At the outset I wish to extend a special word of welcome to Deputy Cuffe. He was absent for a while and it is nice to see him back in the playing field again.
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
I thank the Vice-Chairman.
The joint committee went into private session at 2.16 p.m. and resumed in public session at 2.17 p.m.
We will now deal with the scrutiny of EU documents. COM (2004) 312 is a document that was forwarded for information purposes to the committee. The Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has reported on the matter. Is it agreed that the document be noted? Agreed.
COM (2004) 512, which seeks an extension of two years for the community action programme in the field of civil protection, was considered by the Sub-committee on EU Scrutiny on 9 September 2004. The sub-committee proposed that further scrutiny is not warranted. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2004) 572 refers to a proposal for placing genetically modified oilseed rape on the market. The Sub-committee on EU Scrutiny considered this proposal last Thursday, 7 October 2004 and it agreed to send it to this committee for further scrutiny. Members should note, also, that this proposal will not be considered by the EU Environment Council at its meeting tomorrow. Have members any views on this?
I understand this was considered at a previous meeting. However, I would like to express my serious concerns about it. I would object to the placing on the Irish market of a genetically modified rape seed product. I am perturbed that Ireland abstained in the vote on this. I am sure my colleague, Deputy Mulcahy, is also perturbed because he has been outspoken as regards his concerns over GM crops. My own party shares this concern. We are concerned especially that the Government abstained in a crucial vote on this issue, given that the particular seed under consideration can germinate relatively easily. While I do not subscribe to the Frankenstein approach to GM crops, I have serious concerns. We should not consider putting this product on the market in Ireland at this time. I recommend that we express our objections to the proposal in the strongest possible terms.
Is the Deputy suggesting the committee give it further scrutiny or is he completely objecting to it?
I am open to the Chairman's guidance on how we consider the proposal today. I suggest we defer consideration of the item until we hear conclusive evidence that the proposed seed will not pose any threat to non-GM crops in Ireland.
In answer to that, the committee is in a position to invite people in that can give us clear factual information about it. The Deputy's proposal is that we invite them in to further consider it.
I am open to inviting people on different sides of this very important argument to give their opinions. I would be happy if officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food came in, but we should also try to get a balance and invite those who are concerned about genetically modified crops.
What is the status of the committee's decision on this proposal? If it is not adopted or scrutinised by the committee, does that mean it does not get legislative effect until such time as the committee has made a decision on it or is our decision just a cosmetic exercise?
The committee can arrive at a decision and report that decision back to the sub-committee on EU scrutiny.
Will the sub-committee hold up a decision pending a view of this committee? If we decide to take 12 months to examine this, will the sub-committee await our decision?
Very likely not. The Sub-Committee on EU Scrutiny will continue to progress the matter to its satisfaction. This committee can report whatever it agrees in the report.
I concur with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Cuffe at the outset. It is a matter that requires further consideration. The fact that it will not be discussed tomorrow gives us leeway to have a more detailed analysis of the whole situation. I would be supportive of the committee revisiting this issue at a future date, giving us ample time to arrive at our decision prior to its discussion at the Sub-Committee on EU Scrutiny. We can invite experts from all sides and bring as much balance as possible to the debate.
I am not a member of this committee, but I am a member of the Sub-Commitee on EU Scrutiny. I have followed closely the GM issue and wish to report a few matters which this committee will find of interest. This is the second GM food in recent times that has come before the European Council for final decision. The first food was called BT-11. There was a draft Commission decision to support BT-11 on 8 December. It then came before the sub-commitee on EU scrutiny and we referred it on to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. On 13 May 2004, that committee unanimously rejected BT-11 and its introduction into the market. Having said that, the Government voted in favour of BT-11 at the Agriculture Council meeting on 26 April 2004.
I give this background because this is a new area and is a little complicated. It seems different agencies are now dealing with different foodstuffs. When BT-11 was being considered, it was the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that examined its safety. With this proposed food, it is the environmental agency rather than the food safety agency which is examining it, although this food will be used in animal feed and will, therefore, indirectly go into the human food chain.
I am sorry if that is a bit involved but I am trying to make the following point. Some foods are being examined by some committees and other foods are being looked at by other committees. That is unsatisfactory. We should try to centralise the examination of GM food into one committee. I attended the last meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, whose members unanimously rejected BT-11. As the member states could not agree on BT-11, it went back to the European Commission which, under comitology rules, has the right to make a decision when the Council has failed to reach a decision. The European Commission, which is elected by no one, decided to allow BT-11 into the market.
Chaired by Ireland.
I know I cannot make proposals but I ask the Chair to bear with me. The best way forward for this is a joint hearing of the health and environment committees to examine these foods, and to get the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland involved at the same tame.
All we can deal with is the proposal that was referred to us, COM 572 (2004). We have no power to deal with any other proposal today.
If we decide to deal with it by way of establishing a working group with another committee of the House, surely that is in order. It is before us and it is in our power to deal with it as we wish.
We already have a proposal l agreed and seconded that we hear from all sides.
I am delighted to see that Deputy Healy-Rae is back in the Chair. I hope he stays there for a long time.
Until the next election.
I am delighted he enjoys the confidence of the Government members of the committee.
I am here today in any event. I cannot tell the Deputy how long I will last.
When we examined this issue at our last meeting, one of the things that concerned me was that the Department had gone ahead with taking a position at the European Council.
Are we dealing with the definition we discussed the last time?
Are we dealing with genetically modified foods?
Yes.
I take Deputy Cregan's correction, which I appreciate. On the last occasion we dealt with a genetically modified food issue, the Department took a position at the European Council in advance of the committee giving its opinion. Do we have an assurance from the Department that it will await the opinion of this committee before taking a position at the European Council? It defeats the purpose of these issues being examined by the committee if the Department carries on regardless and adopts positions before it hears our views. Will the Department await the views of the committee?
I agree with the Deputy. It is unusual. The Department will come to a decision regardless of how the committee votes or the recommendations we give. In my view, this places us in the position Deputy Gilmore described, whereby it has asked us for our opinion but will not wait for our view.
If the matter has been referred to the committee, it is incumbent on us to consider it in detail. We should have a debate about the material in question, even if somebody else is making the decision. One of my concerns is that the particular substance might be used for animal feed or as an industrial lubricant. I would not be overjoyed at the prospect of eating an animal that has eaten something that might have been used as an industrial lubricant. However, that is another day's work. There is serious concern about genetically modified ingredients, and it is important this committee allows for a debate on the issue prior to making a decision.
I suggest the convenors discuss this matter and decide who should be invited to discuss it with the committee.
There are major concerns and opinion is divided. People have concerns about genetically modified foods entering the food chain, either directly or via animal feeds. If we are to discuss this matter, from what I gather, the decision will be made tomorrow.
No, it is not being discussed tomorrow. It has been deferred.
Until when has it been deferred?
It has been deferred until the next agricultural meeting in December, which will deal with the environment.
I was led to believe a decision on this issue was imminent. However, a deferral would give us an opportunity. These issues will come before the committee more often as time goes on, and we should discuss how best to vet proposals and decide what other agencies should be involved in vetting further proposals regarding genetically modified foods. Otherwise we will have these debates ad nauseam. There should be a system or mechanism in place whereby a proposal goes directly to this committee, another joint committee or a group of people able to discuss it, analyse it, and bring in expert groups, as opposed to discussing it ad hoc and making decisions without bringing in expert witnesses from both sides of the argument and coming to conclusions. We should discuss this issue, but we should also make a recommendation as to how these issues should be vetted going forward. Otherwise we will be back, week in week out, doing the same thing.
Each individual proposal was considered on its merits, a fact confirmed to the committee by the EPA at the last meeting.
There should be a mechanism whereby when a proposal such as this comes before the committee we automatically invite experts to give their opinions without having the delay of a meeting to discuss the matter and decide what to do. An automatic procedure should be in place.
The convenors should meet and decide on the experts we could invite to the committee.
They should report back to the next meeting.
Yes. Are we agreed the convenors should discuss the matter?
Wearing my EU scrutiny cap, may I have permission to write to the convenors with some suggestions?
I have no problem with that suggestion. Deputies Cuffe and Gilmore are welcome to do the same if they have certain views on the matter.
I have no difficulty with Deputy Mulcahy writing the letter.
On a point of clarification, while different bodies may be involved, the State agency of expertise in this regard is the EPA. Different bodies may go to Brussels and give the same view, as far as I understand. However, the committee could write to the Department to establish the agency or person on whose expertise it relies. I believe it is the EPA in all cases, but we could establish whether this is the case or whether this is as mad as it appears to be. Perhaps it is not the case. Perhaps various bodies, such as the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, are involved.
We are dealing only with the environment aspect.
On a point of information, at European level it is the European Food Safety Authority and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. Both agencies should be heard on every proposal.
What is the position regarding the Food Safety Authority of Ireland?
It made a presentation on the last GM food issue to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. It appears from the briefing note the authority was not notified for its opinion on this GM issue. That is inappropriate, given this will be entering into the food chain indirectly.
It is a serious omission.
If we can agree that the convenors should discuss the people to be invited to the committee, we can leave matters for the time being. Anybody with suggestions or proposals should inform the convenors.
As a committee, we should write to the EPA and to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and others asking for their opinions. Otherwise we are deciding issues in which they may have no competency.
The committee is due to meet again next week, and we can do that then. We will now suspend the meeting for the purpose of inviting in the delegates from the biomass agencies.
Sitting suspended at 2.28 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.