Sub Groups

MEETING OF SUB-GROUP A: STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING

2 JULY 2001 AT 10.30AM
151 BUCKINGHAM PALACE ROAD, LONDON SW1

MINUTE OF MEETING

Note: These minutes record the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission

Present:
Dave Carmichael
Phil Dale
Robin Grove-White
Rosie Hails
Jeff Maxwell
Sue Mayer
Justine Thornton (Convenor)
Malcolm Grant (AEBC Chair)
Julie Hill (AEBC Deputy Chair)

Anne Packer (Secretariat)
Elizabeth Hopkins
Ian Lomas

Apologies

1. There were no apologies for absence. Phil Dale was late because of an Underground train failure. Justine Thornton welcomed Malcolm Grant, Julie Hill, Elizabeth Hopkins and Ian Lomas. Elizabeth had spent two weeks preparing a draft report from the information provided by the group, which had been circulated the previous week. Ian Lomas from the Office of Science and Technology was helping Elizabeth, particularly with sources and references for evidence submitted to the group.

Minutes for 24 May

2. The minutes of the previous meeting on 24 May were confirmed.

Correspondence with Michael Meacher

3. The secretariat had received a faxed advance copy of a letter that was on its way from Michael Meacher to Malcolm Grant, responding to Malcolm Grant's letter of 22 February. This was circulated - it was important for the day's discussions. Members agreed that the draft report would take into account the further information Michael Meacher's letter to AEBC and would pursue points raised by it.

Discussion of the draft report

4. This was probably the last meeting of the sub-group. The focus of the meeting was to take forward the draft report, so a revised draft could be circulated the following week to AEBC members, before the full Commission meeting in Birmingham on 18-19 July. Members agreed that it was important to aim to sign off the draft in Birmingham, and for the Commission to make its first major public statement as soon as possible after that - probably in September.

5. Members considered that the draft was very well written, in terms of content, structure and style, and thanked Elizabeth Hopkins for her excellent work, which had been done in a very short time. They each had some points on matters of substance and emphasis to discuss at the meeting, and would pass on further minor drafting points to her, as well as letting her have responses to the questions she had asked in the draft, and details of references.

6. Some areas for review were:

• The characterisation of history and places - the importance of the market.
• The need to look more at the evidence so as not to glorify the science.
• The role of the market in shaping the organic sector.
• The constraints on UK, English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Ireland policy-making eg from the EU and WTO; the legal framework and scope for making policy.
• Showing specifically the links between the conclusions and the body of the report.
• Drawing together Ministerial statements and discussing them.
• More discussion of the revised Directive, plus consultation processes prior to its implementation.
• The need for clear succinct recommendations in addition to pointing up the need for wider discussions - since the AEBC itself is a forum for a broad range of views.
• The need to note the intensity of controversy, and the depth and breadth of the issues, to set the context for recommendations about the importance of serious consultation, and the potential problems for Government if public opinion is not won over, but the null hypothesis shows no significant biodiversity changes.
• The need for explanation of why handling of unknowns within the science is important.
• The need to explain commercialisation being seen as a watershed decision for the whole technology.
• The need to discuss post commercialisation monitoring and to emphasise that for some of the public it may not seem justifiable to take the risks of commercialisation in the first place
• The need to separate out various different issues on geneflow.
• The need to note that value judgements always underlie scientific and social science studies.
• The need to note that public opinion has been influenced by press campaigns.

7. Elizabeth Hopkins noted and would take on board points made and agreed by members in discussion.

Recommendations and conclusions

8. The group agreed that the recommendations should include specific and substantive points. Members discussed a number of recommendations, and Elizabeth Hopkins would revise the draft to incorporate decisions which were agreed by members.

Next steps

9. Elizabeth Hopkins would revise the draft for circulation to the full Commission by 9-10 July, and members would let her have their proposed changes and information on references by 4 July. She would aim to draft a summary linking the evidence, consideration and recommendations.

10. Ian Lomas had drawn up a list of evidence that had been submitted, and would e mail this to members for consideration.

11. Members discussed whether or not the next draft should be sent to government officials for them to check the factual accuracy of evidence and references, and whether officials should be present during the AEBC deliberations on the draft in Birmingham. On balance - with Sue Mayer firmly dissenting but agreeing to the view of the majority prevailing - the group decided that the draft should go to those officials who would be attending at Birmingham, on a personal basis, not to be passed on to Ministers. The main reason was the importance of the report being factually correct, since inaccuracies could undermine the Commission's position. Similarly, officials would be invited to attend for part of the discussion of the draft FSE report.

Lessons from the sub-group's working experiences

12. Members discussed their experiences of working together as a sub-group, which ranged from negative and draining, to stimulating, to tough but worthwhile and enjoyable, and to a process in which members had learnt how to work together despite fundamental differences. They agreed that respect was essential, noted that they had not been able to evaluate all the large amounts of potential evidence together as a group, and considered that sub-groups need substantially more secretariat resourcing to be able to undertake their work.

13. For the future, it would also be useful to note that initial work by e mail had not been successful, to note that meeting minutes could usefully have been more detailed, and to consider how sub-groups relate to the full Commission. These might be points for the Commission's 'introspective' session at the September meeting, bearing in mind that as the Commission was experimental it was not surprising that best working practices were still evolving.

AEBC Secretariat
July 2001