Sub Groups

PUBLIC ATTITUDES GROUP

GM CROPS PUBLIC DEBATE

DEBATE ABOUT THE POSSIBLE COMMERCIALISATION OF GM CROPS

You have received Margaret Beckett's response on behalf of the UK Government to the Commission's advice on the conduct of the proposed public debate. This letter is written as a formal response on behalf of the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. In addition to commenting on the AEBC advice itself, the letter also responds to additional comments which were raised at a meeting of Commission Members on 7 August. The content of this letter has the full support of the UK Government and should be seen as a statement on behalf of all 4 administrations clarifying the position.

Expanding on Margaret Beckett’s letter of 25 July the following clarifications have been agreed:

1. The debate will be conducted on behalf of all 4 UK administrations. In addition to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the chair of the steering board will report to the relevant ministers in the devolved administrations. We will try to minimise the bureaucracy involved in these arrangements.

2. We would urge that the debate is designed and conducted in such a way that it is able to take full account of the different perspectives from around all regions of the UK. We would hope that this could be reflected in the composition of the steering board.

3. You requested some clarification of the scope of the debate. While not wishing to constrain the extent to which the agenda is driven by the public, we would ask the steering board to ensure (wherever possible) that the focus is principally but not exclusively on the issues raised by the possible commercialisation of GM crops. As indicated in your advice, the main objective of stimulating public debate is to establish the nature and spectrum of the public's views on the possible commercialisation of GM crops in this country. As you recognise, Ministers are not seeking a quasi-referendum on the future of GM crops and would have genuine difficulties in taking account of a final report which was quantitative rather than qualitative in its substance. Ministers are looking for a debate which genuinely gets to the root of what matters to the public in this country. They would find it particularly helpful if the debate could identify the issues which cause public concern, the strength of the concerns and, could suggest how they might be addressed by government when considering applications for commercialisation of GM crops. A debate which focuses on these areas would be of huge benefit to government in considering how to handle the first results of the farm scale evaluations when they become available next summer. Government is committed to a separate public discussion of the FSE results themselves but we consider that such discussions will have greater context if the debate which we are commissioning you to undertake for us has already identified the wider issues of relevance to the decision taking process.

We understand that you have some uncertainty as to how the various strands of the exercise which we are proposing will interact. Perhaps it would be helpful if we clarified this for you. Essentially, we envisage a system where 3 separate strands - a public debate, a scientific discussion and an economic study - report independently to Ministers. However it is intended that each of the strands should 'cross-fertilise' one another. This could result for instance in the public debate drawing upon science which is available from the science strand to inform its consideration of a particular issue. Or it could involve the science strand being asked to investigate a particular scientific issue which arose from a subject expressed during the public debate. It would be our intention to ensure that the scientific discussion is a genuine forum for debate where all shades of scientific opinion are exposed and debated. If it cannot attract the diversity of views which we are aware exist, then it will not have fulfilled its purpose. As with the public debate, we do not expect that the scientific or economic strands will draw black and white conclusions but will set out for Ministers the various issues which have been identified during the course of the exercise; issues on which there is general agreement and issues where there is continuing uncertainty. It will be for Ministers to determine what weight to give to any conflict of views which emerge when they consider these matters as part of the decision-taking process.

I understand that you are in discussion with COI communications about several issues including the independence of their advice.

We hope that this letter will enable work to progress quickly in order to meet the timescale which we have set out for you. We would wish to reiterate the gratitude of Ministers for the effort which the Commission has put into its advice and hope that through you the AEBC will continue to play a role in the conduct of a well-informed and inclusive public debate.

A copy of this letter goes to Helen Liddell, Margaret Beckett, Dermott Nesbitt, Mike German and Robin Cook

ROSS FINNIE