Minutes of Meetings - June 1999

These minutes report business in Agenda order - which was not the order in which it was taken on the day

1. Apologies for absence

1.1 Apologies had been received from Professor Anderson, Professor Holland, Professor Johnston, Professor McNeilly, Professor Purchase, Professor Richardson, Dr Suckling, and Professor Turner.

1.2 The Secretariat was under strength. This was preventing it from providing a service at the level the Committee needed. Officials from other parts of ABC Unit were helping out as an interim measure - one of them, Mr Stanton, was at the meeting.

1.3 It had emerged at the previous meeting that the Committee contained no 'barrister, solicitor, or advocate' as required by section 19(3)(a) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Mr Evans described the action that the Home Office was taking to put this right.
 

2. Minutes of the previous meeting (12 May)

2.1 The minutes were agreed as circulated.
 

3. Matters arising

3.1 Minister's forum (para 3.1) The forum would be on July 9. Arrangements took account of the APC's distinct status as the Government advisory body. Despatch of invitations was imminent and all APC members who had asked for them - in whatever capacity - would get them.

3.2 Personal licensing system (para 6) The Home Office continued to work up detailed proposals for change.

3.3 Standard licence conditions for designated establishments (para 10) The Home Office was adding the new conditions to establishments' certificates.

4. Work programme - APC(99)20

4.1 The Chairman had recently met representatives of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). He planned a similar meeting with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI). It was important to be able to give groups like this a skeleton outline of the work the Committee planned to do and when it planned to do it. The Secretary would produce a further short paper on that basis for the next meeting.

4.2 The current paper required alteration at paras 3 (deletion of reference to cosmetics) and 18 (third indent to read regulators, researchers and those concerned with animal welfare). The Secretariat would see to that.

4.3 The remit of the cost-benefit group, set out in paragraph 20 of the paper, could benefit from a reference to comparisons with evaluative, as well as cost-benefit, models. The issue would be discussed at the residential meeting (see para 12 below).

4.4 The review of the 1986 Act had identified (chapter 9) a number of miscellaneous issues for the Committee to pursue. There would be a working group to discuss these and make recommendations to the Committee. It would consist of Professor Broom, Mr Gregory, a member of the Inspectorate, and Mr Bone (convenor). Action: Secretariat 5. Guidance for members - APC(99)21

5.1 Mr Bone explained that the paper was intended as a standing document to give members general guidance on what membership of the APC entailed. It amplified the Code of Conduct and gave what was hoped would be useful practical information. The paper was based on similar material which had been drawn up for members of the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

5.2 Members agreed a change to para 31 ('normally' for 'always' contacting the Secretariat over interviews on APC topics), and the Secretariat would slightly revise what para 6 said about the termination of Committee appointments. The Secretariat would also put in material about liaison with other Government committees and the position of members who also belonged to other Government committees and wanted to release APC material to them. It would then recirculate the paper on that basis. Action: Secretariat

6. Primate applications - APC(99)22 and APC(99)23

6.1 On APC(99)23, Professor Dunbar explained that the primate sub-committee had considered this application for an amendment to a licence at its meeting on 24 June, and had asked for additional information before reaching a decision. It might then refer the matter to the main APC or alternatively offer Ministers advice direct.

6.2 Members then considered paper APC(99)22, an application for a licence to continue research on Parkinson's Disease involving marmosets. The applicant and other members of the research team were present and answered questions from the Committee (the Secretariat having alerted them to areas of questioning identified by the primate sub-committee).

6.3 Most of the animals would be injected with MPTP (a drug simulating the effect of Parkinson's disease on humans). They would then be involved in a range of experiments designed to test the effectiveness of treating Parkinsonism by means of drugs, genetically engineered viral vectors, surgery, and administering nerve growth agents. Many of the animals would be allowed to recover and their recovery assessed. All would eventually be humanely killed.

6.4 During discussion with the applicants members expressed serious concerns about this application. These involved the following issues in particular -

6.5 After the applicants had left the Committee concluded decided to advise Ministers to reject this application. There was the possibility of instead advising Ministers to allow the drug work only to go ahead, under strict controls, since that appeared to be better structured and justified than the rest of the proposal. But the Committee concluded that the deficiencies in this part of the programme, as presented, were too significant. The proposal had been put to the Home Office and the Committee as a whole and it should be treated as a whole.

6.6 The Secretariat would prepare a letter to that effect for the Chairman to send to Mr Howarth, liaising with the chair of the primate sub-committee and other members who had raised particular concerns.Action: Secretariat

6.7 The Committee also discussed how best to handle such discussions with applicants in future primate applications. There was a concern that dealing with visitors to the Committee in such a large forum, however well controlled and disciplined, would not necessarily make for the most fruitful interchange.

6.8 There was the possibility of the primate sub-committee seeing applicants instead and reporting on their discussions to the main Committee. If that happened it would help if papers were circulated around the entire Committee beforehand - the sub-Committee might then be augmented by a small number of other members who had expressed concern about the particular application.

6.9 Members could see advantages and disadvantages to this proposal. The Committee would not change its procedures for the moment, but would bear the possibility in mind for the future.

6.10 Dr Richmond suggested that the Inspectorate might offer the Committee a presentation on how it structured its advice to Ministers and assessed options. Members welcomed this. Action: Inspectorate/Secretariat (to agree timing)

7. Housing and care of gerbils and ferrets - APC(99)24

7.1 Gerbils The Inspectorate believed that current caging systems did not allow for the multi-level or interconnecting cages which Professor Broom suggested in APC(99)24. The Committee decided to recommend to Ministers that multi-level or interconnecting cages should be included in the guidance note as a possible environmental enrichment.

7.2 The Committee thought the material on cage design in the guidance should also say that nursing females should be provided with a place in which they could get away from their young - this point could figure in the advice on environmental enrichment too. The Secretariat would draw up a letter to the Minister on this, in consultation with Professor Broom and Mr Gregory. Action: Secretariat

7.3 Ferrets Professor Broom's material at APC(99)24 suggested that ferret cages should all contain nest boxes and that the cage sizes laid down in the Home Office's draft guidance should in some cases be bigger. Ferrets needed nest boxes for warmth, to give birth, and as a hiding place.

7.4 In discussion it was pointed out that although Council of Europe guidelines said that nest boxes should be provided, this was for ferrets kept outdoors - animals kept in laboratories would not always need them. The guidance might specify that ferret cages be provided with other items, such as short lengths of pipe, for their occupants to hide in.

7.5 The Committee concluded that the Chairman would advise the Home Secretary that the guidance should say that all ferret cages should contain a hiding place of some kind. The Secretary would consult Professor Broom and Mr Gregory over a suitable form of words.

7.6 The minimum cage sizes quoted in the draft guidance had emerged from an expert group which the Home Office had convened. Members expressed concern that if the UK required the cages of ferrets bred for laboratory work to be much larger than those used on the Continent UK breeders would stop supplying labs, who would then get ferrets from Europe instead (where prices were at 1/3 of UK levels). The overall effect on animal welfare would be negative. The figures in the draft code of practice were the expert group's best effort at a compromise on this.

7.7 As against that, the UK would be the first country to lay down minimum cage sizes specifically for laboratory ferrets. The Government's stance here could influence similar decisions in other countries. Members expressed concern that the minimum sizes suggested in the draft guidance were not enough to meet the behavioural needs recognised and set out in the guidance. The Committee decided on a vote that the Chairman should write to the Home Secretary advocating the figures contained in Professor Broom's paper. Action: Secretariat

8. Government review of the framework for overseeing developments in biotechnology - APC(99)25a, b & c

8.1 Members took note of the papers. The Government had set up machinery to ensure that all its committees dealing with biotechnology questions of whatever sort were able to communicate effectively with each other and with central Government, providing early warning of difficult issues. The APC was part of that network. There were new responsibilities here for the Secretariat. But these things did not affect the Committee's function, which was set by law and had not changed, or its rights and responsibilities.

8.2 Annex 4 of the Government's report (paper 25c) said that arrangements would be made to allow devolved administrations to make known their views on the APC's subject matter along with other reserved matters. The Secretariat would investigate what this meant. Members agreed that it would be right for the APC to meet outside London occasionally (e.g. Edinburgh, Belfast or Cardiff). Action: Secretariat

9. Freedom of Information Bill - APC(99)26

9.1 The consultation period for the Bill ended on July 20. Members agreed that there should be an APC response. The Bill would exempt information from disclosure if it

• was prohibited by law - such as s.24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986;
• would be likely to endanger the safety of any individual;
• was commercially valuable; or
• had been acquired in the course of an investigation.

9.2 Members agreed that the Committee's response would need to cover the future of s.24 of the 1986 Act. The question was whether section 24 should be abolished altogether. Alternatively, it could be amended to leave its criminal penalties for cases where disclosure was not authorised by the Freedom of Information Bill.

9.3 The Committee agreed that the Chairman should write to the Home Secretary to the effect that material provided to the Home Office in the course of animals procedures licensing should be open, as long as it was not commercially sensitive and would not pose a danger to anybody's personal security.Action: Chairman & Secretariat

10. Home Office 1998 statistics - APC(99)26

10.1 Mr Wilkes reported that the statistics were to be published in July. The material in APC(99)26 was a draft set of Appendices. In the published 1998 statistics tables 2, 5, 8, and 10 would each be presented as three separate tables, respectively covering procedures, harmful mutants and modified animals as suggested by the Committee. (Since the meeting, the Home Office has decided not to split Table 10 in that way).

 
11. 1998 Annual report

11.1 The APC's 1998 annual report had been published on 22 June. Members discussed the possibility of moving to a less formal-looking document, on the lines of the Farm Animal Welfare Council annual report. Unlike FAWC's the APC report had to be laid before Parliament, so there might be less scope for this. But the Secretariat would consider the possibility when drawing up the 1999 report. There was the possibility of using a less formal style of presentation in other APC publications. Action: Secretariat

12. Residential meeting

12.1 The 1998 residential meeting would be held on Friday 17/Saturday 18 September (Robinson College, Cambridge). The Secretariat would put together a draft programme for discussion with the Chairman and members. Action: Secretariat

13. Any other business

13.1 Mr Evans mentioned that the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) had threatened judicial review proceedings against the Home Office for authorising LD50 work contrary, in their submission, to section 5(5) of the 1986 Act, as amended.

13.2 BUAV had sent a report to the Home Secretary of investigations they had carried out at Harlan-Hillcrest, a designated establishment. It largely concentrated on the conditions in which dogs were bred and kept there. Dr Langley circulated copies of this report to members at the meeting (later, the Secretariat sent further copies, at Dr Langley's request, to members who were not present).

13.3 Mr Evans said that Ministers had asked for a full investigation of Hillcrest. This was in hand.

14. Date of the next meeting

14.1 Wednesday September 8 1999, 10.30, room G21 Queen Anne's Gate.
Secretariat
July 1999

• Minutes of Meetings
• Reports and Publications
• Consultation Letters
• Press Releases

• Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (available on the Home Office website)