research, each of which is made up of various different kinds of experiment and sacrifices on average 1,350 animals per year. In addition, the Inspectors are supposed to visit laboratories - spread across some 200 establishments - to check up on what is actually happening in the experiments.

Working from figures published in the Inspectorate Annual Report for 2009, that leaves a mere ten Inspector hours per year for the detailed cost-benefit assessment of each project - the equivalent of approximately 25 seconds consideration for the welfare and lives of each animal. In reality, there is even less time because these figures do not take account of time spent by Inspectors on training, meetings, replying to Freedom of Information requests, letters and Parliamentary Questions, licensing establishments and persons, and pre-application discussions with researchers. Even with the best will in the world, the Inspectors would struggle to uphold the law properly because of insufficient time for a comprehensive cost-benefit assessment of project licences.

The 2002 report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures acknowledged that a staff of 25 Inspectors was inadequate and responded to evidence of the Inspectorate’s pro-research bias with a recommendation that it should be subject to external periodic review (this has not been implemented). Therefore, if the resources for the Inspectorate and other aspects of this regulatory system are significantly reduced, the consequences for effective and impartial regulations – and hence animals - are likely to be devastating. It would also make it more difficult for the Government to honour its pledge to reduce the number of animals used in experiments.

Since we have written to the Home Secretary we have received private assurances from Home Office officials that there will be no cuts to the Inspectorate, but we await formal confirmation.

Posted 24 November 2010
  

MPs show support for Government pledge to reduce number of animals used in experiments

A Parliamentary Motion introduced by Conservative MP Philip Davies congratulating the Government on its pledge to reduce the use of animals in research and calling for it to develop a targeted strategy to achieve this reduction, has now received the backing of over 100 MPs from all parties.
 
Earlier this year, Uncaged and anti-vivisection group BUAV expressed their deep disappointment at the lack of a meaningful drop in the number of animals used in tests shown in the latest UK Government statistics for 2009. The latest figures reveal that there were over 3.6 million experiments started on animals in 2009, representing a fall of just 1% from the year before. That is equivalent to 9,863 experiments every day (14,286 per working day), a totally unacceptable figure. 2008 saw a massive 14% increase in the number of animals used which was the biggest year on year increase since 1987.

In May, both organisations welcomed the announcement by the new Coalition Government to “end the testing of household products on animals and work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research."

Uncaged Director, Dr Dan Lyons comments:

"The historic pledge by the Coalition Government to take action to reduce the number of animals subjected to painful experiments could herald a major leap forward for medicine and animal welfare. The animal research industry has spent too long just defending the status quo. The Government therefore needs to stimulate a new strategy, with ambitious targets, to ensure the public's desire for better and more humane research becomes a reality."

Uncaged and the BUAV are calling on all MPs to show their support for this issue by putting their name to EDM 435. Please enter your postcode above right to lobby your MP.

Posted 28 October 2010  

Note: Listen to Dr Dan Lyons interview on BBC Radio Leeds about the campaign for a Government strategy to reduce animal experiments - commences from 0:17:59!

Save the Hunt Ban

Join the 18th September National Day of Action!

Protecting Animals in Democracy (PAD) is fighting to save the hunt ban, which is under threat from the Conservative-led Coalition Government. Please join with us to defend this landmark piece of animal protection legislation.

The vast majority of people in Britain are appalled by gratuitous cruelty to animals and believe that the hunting of foxes, stags, hares and other wildlife should remain consigned to history. However, 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. It is imperative that a majority of MPs vote against any such motion to return to cruelty. Repeal of the Hunting Act would mark a barbaric and backward step for our society.

Contrary to pro-hunt propaganda the Hunting Act is an important, historic piece of legislation which protects animals, 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.

Urgent action 

This law is a significant step forward in terms of reducing society's indifference to animal cruelty. The historic importance of the hunt ban is shown by the urgency with which groups such as PAD, Animal Aid, VIVA! and the Hunt Saboteurs Association have come together under Brian May’s SAVE-ME banner to campaign to save the Hunting Act 2004. We are also in contact with and are complementing the work of the League, the RSPCA and IFAW who led the parliamentary campaign that banned hunting with hounds.

It is impossible to tell when the Government will start the process to repeal the Hunting Act. Therefore the SAVE-ME ‘federation’ has decided we need to get active as soon as possible and are sponsoring an urgent National Day of Action on Saturday 18th September.

It was the constant pressure of public opinion over many years that finally defeated the small but highly influential and ‘well-connected’ bloodsports lobby. Now, we need your help on September 18th to alert the public to the looming danger and empower them to speak out, especially to their MPs who will take the final decision over the future of Britain's foxes, hares and deer.

Can you hold a street campaign stall on 18th September? The SAVE-ME federation is producing campaign postcards and posters for the 18th September Day of Action. You can order them by emailing us at dan@vote4animals.org.uk .

Posted 9 August 2010  

Ethical MPs to be honoured by PAD

Next week on Wednesday 23rd June, the influential PAD project will visit Westminster to present Certificates of Recognition to the 43 MPs who gave 100% support for our VOTE4ANIMALS 2010 manifesto.

The manifesto included the following measures:

1. The retention and thorough enforcement of the hunting ban
2. A ban on all battery cages and the debeaking of laying hens
3. The creation of an Animal Protection Commission to be a voice for animals in Government and review and implement animal protection policies
4. A Government-led strategy to reduce and eliminate animal experiments
5. The application of Freedom of Information to animal experiments
6. An end to Government support for biofuel production that causes suffering and death to orangutans and other wild animals through habitat destruction

The way we treat animals is a fundamental indication of the state of our society. These MPs' support for compassionate politics is, therefore, a sign that they have the character and values much needed to stand in Parliament and help enhance the integrity of our political system.

We look forward to working with these conscientious representatives to build a truly fair society where our fellow animals are treated as individual beings worthy of respect. These are the MPs who we will honour for their commitment to animal protection:

• Caroline Lucas, Green, Brighton Pavilion
• Frank Field, Labour, Birkenhead
• Stephen McCabe, Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak
• Yasmin Qureshi, Labour, Bolton South East
• Barry Gardiner, Labour, Brent North
• Kerry McCarthy, Labour, Bristol East
• Andrew Gwynne, Labour, Denton and Reddish
• Chris Williamson, Labour, Derby North
• Stephen Pound, Labour, Ealing North
• Grahame Morris, Labour, Easington 
• Andrew Miller, Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston 
• Andy Slaughter, Labour, Hammersmith 
• John McDonnell, Labour, Hayes and Harlington 
• Jim Dobbin, Labour, Heywood and Middleton 
• Fabian Hamilton, Labour, Leeds North East 
• Jim Dowd, Labour, Lewisham West and Penge 
• Sir Gerald Kaufman, Labour, Manchester Gorton 
• Paul Farrelly, Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme 
• Michael Meacher, Labour, Oldham West and Royton 
• Angela C. Smith, Labour, Stocksbridge and Penistone
• Bill Esterson, Labour, Sefton Central
• Nia Griffith, Labour, Llanelli 
• Paul Flynn, Labour, Newport West 
• Russell Brown, Labour, Dumfries and Galloway 
• Cathy Jamieson, Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun 
• Katy Clark, Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran 
• Don Foster, Lib Dem, Bath 
• Tom Brake, Lib Dem, Carshalton and Wallington 
• Duncan Hames, Lib Dem, Chippenham 
• Bob Russell, Lib Dem, Colchester 
• Stephen Lloyd, Lib Dem, Eastbourne 
• Lynne Featherstone, Lib Dem, Hornsey and Wood Green 
• Norman Baker, Lib Dem, Lewes 
• John Leech, Lib Dem, Manchester, Withington 
• Annette Brooke, Lib Dem, Mid Dorset and North Poole 
• Simon Wright, Lib Dem, Norwich South
• Mike Hancock, Lib Dem, Portsmouth South 
• Nick Clegg, Lib Dem, Sheffield Hallam
• Andrew George, Lib Dem, St Ives 
• Paul Burstow, Lib Dem, Sutton and Cheam 
• Adrian Sanders, Lib Dem, Torbay 
• Jenny Willott, Lib Dem, Cardiff Central 
• Jo Swinson, Lib Dem, East Dunbartonshire

More reports on the amazing impact VOTE4ANIMALS 2010 campaign coming soon!  

Posted 16 June 2010  

How will animals fare under the new Coalition Government?

So, British politics is moving into relatively uncharted territory following the election of a hung Parliament and subsequent formation of a coalition government between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Labour Party has failed to hold on to power and lost almost a hundred MPs, mainly to the Conservatives. We use the Programme for Government agreed by the coalition as a starting point for assessing the prospects for animal protection, focussing here on hunting and animal experiments.

Hunting

A key concern has to be the danger of a repeal of the hunt ban. The Conservatives had indicated their desire to legalise hunting and pledged to allow Parliament a free vote on hunting if they won the election. However, their failure to secure an overall majority means that it is far from certain that pro-hunt MPs outnumber anti-hunt members. Furthermore, the need to form a coalition with the generally anti-hunt Lib Dems appears to have watered down the Conservatives’ intention to allow Parliament a free vote.

The Programme states: ‘We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act’ (page 18). Many commentators* think this means that there will have to be an initial vote in Parliament to approve the tabling of a subsequent motion to repeal the hunt ban. This complicates and lengthens the process compared to the Conservatives’ pre-election position. 

In any case, the prospects for the hunt ban remain unclear, so compassionate citizens need to be vigilant and intensify the pressure on MPs and all the parties.

Animal Experiments

The Programme states: ‘We will end the testing of household products on animals and work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research.’

In the most recent annual statistics, animal testing of household products accounted for just 132 experiments, or less than 0.000004% of the total of 3,656,080. This type of experiment seems to be naturally dying out in the UK, so this is an easy step for the Government to take. However, every animal saved from the nightmare of poisoning tests is a victory for animals and their advocates. Nevertheless, the public need to be aware that most household products on sale in the UK are made by multinationals who still use animals in crude toxicity tests for such goods.**  Progress to a ban on testing the ingredients on animals is vital, as is a prohibition on the sale of animal-tested household goods.

It’s the second clause – to ‘work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research' - which is potentially highly significant, and is similar to point 4 of our election questionnaire for candidates. The number of animal experiments in the UK has been rising steadily over the last decade, after a policy-u-turn by the Labour Government surrendered all real responsibility for animal experiments to the animal research industry itself. Essentially, the fox was left in charge of the chicken coup.

The phrase 'work to' dilutes the promise, but it could potentially herald a fundamental change in Government approach from a passive 'demand-led' attitude (i.e. animals are left to the mercy of those who demand to experiment on them) to a more pro-active policy where the Government ensures that animal protection and public opinion are given serious consideration for the first time. In the past decade, the Government has ignored calls from expert advisors to develop and implement targetted reductions in animal testing. The new Coalition Government is giving us a tantalising glimpse of a new approach informed by ethics and science rather than dictated by the power and prejudice of the animal testing establishment.

Future steps

PAD is in discussions with animal protection organisations and senior animal advocates to save the hunt ban and persuade the Coalition Goverrnment to fulfil its promise to tackle animal experiments. In the coming weeks we will be updating this website to enable you to speak up for animals in this crucial period. 

We'll also be looking at the pre-election pledges made by the new MPs so, with your vital help, we can work with compassionate Parliamentarians to advance animal protection in this intriguing political era.

Notes  

* See articles at: http://www.fwi.co.uk/; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

** Make a donation to order a compassionate shopping guide with details of which companies do and don’t test on animals.

Posted 21 May 2010

Conservatives offer little hope for animals

With over 5000 emails sent to candidates, and thousands of replies received from election candidates, some revealing patterns are emerging about the relative commitment of the parties to animal protection.

Most alarming are the Conservative candidates. We have received a miniscule 14 positive replies out of a possible 3774. The Conservatives' animal protection rating is therefore a pretty nasty 0.37%. Not one Tory out of the 629 surveyed has agreed with all six of our animal protection manifesto points. More Tories than any other party simply aren't bothering to reply to their constituents' questions about their stance on hunting and other animal issues.

Labour score 16.3% and the Lib Dems 24%. As usual, the Green candidates are the most supportive with a 54% agreement rate. In fact 95% of the actual responses received from Green candidates were positive. 

Posted 29 April 2010 

'Clegg bounce' prompts surge in Lib Dem animal protection pledges  

Their rise in popularity following the leaders' debates has inspired many more Liberal Democrat candidates to declare their support for our PAD manifesto. They have now leapt above Labour into second place in terms of animal protection commitment. Nick Clegg himself has signed up to all six of our policy proposals, including maintaining the hunting ban and improving its enforcement.

However, Green candidates still lead the field by some distance, which is some feat given they are only standing in about half of the constituencies. Sadly, there is still no sign of any meaningful Conservative commitment to animal welfare. 

As of 21 April, we have received 2,089 'Yes' answers to our manifesto, of which 41% are from Green candidates, 29% Lib Dems, 24% Labour, 1% Cons (0.6%!) and 5% Others (mainly Plaid Cymru and Scottish National Party).
 
270 candidates have answered Yes to all 6 questions (of which 50% Green, 26% Lib Dems, 20% Labour, 0% Cons, 4% Others). 

Posted 26 April 2010 

How are election candidates responding to our manifesto?

Greens lead field with Tories bringing up rear

To date we have received 1,593 Yes answers to our manifesto points, of which 45% Green, 27% Labour, 23% Lib Dems, 0% Cons (0.4%!), 5% Others).

202 candidates have answered Yes to all 6 questions (of which 55% Green, 23% Labour, 22% Lib Dems, 0% Cons, 0% Others).

These figures broadly reflect the degree of commitment to animal protection from the parties previously seen from manifestos and support for Early Day Motions and other activity in the UK and European Parliament. The Green figure is even more impressive because they aren't standing as many candidates as the three main parties.

Posted 14 April 2010

Lush give massive boost to VOTE4ANIMALS!

International cosmetics firm Lush has provided a massive boost to the VOTE4ANIMALS 2010 campaign with a week-long campaign in their high street stores. Combined with articles on their website and facebook page, this has resulted in an astonishing ten-fold increase in the number of people visiting this site and lobbying their candidates.

Lush staff also donned costumes and placards to leaflet outside their stores, helping gain extensive media coverage in regional newspapers and radio stations.

Dedicated animal advocates are requesting campaign leaflets from us by the thousand to deliver door-to-door, focussing on key marginal seats. This is maintaining the momentum of this campaign, which is impressing and inspiring humane voters to get active at this crucial time!

Posted 13 April 2010 

41% of British Public say Animal Welfare is Important Voting Issue

Staggering 18 million votes could be influenced by policies on hunting, farming and animal experiments

A new opinion poll suggests that politicians who ignore animal welfare issues could end up counting the cost on election night.

A YouGov poll carried out for the Protecting Animals in Democracy (PAD) campaign reveals that animal welfare issues such as hunting and animal experimentation are an important election issue for 41% of the British public.

In the same poll, 87% agreed that the way we treat animals is an important measure of the state of our society, with only 21% believing that there is very little animal cruelty in Britain today.

This is the first time that the enormous political significance of animal welfare issues has come to light. We are pleasantly surprised because, although any decent human being would be concerned about animal cruelty, we were uncertain whether such a large proportion of the general public would take the next step and recognise it as an important political issue as well.

VOTE4ANIMALS 2010 - backed by the ethical cosmetics firm Lush - helps voters quiz election candidates on their animal welfare stance. The published responses, together with analysis of party manifestos, will allow voters make an informed choice when they go to the polls.

This new survey suggests that VOTE4ANIMALS 2010 could affect the result in many marginal constituencies, and hence who forms the next Government.

NOTES:

1. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2115 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 19th - 22nd March 2010. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).
2. Total number of registered electors is 45,410,482. 41% of that figure is 18,618,298. (Source: Office for National Statistics, General Register Office for Scotland, and Electoral Office for Northern Ireland.)

^