Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
WEDNESDAY 22 OCTOBER 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP AND
MR LUCIAN
HUDSON
Q80 Diana Organ: On the last bit
of timing, have you decided the timing of when the Government
will respond to the consultation on the debate? There is a timetable
set out for when you are going to have it so when are you hoping
the Government is going to make its response to this consultation?
Mr Hudson: We are going to respond.
Q81 Diana Organ: When?
Mr Hudson: We are working out
just when that is. As you know there are a number of things which
are being taken into account at the moment but we will. Of course
we have to respond, we know that.
Q82 Diana Organ: It seems as though
ahead of time you had very careful thought about the timing of
when you would hold the debate but you have not slotted into it
the end of the whole process which is the response of Government,
is that right?
Mr Morley: The response would
have to be a detailed response and, of course, that will take
a bit of time in terms of giving the conclusions of the report
the consideration which it deserves. It was a good report with
a lot of points in and of course we want to respond to that as
a Government, it is not always easy to give an exact date to that.
Q83 Diana Organ: The Clerk has informed
me that the Government has intimated that you would make a response
like you do to Select Committee reports which is two months.
Mr Morley: That is correct, on
average.
Q84 Diana Organ: We can look forward
to a response from Government two months from the end of the debate?
Mr Morley: As a general principle,
yes.
Q85 Chairman: Minister, what is Government
best practice for public consultation, the length of which public
consultations are open?
Mr Morley: I think it is three
months in terms of the consultation on Government Bills and issues.
I think that is right.
Q86 Chairman: So it is twice the
length of this consultation?
Mr Morley: It is a different process,
of course, Chairman, as you will know.
Q87 Chairman: Different process,
I was just establishing that.
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q88 Alan Simpson: Were you happy
with the way the debate went?
Mr Morley: I think, as I mentioned
earlier on, it was a qualified success. I think it was successful
in terms of raising the issue. It was successful in terms of getting
a discussion going on the issues surrounding GM, GM science, GM
crops, GM foods. It did provoke, as you will be aware, debates
in Parliament. Many, many questions in Parliament, adjournment
debates in Parliament. Huge numbers of letters. Over two million
hits on our website as part of the process. Very large numbers,
thousands and thousands of questionnaires which were sent in.
A very large number of smaller debates, was it 600?
Mr Hudson: 600 public meetings.
Mr Morley: 600 public meetings
as a spin off, more probably, as a spin off from the set piece
debates. I think in a sense that can be regarded as successful.
There were issues of timing, as we have been discussing. There
are issues of making people aware and publicity, there are issues
there that we need to learn from which perhaps in retrospect could
have been done better. I would not want to say to you that there
are things which with hindsight we could not have done in different
ways and also we have learnt an awful lot of lessons from this
exercise. I come back to the point that it had not been attempted
before by Government and I think it was an exercise which was
worth doing and I make no apologies for putting in place. I think
the Board did a good job. I think Professor Grant and his team
worked very hard and deserve a great deal of credit. I think many
people appreciated the opportunity of the debate and that comes
out in the report. I think in that sense it is a qualified success.
Q89 Alan Simpson: If it was worth
doing, and from what you said it would be worth repeating, how
would you with that hindsight just change the way that debate
was structured and resourced?
Mr Morley: Perhaps I will ask
Lucian to answer with his professional opinion but I think a longer
lead in time in relation to preparation would be useful in terms
of doing that. The publicity one is a tricky one in many ways.
I think more publicity would have been useful but if you are going
to pay for that you can spend very, very large sums of money on
advertising and maybe not get a very good increase in relation
to attendance on that. I guess most people around the table have
been involved in organising public meetings at one or another
and therefore you know all the issues which are involved in that
and of course this is the same but on a much larger scale.
Q90 Alan Simpson: Prior to your evidence,
Minister, we had Professor Grant and he was quite robust with
the Committee. I think he thought it was an extremely good process
but I asked whether he would repeat it and the answer was no,
not on the cash terms that it was asked to operate. Now you did
not mention in your reply to me the issue about the budget but
would you accept Professor Grant's points that if the Government
seriously wants the scale of public involvement that we are looking
for that the resources have to be commensurate with the expectation?
Mr Morley: I cannot dispute that
particular comment, Chairman. Of course there is an issue of resources
in relation to how you run these issues. Again we were into some
unknowns in relation to what would be an appropriate budget. You
will be aware that the budget was doubled as the process went
along and it became clear the original budget was not adequate.
There are some difficult issues which I was touching upon in that
the budget for this was around about £500,000, now a lot
of additional money may not have increased publicity for it. Now
what is difficult to know is whether, say you double that to a
million pounds, whether another £500,000 of publicity material
would generate more involvement and participation or would simply
go into the pockets of agency. There are some unknowns about this
but I accept that there is an issue of resources in trying to
get the appropriate figure. Do you want to comment on this?
Mr Hudson: Thank you. We have
a relationship now, I hope, with this Committee where you see
where we have tried to do something where we take a view afterwards
whether it was pretty good or not so good but whatever the outcome
we learn lessons and we try and improve for next time. There is
no doubt in my mind that it was a very difficult process, whichever
way you look at it but it was worth doing. Whether we do it exactly
this way again is obviously a thing we would want to look into
in more detail and we are carrying out, so you know, a review
of how it went, what worked well and where we think it needs improving.
We are working our way through with other colleagues in Government
and the COI and the Steering Board what those lessons might be.
I am very clear in my mind that this was new to everybody. Of
course it was new to the COI but it was new to everybody and I
think we can improve the guidance on public consultations in the
light of having done this. Personally I think we want to do more
of this kind of thing but quite how I think we need to look at.
If you are asking me which ways, I would not want to pre-empt
that exercise but I am sure in hindsight we would need to look
at the programme and project planning of it and where that fell
with the COI as the prime contractor or with the Steering Board.
I am clear in mind that we do not have a problem with doing things
at arm's length but if you do it at arm's length there is still
a requirement to make sure that public money is spent properly.
If you work with the Steering Board, with all this talent on it,
all that talent is going to have a view and that is going to build
in to what decisions are taken and how long they take to make.
All that I think we need to look at and be very honest about and
take a view about if we were to do it again or do something similar
how would that look. I am keen to produce that in the course of
the next few months.
Q91 Alan Simpson: To be fair to Professor
Grant I think there were two issues which he raised which it would
be helpful to get your response to because I think he was pro
the process but critical of its shortcomings. Would it be fair
to say in your review of that process you would be taking on board
Diana's points about the timing of it as to how much harder it
was to engage farmers and local communities by holding it over
the summer periods so before you get to advertising just the logical
point of where in the calendar you were to hold this, this would
be a legitimate point of concern about just how much mileage in
terms of response would be raised. Also in doing so, again, you
would have to look at the evidence base about the issues that
were under contention. I think he was quite robust in saying he
thought the contentious issues about the science were reduced
to the anodyne and that if you are asking the public to have a
debate you ought at least to be open about the areas which are
being debated within the science as well as within society.
Mr Morley: Certainly I agree with
that last point and I think these are issues that we need to examine.
I do not disagree with the time of year. I think there are pros
and cons of whatever time of year but I think that is something
we should look at. I understand that the University of East Anglia
carried out a study of the process. I am not quite clear whether
they went into things like timing but I am sure their report might
address one or two of these issues really and that will help guide
future debates of this kind or future events of this kind in terms
of the kind of actions we can take.
Q92 Alan Simpson: Finally, you said
in your opening comments, Minister, that this was a debate and
not a referendum.
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q93 Alan Simpson: When Professor
Grant was asked about this and its implications he made a point
to the Committee which I think is extremely important namely that
we ought to take credit for the fact that this is the most imaginative
and engaging programme of consultation that any government anywhere
has embarked upon. He did stress that it had a consequence and
the consequence was about public trust, that as the Government
invites the public to engage in a public debate it puts itself
on line and will be judged in respect of what it does with the
outcomes of that debate. Do you accept Professor Grant's view
that that is beyond the issue itself, that there is an issue of
trust about what the Government does with the process?
Mr Morley: I absolutely accept
there is an issue of trust and there is an issue in relation to
the process. I come back to the point that the Secretary of State
made it very clear from the very beginning that it would not be
a referendum, it could not be a referendum because by its very
nature it is not constructed in that way. Nevertheless the opinions
expressed within the GM Nation dialogue, the opinions expressed
in the report are very important and I think that we do have a
responsibility as a Government to take them into account, bearing
in mind that it is not a veto but nevertheless it does influence
the consideration of the issues that we have to make as a Government.
Q94 Mr Drew: I just wondered in terms
of the balance of evidence and the balance of reflection from
the evidence how much note you will generally take of people who
did organise their own conferences given that there was only a
small number of formally organised meetings and many people could
not get to those and if they had got to them you would have had
a real problem because as Alan said they could not get in anyway
to some of them. I just wonder because in a sense we have established
the debate was probably long term but the people who made the
effort to say we want to be part of the process can they be assured
that their views will be listened to, even though they came from
a fairly pre-rehearsed position?
Mr Morley: Absolutely. Even where
you get very polarised views, I think it is important to try and
understand why people take that position. It is important to understand
people's concerns. I think it is important to understand why it
is in some cases there is an issue of trust, an issue of trust
in government, an issue of trust in big business, an issue of
trust in biotechnology companies. All these elements came out
in the event and that was why I think we were keen to have it.
One point I did not make is one of the reasons for the timing
was we were anticipating we might be called to make some decisions
on GM commercialisation as early as October to the EU process,
now as it happens all those have slipped as well. We were quite
keen to have the opinions of people and to have the results of
this "GM Nation?" event before that process.
Now as it happens they have fallen back, in the same way as the
actual dialogue slipped the decision making process has slipped
as well.
Q95 Mr Mitchell: Professor Grant
thought that the Government did not do enough in the shape of
ministers publicising and promoting the debate, why was that?
Mr Morley: I think my predecessor,
Michael Meacher, did make a number of key speeches at a number
of events timed, actually, with the start of "GM Nation?",
quite deliberately so. Margaret Beckett made a key speech on GMs
at the Royal Society and was it at the Oxford Farming Conference
as well? There was another major venue that she also made a key
note speech at.
Mr Hudson: The Royal Society.
Mr Morley: Yes, the Royal Society,
again as part of the actual process. Defra tried to publicise
the events regionally by putting out press notices and press releases
through our Defra press network to try and raise the issue and
make people aware of what was going on and give some publicity
to the events as well. In parallel we did attempt to raise the
issue through ministerial activity.
Q96 Mr Mitchell: That was one speech
from each.
Mr Morley: I think it was a bit
more than that.
Q97 Mr Mitchell: The Committee did
ask for public pronouncement, was that really enough, the speeches
I mean?
Mr Morley: There was more than
one speech each, there were a number of key speeches. Also, I
come back to the point I was making, when the event got under
way it sparked off a lot of interest in Parliament as well, it
came up regularly at Defra questions. There were a number of Adjournment
Debates on the whole issue of GMs and that was all during the
period of "GM Nation?" which also added to the
attention, the media attention, and to the publicity.
Q98 Mr Mitchell: He also said the
Government did not give a lead to the debate. Its position was
neither a bold neither for nor again, in fact I got the impression
that Churchill's phrase that he has sat on the fence so long that
the iron has entered his soul was applicable in the Government's
approach. Why was that?
Mr Morley: The simple explanation
for that was that the decision was taken that the "GM
Nation?" event would be arm's length from Government
and therefore the Government took care not to get involved in
that particular process but to leave it to the Board. In that
respect it was a deliberate policy to be seen not to be interfering
or manipulating.
Q99 Mr Mitchell: I was disappointed
with Alan's question when he said would you listen because we
are of course a listening Government. I do wonder how you are
going to respond to the debate without taking a view?
Mr Morley: The Secretary of State
has given a commitment that the Government will make a detailed
response to this debate and that will be done.
| 
