 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
UNCONFIRMED MINUTES FIRST MEETING 11AM TO 1PM, 13 SEPTEMBER 2002 INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
1 GREAT GEORGE
STREET, LONDON, SW1P 3AA Present Professor Malcolm Grant (chair)Ms Anna Bradley Dr Dave Carmichael Ms Clare Devereux Professor Robin Grove-White Ms Judith Hann Mr Lucian Hudson Mr Gary Kass Professor Jeff Maxwell Mr Stephen Smith Secretariat Richard Abel Pat Wilson Apologies Professor Phil Dale THE MEETING WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE Welcome and introductions 1.
Professor Malcolm Grant welcomed members to the first meeting of
the steering board. He also
welcomed officials who were present and people who had come to observe the
meeting. 2.
Malcolm Grant explained the background to the formation of the
steering board. He had
selected the members of the board at the invitation of Ministers.
Its members would serve in a personal capacity rather than as
representatives of particular organisations.
The steering board was separate from but substantially underpinned
by members of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC)
- of which he himself was also chair.
The AEBC in its advice to Government about promoting a public
debate had envisaged having some other people in addition to AEBC members
on the steering board. 3.
Professor Grant said that he was particularly grateful to those
outside members who had agreed to join the board.
These were Dr Stephen
Smith, chair of the UK industry agricultural biotechnology council; Ms
Clare Devereux, director of the Five Year FREEZE umbrella grouping of
NGOs; and Mr Gary Kass, from the Parliamentary Office of Science and
Technology. Lucian Hudson, Director of Communications at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), would also sit on the
steering board, with particular responsibility for ensuring proper
accountability for expenditure of public funds.
The composition of the steering board had been announced on
9 September following the issue of letters of appointment the previous
week by the chair. 4.
The chair said that he
was under no illusions about the challenge ahead for the board.
It was very great. The
issues were difficult. But
the prize of promoting an innovative and effective public dialogue was
also considerable. He was confident that all members of the board would pursue
this goal constructively, independently and innovatively. Report on past and planned meetings
about the public debate
5.
The chair said that the AEBC had first recommended a wider public
debate in its first report, Crops on Trial, in September 2001.
Government had accepted that recommendation and asked for further
advice from the AEBC on how to promote a debate, which was given in April
2002. The Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mrs Beckett, had responded on 26
July to that advice, inviting the AEBC to promote a debate and setting a
timescale and a budget. The
AEBC had had some serious concerns about aspects of the Government
response and had sought clarification on a number of points.
6.
As part of seeking clarification, Malcolm Grant, accompanied by
Roger Turner and Robin Grove-White from the AEBC and by Richard Abel from
the secretariat, had had meetings with the Government Chief Scientific
Adviser, Professor Dave King and the Chief Scientist at the (DEFRA),
Professor Howard Dalton about the science review on GM crops; with
Professor John Krebs of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) about the FSA’s
role in the debate; with the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, who were
undertaking a study of the economics of GM crop commercialisation; and
with the Acting Chief Executive and staff from COI Communications.
7. Following these discussions, Professor Grant had formed the public debate steering board to begin the process of developing a programme of debate. Two meetings immediately following the steering board meeting had also been arranged: First, with representatives of the research councils to explore their interest in assisting with the debate and in particular to seek funding and practical assistance for an independent evaluation of the programme of debate and the process to develop it - funding for this was not included in the £250,000 budget for the debate. Second, with members of the Royal Society’s science and society committee, to explore the possibilities for interaction. The chair said that Robin Grove-White, Dave Carmichael, Jeff Maxwell and the secretariat would accompany him to these meetings. Terms
of reference for the steering board 8.
The meeting had before it a paper from the secretariat.
The board made minor amendments to the draft terms of reference for
the steering board and adopted terms of reference as follows: (1)
oversee the main public debate,[1]
enabling and supervising, rather than directing or managing it in detail,
but being its public face; (2)
design overall objectives for the debate and consider with the
prime contractor how to achieve them; (3)
liaise with science and economic strands and other relevant
activity to ensure wholly open communication and coherence in the conduct
of the whole exercise; and (4)
keep Ministers in the UK Government and devolved administrations
informed of progress and take responsibility for delivery of the final
report from the debate to Ministers. 9.
The board noted in relation to (4) that the AEBC had put to
Government in its April 2002 advice, options for what might be done with
the final report. One option was simply delivery of the final report; a second,
that the report fed into one or more national consensus conferences; and
third, that Government sought advice on possible ways forward in the light
of the report from the debate. The
AEBC had said that it would be willing to help in the latter regard.
Were the steering board to play a role in the latter, part (4) of
its terms of reference would need to be revisited.
Ways of working
10.
The board agreed that openness and transparency in its dealings
would be very important. Its
meetings, therefore, would normally be open to
the public to observe, with the proviso that some meetings or parts of
meetings might to be held in private, particularly for commercially
sensitive discussions about tenders.
The agenda and papers for board meetings and minutes of the
meetings would be published on the internet. Minutes
would be published by the secretariat as an unconfirmed record prior to
members having the opportunity to comment on them and then confirm them as
a true record at the subsequent meeting.
11.
The board welcomed in principle a
suggestion from the chair that an ‘away day’ for the steering board
and those involved in the science review and economic study should be held
soon to get coordination between the three strands off to a good start. Action:
DEFRA and secretariat 12.
The board decided not to have a joint
DEFRA/AEBC secretariat. They decided that the steering board secretariat should be
drawn from the AEBC secretariat only, because that secretariat was already
responsible for supporting a body that was independent of Government.
This would fit better with the clear principle that the debate
should be conducted at arm’s length from Government.
Instead of being on the secretariat, Graham Davis from DEFRA would
have a role of liaising with it and the steering board and taking away
from steering board meetings actions for the UK Government.
Officials from the devolved administrations would perform similar
liaison roles for their respective administrations.
Mr Davis would also support Lucian Hudson in day-to-day work
ensuring proper accountability of public expenditure on the debate. 13.
The board agreed to meet monthly for
around two hours at a time (the length depending on the agenda) between
now and June 2003. There
would also be a need for some e-mail discussions between meetings and
possibly a need for more regular meetings at peak times, but the chair
would try to keep these to a minimum.
Meetings would normally be held in London but would be held
elsewhere around the UK as appropriate. 14.
It was agreed that all board members would be notified in advance
by the secretariat of meetings involving board members between the main
steering board meetings. The
secretariat would circulate notes of those meetings to members. Action: secretariat 15.
The board agreed that Jeff Maxwell should have a particular role on
the board representing the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland. Objectives
for the debate
16.
The board considered the draft objectives for the debate set out in
the secretariat paper. The
following were the main points in the discussion: ·
the objectives as drafted had too static a feel.
They gave no sense that the debate would be a dynamic process.
It would be deliberative and it would be a dialogue
which would yield information about public views.
This needed to be reflected in the objectives; ·
some board members were clear that the primary objective should
include reference to the debate being ‘informed’.
Other members pointed out that while this was of course desirable,
informed debate had pejorative connotations to some, who would understand
it in the context of GM as signifying patronising propaganda.
Drawing on the nature of the debate as a dynamic dialogue, members
agreed to reflect in the primary objective a sense of information and
understanding flowing in two directions as a result of interactions
between experts and the public; ·
the meaning of
‘commercialisation’ and any other obscure terms should be explicated
in the text of the objectives; and ·
it would be important to reflect in the objectives that the public
would be free in the course of the debate to discuss the full range of
options relating to GM crops. A
number of other more detailed points were made on the secondary
objectives. The board asked
the secretariat to revise the draft objectives in the light of the
discussion and circulate these for approval by the board. Action:
secretariat
Presentation
by COI Communications
17.
The chair invited the team from COI Communications to make a
presentation to the steering board. The
presenting team comprised Richard Garratt, Humphrey Pring, Judith Brooke
and Simon Hughes. They outlined COI’s past work; how they would work as a
project team; how, if appointed, they saw their role in assisting the
client, which was the steering board, in delivering the objectives for the
debate; their approach, including an initial study of existing social
research and public engagement on GM issues; and that they would need
effective mechanisms for decision-making by the steering board to deliver
an effective programme of debate. 18.
In the discussion that followed with COI, the board said that there
was a real difficulty in employing COI Communications in relation to
public perception. The perception of the independence of the debate would be in
danger of being undermined by the very fact of using COI. This problem was no reflection on the professional expertise
of the COI team. The board
understood the advantages of the agency’s undoubted purchasing power and
the fact that using COI’s lists of contractors meant that the steering
board would be able to avoid a lengthy public procurement exercise.
But the perception COI’s involvement would give rise to was a
real issue for a successful programme of debate.
The actual and perceived independent conduct of the debate
was of critical importance to its success. 19.
COI said that they were acutely aware of the risks to the perceived
independence of the debate. They
were clear that the steering board would be their client.
They would act as advisers to the client and would employ their
internal creative and logistic resources, of which they gave the board a
number of examples, in the service of an independent debate.
They did not have a conflict of interest in being a Government
agency and working for an independent steering board rather than
Government on this exercise, because Government had made clear that the
debate was to be run independently, by the steering board.
Lucian Hudson confirmed that Government wanted the exercise to be
conducted at arm’s length. 20.
COI said that they would work openly with the steering board if
appointed as prime contractor. They
would act as a conduit for appointing contractors by suggesting a number
of contractors to the board for different elements of the programme.
The board would have the final say on the specification for each
tender and for selecting the contractor in each case.
COI confirmed that if their lists of contractors yielded no
organisation that the steering board judged suitable to carry out the work
then it would take action to find an alternative supplier for that piece
of work. They would also act
for the steering board as the managing agent of the contractors. 21.
The board agreed that COI should not write the final report to
Government arising from the debate. 22.
COI confirmed that they were open-minded on the question of
producing a film as part of stimulus material: they would be looking for
the most creative and effective methods available.
They would want to discuss this, and other elements of the
programme, with the steering board and with prospective contractors.
COI had been doing some thinking on the possibilities already; and
on ways of engaging the media to publicise events connected with the
debate, regionally and nationally, to multiply the reach of the debate,
given the cost of advertising. 23.
The board agreed to appoint COI as prime contractor for the debate
subject to a clear set of working arrangements being agreed,
specifying the role of COI and how the independence of the steering
board would be preserved and the steering board’s role as client
‘ring-fenced’ from other relationships COI had, particularly its
relationship with Government. The board noted that due to a combination of time constraints, public procurement rules and the budget there was no realistic alternative to using COI. The
board invited the secretariat to draft a statement of the relationship
between COI and the steering board for circulation to board members and
COI. Action:
secretariat
24.
The board also said that COI needed to give early thought to how to
proactively counter negative perceptions about their role in supporting
the steering board. This was an immediate communications issue for the
steering board that had to be dealt with.
It would be highly desirable if COI could meet some of the
potential critics of its role and reassure them face-to-face about COI’s
role in the debate. COI
undertook to do so, liaising with Pat Wilson, Robin Grove-White and Anna
Bradley. Action:
COI, Pat Wilson
Initial work
25.
The steering board authorised COI to appoint a suitably qualified
independent researcher to undertake desk research on existing public
attitudes to the issues for debate. The
strategic consultancy branch of COI would simultaneously undertake
research in-house on public engagement methodologies on GM issues in the
UK and abroad. 26.
The board invited Robin Grove-White and Gary Kass to work with COI
in drawing up draft objectives for this research, including the scope of
the study, drawing on their respective professional experience.
This would be done within two weeks. The board asked COI to press
on with this work, and with thinking on how to proceed in the latter
stages of the debate. Action:
COI, Robin Grove-White, Gary Kass
Relationship
of debate to economics study, science review and other activities 27.
The chair invited Ian Coates, the team leader for the Prime
Minister’s Strategy Unit (SU), to outline for the board progress to date
on the study. Ian Coates
explained that a draft scoping note for the project was presently with
Ministers. It was planned to
circulate it to board members and publish it for comment by stakeholders
and members of the public shortly. The SU team were committed to taking an open approach to
their work. They would be
looking to publish what they could as they went along and to receiving
feedback from interested parties. 28.
Normally, an SU project had a steering board with independent
members to work with the project’s sponsor Minister (in this case
Margaret Beckett). For this project, however, the project team had decided that
there would probably be significant crossover with the steering board’s
membership and so would be duplicatory.
Instead, the SU wished to report informally to the debate steering
board and would be pleased to receive the board’s advice and feedback on the project.
He also proposed making a formal presentation to the next steering
board meeting. The board
welcomed this. Action:
secretariat, liaising with SU
29.
Mr Coates went on to explain that they would be convening a number
of smaller expert groups to provide a ‘challenge’ function on the
different strands of work in the project.
Roger Turner from the AEBC had already volunteered to be involved
in one or more of these. Other
volunteers from the steering board or AEBC would be welcome. 30.
The board said that it would be good if the economics study could
feed into the wider debate. It
very much welcomed the SU’s intention to publish methodology papers for
the different parts of the study and then emerging findings in the New
Year. For the final report to
feed in effectively, it would need to be seen to be independent.
For that reason, it would be useful if the final report could be
published at the same time as it was sent to Number 10 to counter any
perception that the terms of the report had been adjusted by Government
for presentational reasons. An alternative suggestion to achieve the same goal was for the final briefing by the Strategy Unit to the steering board, prior to publication, to be a detailed exposition that would be recorded in the steering board minutes. Mr
Coates noted the board’s view and undertook to convey it. 31.
The SU project would cover the UK.
The board asked the SU to ensure that differences in the economies
of the devolved territories, and of the English regions, were taken into
account in the economic study. 32.
The board welcomed the positive suggestions from the strategy unit
about openness, linking with the programme of debate and working with the
steering board. 33.
The chair also invited Adrian Butt, secretary to the science
review, to brief the board on progress.
Mr Butt explained that an interim scoping note for the review had
been placed on the DEFRA website and a number of individuals and
organisations, including NGOs, had been approached to serve on a science
panel which would work with the Government and DEFRA’s chief scientists
on the review. 34.
The chair noted that as with the economics strand, close
coordination between the science review and the public debate would be
very important. Phil Dale
would serve on the debate steering board and on the science panel.
That would assist with coordination at that level; and the
secretariats would also liaise closely.
35.
Some board members expressed concern about how the science panel
and the review would operate. The
chair said that building on his and AEBC member's discussions with the Chief Scientists, he
had undertaken to write to the Government Chief Scientist with comments on
the scoping note, which was still under development, and with some
thinking on how the strands might interact.
The secretariat would copy the letter to steering board members. Action: secretariat 36.
Board members were also briefed by the Food Standards Agency (FSA),
which had announced an intention to undertake social research, to feed
into the wider debate. The
board noted that there was scope for confusion between the different
strands and it would be highly desirable if the FSA would liaise closely
with the steering board on their plans.
It asked the secretariat to follow this up with the FSA.
Action:
secretariat
Communications
37.
The board agreed that the chair only would speak on behalf of the
board, although Jeff Maxwell might do so on the chair’s behalf in the
devolved administrations. Other
members should feel in no way constrained by their membership of the board
from commenting in their personal capacities on GM issues.
Members volunteered where possible to inform other members through
the secretariat, however, if they were likely to be speaking publicly on
issues relevant to the work of the steering board.
38.
Pat Wilson, the AEBC’s communications adviser, would support the
board. He would take forward work on a communications strategy,
including developing a separate website for the public debate, on which
would be placed photographs and short biographies of members as well as
other material. Future meetings
39.
The secretariat would circulate dates for future meetings once all
members had indicated their availability.
Close
40.
The chair closed the meeting by thanking members for what had been
a productive first meeting. He
also thanked, on behalf of the board, observers who had attended the
meeting. Steering board secretariat 16 September 2002 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
