Minutes of Meetings - April 2000

Animal Procedures Committee APC (2000) 2nd Meeting
Minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2000

Present

Professor Banner (Chairman)
Professor Anderson
Professor Atterwill
Mr Baker
Professor Broom
Professor Bulfield
Professor D Clark
Professor S Clark
Professor Dunbar
Professor Flecknell
Mr Gregory
Professor Holland
Dr Jennings
Dr Langley
Professor Martin
Mr McCracken
Professor McNeilly
Professor Purchase
Professor Richardson

Home Office
Mr Walsh

Inspectorate
Dr Richmond
Dr Anderson

Secretariat
Mr West
Mr Brenner

1. Apologies for absence

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Dr Southee, Professor Turner and Mr Ward (APC) and Mr Evans (Home Office).

2. Minutes of the previous meeting (9 February).

2.1 It was agreed that the first sentence of paragraph 9.3 should be amended to read "The US National Institute of Health had issued a press release indicating that they would accept lymph node assay work in mice rather than more invasive tests on guinea pigs."

2.2 The minutes were then agreed.

3. Matters arising

3.1 Goats used in experiments related to underwater escape from submarines (paragraph 2.1). The Chief Inspector had written to Mr Ward about the use of goats in these experiments. The British Goat Society had written to the Chairman expressing concern about the same matter. All the correspondence, including the Chairman’s eventual reply, would be circulated to the membership. Action: Secretariat

3.2 Primate application (paragraph 3.3). The Minister had replied to the Chairman’s letter of 10 January about two primate applications on 16 February (INF (00) 13). He had accepted the Committee’s advice.

3.3 Home Office guidance on the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (paragraph 5). The definitive version had been published, and copies had been distributed to members. It was noted that the passage in Appendix D paragraph 6B which related to the humane killing of animals suffering or likely to suffer adverse effects was more clearly expressed than similar passages in Appendix E. The Home Office was asked to comment on this. Action: Home Office

3.4 Microsurgery project licence application (paragraph 6). The Chairman had written to the Minister suggesting that he approve the application on 22 February. The Minister had replied accepting the Committee’s advice on 27 March (INF (00) 13).

3.5 Treasury rules about finance (paragraph 7.6). Professor Anderson asked about a possible change to Treasury’s rules about yearly budgets, and agreed to write to the Home Office to seek clarification. Action: Professor Anderson

4. Committee’s Annual Report for 1999 - APC(00) 6

4.1 The Chairman said that the draft before the Committee incorporated all the corrections notified to the Secretariat after the report was discussed at the 9 February meeting. The membership suggested several further changes, which the Secretariat noted.

4.2 The Secretariat had received individual responses from members about their record of attendance and record of interests (Annexes B and C). The Secretariat would pursue the few outstanding contributions outside the meeting, and circulate an amended version of those annexes before publication. Action: Secretariat

4.3 The APC workplan - Annex D – did not reflect current plans, but it was agreed that it should not be altered, as it reflected the plans current at the end of 1999.

4.4 Subject to those comments, the Committee approved the draft for publication.

5. Harlan-Hillcrest – Home Office investigation report - APC(00) 7

5.1 Before discussion began Dr Langley said that she wished to declare a personal and professional involvement in the matter under discussion. She said that she had been paid by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) to write the original report which had led to the Home Office investigation report. That commercial transaction had now finished. She had not written the recent response by BUAV to the Home Office report. She offered to withdraw from the meeting if the Chairman requested. The Chairman said that he did not consider that Dr Langley should withdraw, as she had no direct pecuniary interest in the matter under discussion, which was the Home Office report.

5.2 The issue of whether the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate (ASPI) representatives should be asked to withdraw from the meeting was discussed, on the grounds that the original BUAV report and the BUAV response to the Home Office report were both critical of ASPI. The Chief Inspector offered to withdraw from the meeting if the Chairman considered it appropriate. After discussion, the Chairman decided not to accept the Chief Inspector’s offer to withdraw.

5.3 Mr Baker clarified that he had been a paid officer of BUAV when the original BUAV clandestine investigation had been initiated, but that he had left that post in 1998. He was, however, still a member of BUAV.

5.4 In the first place, all members welcomed the Home Office’s decision to make the report public. They believed that such a step was in accord with the greater openness which was needed in this area. They expressed the hope that any such reports would be made public in future.

5.5 It was also agreed that it was right that the Inspectorate were asked, in the first instance, to carry out an investigation of the charges made. It was noted however that it would have been helpful had the report given a clear account of the nature and method of the investigation.

5.6 Whilst the Committee recognised that it was not in possession of the information it would need to take a view of the rights and wrongs of the various allegations made against Harlan-Hillcrest, and did not seek to do so, it was felt by a majority of members that the Inspectorate’s report left a number of outstanding questions. Many members felt that that the report sought to exonerate Harlan-Hillcrest, with the risk of creating the impression that the conditions which prevailed there were deemed acceptable by the Inspectorate.

5.7 Looking to the future, a majority of the Committee were in favour of encouraging the Home Office to consider incorporating an independent element into any enquiries that might be initiated into allegations which suggested not merely particular breaches of the Act, but the possibility of a more generally significant failure of the system of compliance, monitoring and enforcement. Whilst the Committee had confidence in the professionalism of the Inspectorate and in its concern to ensure the rigorous application of the legislation, it was likely that public confidence in any investigations which touched on the performance of the Inspectorate would be enhanced by the inclusion of an unquestionably independent element. Members noted that there were precedents in other areas of government.

5.8 The report suggested that the Committee might be asked to advise on the appropriateness of requiring animal care staff at designated establishments to undertake mandatory training. That was a matter which the Education and Training sub-committee already had under consideration and it was hoped that proposals would soon be brought forward. The Committee also took the view that the report raised the general issue of the effectiveness of the monitoring and enforcement of the Act. That was obviously a matter of great importance and the Committee would need to consider how best to take it forward.

5.9 The Chairman agreed to circulate a draft letter on the lines proposed, on which members would be invited to comment. The letter would need to reflect the wide range of opinion in the Committee, from satisfaction with the ASPI investigation to significant concern about a lack of independence. The letter would also need to make clear that the Committee was not judging the rights and wrongs of the particular case, but was concerned to draw constructive, practical lessons for the future. Action: Secretariat and Chairman

6. Cost/benefit working group: consultation exercise - APC(00) 8

6.1 Introducing this item the Chairman said that the cost/benefit working group were seeking the Committee’s endorsement of the approach they were developing in the draft consultation paper, which remained in need of much work.

6.2 The responses to the Biotechnology working group included some points of relevance to the cost/benefit exercise. The Secretariat would ensure that those issues were notified to the cost/benefit working group. Action: Secretariat

6.3 It was suggested that a summary would assist readability.

6.4 While the annex giving an example of the use of animals was considered useful, it was suggested that it might be helpful to set out the reason for including that particular example. Otherwise the reference in part 2, paragraph 18 might invite challenges.

6.5 In part 3, paragraph 42 there needed to be a reference that ethical review committees were required to carry out retrospective monitoring of animal experiments.

6.6 The Chairman asked members to send detailed comments on the paper to the Secretariat, so that a revised version could be discussed at the next meeting of the APC.Action: Secretariat

7. APC programme of visits - APC(00) 9

7.1 The Chairman said that a small group from the Committee had visited Huntingdon Life Sciences on 5 April. He thanked Professor Atterwill for an interesting visit. Six members expressed an interest in visiting Glaxo-Welcome on 17 May. The Secretariat were asked to draw up plans for an APC conference in York in September/October. A possible theme for discussion would be compliance issues. The Secretariat were also asked to organise a visit in the autumn to Imperial College. Action: Secretariat

8. Working group on openness: progress report

8.1 The openness working group originally comprised Professor Atterwill, Mr Baker and Mr McCracken. It had met on 17 November to discuss the issues for consideration in the consultation paper, and the paper had been sent out on 13 January. There had been pressure to finalise it, and it had not been agreed by the APC before circulation. The normal assumption was that papers sent out by working groups should be discussed by the full committee.

8.2 There had been a large number of responses to the consultation paper – some 2,500. Individual respondents tended to favour options A and B; pharmaceuticals and CROs option D and E but institutions tended not to favour any of the options. There had been some very concerned reactions about the security implications of increased openness.

8.3 Professor Atterwill said that he had become concerned at the workload represented by the large number of responses which had been received. After consultation with the Chairman, he had decided to appoint two additional members – Professor Bulfield and Professor Clark - to the working group with immediate effect, so as to enable the analysis of the responses to begin forthwith

9. Any other business.

9.1 APC(00) 5 dealt with three invitations: a LASA workshop on 21 June about surplus animals; a FAWC open meeting on 5 June; and a request from Research for Health for a meeting with the Secretariat and some members of the APC. It was agreed that the Chairman should arrange a meeting with Research for Health. It was noted that the Committee would be represented at the LASA meeting by Mr Gregory and at the FAWC meeting by Professor Clark. Other members willing to attend the LASA or FAWC meetings were asked to contact the Secretariat.

9.2 Dr Jennings asked for a report of any liaison between ASPI and other regulatory bodies. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to discuss this with the Home Office. Action: Secretariat

10. Date of next meeting.10.1 The next meeting will be held on 10 May, at the Home Office, Queen Anne’s Gate in Room 1027 again.