TUESDAY 1 MAY 2001

THE REVEREND PROFESSOR MICHAEL BANNER, DR MAGGY JENNINGS PROFESSOR IAIN PURCHASE AND MR RICHARD WEST

  1. Good afternoon, Professor Banner and Dr Maggy Jennings and Professor Iain Purchase.

  (Reverend Professor Banner) Professor Iain Purchase will be with us in a moment, my Lord Chairman.

  2. The acoustics in this room are very, very bad, so if we can all speak up, not least for the shorthand writer. Professor Banner and colleagues, thank you very much indeed for coming to see us today. As you know, this is the first meeting of the Committee. I repeat, for Professor Purchase's benefit, we do have to speak up. Professor Banner, would you begin by introducing your colleagues and yourself?  (Reverend Professor Banner) Yes. I am Michael Banner, Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee and Professor of Moral and Social Theology at King's College, London. I have with me from the committee, Dr Maggy Jennings, who is Head of the Research Animals Department at the RSPCA and, to my left, Professor Iain Purchase who was, until recently, Director of Central Toxicology for what was then Zeneca, and is currently a visiting Professor at Manchester University, and to his left is Richard West, Secretary to the Animal Procedures Committee (APC).

  3. Thank you very much. If I might ask the first question. What is the principal role of the Animal Procedures Committee? How does the APC operate? What, in fact, takes up most of its time in practice?  (Reverend Professor Banner) We see ourselves, my Lord Chairman, as a committee, as an independent and expert body, which gives advice. We are charged under the Act with giving advice to the Secretary of State on his duties in relation to experimental animals. We can have issues referred to us by the Home Secretary, though that has been infrequent. Otherwise we undertake really, as a rolling programme, a review of the various important elements of the Act and its operation. Our major work, I would say, is in sub-committees of the main committee which look at the detailed aspects of the regulation as it relates to different issues. So, for example, we have a Standing Primates Committee, which looks at issues to do with the use of primates, and we have committees that have set up working groups which are set up to deal with particular issues. We have just had a group that has produced a report on biotechnology.

  4. Thank you very much. On the third point I made, what takes up most of the time?  (Reverend Professor Banner) The committee meets as a full committee seven or eight times a year; that would be a day meeting. The sub-committees and working groups would meet on many more occasions, so the balance of the work is definitely in the working groups and sub-committees. I would say that most of our time, although we deal with applications, for example, which are referred to us for particular consideration and so on, is taken up with the rather more strategic long-term consideration of the effectiveness and adequacy of the present regulations and regime.

  Chairman: Thank you.

  5. These are licence applications that you are referring to?  (Reverend Professor Banner) Under the Act in practice it has been established by the Home Office that particular applications of a sensitive nature are referred to the committee for advice. For example, applications to do with the use of primates in procedures of substantial severity. Recently an application was referred to us which involved the use of tobacco smoke as a causative agent in creating a model for the study of disease. So the Home Secretary, by convention and in particular cases, may refer particular applications to us for further advice although, of course, the Home Secretary will have had advice from both the Animals, Byelaws and Coroners Unit and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate.

  6. Can I ask who sets that framework and which references are made to determine this, what rules? Who decides in practice whether something gets to you?  (Reverend Professor Banner) I would need to check whether it is a matter of the statute or whether of convention. I think it is a matter of convention that particular applications, for example applications to do with microsurgery, by convention have been referred to the Committee. I would need to make a note on that and check that with my Secretary. Applications involving procedures involving primates, wild caught primates, for example, are referred to the committee. I forget whether that is by statute or whether by convention.

  7. I am advised that it is statute. Perhaps you would write to us and clear that up after the meeting.  (Reverend Professor Banner) Yes, we could certainly, my Lord Chairman. I think the point to make would be whether it is by statute or convention is probably in one sense not of great interest to me or the committee in the sense that if the committee took the view that it would be worthwhile for more applications to be referred to us, we would not be reticent in asking the Home Secretary to do that. The Home Secretary would of course be entitled to say no, but if the committee considered that there would be merit in our seeing more applications then we would take the initiative on that.

  8. May I ask from what source do you derive your moral authority for asking questions? From what source and on what basis does that moral authority come and how do you arrive at it?  (Reverend Professor Banner) I would say, my Lord, that we operate within the terms that are laid down by the Act.

  9. That is not the question I asked. The question I asked was the moral authority rather than the statutory authority.  (Reverend Professor Banner) The moral authority of the committee?

  10. No, the moral authority of the ideas upon which you give approval or disapproval?  (Reverend Professor Banner) I am afraid I have to repeat my answer that we—

  11. Moral authority does not come from statute, it comes from something higher than statute. What is the higher authority for your opinions?  (Reverend Professor Banner) I have to say that we think our authority comes from the statutory authority we are given by the Act. I would say that members are scrupulous in considering applications, for example, in the terms that are required by the Act and not according to their own particular points of view. So we have members of the committee who are, personally speaking, absolutely and fundamentally opposed to all vivisection who, nonetheless, will support an application if they take the view that the application falls squarely within the terms provided by the Act. I am not trying to be difficult but that is what I understand to be the nature of the operation of the committee.

  12. If you have any further reflections on that conundrum perhaps you will write to us as well. My second question is what is the relationship between the APC, the Animals, Byelaws and Coroners Unit (ABCU) in the Home office, and the Animals Inspectorate? To what extent does the APC liaise with different Government departments as it goes about its operations?  (Reverend Professor Banner) The APC as I said, my Lord Chairman, offers independent advice to the Home Secretary. The Animals, Bylaws and Coroners Unit is responsible for the policy on the regulation and use of animals and provides advice directly to the Secretary of State independently. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate is part of the Home Office and inspectors are responsible for advising the animal procedures section of ABCU in relation to individual licence applications and in relation to compliance. So we are three separate parts of the whole, if I can put it like that, although the APC is an independent committee, of course, and not part of Government machinery. We liaise with other bodies regularly, for example with the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC). With other Government departments such liaison would be a matter in the first instance of us advising the Home Secretary that such liaison was appropriate, but we would not regard it as our task in the first instance to liaise.

  13. All of these things that appear to be radial are often circumferential. You do not have informal chats amongst yourselves?  (Reverend Professor Banner) We may well have informal chats and at meetings of the committee officials from ABCU and the Inspectorate are present by invitation, so there is informal advice. We regard it as very important because of the expertise and knowledge which the Inspectorate, in particular, has about the operation of the Act on the ground.

  14. So these do not operate as entirely hermetically sealed individual units?  (Reverend Professor Banner) No, absolutely not.

  15. My third question is what notice do you take of regulatory systems abroad? How does the regulatory system and practice in the UK compare with systems elsewhere? How do standards of animal welfare in the UK compare with those elsewhere? I think perhaps these are all rather broad questions and they subsume a number of sub-sets. Could you perhaps leave the standards abroad as a separate one. In what sense do you take a comparative perspective internationally of what is going on?  (Reverend Professor Banner) We would not in the first instance regard that as a prime responsibility. Our function under the Act is to advise the Secretary of State on his functions and duties under the Act. As you will know, my Lord Chairman, the Act, the A(SP)A, is an implementation of a European Directive[2] and, although the Directive will be implemented in different ways in different countries, it would be true to say that to some extent the fact that there is an implementation of a Directive ensures some uniformity. Level playing field would be putting it too strongly, but one would expect there to be similar regimes, although there are significant differences, and it could be said that the Act is more stringent than the Directive in a number of respects. In terms of how we take account of it, I would have to say that we have members from welfare bodies, members of the committee who are themselves licence holders, experienced people from industry and so on, who do indeed have some knowledge of different regulatory regimes and how they operate and where that is relevant to our deliberations we would turn to them for advice.

  16. While I appreciate that it might not be your prime responsibility, nevertheless do your deliberations give you some feel for the standards of UK animal welfare in comparison, say, with our European partners?  (Reverend Professor Banner) I could ask my colleagues to comment on it. I have to say that our feeling as a committee is that there is a good deal of anecdote on that subject which says either the regulations are not as good, or that they are as good, or that there is as good welfare but fewer regulations in some countries and in some countries more regulations and less good welfare. I think it is a very difficult matter on which to establish evidence. For example, one matter which is of crucial importance, I would suggest, is the number of inspectors engaged under any regime in ensuring compliance. So it may well be that a country has very similar regulations in the black letter law, but on the ground it can be very different just because there is no reasonable expectation that there will be a surprise visit by an inspector. I know that my colleague, Professor Purchase, is chairing an Expert Group on Regulation which is trying to provide some hard evidence. This is not a part of our committee's work but the committee will take notice of this. If you would like, my colleague, Professor Purchase, could comment in more detail.  (Professor Purchase) Thank you. I would reinforce what Professor Banner has said, that there is a lot of anecdote around. One speaks to people who have worked in more than one country and they provide their opinions on that. It is possible to study the regulations in quite a lot of detail, and some of us have done that although not within the context of the Animal Procedures Committee, so my comments are not deliberations of the committee. You can see that there are substantial differences, particularly if you go to the US and France, in comparison to what goes on in the UK. What is much more difficult to establish is what impact that has on animal welfare. I would have to say that there is one, if you like, independent scientific control or impact on animal welfare, and that is that many of the scientific journals which publish results of work carried out using animals have a code of ethics, or a code of animal welfare, and the papers are then deliberately refereed with respect to that code before they are published. I know from personal experiences that journals I have been involved in have rejected papers because they were considered to be poor in terms of ethical standards.

  17. Therefore, if only the ethical reports surface and the others are consigned to the dustbin we do not know what ratio of acceptable to unacceptable procedures there are?  (Professor Purchase) No. But there is an incentive if you want to advance your scientific career to have papers that are published in good journals. That would be the driver that would affect it.

  18. May I ask is there a different interpretation of the meaning of animal welfare in England, in France, in the United States? Let us leave aside the United States, let us concentrate solely on Europe. Is there a different meaning applying to animal welfare in different parts of the continent? How would you define it?  (Professor Purchase) I am afraid I cannot comment on your first question in regard to whether there is a different meaning in different countries. One might imagine because of the different cultural environments that there would be differences. Certainly my observation in visiting laboratories in different parts of the world is where the laboratories are located in agricultural environments they have a different perception about animal welfare than where they are located in advanced Western cities. So there is certainly a difference there. How do I define animal welfare? I think probably Dr Jennings is really the expert at defining it. I think what we are looking for is the ability of the animal to express its normal behaviour patterns in so far as it is possible when it is kept under experimental conditions.  (Dr Jennings) I think there is a difference in the way that animal welfare is perceived. We have found—and I will use the United States as an example here because this is where we found it particularly evident—that people confuse the issue of animal health, and having an animal that is in good physical health, with an animal that has good welfare where you are talking about satisfying its behaviourial, sociological and psychological requirements. I do not think that difference of opinion is just within the States and the UK, I suspect that you will also get that division within Europe. We (the RSPCA) have not visited many laboratories in Europe. In fact, we have probably only been to three. In all of those laboratories the standards have been lower than in the UK. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence, I would entirely agree with my colleagues. But I am very much involved with the training of prospective licensees in the UK and you do get people coming on to licensee training courses from countries in Europe and their attitudes to animals and their welfare, to laboratory animal use in general, and their understanding of the principles of laboratory animal welfare can, in fact, be very different from the understanding of UK licensees. I think that this contributes to the anecdotal evidence that there are differences in standards between the UK and other countries.

  19. Are the differences obvious enough and sharp enough to make a commercial difference? Have you come across any evidence that research is lost to this country because there is a difference; or gained?  (Reverend Professor Banner) I am a lay person and I have visited different laboratories in this country and the difference between the best facilities for certain animals and the less good facilities is marked to the naked eye of a lay person and one supposes that must have cost implications. However, I think it is extremely difficult to find firm evidence that research has been lost because of higher standards, although it is often claimed. The difficulty with establishing it as a firm piece of evidence is there are so many compounding factors, as it were, as to why research might be placed either here or somewhere else. It is difficult to isolate one factor. It is often said, I think, by some laboratories that the fact that we have good welfare in certain areas ensures the reliability and trustworthiness of many of the tests, and that is an important consideration. I am not in a position, as a non-scientist, to judge that but that is often said by laboratories. Would you like to comment on that particular point?  (Professor Purchase) I do not have anything more to add.