Freedom of Information
Tuesday, 02, Dec 2008 04:42
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FoI Act’) is now fully in force. How it is applied in practice to controversial issues like animal experiments will provide a litmus test of whether the Government has really embraced openness. In fact, the Act applies to all public authorities, not just the Government - including, for example, universities and NHS trusts, where many animal experiments are carried out.
The BUAV has long called for far more information about animal experiments to be made available – what happens to the animals, for what alleged purpose and with what result. Traditionally, researchers have been very reluctant to share information, except when it suits them, and they have found a willing ally in the Home Office. Until a few years ago, the Home Office routinely told researchers that it would accept everything given by them as confidential, thereby triggering section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which prohibits the disclosure, even to Parliament, of information given to officials in confidence.
When challenged in a judicial review a few years ago, the Home Office acknowledged that blanket assurances of confidentiality were unlawful, but little changed in practice. Then, two years ago, the BUAV requested the (anonymised) information in 10 project licence applications, under the then Government code on access to information. The Home Office prevaricated for a long time and eventually produced anodyne summaries only, with much important information omitted. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is currently considering a complaint from the BUAV that this breaches the code.
There are strong indications that the Home Office wants to adopt a similar approach under the FoI Act. It is encouraging researchers to prepare summaries of project licences and it will then publish them under the publication scheme which all public authorities must adopt. In our view, actual information in licences (as opposed to summaries) will remain disclosable, because the entitlement under the Act is to information in the form in which it is held by the public authority in question. This is, admittedly, subject to numerous exemptions, but, if properly applied, these should not prevent much information about animal experiments being disclosable.
Ministers can, in certain cases, refuse to comply with a ruling of the Information Commissioner that information should be disclosed. However, it is thought unlikely that Home Office ministers would routinely use this power with animal experiments.
The BUAV has always accepted that information can be disclosed in anonymised form, because of safety fears (although leading pro-vivisectionists accept that these are often exaggerated). In addition, truly commercially sensitive information can be excised. This is not the same, of course, as information researchers would like to keep confidential.
The BUAV is determined to use the FoI Act to maximum effect, so that there can be an informed public debate about the ethics and scientific reliability of animal experiments. Transparency should also reduce the scandal of duplicated animal testing. For too long, vivisection has been cloaked in unacceptable secrecy. It is time for the vivisection industry to reveal the true nature of its practices.