I AM seldom surprised by the level of public protest directed at MPs, and
anything to do with animal research tends to head the list. But I was taken
aback by public anger at a controversial new law that went through Parliament
recently. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act extends the
telephone-tapping powers of government departments to cover electronic
communications. And it鈥檚 not just the usual suspects among civil liberty groups
who are complaining. Now people in industry are up in arms that the RIP act
gives the Government Communications Headquarters at Cheltenham the right to spy
on domestic and international electronic communications. As Britain will be the
only country giving such powers to its government, will it scupper our chances
of becoming a world leader in e-commerce? Patricia Hewitt, the minister for
small business and e-commerce, has sent me a long, thoughtful letter that the
House of Commons Library or I will make available to any interested parties.
Hewitt says that the same technologies which allow businesses to communicate
in private can also prevent the law-enforcement agencies from accessing
communications between criminals and terrorists. There is a need to update the
powers of the agencies to deal with the challenges of the new technologies. The
RIP Act brings surveillance activities into a more structured framework than
ever before. She adds that, unfortunately, this is a case where the powers on
the face of a bill can appear more stark and threatening than they are in
practice. Clearly, the debates about Internet interception and access to the
keys controlling encryption technologies have not been good adverts for
e-business in Britain.
The challenge for Home Office minister Charles Clarke, with whom Hewitt will
work closely, is to consult with business in a way that will show that any
secondary legislation will be both fair to Internet service providers and have a
minimal impact on the activities of legitimate businesses. 鈥淭his way,鈥� says the
minister, 鈥淚 hope we will turn round the present perception and show that
Britain is a good and safe place to do e-business.鈥�
Advertisement
I MAKE no apologies for returning to the idea that all medicines tested on
animals should carry a label saying so. I鈥檝e long believed that this would allow
anyone who opposes the use of animals in such tests to see just how much they
depend for their well-being on animal-tested products. I raised the matter with
Lord Hunt, the junior health minister, and his advisers.
Hunt said that there would probably be strong objections from the European
Union on legal grounds. In particular, EU law sets out the information that has
to be included on medicine labels, and member states cannot require other
information to be included. He is not convinced that a simple statement that a
medicine has been tested on animals would convey either the necessity of the
tests to protect public health or the stringent controls under which they were
undertaken.
I鈥檓 afraid the minister and his officials are probably right, and I have been
wrong. However, as he says, we need better public awareness of testing
requirements and the use of animals in research. He adds that his department and
others are now investigating ways to achieve this. For example, a joint
industry/government Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force has set
up a working group to look at the problem, and the Medical Research Council has
published a booklet, Mice and Medicine. Now the Department of Health is
exploring ways in which patient groups can play a greater part in getting over
the importance of animal testing for developing safe and effective medicines.
Such efforts should help to improve public understanding of the necessity of
such tests.
