Minutes of Meetings - November 1999

1. Apologies for absence

1.1 Apologies from Professors Bulfield, D Clark, Dunbar, Flecknell, Martin, Purchase, and Richardson.

2. Minutes of the previous meeting (13 October)

2.1 The minutes were agreed subject to

para 3.7 - deletion of penultimate sentence

para 3.8 - the licence had been revoked at the request of its holder. The Committee would return to the revocation of this
personal licence when the report on it had been received, and also to the general topic of lone working at some point.

para 4.4 - primates - should record that the Kennedy report had concluded that primates should not be used in transplant work

para 4.4 - multiple use - delete after ' at present'

para 4.7 - 'early warning' is adopted by veterinary surgeons ….

para 5.5 - insert 'some members said their points had not been included'

paras 5.9, 5.11, 5.15 - minor changes

para 7.4 - the claims were to UKXIRA by a company engaged in primate work.

3. Matters arising

3.1 Primates (para 3.1) The Home Office had as expected referred to the Committee a revised version of the primate application which it (the APC) had looked at during its June meeting. The applicants had split the work into two separate licence applications - the Secretariat had referred these to the primate sub-committee and anticipated that the full Committee would be able to discuss them, with the benefit of the sub-committee's advice, at the meeting in December. Action: primate sub-committee

3.2 Ferrets & gerbils (para 3.2) Responses to the Home Office's consultation paper on ferrets and gerbils were still coming in (despite the 29 October deadline). The Home Office would consult the Committee again before finally issuing the guidance document on these two species.

3.3 LD50 test (BUAV's judicial review) (para 3.4) The Committee had seen a Home Office press notice (INF(99)34) announcing that the Department has accepted legal advice that the legislation - section 5(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as amended in 1998 - does not allow licensing of the LD50 test if a suitable non-animal alternative is available. This had followed the application for judicial review on this point by the British Union Against Vivisection (BUAV).

3.4 Home Office ABCU said that correspondence with BUAV continued. The Department had varied one licence for the LD50 test which had been granted since the change in the law in September 1998. The Inspectorate were examining earlier licences of the sort and would put recommendations to ABCU about how they should be dealt with.

3.5 Dr Langley expressed surprise that this had happened. When the law had changed in 1998, the Home Office had told the Committee (unminuted at that time) that the modification would make no difference and that it reflected (then) current practice.

3.6 ABCU said that there had been no attempt to mislead the Committee. The simple fact was that the Department now had different legal advice on the matter. The September 1998 date was not a 'watershed' except in that it marked the point when the relevant EU Directive (86/609/EC) was placed on the face of the 1986 Act. The re-examination of earlier licences was being dealt with in slower time because of administrative complications. The Home Office was pressing other European Governments to adopt a similar approach in respect of LD50 and Article 7.2 of the Directive.

3.7 The Chief Inspector commented that the Home Office's new legal advice bore on the purposes for which animal procedures could be allowed under section 5(3) of the 1986 Act. LD50 tests which are aimed solely at meeting the regulatory requirements of a foreign jurisdiction and which have no other scientific justification can no longer be said to meet the terms of section 5(3). He estimated that the procedures concerned involve about 2,000 animals a year in the UK.

3.8 Professor Clark commented that the Home Office's press notice said that - unlike the LD50 test - there are no alternative tests for LC50 and PD50. Members confirmed this.

3.9 Overbreeding (para 3.6) - Professor McNeilly had recently chaired the first meeting of the overbreeding group. The group expected to be able to advise the Committee that the LASA report on overbreeding of lab mice and rats was broadly on the right lines. But they wanted a discussion with LASA first, and the Secretariat was setting that up.

3.10 The group would also need to consider the position in respect of other species, especially dogs, cats and primates. They would take that forward separately by considering the fact-finding exercise which was needed.

3.11 Tobacco applications (para 3.7, para 5) The Committee had decided at it last meeting to consider the two applications without taking a view of the scope of the Government's policy in relation to the testing of tobacco products. It was agreed however that this did not debar the Committee, on another occasion, from taking a view on the merits of this or other Government policies in relation to the use of animals in scientific procedures and expressing that view to Ministers.

3.12 In answer to later questions the Chief Inspector said that the Home Office were content that the work involved in application 70/04972 was not being duplicated at the applicant's plant in the United States. They were also content with the plans for publishing it - these companies had a good record on publication of their animal work.

3.13 Mr Ward asked about cases where work was planned in the UK which would be tied up with animal work overseas that would not be accepted here. He asked whether the Home Office would be justified in turning down the UK licence application for that reason. The Chairman agreed to remit this question to the cost-benefit working group. Para 5.18 of the October minutes said that researchers might be prevented from releasing information for reasons to do with patent law. The openness working group should consider this question. Action: openness & cost-benefit working groups

3.14 Revocation of a personal licence (para 3.8) The Chief Inspector has met the project certificate holder to discuss lone working - the indications are that the institution will set up a 'buddy system'. The Committee agreed to come back to this issue later (see also minutes of the last meeting, above).

3.15 Pigs as xenotransplantation source animals (para 4) The Secretary would write to the Minister in the light of the Committee's revision of the October minutes (see minutes of the last meeting, above).

3.16 work programme (para 6) Members who were chairing the various sub-Committees and working groups were to meet after the main meeting to discuss their plans, including timetables and consultation. Each of the groups would have a page on the Committee's website. Members would receive a paper copy of all the web pages when they were ready - meanwhile, the Secretariat circulated the homepage for members to see.

3.17 Harlan-Hillcrest (para 3.9, September minutes) The Chief Inspector said that the Home Office report on BUAV's allegations was almost complete. When it was, it would go to the Minister. He could not be specific about when Ministers would refer the report to the APC.

4.World Trade Organisation talks - possible recommendation to the Home Secretary (APC(99)43).

4.1 Mr McCracken introduced a discussion paper inviting the Home Secretary to initiate debate at the imminent World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle on the General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs GATT). The aim would be to seek an exclusion clause in the free trade arrangements which would allow countries with high animal welfare controls (such as the UK or EU) to impose restrictions on the importation of goods whose development, production and testing involved the treatment of animals in ways which they would not themselves permit. These measures might include requirements such as labelling.

4.2 The Committee welcomed Mr McCracken's paper and thanked him for bringing this matter to their attention. It was agreed that the Chairman should after taking further advice from Mr McCracken write to the Home Secretary, urging that he take the matter up with his colleagues. Action: Chairman, MrMcCracken

5. Any Other Business

5.1 The Secretariat outlined a proposed programme of visits for the Committee, to include visits to toxicology laboratories, pharmaceutical companies, breeding establishments, primate research centres and university research facilities. Members welcomed this. The Chairman asked that general information relating to visits should be featured on the new web-site and also in the current work programme, and that more detailed proposals be brought back for discussion at the next meeting.

5.2 Mr McCracken asked if the Secretariat could confirm details of any licence granted in relation to experiments on cats at Newcastle University Medical School referred to in the article from the Independent on Sunday (INF(99)40). Action: Secretariat

5.3 Professor Turner asked if the Secretariat could confirm if Committee members were covered by the Home Office in the event of any accident that befell them in the course of travelling to/from or attending any APC meetings. Action: Secretariat