 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
LIABILITY SUB GROUP MEETING Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission PresentPhil Dale Matthew Freeman John Gilliland Malcolm Grant Derek Langslow Sue Mayer Justine Thornton (Convenor) Roger Turner Anne Packer (Secretariat) Apologies 1. None: everyone was able to be present. Justine Thornton had to leave during the meeting. Minutes of the previous meeting, on 7 August 2. Members had previously agreed these in circulation. They were confirmed, subject to noting that Justine Thornton had to leave during the meeting. Follow up to full AEBC meeting 3. During the full Commission discussions the previous day, Members had given a clear steer towards considering possible solutions extending beyond legal liability, so this would widen the group’s remit. The emphasis for the group’s work would now be on potential means of redress for damage that might be caused by GMOs if things were to go wrong - with a focus on GM crops - in addition to considering legal liability for GMOs. 4. Some further main points arising from full Commission discussions, and for the group to consider were:
5. The secretariat would write a short introduction to the forthcoming consultation paper on scenarios. The paper could then be sent out soon - once group members had seen the revision. 6. The description of the consultation paper might become ‘Redress for harm from GMOs’ in line with the broader remit. The consultation would ask what a liability regime could do, and what else there could be. A useful additional question would be: ‘How should damage be repaired if a liability regime cannot deal with it?’ Consultees would also be asked if further scenarios would draw out additional issues. Aspects for the draft report 7. To keep the scope of the study appropriate to the AEBC’s remit and to keep it a manageable size, the group concluded it would flag up the issues and identify the possible scope of solutions, probably without considering options in great detail. The group would also set out the broader context, eg that the drivers for environmental liability were wider than issues about GMOs alone. 8. Following the previous day’s discussion, a useful starting point for the study would be how far existing liability rules take one in enabling co-existence. Foot and mouth disease and BSE were examples of urgent cases where Government had taken on the costs because there was a ‘social good’ to be delivered. As examples, the group might - or might not - conclude that some relatively small changes to the liability regime could be sufficient in order to provide a satisfactory framework for co-existence, and/or might point up that if things did go badly wrong, then the Government would need to step in, and would then need at a later stage to seek any appropriate recovery. 9. The report should explain that the AEBC were not singling out GMOs as necessarily raising very different liability/redress issues from other new agricultural developments. In discussing scenarios, for example, the report might say that since people are clearly concerned about GMOs, we chose a number of scenarios, but that the same principles would apply well beyond GMOs, and that a number of the issues highlighted by the scenario examples were not specific to GMOs. 10. The way regulation and law interact is important. It would be useful to explore the extent to which requirements as part of giving (Part C) consents might be able to define on whom responsibilities and liability would be placed if GMOs were grown commercially. If consents identified responsibilities, and things subsequently went wrong, there could be a clear pointer as to who was at fault, which would simplify civil legal actions. This could be a generic approach, in the sense that it related to regulated activities, rather than being specific to GMOs. Regulation is based on foreseeable aspects, so consideration of how to deal with unforeseeable outcomes was also needed. Evidence taking 11. The secretariat would explore whether a number of lawyers could give evidence in London at one of the upcoming group meetings, about legal liability for GMOs and on limits to liability regimes. It could be useful to hold this in public and to invite all Commission Members. 12. Some fundamental policy questions, for example on where you allocate risk, had been explored at an earlier evidence-giving meeting with David Howarth. It could be useful for the group to hear - perhaps from farmers - about possible solutions that were not based solely on the law, particularly since it would be important to achieve successful co-existence and rural cohesion. Members agreed that large scale land zoning did not seem a likely solution, since farmers currently have wide freedoms on what to grow on their land. It could also be useful for the group to hear about the recent (PABE) European study on public attitudes. Members and secretariat would follow up with invitations. Action John Gilliland and secretariat. Programme for future liability group meetings 13. Members agreed the programme for future group meetings. Dates for meetings in 2003 would be: 20 January, 27 February and 21 March. These were in addition to the forthcoming meetings on 18 October and 5 November. The liability group would probably also meet around the full Commission meeting in December. 14. It could be valuable to have a meeting with stakeholders, probably early in 2003, to discuss an early draft report. (A stakeholder meeting to discuss emerging conclusions had certainly proved valuable in development of the animals and biotechnology report.) AEBC Secretariat September 2002 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
