Minutes of Meetings - September 2001 (final)

1. Apologies were received from Professor Atterwill, Professor Dunbar, Dr Morris and Professor Purchase.

1.1 The Chairman welcomed Dr Festing, Dr Hubrecht and Dr Morris on their appointment as members of the Committee.

Item 2: Minutes of the meeting held on 9 May

2. The draft minutes had been sent to members on 6 June and were available on the APC website.

2.1 Dr Langley referred to paragraph 3.4. She said that her concerns about experiments using tobacco as a causative agent for pulmonary disease had not been discussed at the last meeting. She recalled that it had been agreed that it would either be discussed at a later date or she would write to the Chairman. It was agreed that the last sentence of paragraph 3.4 should now read "The Chairman had replied. Dr Langley said that she still had concerns, and it was agreed that the matter should be discussed by the Committee at a future meeting."

2.2 Mr McCracken commented on the second sentence of paragraph 14.2, about the Openness report. It was agreed that this should now read "Although Mr McCracken had earlier registered his objections to the draft of the Committee's report, no further comments had been received, so publication of the Committee's report.."

[Secretary's note: these two amendments will be incorporated into the final minutes of the May meeting and be published on the website.]

3. The Chairman noted that there were a number of substantive items in the agenda. These were the "Uncaged" allegations; the campaign by the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) about the "Oxford Macaques"; the House of Lords Select Committee on animal experimentation and the Review of Schedule 1.

3.2 Mr McCracken raised issues concerning the preparation and timing of the publication of the Openness report. The Chairman said that it was inappropriate to air such issues at a Committee meeting, and that Mr McCracken should if he wished, pursue the point in writing with the Chairman.

4. The Chief Inspector gave a presentation to the Committee on the work of the Inspectorate (copies of the view-foils are attached to these minutes as annex A). After his presentation he answered the following questions from members:

Clarification of the line management structure within the Inspectorate

4.1 The Chief Inspector confirmed the Inspectorate had 21 professional staff (medical or veterinary graduates): one Chief Inspector, three superintending inspectors and seventeen inspectors. The Chief Inspector acted as final minuting officer for some classes of casework, but did not function as the inspector for any designated establishment although he read all inspection reports. The superintending inspectors provided management and support to inspectors in addition to performing normal inspectorial functions and other representational functions.

Did the Inspectorate have a full range of specialist knowledge?

4.2 The Chief Inspector reported that there was a good range of knowledge within the Inspectorate (all had higher academic or professional qualifications, and 10% of the Unit time budget was devoted to continued professional development) and that staff could also refer to outside resources. The Inspectorate was currently taking on additional new staff, in addition to losing some due to retirement, and this would provide additional specialist competencies to the Inspectorate.

Did the Inspectorate risk a conflict of interest when offering advice to establishments on new facilities?

4.3 The Chief Inspector perceived no conflict of interest. He said that inspectors offered advice on how to interpret the Code of Practice. They would identify performance specification criteria, and might refer organisations to useful contacts in order to view other facilities, but they did not recommend the materials, contractors, or the plant or equipment to be used.

Did the Inspectorate attend scientific meetings?

4.4 The Chief Inspector confirmed that not only was this encouraged but inspectors were increasingly contributing to scientific and animal welfare meetings.

What proportion of visits by the Inspectorate are unannounced?

4.5 The Chief Inspector confirmed that around two-thirds of visits to departments were made without notice. The Chief Inspector added that visits were not necessarily performed at regular intervals - ie four visits in one year did not necessarily equate to one visit every three months.

What proportion of visits by the Inspectorate to Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) were unannounced?

4.6 The Chief Inspector reported that this question had been answered in Parliamentary Questions and Ministerial correspondence. [Secretary's note: the information is as follows:-

The number of visits made to Huntingdon Life Sciences from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2000 were

1. 39
2. 29
3. 19
4. 24

Over 70% of the visits were made without notice. Visits by appointment were generally made to attend meetings, to interview specific staff, or to witness particular regulated procedures.]

4.7 The Chief Inspector reported that the legislation required that Inspectors had medical or veterinary qualifications, higher academic or professional qualifications, and experience of veterinary practice and/or biomedical research. Previous experience of animal research was not a requirement for appointment.

4.8 The Chief Inspector said that it was common practice to talk to junior staff without the presence of their line-managers. He confirmed that Inspectors regularly had animals removed from cages for detailed examination.

4.9 Some Committee members from animal research backgrounds spoke of how inspections had changed over the years. They had become more proactive, with the attitude of Inspectors and staff being far more open. That assisted staff to raise problems or difficulties. The practice of unannounced inspections was also supported by those members who had been on the receiving end of them: they said that it meant that staff were motivated into being alert to the possibility of inspection at all times.

4.10 The Chairman thanked the Chief Inspector for his presentation, which he said would be a useful foundation for the discussion on enforcement and compliance that would take place at the November conference.

5 Before the discussion began several members declared interests. Professor Martin said that he was a Director of Eurogene, which had recently had work carried out at Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). Dr Langley said that she had had a small pecuniary interest, concluded thirteen months ago, with "Uncaged". She had assisted "Uncaged" with its report into Imutran/HLS. Professor Bulfield said that the Roslin Institute had been involved in xenotransplantation work, but that work had been discontinued, and had not involved Imutran/HLS. [Secretary's note: earlier in the meeting Professor Broom had referred to his former membership of HLS's local ethical review committee: it was also known that Dr Jennings was preparing the RSPCA report into the allegations by "Uncaged", and that she was also a member of UKXIRA.]

5.1 The Chairman referred to the most recent material which had been tabled. APC(01)23 was an analysis by Dr Jennings of what she considered to be the main issues for the Committee. APC(01)24 was a commentary by "Uncaged" responding to the report by the Chief Inspector concerning Imutran's compliance with project licence authorities. It was noted that although the commentary by "Uncaged" had been sent to the Committee, it had not been sent to the Home Office. Dr Jennings informed the Committee that the report about the allegations by "Uncaged" which she had prepared on behalf of the RSPCA had been submitted to Imutran as required by the terms of the injunction.

5.2 The Committee noted that correspondence from the previous and current Ministers had not clarified why an investigation by the Inspectorate, with a quality assurance panel from the APC had not been commissioned into the allegations by "Uncaged". It was agreed that that point should be addressed in any letter which the Chairman might send to the Minister.

5.3 The Committee noted that it had been provided with a great deal of paperwork associated with the "Uncaged" allegations, some of which had only very recently been received. Several Members suggested that Dr Jennings' contribution might be a useful basis for a more focussed discussion. It was noted that the Committee was eager to discuss these allegations, but several Members agreed that a delay in discussion was justified if such a delay would lead to a more structured debate. It was therefore agreed that there was a need for a small working party to be established to consider how further discussion should be structured. It would review all the evidence available and prepare a short abstract of the important issues to act as a guide for the Committee's discussions. The working party should recommend what further action the Committee should take, and advise, for example, whether the Home Office should be asked to provide any further information. The Chairman asked Professor Richardson to chair the working party. The other members of the working party would be Mr Baker, Professor D Clark and Dr Jennings. The Chairman asked the working party to complete the report in time for a substantive discussion at the next meeting. He clarified that the working party's report would not be binding on the Committee, but would, he hoped, facilitate a positive discussion. Action: Secretariat

6 The Chairman asked members if they had any technical questions for the Chief Inspector on this project, but there were none. (The Chief Inspector then left to attend another meeting.) The Chairman reported that the Secretariat had received a number of letters as part of a NAVS campaign in relation to research using macaques at Oxford University. The Committee now had a paper (APC(01)20) with a rebuttal of the allegations and concerns raised in the article.

6.1 The Secretariat reported that it had recently received correspondence asking why existing alternative imaging methods had not been used instead of primates. The paper explained that when normal subjects were scanned while performing cognitive tasks, it was not possible to tell whether any cerebellar activations were the result of preparation for the motor response. That was why the issue of the possible cognitive role of the cerebellum had been studied through investigating the effects of lesions in patients and monkeys.

6.2 There was general agreement that the paper APC(01)20 satisfactorily answered the allegations made by NAVS.

7 The Chairman thanked Professor Broom for preparing the report of the working group, and suggested that the Committee discuss each of the ten recommendations in turn.

Recommendation 1: Consideration should be given to an increase in licence fees to a degree which would increase research funding and enable the Inspectorate to operate more effectively.

7.1 It was noted that the Home Office's decision to increase the number of Inspectors from 21 to 33 would enable the Inspectorate to operate more effectively. That would automatically lead to an increase in fees, as there was a statutory requirement that licence fees should be set at a level to cover the costs of the Inspectorate, ABCU and the APC. It was therefore agreed that that part of the recommendation need not be pursued. The Chairman said that any request for a significant increase in research funding would need detailed argument. He asked the Research and Training sub-committee to consider this.

7.2 The Committee had been informed that a change in primary legislation would be required in order for Members to be paid (the legislation already allowed payment to the Chairman). However, some Members suggested that the existing legislation might permit the payment of honoraria. It was agreed that this recommendation should be forwarded to the Minister, using the reasoning set out in a letter of 25 March 1999 from a Member.

Recommendation 3: Efforts should be made to speed up the processing of licence applications, but no changes should result in poorer welfare of animals.

7.3 It was noted that the Home Office had already implemented some changes to procedures because of the report by the Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force (PICTF). However, it was agreed that this recommendation should be forwarded to the Minister.

Recommendation 4: There should be no change to the provision relating to the 50% gestation stage.

7.4 It was agreed that this recommendation should be forwarded to the Minister.

Recommendation 5: The scope of the Act should be extended to cover all other cephalopod species.

7.5 It was agreed that the paper made a convincing case for the extension of the Act to all species of cephalopod, and that this recommendation should be forwarded to the Minister.

Recommendation 6: Ethical review process (ERP) committees in establishments where licensed work is carried out should carry out retrospective assessments of work done and report to ASPI.

7.6 It was noted that a review of the ERP was currently in process, and that ERP committees were already required to evaluate projects in order to improve future applications. However, the Chairman agreed that when he wrote to the Minister he would refer to the Committee's concern that there should be a requirement that ERP committees should report to ASPI about their retrospective assessments.

Recommendation 7: Guidance from the Home Office should include a definition of the term anaesthetic.

Recommendation 8: The effects on animal welfare of gases other than conventional anaesthetics should be investigated since these may prove better anaesthetics than those currently recommended.

7.7 It was agreed that recommendations 7 and 8 should be considered further by the new Schedule 1 working group, which would, amongst other things, be considering the use of non-conventional anaesthetic for the purpose of euthanasia.

7.8 It was agreed that this recommendation should be forwarded to the Minister.

Recommendation 10: Home Office Guidance should prohibit the use of some endangered or wild-caught animals and should aim to restrict the use of other animals which are endangered, or wild-caught, or not obtained from designated establishments.

7.9 It was noted that Chapter 8 of the Home Office Guidance already prohibited the use of endangered species and wild-caught species in all but very exceptional circumstances However, it was suggested that the guidance on acquisition could be more prescriptive in order to reflect the substantial effect on welfare of any form of captivity on almost all species of wild animal. The Chairman suggested that this recommendation should not be included at this stage in the letter he proposed sending to the Minister. He asked Professor Broom and Mr Gregory to reflect on the reasoning that might be used to support such a recommendation, so that the issue could be discussed at the next meeting.

7.10 The Chairman recorded his thanks to those who had been involved in the Miscellaneous working group: Professor Broom, Mr Gregory and the previous Secretary Mr Bone.

[Secretary's note: The Chairman wrote to the Minister on 25 September. A copy is attached at Annex B.]

8 The Home Office presented a paper covering the most recent developments

8.1 The Chief Inspector's report had been published on 13 July. It had been announced in a written reply to a parliamentary question answered on the same day. The report was available on the Home Office website. Letters of admonition had since been issued in respect of the two new infringements identified in the Chief Inspector's review.

8.2 The Minister, Angela Eagle had decided that the code of practice, as drafted by the Expert Group, would be laid before Parliament after the recess. The Chairman reported that he had received a letter from the Minister which confirmed that all the APC's amendments to the Code of Practice had been accepted apart from one. The APC's recommendation to provide for more floor space in ferret cages had not been accepted.

8.3 Some members were disappointed at this, as they considered it might run the risk of undermining the UK's position in the Council of Europe and what could be achieved across Europe. Professor Broom commented on the suggestion in the Minister's letter that there was no evidence that the space requirements would cause welfare problems for ferrets. He said that no studies had ever been undertaken on the welfare of ferrets, so such a statement was not at all conclusive. He suggested that a study of the welfare needs of ferrets might be a suitable subject for a research project. The Chairman said that he would write back to the Minister acknowledging her intention to press ahead with higher standards across Europe, but recording the Committee's disappointment and concern at her decision in relation to cage sizes. It was suggested that the letter should also pass on the wish that the Home Office should aim to press beyond an agreement to adopt the UK standards. The aim should be an increase to the higher standards recommended by the Committee. The Chairman said that he would take advice from Professor Broom, Dr Hubrecht, Dr Langley and Dr Jennings on the terms of the letter. [Secretary's note: the Chairman wrote to Ms Eagle on 1 October. A copy of his letter is at Annex C.]

8.5 The Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2000 had been presented to Parliament and published on 26 July 2001. They could be accessed via the Home Office website. The statistics for 2000 showed an increase of 2.2% in the total number of procedures started in the reporting year and an increase of 2.9% in the number of animals used, compared with 1999.

8.6 The Committee had been re-established following the General Election. It would be chaired by the Home Secretary.

8.7 A new Ministerial committee on biotechnology had been appointed - SCI (BIO) - under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Cook). It replaced MISC6 and would report to the Cabinet Committee on Science. Angela Eagle was a member of SCI(BIO). The Home Secretary was a member of the Cabinet Committee on Science.

8.8 The Home Office had given oral evidence to the select committee on 3 July. A full transcript was available at the House of Lords Committee website. The Home Office understood that Angela Eagle would be invited to give oral evidence in November.

8.9 On 13 July, following consideration of the outline case presented on behalf of th31 August 2001. It was noted that the papers relating to the JR had been circulated to members by the Home Office.

8.10 It was expected that the first six additional inspectors would be in post by the turn of the year.

8.11 The general consultation and the programme of site visits had now been completed. The information gathered was currently being analysed with the intention of the formal report to Ministers being completed in October.

9 The Committee noted the paper, which contained transcripts of the evidence given to the Select Committee by the APC (on 1 May) and the Home Office (on 3 July). Transcripts of the proceedings of the Select Committee were available on the committee's website www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldanimal.htm. The Chairman said that he understood he would be asked to attend the Select Committee for a second time in October or November, and asked Members to suggest any particular issue which he should raise.

10 The Chairman noted that following a Parliamentary Question the Minister had asked the APC to comment and provide guidance on Schedule 1 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Committee had agreed that a small working group should be established to take this forward. The Chairman thanked Mr Gregory for agreeing to chair the working group. Mr Gregory said that he had already spoken to Dr Morris and Professor Broom as possible members, and agreed to bring a complete list of proposed members to the Committee's next meeting. It was noted that a previous review of Schedule 1 had taken two to three years. However, the Chairman asked Mr Gregory to consider whether it would be feasible to bring forward the suggested report date of 31 March 2003 suggested in the Terms of Reference, providing it would not detract from the consultation process. There was a particular need to review the euthanasia of neo-natal rodents in a shorter time scale if possible.

11 The Secretary introduced the item. The Secretariat used the Home Office's press cuttings service to monitor the press for stories about animal experimentation. In addition, Members also sent in cuttings, particularly from specialist and scientific publications. A selection of all the more relevant and interesting cuttings was incorporated into an Information paper for each meeting of the main Committee. It was open to any Member to suggest that the Committee should discuss a particular item. The Committee could also ask the Home Office for further information about a particular issue, as it had done recently about the "Oxford Macaques" (item 6 above).

11.1 The Secretariat received a certain amount of public correspondence about particular press stories. Often, the letters appeared to be instigated by a pressure group's newsletter or website. Such letters appeared often to be based on misconceptions - that the Committee was the licensing body for animal experimentation; that the Committee saw all applications; or that the Committee had powers of investigation. It was also the case that a particular press story might be about procedures that had taken place outside the UK, and/or had taken place years ago. The Committee noted the Secretariat's procedures for answering public correspondence. This included:

• Agreeing with the Chairman the response to any "campaign letters";

• Stating the terms of reference of the APC, and explaining that its purpose was to advise the Secretary of State: it was not an investigatory body;
• Explaining the licensing procedure, and the roles of ABCU and Inspectorate;
• Stating which types of applications were seen by the APC, and if the particular application in question had been seen by the APC;
• Explaining the standard procedure for enabling the APC to receive a regular update of press stories and issues of public concern; and

• Referring the writer to the APC website for minutes of meetings and other information, so that s/he could follow progress on a particular issue, thus reducing the need for further correspondence.

11.2 The Committee then discussed an article from the Sunday Mirror of 5 August entitled "Sweetener Slaughter". It was suggested that the part of the article dealing with dogs probably stemmed from the publication of a paper entitled The Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism of Sucralose in the Dog which had appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology (1999). (Sucralose was a high intensity sweetener.) The Sunday Mirror article appeared to imply that the work had been carried out recently. However, the work had actually been during the transition period from the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 to ASPA 1986, but had not been reported until 1999. That was because publication had been determined by the clients to coincide with the publication of other papers on related topics in the same journal. Despite the suggestion in the article, it was understood that the work on dogs had taken place before, not after the product had been made available to the public.

12 The Committee noted the visits proposed. The Chairman reminded Members that visits were for the Members' interest and information. Visits by the Committee were not inspections, and no comment should be made outside the Committee about the content of the visit.

12.1 The Chairman reported that he had met Angela Eagle on 23 July. He was pleased to announce that Ms Eagle had agreed to attend part of the next meeting of the Committee.

12.2 The four sessions would be:

• Accommodation and Care presentation
• Presentation by Pfizer
• Enforcement and Compliance (this would include a discussion of the Chief Inspector's presentation)
• "Overbreeding"

12.4 It was noted that although most of the recommendations in the two recently published reports were for the Home Office or other Government departments to progress, some were for the APC or one or other of its sub-committees to take forward. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to prepare a note about these, for discussion at the next meeting.

13 The next meeting was scheduled for 10 October, from 10.30 to 16.00 at the Home Office.

APC Secretariat
September 2001