High Court Challenge To UK Govt.'s Approval Of Monkey Lab
The UK animal advocacy group 'Animal Aid' and Britain's National
Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) have launched a High Court challenge to the
decision by Great Britain's First Secretary of State John Prescott to allow
a massive primate research laboratory to be built in the Cambridgeshire
green belt.
The appeal describes Prescott's decision as perverse, unreasonable and
unfair, and says that Prescott's ruling dismisses the clear advice of his
own Planning Inspector, and the evidence presented to a public inquiry
staged at the end of last year.
The inquiry was held to determine if special circumstances would allow
Cambridge University to build the controversial monkey laboratory in the
Green Belt.
At the two week hearing, Animal Aid and the NAVS presented extensive
scientific evidence to show that the primate centre would produce no
benefits for human medicine.
By contrast, the Planning Inspector concluded that Cambridge University had
failed to show that there was a "national need" for the laboratory.
John Prescott simply ignored this finding.
In their historic appeal, lodged at the beginning of January, the two animal
advocacy groups noted that Prime Minister Tony Blair had made public
statements, in speeches and in letters, that supported the proposal, but
that these were issued outside of the planning process and before the
Inquiry had even been held.
The two groups said the decision to grant permission for the monkey
laboratory was a forgone conclusion, predetermining the result of the
inquiry, and that the Deputy Prime Minister's decision was based on little
fact and flawed information;
Letters from DTi Minister Lord Sainsbury, supporting the application to
build the monkey lab, influenced the decision, but contained shortcomings,
said the animal advocacy groups.
For example, he erroneously claimed that the findings of the recent House of
Lords Select Committee Inquiry on animal experiments supports the proposal
for this laboratory.
Additionally, Animal Aid and the NAVS stated that the denial of information
to them during the inquiry constitutes interference under the Human Rights
Act.
"We are saying in this appeal that the intervention in this case by the
Prime Minister and the DTi Minister amounts to an abuse of the planning
process. The only way for my clients to get a fair hearing is to go to
court," said Norna Hughes of Nabarro Nathanson, solicitors for Animal Aid
and the NAVS.
"NAVS and Animal Aid believe that the Government is not prepared to give
anti-vivisectionists a fair hearing because to do so might be interpreted as
giving in to the animal activists," Hughes said. "The inevitable consequence
is that effective debate is stifled; any form of public hearing including
this planning inquiry are only going through the motions."
"The only independent assessment of this planning application in this case
was by the local planning authority and the Inspector, both of whom turned
it down but the government still approved it," she said. "Significantly, the
planning inspector thought there was something in the objectors' complaint
that the outcome was a forgone conclusion. Commenting on the University's
refusal to present evidence of need for the proposed development and
therefore the inability of the Inquiry to test the evidence, the inspector
said 'Without this, the fears of some objectors that the outcome is a
foregone conclusion is granted credibility'."
Andrew Tyler, Director of Animal Aid and Jan Creamer, Chief Executive of
NAVS, said in a joint statement:
"The Prime Minister, John Prescott, and Lord Sainsbury appear to be riding
roughshod over public opinion and the facts of this case. We can have little
faith in the Prime Minister's current listening exercise if this is an
example."
More information about the ongoing Cambridge Primate Centre controversy can
be found at
www.animalaid.org.uk and
www.navs.org.uk.
© 2004 Animal News Center, Inc.
IMO this lab will never be built, public opinion will not allow another HLS.
It may help if you tell lord sainsubry (LC intended) what you think about
his intervention, and also boycott his over priced supermarkets.
Concerning the bloated Taff deputy PM (Two Jags) Prescott, nothing to say
about him.
But we have no alternative we can't kick Labour out, there is no
alternative.
What a 'sad shite' house of a country, the leader of the Tories, Michael
Howard figured highly in that Harlot Thatcher's regime. So if you want
interest rates at 14% and unemployment of 4 million, perhaps we could give
him a try.
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
