Chris Magee seems to have nothing better to do with his time than attack the BUAV. He must see us as a threat to the multi-million pound, multinational animal research industry which he and his employers, the pressure group Understanding Animal Research, represent.
Sadly, Mr Magee seems unable to engage in reasoned debate, preferring to make wild and inaccurate statements about the BUAV. As soon as a proponent in a debate mischaracterises what his opponent says in order to advance his own case, you know that he has lost the argument.
Mr Magee says that the BUAV has claimed that from next January former pets might be snatched from the street by scientists and tortured in laboratories. We have made no such claim. What we have said is that in future the Government could allow stray cats and dogs, which could include pets, to be used in experiments. That is true. The Home Office has said that it will build into UK law the same exception found in the new European law. That exception allows stray and feral animals of domestic species to be used in certain circumstances. A stray cat or dog could easily be someone's lost pet.
Mr Magee goes on to say that the BUAV has implied that those same animals would be 'electrocuted and forced to swim'. Again we have made no such claim. What we have done is to point out, quite separately from the debate about stray cats and dogs, that the new European law contemplates experiments involving 'inescapable electric shock (e.g. to produce learned helplessness)' and 'forced swim or exercise tests with exhaustion as the end-point' (amongst numerous other horrific experiments). It does, and the Home Office has refused to rule out such experiments taking place in this country.
Back to the stray cat and dog issue. Mr Magee appears to have difficulty understanding the legal position, so I will explain it. The old European law, Directive 86/609, banned the use of stray animals of domestic species in all circumstances. The Home Office accepted that in its consultation document in May 2011:
'... This [Article 11 of the new European law] is a relaxation of the provisions of Directive 86/609/EC under which their use was prohibited ...'.
Because this was the European law, it also had to be UK law. There had to be an absolute ban on the use of stray domestic animals in UK laboratories. The Government now has the choice, when implementing the new European law in legislation, of keeping the absolute ban. It refuses to do so.
Following pressure from the BUAV and others, a Home Office minister has now told Parliament that the Government 'do[es] not envisage any circumstances under which the use of stray animals will be justified in the future ...'.
That is a step forward, certainly, and the BUAV has justifiably claimed credit for it. The problem is that a policy promise is not nearly as good as legislation. Ministers can, and frequently do, change policies, and make exceptions to them without ever publicising that fact. If the Government is so sure that it will not allow the use of stray cats and dogs in experiments, why not include a ban in legislation?
The problem is exacerbated by the massive secrecy which surrounds animal experiments in this country. Understanding Animal Research claims to support openness, but strictly on researchers' terms. It recently supported Newcastle University, which spent an astonishing £250,000 desperately opposing a Freedom of Information Act request made by the BUAV. The request related to some highly unpleasant and invasive brain experiments on macaques - the Berlin authorities had turned down a request for a licence by the same researcher because the experiments were, they said, just too cruel, and there seemed to be little benefit for people.
The BUAV eventually won that case. Undeterred, Understanding Animal Research then tried to persuade a parliamentary select committee that, in future, university researchers should have a veto about what information concerning their animal research they had to disclose. So much for their belief in openness!
The secrecy is why the only circumstance in which we and the public can have confidence that stray cats and dogs will not be used in future is if there is a clear ban in legislation. We will continue to fight for that and for the ban to include feral animals of domestic species such as cats - the Home Office has said that it will not even adopt a policy banning the use of feral cats.
It is probably a forlorn hope but wouldn't it be nice if the debate about animal experiments could be based on what is really involved?