Democratic Reform
Protecting Animals in Democracy is calling for the
replacement of current policy-making institutions that affect animals
with a new Animal Protection Commission.
Existing government bodies that affect the interests and welfare
of millions of animals - particularly the Home Office Animals
(Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate and relevant divisions within
the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs -
appear to have become dominated by industries and institutions that
use animals and cause them suffering. In each department, secretive
and exclusive policy communities, comprised of civil servants and
powerful business and professional interest groups, take important
decisions that further the interests of the animal research industry
and animal farming.
In this cosy 'club government', advocates for animals are largely
excluded from the policy process, and the perspective that shapes
policy-making corresponds to the commercial values of industry that
prioritises financial gain over other goals. As a result, laws and
regulations fail to take proper account of the welfare of animals
or the concerns of the public on these issues. To make matters worse,
those laws that do exist are not implemented. (1)
The privileged, insider relationship with government enjoyed by
industrial lobby groups enables them to avoid regulation and resist
public pressure for change. The story-line of Britain's 'strict
animal welfare regulations' is nothing more than a convenient political
myth designed to deflect public concern.
Nevertheless, with respect to animal experimentation, two-thirds
of the public do not trust the regulatory system, and only 6% trust
government statements. (2)
Institutional reform is essential if animal protection policies
are to have any sort of democratic legitimacy. The proposal to abolish
existing bodies that make policies affecting animals, and to amalgamate
them under a new Animal Protection Commission, could give animal
protection the priority it deserves and provide opportunities for
public participation. The precise structure and composition of such
an institution should be developed further to ensure that vested
interests do not come to dominate the new body.
To this end, the 21st report of the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution (3) offers a radical new model
for the incorporation of public values into the policy process.
One of the ways it does this is by making a distinction between
'stakeholders' who have an 'interest' in a policy, and the values
that people have as concerned citizens. The effect of this is to
allow principled objections to some practices to, at the very least,
be given weight in the decision-making process, rather than economic
expediency being the overarching goal. The other key innovation
recommended by the Commission is the role of public discussions
that allow reflection and examination of different values and opinions,
rather than mere arms-length consultation exercises that characterise
existing practice. The 'Deliberative Mapping' project on xenotransplantation,
carried out by the Policy Studies Institute, provides a possible
template for constructive public discussion. (4)
Our question to candidates in the 2005 General Election
was: Will you support the replacement
of current policy-making institutions that affect animals with a
new Animal Protection Commission? YES / NO
REFERENCES:
- See for example, www.xenodiaries.org
and www.buav.org/zerooption/news/whitewash.html
- MORI poll cited by Macnaghten, P (2001) Animal
Futures: Public Attitudes and Sensibilities towards Animals and
Biotechnology in Contemporary Britain. (Agricultural and Environmental
Biotechnology Commission) p. 45.
- Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Twenty-First
Report: Setting Environmental Standards, London, The Stationery
Office, 1998, Cm 4053. See also Weale, A. (2001) 'Can We Democratize
Decisions on Risk and the Environment?', Government and Opposition,
36 (3): 355-378.
- www.deliberative-mapping.org
^ |
