Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
FOI
 
53
 
Written evidence from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
Post-Legislative Scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Introduction
 
1.
 
The BUAV is an anti-vivisection organisation. It has made reasonably extensive use of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), with mixed results. Among the publicauthorities of which it has made requests are: the Home Office (the regulator of animalexperiments), various universities, the Medicines and Healthcare products RegulatoryAgency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.2.
 
The reasons the BUAV uses FOIA reflect the policy underpinning the Act identified bythe Ministry of Justice Memorandum: to inform public debate (on a contentious issue); toincrease the accountability of public authorities; and to improve decision-making. Animportant aspect of accountability is ensuring that the Home Office is regulating animalexperiments in a lawful manner – particularly important given that animals inlaboratories, self-evidently, cannot whistleblow.3.
 
Animal experiments are conducted in conditions of considerable secrecy. Section 24Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) makes it in an offence, punishable bytwo years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine, for a minster or official to disclose,even to Parliament, information which a researcher prefers to be kept secret – eveninformation about his or her wrongdoing.
1
 4.
 
There are some sources of publicly available information about animal experiments:
•
 
The Home Office publishes statistics each year, but although they are reasonablycomprehensive they have been widely criticised, including by a House of Lords select
1
See the Court of Appeal decision in
 BUAV v the Home Office and the Information Commissioner 
[2008]EWCA Civ 870. The Court of Appeal ruled that it was entirely for the provider of information whether he gaveit in confidence. The law of confidence – under which information about wrongdoing or other informationwhich in the public interest needed to be made available – had no relevance
1
 
 
FOI
 
53
 
committee and the Home Secretary’s advisory body,
2
and are no substitute fordetailed information about particular experiments.
•
 
The Home Office encourages (but does not require) licence applicants to prepare ashort abstract (summary) of their application; these are then published under theHome Office’s FOIA publication scheme. These, too, are no substitute for detailedinformation. They often read like PR documents, designed to persuade the public of the value of the research in question, and playing down animal suffering. TheInformation Tribunal, in a case brought by the BUAV (the abstracts case), describedfive abstracts it was able to compare with the licences they were purporting tosummarise as ‘positive spin’, with little said about what was to happen to theanimals.
3
Successive opinion polls show that, unsurprisingly, it is the suffering of theanimals with which the public is most concerned.
•
 
Some animal research is published, but only a minority. Even when it is, researchersgenerally give no more information about what the animals experienced than isstrictly necessary to understand the research. Little information is given aboutconsideration given to the use of non-animal alternatives (a statutory requirement).
4
 5.
 
The litmus test for any transparency regime is whether it is able to shed light on areas of public policy which are controversial. Animal experiments remain acutely controversial,with public opinion divided and shifting according to the latest aspect to hit the headlines.Controversy extends to scientific efficacy as well as to ethical considerations and thereare therefore vital human health issues at stake. Public surveys confirm that the public,irrespective of their views about animal experiments, want to have more information. Forexample, a survey by YouGov in 2009 on behalf of the BUAV in the UK, France,Germany, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Italy
5
asked whether the then proposed newEU directive on animal experiments should require that all information about animalexperiments be publicly available, except information which is confidential andinformation which would identify researchers or where they work. 80% of respondentsthought it should.
2
The Animal Procedures Committee
3
EA/2007/0059: see paragraph 8
4
Section 5(5) ASPA
5
Fieldwork was undertaken between 24th February - 4th March 2009
2
 
 
FOI
 
53
 
The exception for confidential and identifying information is important. There are, of course,exemptions in FOIA covering these.
6
The BUAV always says that information it requests can beprovided in anonymised form.
6.
 
The Information Tribunal
7
in another case brought by the BUAV
8
recognised theimportance of transparency in this area:‘
Substantially for the reasons relied on by BUAV, we consider there can be no doubt about the strong public interest in animal welfare and in transparency and accountability as regards animal experimentation conducted under the ASPA regime.The existence of the statutory controls operated by the Home Office does not annulthis interest which extends to seeing how, and the extent to which, the statutory systemis working in practice. Such private scrutiny as takes place inside the statutory systemis not a substitute for well-informed public scrutiny. In the present case these interestsare further underline by the fact that the research was supported by public funds
’
 
Mr Justice Eady made similar comments on appeal in the abstracts case. He suggestedthere should be a presumption that licence applications should be open with confidentialinformation separated out.
9
 7.
 
In addition to FOIA, the BUAV has made extensive use of EC Regulation 1049/2001.This is similar to FOIA, except that there are far fewer exemptions. The regulation coversdocuments held by any of the EU institutions. The BUAV’s experience is that it is fareasier, and quicker, to get documents under this regulation that it is to get informationunder FOIA. This is despite the general perception that the EU is a secretive body.8.
 
This submission will address two issues only: the cost of compliance exemption; andaspects of internal reviews.
Cost of compliance
 Background 
6
Those in sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (data protection), 41 (information provided in confidenceinformation) and 43 (trade secrets and commercial interests)
7
Now called the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
8
 
 BUAV v Information Commissioner and Newcastle of University
EA/2010/0064 paragraph 52
9
 
 Home Office v BUAV and Information Commissioner 
[2008] EWHC 892 (QB) at para 61
3
 
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.

    • More From This User

    3 p.
    Written Evidence From Kent County Council
    saveFOI
    303 Reads
    29 p.
    Written Evidence From Campaign for Freedom of Information
    saveFOI
    135 Reads
    2 p.
    Written Evidence From the BBC
    saveFOI
    163 Reads
    1 p.
    Written Evidence Submitted by Trevor Craig
    saveFOI
    106 Reads
    5 p.
    Written Evidence Submitted by Robert Wyllie
    saveFOI
    109 Reads
    1 p.
    Written Evidence Submitted by Debbie Pugh-Jones
    saveFOI
    96 Reads
    3 p.
    Written Evidence Submitted by David Higgerson
    saveFOI
    290 Reads
    11 p.
    Written Evidence From What Do They Know
    saveFOI
    149 Reads
    7 p.
    Written Evidence From University of Oxford
    saveFOI
    245 Reads
    2 p.
    Written Evidence From University of Bristol
    saveFOI
    200 Reads
    14 p.
    Written Evidence From Universities UK
    saveFOI
    405 Reads
    8 p.
    Written Evidence From Understanding Animal Research
    saveFOI
    120 Reads
    5 p.
    Written Evidence From Tom Boyd
    saveFOI
    103 Reads
    3 p.
    Written Evidence From the Wellcome Trust
    saveFOI
    111 Reads
    4 p.
    Written Evidence From the University of West Minster
    saveFOI
    100 Reads
    8 p.
    Written Evidence From the University of the Arts, London
    saveFOI
    101 Reads
    2 p.
    Written Evidence From the University of Sussex
    saveFOI
    217 Reads
    5 p.
    Written Evidence From the University of Surrey
    saveFOI
    94 Reads
    2 p.
    Written Evidence From the University of Sheffield
    saveFOI
    102 Reads
    4 p.
    Written Evidence From the University of Salford
    saveFOI
    119 Reads
    8 p.
    Written Evidence From the University of Reading
    saveFOI
    222 Reads
    4 p.
    Written Evidence From the University of Man Chester
    saveFOI
    94 Reads
    5 p.
    Written Evidence From the University of London
    saveFOI
    102 Reads
    4 p.
    Written Evidence From the University of Lincoln
    saveFOI
    89 Reads
    Notes
    Load more