Text of Leaked Cabinet memo follows...

Text of Leaked Cabinet memo follows

John Fuller Esq
Private Secretary to the Minister
For the Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS 11th May 1999

Dear John

BIOTECHNOLOGY PRESENTATION GROUP: 10 MAY

I am writing to record the points arising from yesterday's meeting of the Biotechnology Presentation Group. Apart from Dr Cunningham, the other Ministers present were Tessa Jowell, Jeff Rooker and Michael Meacher, each of whom were accompanied by officials.

With regard to media interest, the Group concluded that:

it had been a relatively quiet week in media terms - with the most significant story being the Christian Aid / Action Aid report on GM foods in the third world on 10 May. Although the Government had not been able to identify an independent scientist to appear on the Today programme in the morning, Dr Greerson from Nottingham University had given a very effective interview.
it would be helpful if the entry in the diary on ACNFP meetings could in future indicate whether the meeting was due to approve any particular foods, as this would effect the likely media interest.

On the forthcoming Government statement on biotechnology, the Group considered a note by the secretaries proposing a handling strategy. They concluded that:

In general terms, the strategy proposed the right mechanisms for getting the Government's message across.

Although there were arguments for and against a single announcement, it would be better to present the Government's stance as a single package by way of an oral statement in the House. This would allow the Government to get on the front foot.
A single announcement might, however, be followed by a series of subsequent announcements focusing on the detailed aspects of the big picture.
The package should include the CMO/CSA paper on GM foods and public health. As it would not be possible to publish this paper until after the Royal Society report on the Pusztai experiment, the timing of the Government's announcement would necessarily remain fluid. OST should attempt to establish the Royal Society's intentions on timing.
If possible, it would be better to make an oral statement on a Thursday as this would take place at 11.30am and so allow for a mid-day press conference, attended by Ministers from the departments with a key interest. This timing would increase the likelihood of full press coverage.
The CMO/CSA paper should be revised to make sure that it was intelligible to the lay reader and so that it contained clear recommendations, but Ministers needed to guard against the charge that the Government was seeking to influence the findings of the paper. The revised draft should be cleared by a future meeting of the Presentation Group.
It would be sensible to send on the morning of the announcement an embargoed copy of the Government's press pack to the chair of select committees which have shown an interest.
It was important that contact was also made with the National Consumers' Council in order to seek their endorsement of the Government's approach.
Departments would have to start working now to line up third parties to author articles in the media in the days before the announcement.
It was important to establish a central co-ordinated rebuttals strategy for use after the announcement.
Barry Sutlieff, Head of Information at the Cabinet Office would act as the central co-ordinating person for the implementation of the handling strategy.

The Group went on to consider the briefing notes which Departments had produced on old stories which might re-surface. While the Group was grateful for the work which officials had done to get the briefing notes ready, it was clear that there was more to be done before the lines to take were robust enough. Among the briefing notes which required more work were those on biodiversity, herbicide resistance and cross pollination. It was agreed that departments should revise the notes as soon as practicable (by 21 May at the latest) and, after clearing them with their Ministers, send them to Barry Sutlieff in the Cabinet Office Press Office, who would arrange for a composite set to be circulated across Whitehall.

There was a discussion on the content of papers for future meetings of the Biotechnology Presentation Group. Rather than having separate papers from DTI and MAFF Ministers on the benefits of biotechnology, it was agreed that it would be better to have a single paper which described the benefits of the technology, and how best to ensure that these featured in the public debate. The paper would need to cover mechanisms to get the industry and scientists more actively engaged with the media. Given the breadth of the issues to be covered, Health Ministers would also wish to be involved. This paper should be taken at the meeting of the Biotechnology Presentation Group scheduled for 24 May.

I am copying this letter to the Private Secretaries to Tessa Jowell, Jeff Rooker, Michael Macer and John Battle, to David North, Alun Evans, Peter Wilkinson and Liz Lloyd in Number 10, to Sebastian Wood in Sir Richard Wilson's office, and to Peter Hinchcliffe (DETR), David Hunter (MAFF), Andrew Wadge (Health), Monica Dambrough (DTI) and to Barry Sutlieff and Jitinder Kohli here.

Yours sincerely

PAUL BRITTON