THIRTEENTH (ADDITIONAL) COMMISSION MEETING
7 AUGUST 2002
CONFERENCE CENTRE, 1 VICTORIA STREET
LONDON SW1H 0ET

MINUTES

Present

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chair)
Ms Julie Hill (Deputy Chair)
Ms Helen Browning
Dr Dave Carmichael
Professor Phil Dale
Dr Ed Dart
Dr Matthew Freeman
Professor Robin Grove-White
Ms Judith Hann
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Dr Sue Mayer
Professor Ben Mepham
Ms Justine Thornton
Dr Roger Turner

Secretariat

Mr Richard Abel
Mrs Anne Packer
Mr Chris Hepworth

Officials also present (for first part of meeting only)

Derek Bearhop, Scottish Executive
Huw Jones, Welsh Assembly Government (Wednesday only)
Liz McCullough, Department of the Environment Northern Ireland
Linda Smith, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Kelly Freeman, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

THE MEETING WAS HELD IN CLOSED SESSION

Apologies for Absence

1. Apologies had been received from Michael Banner, Anna Bradley, John Gilliland, Rosie Hails, Chi Chi Iweajunwa and Derek Langslow.

A Public Debate

2. The Chair opened the meeting by explaining that he had convened the additional meeting of the Commission to discuss the UK Government's response, published on 26 July, to the AEBC's advice on promoting a public debate about the possible commercialisation of GM crops. He had decided following consultation with Members to hold the meeting in private session. He noted that it had always been understood that there would be times when the Commission would need to meet privately. Officials had been invited to attend the first part of the meeting so that Members could ask them about aspects of the UK Government response and the position of the devolved administrations.

3. The Chair summarised the discussions he had had with officials and Ministers about the public debate prior to publication of the UK Government response. He had sought to help Government understand more fully the AEBC's views on the necessary conditions for a credible public debate. Some of these meetings had involved other Commission Members. The AEBC had received correspondence about the debate from interested parties including Greenpeace, Five Year Freeze, Highland Council, and Friends of the Earth.

4. The UK Government response had left open the question of the precise configuration of any programme of debate. It had however specified the total sum of money available for conducting the debate (Ł250,000) and the wish that a report of information emerging from the programme should be delivered to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by end-June 2003. Other points remained unclear. These included the reasoning behind the decision to report no later than end-June 2003; the position of the devolved administrations; the scope of the debate; interaction of the Strategy Unit economic study and the DEFRA/OST science review and the public debate; precisely what the Ł250,000 would pay for; and the role of the Central Office of Information (COI). The Chair said that he wanted Members to explore these with officials and then to consider the Commission's position in relation to the proposed debate.

5. In the subsequent discussion with officials, the following points emerged:

the devolved administrations in consultation with DEFRA intended to write jointly to the AEBC setting out their formal response to the AEBC's 26 April advice. The aim of the devolved administrations remained to agree a single programme for the United Kingdom, with national and regional components, rather than separate national programmes. Subject to Ministerial approval it was intended that the focus of the debate would be specified as the possible commercialisation of GM crops in the UK.. This did not mean that there would be any intention of constraining the issues about GM the public could raise in the course of the debate. The formal response from the devolved administrations would most likely specify the same timing for the debate (June 2003) as did the UK Government response;
it was confirmed by officials that the steering board for the debate would be free, subject to proper procurement procedures, to decide which contractors should be employed to implement the programme of debate. The COI would be willing to act as a conduit for placing contracts with outside parties. If the COI was not used, the procurement process would be lengthened considerably because of public procurement rules for expenditure of sums of this size; and
officials confirmed that the sum of Ł250,000 comprised contributions from the UK Government and intended contributions from the devolved administrations. The money was to fund the public debate, not the science or economics strands.

6. After officials left the meeting, the AEBC had a further discussion. Some Members believed that the most fruitful way forward was to get on now, through a steering board, with taking forward the debate, within the timescale and budget that the Commission had been asked to conduct it. Any points to be resolved could be taken forward in discussion once the process was underway. The programme of debate should be seen as an experiment. Not everything could be precisely tied down in advance. Some other Members had serious concerns and wanted to be clearer about some aspects before they could agree to the AEBC accepting Government's invitation to take forward work on the debate. These were as follows. First, whether it was practicable to deliver a credible programme of debate by June 2003 and whether Ł250,000 was enough money to do so. Second, what would happen after June 2003. Some Members believed that it would be better to conclude the debate before the FSE results. Others remained uncomfortable about doing so. The possibility of considering the programme of debate as a 'first phase' was discussed by Members. Third, the interactions between the science and economics strands and the public debate. Fourth, some Members wanted further clarity, particularly in the light of discussions with Government prior to its response and the advice from the COI, about what Government wanted from the programme of debate and how it would take the results into account. Fifth, the basis of the steering board's relationship with COI and confirmation of the independence of the steering board.

7. Summing up the discussion, the Chair said that the Commission was minded to take forward work on the public debate, subject to further negotiation and clarification on key issues. The Chair was clear that he could only serve as chair of the steering board with the Commission’s support.

8. Members invited the Chair, drawing on the assistance of other Members, to take forward discussions following the meeting to seek clarification on the issues Members had raised. As a first step, the Chair would be meeting the acting Director of COI that afternoon. He would discuss with COI the basis on which the steering board would work with them; and the critique of the AEBC's advice which had been undertaken by COI. The Chair invited other interested Members to join him at the meeting.

9. The Chair would also seek clarification from Government on other outstanding points, and also await the written response from the devolved administrations to the AEBC's advice. He would then revert to Members to seek their views on the way forward. He asked Members to be prepared to have a further meeting in two or three weeks' time if necessary to decide on the way forward.

Action: Chair and Members

AEBC secretariat
August 2002