National Antivisection Society
Cambridge University primate lab
What next, after Cambridge University announces it is dropping plans for monkey lab on brink of NAVS legal action.
On January 27th, Cambridge University dramatically announced that it would not be proceeding with the primate laboratory it had fought for so long to build. The announcement came just one week before John Prescott’s office was due to respond to the legal action brought by the NAVS and Animal Aid. Our action with the Court of Appeal describes Prescott’s decision to overrule his own Planning Inspector and allow the laboratory to proceed as “perverse, unreasonable and unfair”. The coverage of the decision to withdraw was marked by misinformation and attacks on opponents of the lab. So what is the real story?
Taking the First Secretary of State to court
We lodged our case with the Court of Appeal against the First. Secretary of State on New Year’s Eve. Prescott’s ruling had dismissed the clear advice of his own Planning Inspector, and the evidence presented to the public inquiry. At the 2002 inquiry, the NAVS and Animal Aid presented extensive scientific evidence to show that the primate lab would produce no benefits for human medicine. The Planning Inspector concluded that, by contrast, Cambridge University had failed to show that there was a “national need” for the laboratory. John Prescott simply ignored this finding. Our appeal highlighted Government interference:
Prime Minister Tony Blair made public statements, in speeches and in letters, that supported the proposal, outside of the planning process and before the Inquiry had even been held;
the decision to grant permission for the monkey laboratory was a foregone conclusion, predetermining the result of the inquiry;
the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision was based on little fact and flawed information;
letters from DTi Minister Lord Sainsbury, supporting the application influenced the decision, but contained shortcomings. For example, he erroneously claimed that the findings of the recent House of Lords Select Committee Inquiry on animal experiments supported this laboratory;
denial of information to the objectors (NAVS / Animal Aid) during the inquiry constitutes interference under the Human Rights Act.
Norna Hughes of Nabarro Nathanson, solicitors for NAVS noted: “We are saying in this appeal that the intervention by the Prime Minister and the DTi Minister in this case, amounts to an abuse of the planning process. “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. Significantly, the planning inspector thought there was something in the objectors’ complaint that the outcome was a foregone conclusion."
Cambridge drops lab?
The Cambridge University story broke as an “exclusive” through the BBC network and Daily Mail and took the form that Cambridge been forced to withdraw because of the threats of violence from “animal rights extremists”. The fact that CU itself had only claimed that the cost of security was “part of” the reason was buried below archive footage of protests at Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) and damage to animal experimenters’ property. There appeared to be no footage of anything that had actually happened to CU.
The public didn’t get the whole story. When CU began their attempts to build this laboratory, they were well aware of the campaign against HLS. But over the next two years they did not waiver. At the planning inquiry in November 2002, the CU barrister said they had no concerns about the HLS campaign. To underline the point, they called Mark Matfield of the Research Defence Society to run through the HLS security logs of demonstrations. These were not a problem, he asserted.
CU was just £8 million short of the total funds needed for the lab, yet if just a tenth of the grand claims they made about the laboratory in the media were true, they would surely have had no trouble finding the funding. Why (after years) was Cambridge still unable to finance the project? Why did CU include in their announcement that they could not afford the necessary security? Would more money be available if the principle purpose of a grant were to shore up Government policy in the fight against ‘terrorism’? The media failed to address any of these questions. When the NAVS raised these points we were told that the BBC didn’t want to get involved in “the detail."
On the day that the BBC was taken to task by the report of the Hutton Inquiry, it ran this disgracefully biased story.
So what is the truth? CU is divided itself over the project, and they have a financial shortfall. As we have stated, CU has never actually been able to put a serious scientific case for the laboratory – no demonstration of a national need for it. Even Colin Blakemore, Head of the Medical Research Council, eventually conceded in The Observer: “We needed a primate research centre as much as we needed a mouse centre or a hamster centre. That is not how biological research works. Research on animals should continue to be integrated into individual science departments. The logic of a centre dedicated to only one type of animal was always suspect...."
What now?
The planning permission remains valid for 5 years, indeed, it can be extended by a further 5 years. CU’s withdrawal of their plans does not revoke the planning permission that has been given. They can change their minds.
As we go to press, the NAVS and Animal Aid are pursuing our legal action against the First Secretary of State. The Government intends to fight on, for their right to make the decision. The winner will have set a legal precedent.
As yet no date has been set for the hearing at the Court of Appeal. We will keep supporters informed of developments. Please help with money for the legal fund. This is the biggest case in recent history.
For more information:
Early Day Motion tabled in the House of Commons by Tony Banks MP
Why monkey experiments are bad science
Cambridge drops monkey lab plans
Prescott ignores planning inquiry finding
