|
Apologies
1. There were no apologies for absence - all members were present. Justine
Thornton welcomed Julie Hill, Fergus Reid and Andrew Mantle. Andrew would
be helping the secretariat and sub-group in drafting recommendations.
Fergus would be involved in today's discussions, but would not have an
ongoing or contractual link with the group.
Minutes for 23-24
April
2. The minutes of the
group's meetings on 23-24 April in Edinburgh were agreed.
Draft letter to ACRE
3. A draft letter to ACRE about some of the issues raised in the course
of the group's discussions, would be further revised and would be circulated
to the group again, to take on board comments from Julie Hill and group
members. Action: Secretariat.
Taking forward work
on drafting the report
4. 4. A number of members had circulated draft recommendations and conclusions
since the Edinburgh AEBC meeting in April, and these were discussed. Members
agreed the report's recommendations should be as clear and specific as
possible. The secretariat would re-circulate for information all post-Edinburgh
comments from AEBC members to members of the group. Action: Secretariat.
5.Some of the main
points in discussion were:
- It could be useful
to suggest that AEBC and ACRE initiate a public debate and to note that
Government funding would be needed for that process.
- GM must be a part
of the agenda for any wider review of agriculture - AEBC should feed
into the wider view.
- Engaging with the
public was needed - not simply consultation. A challenge was for public
views to make a difference to policy. AEBC has a function to reflect
views back to Government. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology for example have
both made recommendations on a range of possible mechanisms for wide
debate. Discussions with regional partners could be a useful part of
the process. Action: Secretariat to explore the remit of RDAs and county
councils.
- On organic farming,
it might be possible to list the key elements which will need to be
taken into account, and the consequences of going down different routes,
and to suggest some mechanisms for opening up the apparent impasse on
separation distances and thresholds
- It was important
to ensure that there is careful referencing in the draft report, back
to evidence submitted during the case study.
Timetable
6. Members agreed the aim was for the Commission to have a draft
for the 18-19 July meeting in Birmingham that could be signed off shortly
afterwards. For the next sub-group meeting, the aim was to have a draft
report with conclusions and recommendations, drawn up by a external drafter
- working with the group and secretariat.
7. Andrew Mantle would
take forward some drafting work on recommendations following on from today's
discussions and the earlier drafts, keeping in touch with the convenor
and secretariat . Action: Andrew Mantle.
8. The secretariat
would arrange urgently for drafting to be put in hand also for the draft
FSE report as a whole, based on the group's work and discussions. Action:
Secretariat.
9. The next sub-group
meeting would be on 2 July in London, starting at 10.00am. It might continue
until around 4.00pm.
AEBC
Secretariat
June 2001
|
