Minutes of Meetings - September 2000

Animal Procedures Committee  APC (2000) 4th Meeting
Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2000
At the Home Office

1. Apologies for absence

1.1 Apologies were received from Mr Baker, Professor Bulfield, Professor S Clark, Professor Holland, Dr Anderson (Inspectorate) and Mr Cobley (Home Office). The Chairman welcomed Mr Bourne, who had joined the Secretariat as Deputy Secretary on a temporary basis until the return of Ms Bacon. Mr Bourne was currently working two days per week.

2.1 Draft minutes had been circulated to the membership for comment on 13 July. A few minor factual amendments had been incorporated, and the minutes had been circulated to the membership by E mail on 28 July. The Secretariat was shortly to place them on the APC website. Action: Secretariat

3.2 Annual report. This had been laid before Parliament and circulated on 18 July. The Secretariat apologised that the report contained an error: the register of interests was the 1998 version, not the updated 1999 version. The Secretariat would ask the Home Secretary to place the correct register of interests in the Parliamentary libraries, and would prepare an insert to be put in any copies to be sent out in future. The report, with a correct version of the register of interests would shortly be placed on the APC website. The Chairman hoped that next year's report would be published earlier. 

Action: Secretariat

3.3 Primate symposium At the last meeting the possibility of holding a symposium to discuss the report of the Primates sub-committee had been suggested. There was a further brief discussion, and Professor Dunbar agreed to discuss the format with the Secretary, and E mail the conclusions to the Committee

[Secretary's note: After the meeting Professor Dunbar and some members of the Primate sub-committee discussed the matter further. They concluded that while a symposium might be helpful at a later stage, there was a need first to meet as a sub-committee to discuss the practicalities of implementing the draft recommendations made in the report. This would assist in preparing sound practical advice to the Home Office. Members of the sub-committee were asked to send their comments to Professor Dunbar, with suggestions for any bodies which should be consulted. The sub-committee agreed to meet on 9 November.]

Action: Primate sub-committee members

3.4 APC/UKXIRA co-operation Due to pressure of work the Secretariat had not been able to prepare a paper on APC/UKXIRA co-operation which had been commissioned at the last meeting. The Secretariat were asked to have this ready for the next meeting. 

Action: Secretariat

3.5 Oral report from Biotechnology working group Professor Richardson reported progress on the working group's report. She said that there remained serious issues which required more work but she hoped that a report would be ready for discussion by the main Committee at its December meeting.

3.6 Oral report from Openness working group Professor Atterwill reported that the working group had interviewed representatives from Glaxo-Wellcome, the Home Office Freedom of Information Unit and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit of Scotland Yard. Members of the working group had started working on draft sections of the report, and it was hoped to present a draft report to the main Committee at its December meeting.

3.7 Ministerial forum on Freedom of Information Mr Walsh reported that Mr O'Brien was to hold a forum for invited delegates on Freedom of Information on 19 September. The purpose of the forum was to inform further discussions with the Home Secretary. The Chairman accepted Mr Walsh's offer to Committee members to attend, and confirmed that they would attend as observers, not participants. Mr Walsh agreed to provide the Secretariat with a copy of the note of the meeting. Action: Mr Walsh

[Secretary's note: Professor Anderson and Professor D Clark attended the forum.]

4. Future independent element in some ASPI enquiries

4.1 The Committee considered Michael O'Brien's letter of 1 August, which invited comments on proposals for an audit team to monitor the process of future Inspectorate investigations. Mr Walsh explained that the proposal envisaged a small panel, drawn from members of the Committee, which would meet towards the end of the evidence-gathering phase to check that the investigation team had fulfilled its remit and to advise Ministers accordingly. The panel's report would have to be written with publication in mind. The panel could make recommendations for further work that might be required. The Chief Inspector defined an investigation as a formal investigation conducted by the Inspectorate on the instruction of, and reporting to, Home Office Ministers. Such investigations were managed by senior members of the Inspectorate with no link to the place being investigated, and no line-management responsibility for the local inspector. The scope and resource implications of such investigations were agreed between the Chief Inspector and Ministers 

4.2 Some members repeated a concern expressed previously, that the Inspectorate should not be involved at all in investigations where the allegations involved criticism of the Inspectorate. At the least, such an Inspectorate investigation should incorporate an independent element. The Chairman said that those were recommendations that a panel monitoring a future investigation might wish to make to the Minister in relation to any particular case.

4.3 After a full discussion, the meeting accepted the Minister's suggestion. The Chairman said that he would write to the Minister welcoming the proposal, noting that in exercising its functions:-

• the panel would expect to be involved at an early stage of the investigation;

• the panel might expect to co-opt members from outside the APC;

• the panel would require access to the evidence gathered and to further information as necessary.

Action: Secretariat

5. Cost/Benefit working group

The Chairman said that the Cost/Benefit consultation paper had been delayed, and he wished to send out the paper soon. The paper before the Committee was considerably shorter than previous drafts, but the work carried out on those might be used in the eventual report. After discussion, during which some detailed comments were recorded by the Secretariat, the Chairman asked members to send comments on the paper to the Secretariat. A revised draft would then be circulated to members for any further comment. 

Action: Members and Secretariat

6. Oral report by Home Office on recent developments 

Mr Walsh reported the following recent developments:-

• The annual statistics of Scientific Procedures on living animals had been published on 17 August.

• Following the validation of alternative methods for regulatory toxicology and safety testing for skin corrosivity and phototoxic potential, no new licences in those categories would be authorised. Existing licences would be reviewed and varied to remove the test, where appropriate.

• The Home Office guidance on regulatory toxicology (INF(00)28) was currently being considered by the Minister. Subject to approval, it would be published in October and used as a working document at the "Eurotox 2000" conference in late September. 

• The Minister had held a seminar in July to discuss measures to counter the activities of animal rights extremists, and had also held a meeting with animal protection groups. A follow up seminar would be held in November.

• ABCU and ASPI officials were participating in the Prime Minister's Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force. One of the working groups was looking into "streamlining animal experimentation in the UK" and was due to report to the Task Force in October.

• A new three-tier policy on dealing with infringements had been adopted as from 1 July. Some minor infringements were to be dealt with at local and regional level. More serious infringements would, as before, be seen by the Chief Inspector and the head of the Animal Procedures section. 

• At its October meeting the Committee would be provided with a report on the licence infringement described in the APC annual report at paragraphs 96 to 98. 

7. Agenda for weekend conference (APC(00)16 and INF(00)30)

The Secretariat was asked to exchange the subject of session one with session three. The Chairman asked for any other comments on the agenda to be sent to the Secretariat. 

Action: Members and Secretariat

8. Any other business

8.1 Proposal by the Research and Alternatives sub-committee to fund a research project at Porton Down Professor Anderson referred to an application for an APC research grant from DERA Porton Down. He said that the sub-committee was satisfied with the merit of the proposal, which involved nematode models of bacterial disease as alternatives to mammalian experiments. However, because the work was to be carried out at Porton Down, he invited the full committee to endorse the proposal. The Chief Inspector confirmed that there were precedents for Home Office funding of other government departments, and the Committee agreed that the application should be funded.

 Action: Secretariat

8.2 Proposal by 20/20 television to film the Committee Mr Mathews said that 20/20 television had told the Home Office of their proposal to make three one-hour documentaries for BBC2 on the subject of animal experimentation, and had asked permission of the Committee to film their meeting of 11 October. Mr Mathews outlined the arguments for and against filming. After discussion, the Committee agreed that 20/20 television should be offered the opportunity to film the Committee for about 15 minutes coverage though without sound recording. Mr Mathews agreed to write to 20/20 television accordingly, in consultation with the Secretariat. 

Action: Mr Mathews and the Secretariat

8.3 Research and Alternatives sub-committee: membership Professor Anderson said that the resignation from the main committee of Dr Southee, who had been a member of the sub-committee, and the resignation of Dr Langley from the sub-committee, had left the sub-committee with only two members - himself and Professor D Clark. There was therefore a need to identify new members. The Chairman noted that there would be a recruitment exercise starting shortly to identify new members of the Committee, and some or all of those might be suitably qualified to serve on the sub-committee. In the meantime the Committee welcomed the offer by Dr Jennings to join the sub-committee on a temporary basis, pending her replacement by one or more of the new members after their appointment.

8.4 Labelling of drugs Professor Turner referred to comment in the media suggesting that drugs should be labelled to indicate whether animal testing had or had not been used in their development. Although drug labelling was a Department of Health responsibility rather than a Home Office one, he suggested that the Committee might wish to advise the Home Office that such a suggestion should be supported. The Secretariat was asked to contact the Medicines Control Agency to investigate how this might be carried forward. Professor D Clark said that he was involved in a similar proposal in a European forum to have similar labelling on cosmetics. 

Action: Secretariat

8.5 Security leaflet The Secretariat had a supply of Home Office advisory leaflets about personal and family security. Members wanting a copy were asked to contact the Secretariat.

8.6 Visits The invitation to the Committee from Imperial College to visit their laboratories had been withdrawn. The Secretariat was asked to approach Imperial College on an informal basis to establish the reason for this. 

Action: Secretariat

9. Date of next meeting

This will be on Wednesday 11 October in Room 1027 at the Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1, starting at 10.30.


APC Secretariat 27/9/00

• Minutes of Meetings
• Reports and Publications
• Consultation Letters

• Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  
• Press Releases
• Supplementary Information

[Copyright Statement] [Complaints Procedure]