Vol. 501 No. 4
8 Ms Clune asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the way in which he will progress following submissions to his Department's consultation paper, Genetically Modified Organisms and The Environment; if these submissions will form part of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6349/99]
My Department received almost 200 written responses to the consultation paper on Genetically Modified Organisms and the Environment, which I issued on 24 August 1998. I invited all the respondents to participate in an open two part debate, which will be held this spring, for the purpose of concluding the consultation process concerning potential risks to the environment arising from the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms.
The debate will be independently chaired and managed under arrangements which I am putting in place. The objective of the first part of the debate is to identify the most critical national issues which should influence the review of national policy and procedures on the deliberate release of GMOs to the environment. The issues identified will be analysed in depth in the second part of the debate. On foot of a report from the chairperson of the debate and having regard to the written responses to the consultation paper, I intend to complete the review of national policy and procedures in this area and make a statement on the outcome.
A panel will be constituted to lead and respond to the debate to assist the independent chair. This will comprise nominees of four representative stakeholders identified from the written responses to the consultation paper. The four stakeholders, each of whom has been invited to nominate two persons to the panel, are the State, the biotechnology sector, non-governmental organisations and the academic/research world. This is intended as a utility to assist in structuring and focusing the debate on the key environmental issues for the general body of respondents.
As part of the arrangements for the consultation debate, I arranged a meeting of a group of 19 NGOs identified from written submissions as representative stakeholders in the overall process. The purpose of this meeting, held on 18 February, was to facilitate the group to prepare for the debate and to identify its two nominees for the debate panel. Following the all-day meeting, the group issued a statement in which it raised a number of issues about the structure of the debate and proposed an alternative process. While I am disappointed it was not possible for the group to reach a more constructive conclusion in the context of the consultation process I initiated and which is now well advanced, I do not regard its statement as a withdrawal. I have written to the representatives nominated by the group requesting clarification of their position and I await their response.
Did the Departments of Agriculture and Food, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Health and Children make submissions to the Minister's consultation document? Will they be involved in the debate?
I am not sure, but I think they did. Most of the Departments directly involved made written submissions. I can check that for the Deputy.
It is important that the relevant Departments have some input. The Department of Health and Children is responsible for the directive on novel foods and the Department of Agriculture and Food is responsible for food. Has the Minister or his Department had any contact with those Departments?
We are obviously in contact with them, but I want to clarify matters for the Deputy because there seems to be some confusion, even among the NGOs which responded. The consultation process I initiated was directly related to genetically modified organisms and the environment. It is focused on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment and is framed in the context of two EU directives, 92/19 and 92/20. Neither I nor the Department has direct responsibility for food or health, which are separate matters. The issue being addressed in this consultation process is GMOs and the environment and their deliberate release in one form or another, be it for research and development purposes or marketing. I do not want the issues to be confused.
It has become increasingly clear over the past 12 months that the other issues need to be addressed. It was for that reason I brought an aide-mémoire to Government, which indicated that other Departments should employ their consultation methods to focus on the points the Deputy raised, such as novel foods and health. An interdepartmental group has been established as a result of that memorandum to deal with those issues. I do not want the issues to become confused. There is an urgency about the consultation process because the two directives are currently being reviewed in Europe. I want the consultation process and the final position we adopt to inform our position at those talks.
I agree with the Minister that there is an urgency, because discussions are ongoing in Europe and it is important we know Government policy on the matter beforehand. Does the Minister have a view on a moratorium on the planting of these crops? Does he know if that will form part of Government policy?
A moratorium has been proposed in the consultation process by a number of NGOs. It will be considered, as will all other issues raised which are directly relevant to the subject. It is not currently possible for a member state to unilaterally declare a moratorium on the deliberate release of GMOs. We would be in breach of EU directives and law were we to do so. It is something which has been identified as an issue in the ongoing consultation and may end up being one of the key issues people will want discussed in the two part consultation process.
The time for priority questions has elapsed. Questions Nos. 9 and 10 will be taken in ordinary time.
