|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes of Meetings - February (final)ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE APC (2002) 1ST Meeting MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 13 FEBRUARY 2002 - RATIFIED At The Home Office
Item 1: Apologies for Absence 1. Apologies had been received from Professor Atterwill, Professor Flecknell, Dr Langley, Mr Baker, Professor Holland and Professor Richardson of the APC, from Mr Walsh of AP&CU and from Ms Bacon of the Secretariat. 1.1 The Chairman had been delayed in transit and Professor D Clark chaired the beginning of the meeting in his absence. 1.2 Professor D Clark introduced Ms Horrey as a new member of the APC Secretariat. Two observers from AP&CU, (Mr Goswell and Mr Vallender) were also welcomed to the meeting. Item 2: Minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2001 2. The minutes from the last meeting were approved subject to three amendments.
2.1 At this point the Chairman arrived and the Committee offered him its congratulations on his re-appointment for a second term as the committee's chairman. Item 3: Matters Arising 3. Paragraph 4.4 Information on the Health and Safety
Executive approach to compliance This was in preparation and would
be provided as a paper at the APC meeting on 10 April. 3.1 Paragraph 10 Revision of primate paper The Secretariat
would liaise with Dr Jennings to clarify the timeframes for the production
of this report. 3.2 Paragraph 11.1 New project licence application for
use of non-human primates The Committee noted that receipt of the
application from the applicant had been delayed. 3.3 Paragraph 11.3 Home Office policy on publication
of research findings The Home Office agreed to provide a comment on
section 10 of the 1986 Act at the 10 April meeting. Action: Home Office 3.4 On a related matter, Mr McCracken repeated a request made at a previous meeting for clarification as to whether the APC position paper on GATT and animal welfare could be disclosed to the current House of Lords Select Committee on Animal Experimentation. The Chairman agreed to clarify the situation and advise Mr McCracken. Action: Chairman 3.5 Paragraph 3.5 - Schedule 1 working group Mr Gregory advised the Committee that the working group had been set up and the first meeting was scheduled for 25 February. The APC members involved were Mr Gregory, Dr Morris and Professor Broom. Another person had been invited to join the group as an ad hoc member. A member of the Home Office Inspectorate had also been invited to attend the first meeting. 3.6 Mr Gregory noted that the Institute of Animal Technicians
conference in March would provide an excellent opportunity to seek information
from people working with euthanasia techniques. The Committee agreed that
a member of the Secretariat should attend the meeting to record key elements
of the discussion. Item 4: Two microsurgery applications (APC (02) 1 and APC (02)9)). 4. The Chairman asked the Committee to examine each of the applications (APC (02)1 and APC (02)9). The Chairman clarified that the Home Office routinely referred licence applications for microsurgery training to the APC. Prior to the 1986 legislation, the use of animals for the purpose of attaining manual skill had been prohibited (Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 section 3(6)). Since the 1986 Act microsurgical training could be granted a licence, but in 1986 the then Government had advised that all such applications would be sent to the APC for advice before a licence could be granted. The current Government had maintained this policy position. 4.1 The Secretary confirmed that details of the applications were confidential and covered by section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Purposes) Act 1986. Representatives of both applications were available for any questions that the Committee might have. Some members suggested that details of the applicant's identity should be withheld, but other members felt that knowing the applicants' names helped identify any conflicts of interest they might have. 4.2 The Chief Inspector clarified several matters, including the purpose of the techniques taught and their application to medicine and veterinary science. He was also able to provide additional detail regarding the source of animals and their care and accommodation. He also addressed issues in relation to depth and monitoring of surgical anaesthesia, and the selection and gender of animals. It was noted that the training courses were structured so that instructors were able to identify poor performers before they commenced working with live animals or human patients. The Chief Inspector also explained that the personal licensing system and a data base held by the Animal Scientific Procedures Licensing Unit of AP&CU would identify any potential trainee who had previously been shown to be unable to master the surgical techniques involved. 4.3 Dr Morris raised some questions about the animal husbandry and general anaesthesia details in the first application. He suggested that section 19b (v) (I) should be less prescriptive of the types of products to be used, to allow for flexibility if a particular named product became unavailable. 4.4 The Committee agreed to recommend to the Minister that the requested project licences should be granted in both cases. The letter would also recommend that the protocol sheet of section 19 b of the licence form of the first application be amended in the way proposed by Dr Morris. Action: The Chairman / Secretariat 4.5 The Chairman commented that, in future, it would not normally be necessary for microsurgery applicants to make themselves available to attend the meeting. He noted that applications should wherever possible be made to the Home Office in sufficient time for the APC to consider the applications and assess whether any further information was required. 4.6 Mr McCracken suggested that any future applications referred to the APC for consideration should include the analysis of the application which had been carried out by the Home Office Inspectorate. He considered that that would assist in focusing discussion. The Chairman noted that, in the past, the APC had felt it was important to carry out its own analysis independently. Dr Hubrecht suggested that the APC did not need to see the detail of applications: he suggested that the emphasis should be more on looking for alternatives. It was also suggested that the Committee might want to review the usefulness of its involvement in applications like these where the ethical cost appeared to be comparatively low. The Chairman noted that at the December meeting the Committee had agreed that after it had considered the forthcoming application involving primates it would carry out a retrospective review of its procedures for assessing applications. He suggested that all the points raised could be discussed at that stage. [ Secretary's note: After the meeting the Committee watched part of a video of microsurgical techniques, and spoke informally with one of the applicant groups.] Item 5: Uncaged allegations about Imutran/HLS 5. The Chairman noted that at the APC meeting on 10 October 2001 the Committee had examined the four substantive issues stemming from the "Uncaged" allegations about Imutran/HLS which Professor Richardson's working group had identified: enforcement and compliance; primates; xenotransplantation; and the Home Office response to the allegations. Enforcement and compliance had been discussed at the Committee's weekend conference, and further consideration was being given to this issue by the Cost/Benefit working group. Primates issues were being considered by the Primates sub-committee, and the Secretariat had been asked to prepare a paper on xenotransplantation issues. The Committee's current task therefore was to address the fourth issue - that of the Home Office's response to the allegations - contained in Angela Eagle's letter of 14 December. [Secretary's note: a copy of that letter was attached to the minutes of the meeting of 12 December 2001.] The Chairman invited the Committee to assess:
5.1 The Committee noted that the reason that the Home Office had given for not having invited the Committee to provide a quality assurance panel had been because the Chief Inspector's examination had been part of the routine work of the Inspectorate. After discussion some but not all members agreed that the Home Office's decision not to involve the Committee had been reasonable. Other members considered that the examination should not have been treated as routine. There was some discussion of what the APC's precise input into a quality assurance panel might be. It was noted that no terms of reference had been agreed, and that there was therefore some lack of clarity about the procedures. The Chairman suggested that those issues could be addressed when or if the question of the APC's involvement next arose. 5.2 The Committee then discussed the Home Office's acceptance of the four recommendations made by the Chief Inspector. With regard to the fourth recommendation - that the Inspectorate should be empowered to check the contents of reports against the original research records - the Chief Inspector commented that the Home Office could require organisations to supply statutory records, but that there was no right of access to other records. However, in general the Inspectorate was given access to the widest range of documents. 5.3 The Committee noted the Chief Inspector's four recommendations, and the Chairman commented that the Committee's work on enforcement and compliance, primates and xenotransplantation would enable an assessment of the recommendations to be made. Item 6: Enforcement and Compliance 6. Professor Broom spoke to his paper APC (02) 3 ('Some Enforcement and Compliance Issues'). He made suggestions as to how to improve the current situation. Some typographical errors were identified and amended on the draft. The paper identified a need to inform the public about the procedures used to enforce the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It also covered ways of encouraging the reporting of bad practice or transgressions under the Act and suggested that the consistency of grounds for decisions about prosecutions under the same Act be reviewed. The Chairman thanked Professor Broom for his work. Informing the public about existing controls Encouraging the reporting of bad practice or
infringements 6.3 Professor Purchase felt that there was a danger in being too prescriptive in setting up compliance and enforcement mechanisms, as that might be counter-productive. He suggested that it was better to engender a spirit of compliance within each individual organisation. He referred to his suggestion that the experiences of the Health and Safety Executive could offer useful lessons (see paragraph 3 above). Dr Morris noted that the Certificate Holders Forum had discussed how to encourage best practice on this issue. The Committee could suggest to the forum that it could progress this issue. Prosecution decisions 6.4 It was noted that decisions about whether to mount prosecutions under the 1986 Act were taken not by the Home Office but by the Crown Prosecution Service (in England and Wales) or by Procurators Fiscal (in Scotland). The Chief Inspector confirmed that offences which might merit prosecution were drawn to the attention of AP&CU, who decided whether to inform the appropriate authority. It was noted that a document commenting on prosecution practice had been provided to the Committee. The Secretariat was asked to identify this and circulate it. Action: Secretariat 6.5 Some members suggested that a working group be set up to work through some of the issues brought up by the paper. After discussion, the Committee agreed to defer a decision on whether to form a working group. The Chairman said that some actions had been identified which would clarify the issues. In addition, he was keen to see the Committee making the best use of the resources at its disposal. At the next meeting he hoped that there would be discussion on the related matter of accommodation and care. Decisions on whether either of the two subject areas should be taken forward by means of working groups could be made when matters were clearer. Item 7: Accommodation and Care 7. This item was deferred to the next meeting on 10 April. Item 8: Infringements: APC Current Practice 8. The Committee discussed APC(02)5 ('The Committee's Current Practice for Monitoring Infringements'). Professor Anderson suggested that infringements should be considered not only on an annual basis but be drawn to the Committee's attention more regularly. He said that that would reflect the Committee's commitment to monitoring infringements closely. He suggested that a way forward might be for the Home Office to provide information at each meeting of any infringement that impacted negatively on animal welfare. That would still allow the Committee to gain an overview of, and discuss, infringements on an annual basis. 8.1 The Home Office representatives confirmed that they
would provide the annual report on infringements at the next meeting of
the Committee. They also agreed henceforth to provide information at each
meeting of any completed case where an infringement had impacted negatively
on animal welfare. Item 9: Appraisal of Members 9. During discussion it became apparent that some
members of the Committee were uncomfortable with the proposed system of
performance assessment described in (APC(02)6. The Chairman asked that
the Secretariat review and further simplify the document. One suggestion
was to remove the numerical assessment system, and another asked for a
section covering the general performance of the Committee and the Secretariat
should be included. It was also suggested that once established, the Committee
should periodically review the usefulness and format of the performance
appraisal system. Item 10: Miscellaneous Issues: Home Office response 10. The Chairman referred to the Minister's response dated 14 December 2001 to his letter of 25 September forwarding the Committee's "miscellaneous" recommendations. [Secretary's note: copies of both letters are attached to these minutes.] The Minister had accepted three of the six recommendations. Professor Broom referred to the Minister's stated unwillingness to consider an extension of the protection of the Act to all cephalopods without compelling scientific evidence of any likely capacity to feel pain or distress. He said that further scientific information on the ability of some cephalopods to feel pain and distress was available. He suggested that the current situation - where one type of octopus (Octopus vulgaris) was protected but others were not - was anomalous. The Chairman agreed to liaise further with Professor Broom about the extra scientific information requested and then to write back to the Minister. Action: The Chairman / Secretariat 10.1 The discussion then moved to the fifth recommendation, that of payment for members of the Committee. The Minister had suggested that although payment of members was not possible, members should make full use of the provision in the Act for payment to members for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. The Secretariat was therefore asked to prepare a paper clarifying what expenses could be reimbursed. Action: Secretariat 10.2 The Committee then considered APC (02)10 ('The use under A(SP)A of endangered species of animals taken from the wild'). This was an issue that the Committee had not included in the letter to the Minister pending further discussion. Professor Broom had prepared the draft document and spoke to it at the meeting. 10.3 Mr Gregory advised that he agreed with the paper in principle. He felt that the current situation reflected a general belief that wild caught animals should not be used but that captive-bred animals must be used if available. He was more ambivalent about a total ban on use of endangered species. General discussion about other aspects of the paper took place. Recommendation 6 ("wild vertebrates should not be taken from the wild and kept as pets") was noted as being outside the ambit of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act. The Chairman asked Professor Broom and Mr Gregory to carry out further work on the draft paper which could then be circulated to members for comment. Action: Professor Broom / Secretariat Item 11: Design and statistical analysis of experiments 11. Dr Festing spoke to his paper APC (02)8. He noted a potential conflict of interest in encouraging better statistical analysis by researchers as he himself was a statistician. Dr Festing outlined his concerns that some experimental design and statistical analysis was not carried out well. He suggested that training of scientists could be improved in this area and better use made of information sources. It was accepted that this was a problem that was not confined to animal based studies. Dr Festing said that the FRAME standing committee on reduction had attempted to raise awareness of the issue, and there seemed to be general agreement that improvements would lead to improvements in science and the three Rs. He suggested that the Committee might consider setting up a working group of relevant individuals from bodies such as MRC, ABPI and the Royal Statistical Society which could explore how to progress this work further. 11.1 Dr Morris agreed that further work could be done in this area. He drew the Committee's attention to a new publication relevant to the discussion 'The Design of Animal Experiments: Reducing the use of animals in research through better experimental design'. (Laboratory animal handbooks no 14 published for Laboratory Animals Ltd by Royal Society of Medicine Press Limited (2002)). He advised that over 1,000 pre-publication copies had been sold. 11.2 It was agreed that more information be sought on the issue by the Secretariat liaising with Dr Festing, the Home Office Inspectorate and Dr Morris, with a view to preparing a paper which could be used as background for a discussion at the next meeting. It was noted that the matter had close links with education and training. Action: Secretariat Item 12: Any other business Item 13: Date of next meeting 14. The next meeting was scheduled for 10 April 2002. The meeting ended at 3.00 pm APC Secretariat February 2002
ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE 020 7273 2915 or 2770 From the Chairman Angela Eagle MP 25 September 2001 Dear Ms Eagle ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (APC): MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS As you know, the APC has taken forward work stemming
from its 10 year review of the 1986 Act by means of several working groups.
Earlier this year I submitted the Committee's recommendations on Biotechnology
and Openness. Another working group has examined some miscellaneous issues
identified in our review of the Act. We discussed a report by that working
group at the Committee's meeting on 12 September, and I now offer the
recommendations of the Committee stemming from that report. Recommendation 1: the scope of the 1986 Act: there should
be no change to the 50% gestation stage 2. As recommended by the review, the working group assessed
the provision in section 1(2)(a) by which the Act applies to embryo animals
at the 50% gestation stage and not before. The working group concluded
that the key issue was the state of sensory development in the embryo.
For instance chicken embryos with a 24-day incubation period do not seem
to exhibit any sensory-mediated response to stimuli until 5 days before
hatching. Different species of mammal exhibit varying degrees of development
at birth, but there does not seem to be any species in which the embryo
is known to have a sensory-mediated response to stimuli half-way through
its gestation. Against that background the conclusion of the Committee
was that the 50% control in the Act was safe. Recommendation 2: the scope of the 1986 Act should be
extended to cover other cephalopod species. 3. As recommended by the review, the working group also
looked at the species to which the 1986 Act relates. As regards the species
covered by the 1986 Act, the working group noted the addition of Octopus
vulgaris as the sole invertebrate category in 1993. The working group
supported its addition, but did not understand why protection is not extended
to other types of cephalopod also, including not just other varieties
of octopus but squid and cuttlefish too. There is nothing unusual about
Octopus vulgaris in terms of these related species: - many of them
have nervous and sensory systems which are equally if not more developed.
Annex A to this letter is a paper which the Committee saw at its last
meeting, which discusses this in greater detail. The Committee agreed
that the paper makes a convincing case, and accordingly recommends the
extension of the Act to all species of cephalopod. Recommendation 3: level of regulation and the export of
animal use: efforts should continue to be made to speed up the processing
of licence applications, but no changes should result in poorer welfare
of animals. Recommendation 4: ethical review process (ERP) local
committees should notify the Inspectorate of retrospective assessments
of severity 6. The working group agreed with the conclusion of the
Committee's review of the 1986 Act that a retrospective assessment of
the severity of each completed project would provide useful information.
The working group concluded that it should be for the ethical review process
(ERP) local committee in the establishment where the work had been done
to carry out this assessment and report its conclusions to the Inspectorate.
The Committee noted that the Home Office is currently reviewing the ERP,
and that local committees are already required to evaluate projects in
order to improve future applications. We hope that the Home Office as
part of this review will consider whether and in what form local committees
should be required to report to the Inspectorate the results of such retrospective
assessments. Recommendation 5: continued use of animals: definitions
in the "Guidance" 7. Since the Committee's ten year review of the Act,
the Home Office has produced the revised Guidance on the Operation
of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HC121). The Committee
was involved in the Home Office's consultation about it. The revised guidance
has clarified the ground rules for continued use of animals, which we
welcome as a positive step to increasing the consistency with which those
rules are applied. However, the working group noted in discussion of related
issues that some terms used in the Guidance were sometimes unclear
(terms such as "catheter", "fistula" and "successive
samples"). We therefore recommend that the Home Office should consider
issuing further clarification to licence holders. Recommendation 6: payment of Members of the Committee 8. In recent years the APC has increased and widened
its membership, and has, with Ministerial approval, taken a more active
role. It has a professional, dedicated and authoritative position at the
centre of the debate on animal experimentation. The Committee firmly believes
that it should maintain this role. The time burden of meetings can be
high. For example, in the year 2000 one member who was a member of two
working groups had to attend more than twenty meetings. In addition, in
order to carry out the Committee's enhanced role, individual members have
to devote much more expense and effort to the APC than simply attending
meetings. Annex B to this letter goes into this in greater detail. At
present, the Chairman is the only APC member who receives payment for
his time, although all members may claim travel and subsistence expenses.
I would therefore be very grateful if consideration could be given to
payment of an honorarium to all APC members for their time. Yours sincerely MICHAEL BANNER ANNEX A ANIMAL PROCEDURES
COMMITTEE The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as amended in 1993, gives protection to animals of the species Octopus vulgaris. The logic and practicalities of this situation are discussed briefly here. Biology of cephalopods 2. For a more detailed account of the information presented in this section see Wells (1962), Hanlon and Messenger (1996). I thank Dr M.J. Wells for providing helpful information. 3. Cephalopoda is a Class of the Phylum Mollusca which includes the pelagic, shelled nautiloids (e.g. Nautilus) and the coleoids which include cuttlefish, (e.g. Sepia), squid (e.g. Loligo) and octopods (e.g. Octopus). They range in adult size from 8 mm to the largest invertebrate animal, the giant squid Architeuthis which can be over 5 m long. All except nautiloids seem to be rather short-lived, often living for only one year but their pace of life is considerable and they live longer in colder conditions. They have little food storage ability. Squid are extremely numerous predators (several million tonnes per year are fished) in shallow or deep water whilst cuttlefish swim in shallow water and most octopods are bottom dwellers. 4. Cephalopods have touch and pressure receptors including a sophisticated lateral line system good enough for cuttlefish to detect a 1 m long fish 30 m away and some low frequency sound detection. They have a wide range of chemoreceptors which in Octopus vulgaris allow discrimination between solutions at 10-1000 times lower concentrations than humans can. Their eyes are very elaborate and allow discrimination of objects on the basis of brightness, size, orientation, form and plane of polarisation. Behavioural responses and learning studies employing deliberate infliction of small electric shocks indicate that cephalopods detect and respond to pain. Nociceptors exist in the skin but there is little response to tissue damage elsewhere. Sophisticated sense organs are described for cuttlefish, squid and octopods. A complex rapid movement system, with giant nerve fibres, is also present in most cephalopods and most have a chromatophore and photophore system for rapidly changing colour and light production from the skin. This is used for communication, as well as subtle camouflage, and a wide range of social signals are reported for some cuttlefish and squid. The brain of all cephalopods is large with those of cuttlefish, squid and octopods being particularly complex. 5. Learning is involved in most signalling and the most elaborate signalling and communication systems occur in cuttlefish and squid (Moynihan 1985). Indeed many of these animals live in social groups and hence may have levels of cognitive ability like those of those vertebrates which have complex social relationships. However, social grooming and collaborative hunting have not been described. Very few studies of social abilities have been carried out with squid. Most work on learning ability has been carried out in the non-social but visually very competent Octopus vulgaris. Attempts to study learning in other Octopus species have been less successful. In Octopus cyanea this is probably because it is nocturnal and feeds by groping under coral heads etc so visual cues are less relevant. 6. Experimentally Octopus vulgaris has been shown to be able to associate shapes, patterns etc with food rewards, habituate to a variety of stimuli, turn left or right in a maze, and copy a demonstrator octopus which had been trained to attack a particular shape for a food reward. They could also generalise from a stimulus to a class of stimuli and show pattern reversal learning. Tasks which had been learned could be remembered and performed efficiently after a delay of at least two months. 7. Visual discrimination tasks and habituation to a visual response have also been demonstrated to be carried out by five other species of Octopus, and three species of cuttlefish and squid. Avoidance learning in natural or semi-natural situations has been reported for the octopod Eledone moschata and three species of Octopus. The parts of the brain which are involved in storing and setting up memories in Octopus vulgaris were found to be present in all of the 62 species of coleoid cephalopods (cuttlefish, squid and octopods) examined by Maddock and Young (1987). The functioning of A (SP) A in relation to cephalopods 8. The axons of squid are often used in experimental physiology and some learning studies requiring a licence are carried out on octopods. 9. If Octopus studies were to be carried out in the U.K., in many cases a species other than Octopus vulgaris could be used in order that A(SP)A would not apply. This situation is logically anomalous as some species are very similar indeed to O. vulgaris. 10. Experimental work on all cephalopods other than Octopus vulgaris is not covered by A(SP)A. It is possible that some of these other species have much less cognitive ability than O. vulgaris. However, it is much more likely that the abilities of cuttlefish and squid are greater rather than less than those of O. vulgaris. There is no evidence that small species of cephalopods are less aware of their environment than larger species. It is not logical to demand proof of cognitive ability before protection. This has not been done for vertebrates. The probabilities are such that inclusion of all cephalopods under A(SP)A is more logical than the present situation. 11. Where experiments on cephalopods are proposed to the Home Office, expert advice from a biologist with knowledge of cephalopods, rather than from a veterinary surgeon, will often be needed. References Hanlon, R.T. and Messenger, J.B. 1996, Cephalopod Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maddock, L. and Young, J.Z. 1987. Quantitative differences among the brains of cephalopods. Journal of Zoology (London), 212, 739-767. Moynihan, M. 1985. Communication and Noncommunication by Cephalopods. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wells, M.J. 1962. Brain and Behaviour in Cephalopods. London: Heinemann. D.M. Broom August 2001 ANNEX B ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE Payment of Members Members of the APC who are in employment may, by courtesy of their employers, make use of institutional services, such as telephone, fax, mail and stationery in relations to their APC activities. Those who are self-employed or retired do not, however, have access to these institutional services and thus meet the costs thereof from their own resources. Although these costs are relatively low for some members, they can be appreciable - for example for a chairman of an active sub-committee or for members of APC working groups. 2. Those members who are in employment have the institutional hardware which is needed for communication in connection with APC business. Those not in employment must provide such hardware - for example word processors, fax and e-mail, files and filing cabinets - from their own resources. The use of this equipment on behalf of the Home Office could be said to fall into the same category as a car - ie some proportion of the cost and depreciation should be a legitimate charge on the Home Office budget. 3. For members who are self-employed or retired, there is a significant cost in time preparing for meetings, preparation of reviews, and attendance. For both categories, this time might be otherwise spent in gainful employment. For instance, some retired members carry out consultancy work, for which they charge an appropriate fee. 4. APC members are aware that members of the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), who perform a comparable function to members of the APC, receive a daily fee for their committee activities. In addition, attendance at specialist meetings outside FAWC, which the member, with the chairman's agreement, identifies as important to the Committee are funded by meeting the registration, travel and subsistence costs and paying the standard daily allowance. Chairmen of FAWC sub-committees also receive an enhanced daily allowance for all sub-committee meetings which they chair. It is anomalous that time and costs (other than travel) incurred should be recompensed to members of one government-appointed committee (FAWC) but not to the similar APC. At a minimum, conditions similar to those of FAWC should be offered to APC members. Letter from Angela Eagle to Professor Banner 14 December 2001 Dear Professor Banner Thank you for your letter of 25 September presenting the recommendations of the Animal Procedures Committee on miscellaneous issues stemming from its ten-year review of the operation of the 1986 Act. I am grateful to the Committee for the consideration that it has given to these issues. As to recommendation 1, I have noted the Committee's endorsement of s.1(2)(a) of the 1986 Act which provides that a mammal, bird or reptile in its foetal, larval or embryonic form becomes a protected animal under the Act only after half the gestation or incubation period for the relevant species has elapsed. I have also noted recommendation 3 endorsing the approaches we currently adopt to achieving the efficient and timely processing of licence applications while ensuring animal welfare is not compromised and the recent decision to increase the size of the Inspectorate. As to recommendation 2, I note that the arguments for the further extension of the protection of the 1986 Act to all cephalopod species set out in the annex to your letter focus on intelligence, but do not touch upon any likely capacity to experience pain or distress. I should need compelling scientific evidence on these issues before considering an extension of the Act to cover the additional species. With regard to recommendation 4, retrospective project reviews are provided for in the ethical review process and, as you will now have seen, this requirement was endorsed in the recently published report on the review of the ERP. Short summary reports are, in fact, already being received by the Inspectorate. As to recommendation 5, I understand that there is currently no evidence of confusion amongst users with regard to the meaning of the terms the Committee has identified. Should such evidence be presented we will of course provide any supplementary advice and guidance necessary. Finally, with regard to recommendation 6 asking for consideration to be given to the payment of an honorarium to APC members, I should first like to say that I am very grateful to members for the time and effort they devote to the work of the Committee. However, the 1986 Act makes no provision for the payment of members of the APC and an honorarium, as envisaged, is not in my gift. Section 19(9) does, however, provide for payments to members for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties and I would encourage them to make full use of that arrangement. Best wishes ANGELA EAGLE ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE 020 7273 2915 or 2770
From the Chairman Reverend Professor Michael Banner MA DPhil Lord Smith of Clifton 15 January 2002 Dear Lord Smith I have had sight of the transcript of the examination by the Select Committee of Mr Robert McCracken on 11 December. As you know, Robert McCracken is a member of the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) and I hope it will be helpful to offer my comments on certain parts of his evidence which relate to the APC. Paragraph 809 to 811 of the transcript I am sure that Mr McCracken would want me to clarify a matter where he may not have been entirely clear. He refers to APC's examination of licence applications, and suggests that the APC is hindered in its function of advising the Secretary of State because it does not see the analysis by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate of the application. Your colleagues may have gained the impression that the APC has been refused sight of these analyses. However, it is not the case that the Committee has asked for the Inspectorate's reports and been refused them. (Indeed, in my four years as Chairman I have no recollection of the Committee ever asking the Home Office for documents or information of any kind and being refused.) The APC has always understood its role, in considering and advising on licence applications, to be that of an independent source of advice to the Home Secretary alongside the advice from the Inspectorate and the Animal Procedures and Coroners Unit (AP&CU). For that reason it does not ask for information concerning the advice the Inspectorate proposes to give, though during its consideration of a licence application it can naturally turn to the Inspectorate (and to applicants) for information on technical detailed matters. Paragraph 808 of the transcript The APC will regret very much that Mr McCracken has put on record a comment which he alleges was made to him during a visit. It is a matter of principle with the APC that visits we make are for the purposes of informing us about the work of establishments, but that these visits are not inspections and that we make no public comments of any kind about them. Any breach of this principle plainly puts in jeopardy the openness which many establishments have shown in hosting such visits, and hence threatens the ability of the APC to carry out its work on the basis of an informed knowledge of the system. I hope these comments are helpful. Yours sincerely MICHAEL BANNER
|
||||
 Back to Top |
||||
|
|
|
|
© Crown Copyright 2000, 2001, 2002 |