Stakeholder Response: Association of Chief Police Officers

Anton Setchell, assistant chief constable and ACPO national co-ordinator for domestic extremism, said: "Whilst the measures announced today will help police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service to detain and prosecute those people who commit animal rights extremism offences, we are concerned that the amendment has been narrowly drafted and focused solely on animal rights extremism.

"This was an opportunity to legislate for the offending behaviour of a much wider range of extremist groups who copy the tactics of each other.

"We are also concerned at the extremely limited nature of the consultation that has taken place in developing these provisions which are only being seen by us and others at the same time that they are being launched by the government.

"In recent years scope of criminal activity against companies that engage in legal animal research has greatly increased to include employees, their families and other organisations that do business with them. 

"The tactics used by extremists have become more sinister and violent and have an extremely damaging impact on those who are targeted.  We hope that this legislation will increase the power of law enforcement agencies to combat these crimes.

"Much work is already going on to stop organised campaigns of intimidation that include attacks on people and property.  The new measures will provide Police forces with an additional tool that can be used when the extremists’ campaigns are sustained and complex.

"The police remain committed to upholding the right of peaceful protest, and will continue to use considerable resources and a co-ordinated approach to bring those who go outside the law to justice."

Stakeholder Response: British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection

Adolfo Sansolini, BUAV chief executive, said: "The BUAV is a non-violent campaigning organisation that opposes violence of all kind, whether that be the violence of vivisection itself, or the harassment and intimidation that a small minority of people use as a means of protest.

"We believe the tactics used by a very small minority of protestors, and focused on by the media, undermine the messages, damage the reputation of, and ultimately impede the progress of the animal rights movement.

"The pro-vivisection lobby tries to focus the attention on a few isolated cases in their effort to make people forget the mass slaughter happening in laboratories.

"There is already legislation in place that prohibits harassment and intimidation, so we are very concerned that these extra proposals could limit the right to freedom of expression in a peaceful and non-violent way and impinge on people's democratic right to protest, which is something everyone should be concerned about regardless of their position on animal experiments.

"This legislation fails to take into consideration that for every one extremist who uses intimidatory tactics, there are hundreds of thousands of non-violent activists who work peacefully and lawfully towards their goal of abolishing experiments on animals. It is legislation that would not be acceptable in any other democratic country; and it has always been perfectly lawful to campaign on any issue – whether or not it could damage an individual company's economic interests – provided illegal means are not used.

"Indeed, if one looks at the anti-apartheid campaign against Barclays Bank, the campaign against Nestle and its baby milk, and the various campaigns against companies which exploit workers in developing countries, such as fair trade campaigns - all are designed to exert economic pressure for peaceful change.

"We will be looking at the detail of the government’s proposals very carefully.

"Whilst we acknowledge that intimidation occurs, and that this is often distressing for victims, it is important not to exaggerate its prevalence or level of seriousness. Home Office minister Caroline Flint recently told parliament that the government was aware of only one physical attack against a researcher over the past three years. The media would have the public believe that attacks were weekly occurrences.

"Research using animals is not what we and several scientists would define as good science, and is very often not for medical research – lab animals suffer and die every year for as trivial reasons as a new carpet shampoo going on our shelves.

"Virtually all of the breakthroughs in the understanding and treatment of Aids have come from studies not involving animals, and species differences mean that research into cancer and Alzheimer’s involving animals are a poor predictor of the disease in humans, and scientifically dubious.

"In addition, the Lancet reported last week that some 140,000 people in the US are thought to be suffering from serious heart conditions as a result of taking the now-withdrawn arthritis drug Vioxx – despite the fact that it was extensively tested on animals. Animal research is no panacea.

"Some bodies in the pro-vivisection industry would, we are sure, like traditional methods of protest to be made illegal or unlawful. And increasingly they have been assisted by unnecessarily wide court orders such as at Oxford where people’s right to protest peacefully at or around the university is much restricted.

"If the government is to prevent further law-breaking it is vital that they act in ways which protect this peaceful legitimate protest, whilst at the same time protecting people from intimidation and harassment.

"We believe that the government has actually contributed to the problem of intimidatory protest by its propagandist approach to animal experiments. Vivisection is an issue that the public is clearly concerned about.

"According to an opinion poll undertaken by TNS last year, 76 per cent of respondents said that, as a matter of principle, they opposed experiments on animals which caused them pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm - which all experiments licensed under the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act are, by definition, liable to do.

"If they want to allay widespread public concern about animal experiments, they need to open them up to proper public scrutiny so there can be the informed public debate necessary if people are not to lose faith in the democratic process and be tempted to act outside the law.

"And even though the Freedom of Information Act has recently been passed, all interested parties are able to see are summaries written by researchers themselves rather than actual documents. These summaries are likely to skate over what happens to lab animals, their suffering and what attempts have been made to use non-animal alternatives. The Home Office has even been giving researchers lessons as to how to write the summaries.

"The media also has an important role to play. Through disproportionately focusing on intimidatory methods rather than on the real issues relating to animal experiments and their regulation, or the considerable amount of non-violent campaigning against animal experiments, it unwittingly encourages some people to adopt intimidatory methods in spite of these new draconian measures.

"And if the government really wants to prevent acts of violence from occurring, they should support the action of law-abiding animal rights organisations such as ourselves."