Item No. 1 is a motion proposed by Deputy Mulcahy. Does the Deputy wish to speak on it?
Novel Foods: Motion
Yes, briefly, Chairman. This is not the committee to discuss genetically modified foods and it might be a more relevant motion for the sub-committee on EU scrutiny. This is an issue which is of general concern to people who are interested in European affairs, quite apart from genetically modified foods.
The Dáil and the Seanad have debated the EU legislation concerning genetically modified foods. A Seanad debate took place on 25 February 1999 and a Dáil debate on 25 March 1999. They discussed the chief European regulation on GM foods, which is Regulation No. 258 of 1997. Under that regulation certain powers are devolved to the EU Commission and the EU Council on genetically modified foods.
There is a committee in Europe called the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. On December 8, member states in Brussels were asked to give their opinion on a draft Commission decision authorising the placing on the market of sweetcorn from a genetically modified maize line BT 11 as a novel food, or novel food ingredient, under regulation EC/258/1997 of the European Parliament and of the Council. At the meeting, there were 33 votes in favour, 29 against and 25 abstentions. Those in favour were Spain, Ireland, the UK, Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden. Those against were Denmark, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal. The proposal will next be sent to Council, most likely during the Irish Presidency.
I have done some research on this and I believe this draft Commission decision authorising the placing on the market of genetically modified sweetcorn has never been discussed either by the Oireachtas committee on health or the Oireachtas committee on agriculture. A decision was taken in Brussels on a draft Commission decision which might have a significant impact on food in this country, and it has not come before any committee. The regulation predates the coming into force of the EU Scrutiny Act 2002 so that it would not have come before us then.
We have a draft Commission decision before us and this decision does not come within the ambit of "a measure" as defined in the Act. We have the prospect of Commission decisions being made which escaped through the net of the scrutiny process. This is not just to do with GM foods but is an issue that could potentially affect every single area of a particular activity.
There are two points to be made on this. We must ask whether there is a case for serious research in every area on the type of decisions which have been made in the past few years, decisions which nobody knows about. To my knowledge, nobody knows about this except a Department. As for the future, are we going to try to monitor these things? This is why I proposed the motion.
I thank the Deputy. We should get a report on this issue from the Department of Health and Children to this committee to see what the implications are.
Deputy Mulcahy raises an interesting point. We came across Council decisions being made at the EU scrutiny sub-committee which were not draft regulations or draft directives. We have now put in place a procedure whereby the EU co-ordinator in each Department is to notify the sub-committee on Council draft decisions. We should see whether it is necessary for us to put in place some similar proposal on Commission draft decisions, look into it and report to the sub-committee. We will get a report from the Department of Health and Children on the issue if the Deputy and the committee agree, and on the question of scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On the matter of past decisions, there could be so many of them it would be extremely difficult for us to go back over them, but let us start with whatever draft decisions may be coming up.
I commend Deputy Mulcahy on his research and the manner in which he has presented it here. It points up starkly the lack of debate since 1999. I understand the debate took place in 1999. This can have enormous effects on the entire agricultural sector from an economic and safety aspect. The jury is still out as yet. Deputy Mulcahy made the point that it was not discussed at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food or the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children.
A number of issues need to be considered: the effect that BT 11 will have on Irish agriculture, which is renowned throughout the world; the effects of contamination, which can take place through pollen flow; the lack of public consultation, particularly since 1998; and the lack of debate in this Dáil. The debate took place in 1999, since when science has moved on quite a bit, and I believe that the scientific report on the effects or non-effects of GM needs to be debated far more fully. The lack of accountability also needs to be considered, because decisions are being taken without Members of the House being aware of them. That all needs to be revisited. I support the motion and the way in which it has been articulated.
There are two issues. One is the issue of the genetically modified crops and foods, and the other concerns European legislation and how we deal with it. On the genetically modified crops, we are talking about a variety of maize, so its application in Ireland is limited. Teagasc and the universities are carrying out fairly extensive research on genetically modified crops. I note that, in England, the expert group that considered genetically modified crops regarded maize to be one of the crops that would be suitable to be grown in genetically modified varieties.
On the second issue, and concerning our functions and the level to which we go into the decisions of standing committees, we need to be careful of our capacity to deal with a range of issues in which we do not have expertise. That is not to say that we should not have a view, but at some point we have to leave it to committees to make decisions. We should examine regulations, directives and whatever comes from the Council of Ministers and the European Commission, but to what extent should we go through the various layers in our scrutiny? The work of the sub-committee on European scrutiny is already onerous, as the Chairman is aware. Much documentation is involved in that work, which makes major demands on the committee secretariat's resources, and one therefore wonders about the physical capacity to deal with such matters, not the intention of dealing with them. Views on genetically modified crops are perhaps for a debate on the issue itself rather than on the principle of what we should consider and how we should examine it.
Patricia McKenna, MEP
Although, in general, the motion is good, there also needs to be inclusion. One of the things we have missed in Ireland is a proper public consultation on genetic modification. We have had a so-called public consultation process, which even the non-governmental organisations walked out of, because they knew that it was a farce. Sweden and the UK have had consultation processes, but there has not been a proper one here, and the information from polls clearly shows that consumers are not in favour of GM foods.
I have a question on the ban on BT 11. I do not think that the Chairman can answer it - maybe he can. Last night, the Taoiseach was asked about it in the Dáil. It is clear that, despite the fact that he tried to give the impression that Ireland has not taken a position on the ban, we have sided with a minority of six countries that want to lift the ban on the introduction of BT 11 into the European markets. The Taoiseach said in his reply last night: "The Irish Government position is that the scientific data and evidence needs to be explored fully so that whatever decisions are ultimately taken at EU level or at national level are based on the best scientific facts." How can our Taoiseach stand up in the Dáil and basically mislead the public by trying to give the impression that the Government has not taken a position on that when it has? Ireland is one of the six countries that want to lift the ban. The Taoiseach, the Government and those who represent us at European meetings need to be properly accountable. Who is the Minister responsible at those meetings?
The decision was discussed at a number of meetings in December and then at one last week. It is in the Council's hands at the moment, but if the Council cannot reach a qualified majority decision on it, it will go back to the Commission to decide. The Irish Government could move away from the six country minority, leave it with five countries and go with the EU countries that are refusing to lift the ban on BT 11. A few countries are abstaining.
There is a lack of accountability and transparency and the Government is trying to fudge the issue and mislead the public on it. The committee should insist on proper openness and transparency on who is making the decisions and what decisions are being made on the Government's behalf. The Taoiseach should be asked to explain what he said in the Dáil last night because it does not stand up against the facts. The issue is very important. We must make the interests of the public and consumers a priority.
I cannot think of any item in European affairs that is more important than this one, and it has been interesting to hear Patricia McKenna, MEP, speak about it. I listen to customers, and there is little doubt that consumers in Europe are afraid and worried.
The natural reaction is to say that we should steer Europe away from genetically modified foods. That has been influenced to a large extent by thalidomide, because in that case Europe accepted something that caused havoc. We should compare that to the experience of the United States, which did not have the experience of thalidomide because it was saved by one very strong Canadian woman in the Food and Drug Administration. The United States has gone headlong into genetically modified foods without waiting for the scientific evidence, which could be very damaging.
This morning, I sat in on the debate on An Bord Bia (Amendment) Bill, in which we talked about Bord Bia, Bord Glas and the future of Ireland as a food island. I fear that, if we do not take great care in Ireland with GM food, and if we make decisions on the basis of less than carefully diagnosed scientific facts - if we go on the beliefs, whims or worries of the public - we could lose a huge opportunity.
I mention that because I was in the United States last month and was involved in a debate on genetically modified food. My eyes were opened to some of its possibilities. Without delaying us, I will give the committee some reminders of those possibilities. The best example of the investigation into genetically modified organisms is easy to remember. We used to raid birds' nests and take the birds' eggs - the other Members are all to young to remember the days when we did that, perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, and we do not do it any more. In America, apparently, children pull the tails off lizards but the interesting thing is that a lizard's tail grows again. There is some little gene in it that means that it can do that. Scientists are now suggesting that, if they could find that gene and include it, it would mean that, if someone lost his toe, arm or finger, it would grow again, which sounds fantastic.
It is not out of the question that we could miss out on the huge benefits that genetically modified products could have, although we rightly have huge concerns. Members may have read in The Irish Times yesterday or in TheGuardian the other day about genetically modified grass seed that can be scattered over an area where there has been warfare. The grass grows green, but if it grows beside metal, it grows a different colour. We should think of the lives that would save in such areas.
I am not making a speech on behalf of genetically modified foods. As a nation, we see Ireland as a food producing island and seek opportunities to ensure that we will be in the vanguard. It is an area where we should play a part because we are admired and recognised as being at the forefront in agriculture. Let us make sure that in the years ahead we do not lose out on the opportunity to be in the forefront of food. If food needs the very best scientific evidence and investigation to ensure that it is safer and better, let us do this and not be influenced by concerns, senses and feelings that are not scientifically based.
I remind the committee that the Chair has proposed that we should get a report on this from the Department of Health and Children. There seems to be consensus on that and there will be a further discussion. I ask that the committee bear that in mind.
I support the motion. It is very useful. We should go further and perhaps invite somebody such as Dr. Sean McDonagh who has written Patenting for Life to come here and speak to the committee.
I am not opposed to what Senator Quinn has said about the uses of genetic food but I worry about the control that huge multinationals such as Monsanto have. They will supply seeds for one year which will not germinate and thus they have the patents on food all over the world. That frightens me. We should debate it and have a report on it.
There are two distinct issues here. I agree with what the Chair has proposed and concur with what Senator Quinn and others have said about GM foods. The issue raises fundamental questions, as Senator Dardis has said, about our capacity to monitor all the material which is placed in front of the EU scrutiny committee on a two-weekly basis.
Those of us who are members and people who take any interest in this work recognise that it is onerous. Yesterday, we got the agenda for tomorrow and I do not know how many had the opportunity even to leaf through it. There are a modest enough number of draft directives in the agenda but they are fairly voluminous. We need to be realistic and recognise that with our present resources, and other commitments, there is a limit to what we can do. It would be foolish and foolhardy of us to raise expectations about what we can do, when in our hearts we know that we are not able to do it. What we can do is refer the draft directives to sectoral committees.
I assume that the committee takes what is referred to it seriously. If the directives which are referred to in the main committee receive the treatment they receive there and in another committee of which I am a member, then I am not confident that they get rigorous examination. That is far more serious than the generally cast motion which Deputy Mulcahy has proposed. I support the Chair in seeking a report from the Department of Health and Children.
We can answer the question in the Deputy's motion as to what part of the debate is taking place in the Dáil. There has been no debate except what we drag in tangentially when we speak. That is an area of procedure, scrutiny and accountability which has not been addressed. I do not know whether it can be addressed with the legislation which currently underpins our committee. We should await the report and should also look at whether all the pieces of the jigsaw are in place which would guarantee fundamental and serious scrutiny.
A number of us had an informal meeting with some Swedish delegates as parliamentarians last week. We heard about the amount of time, including weekends, spent by that Parliament in scrutinising documents. I wonder how seriously and rigorously we are able to address the tasks assigned to us.
This is a useful and important debate. I appreciate the urgency of it. It is in everybody's interest that we have serious debate on this issue. I do not know where the truth lies concerning all the assertions that are made. Some expect one to believe their allegations because they beat the drum louder than anyone else, while others expect one to believe their allegations because they spend more money in promoting that view.
It is a good idea to have a discussion as a foundation for that debate and a report will be useful. All I ask is that the issue be debated with reason and not emotion, with heads rather than hearts. We might then have some chance of getting close to where the truth lies on these issues, and perhaps get close to the type of system that, rationally, we should adopt to ensure we do not participate and allow anything that might be harmful to our people. Equally, we must ensure that we do not, for nonsensical reasons, refuse to allow in foods and other matters that would be of benefit to our people. I doubt that we will send in an immediate order for lizards but let us be sensible. I support the proposal that we initially get a report, study it, and let us then have a rational debate.
Ms McKenna, MEP
I do not know what this committee can do. There needs to be accountability here. The decision on BT 11 is imminent. We need to know what the Government's position is. This committee must have some role in demanding to know what the Government's position is and on what it is based. Can anything be done about this?
The issue of co-existence has to be addressed. Senator Quinn mentioned the issue of potential, but co-existence is something that has not been adequately addressed, even concerning the EU legislation on co-existence. That has to be included in either the resolution or the debate on this issue. It does not only affect those who want GMs, but also all the other farmers, conventional or otherwise, who do not. The scientific proof in the UK, in the only field trials of the kind carried out anywhere in the world over a three year period, gave it the thumbs down. That has to be taken into account.
Could the Chairman tell us what we could do about decision on BT 11 as the time——
I am not the Minister. When I was a Minister I could be asked a question. I chair a meeting of this Oireachtas committee at the moment.
Ms McKenna, MEP
Is there anything the committee can do to ask the Minister——
There are ways and means of raising matters in the House. As Deputy Carey has said, we cannot hope to cover the remit of every sectoral committee at this committee. I propose to ask for a report from the Department of Health and Children and when we get that, we will decide whether the European affairs committee needs to take it any further.
The motion only calls for a report. I was not trying to initiate a discussion on genetically modified foods; rather, it is an example. Senator Dardis and Deputy Carey have both identified the practical impossibility of covering all these issues which may carry across every subject head.
We have been referring to the democratic deficit. In effect, civil servants are making decisions which are not being scrutinised by national Parliament. That is the democratic deficit and is why people are entitled to feel there is a problem with Europe. This is why I point it out, and I wish to train the search-light on this. Perhaps we can return to the Oireachtas Commission and let it know that it is a serious problem and we need to increase our activities, have more resources, so that we can try to deal with these areas.
The Chairman has proposed that we seek a report from the Department of Health and Children on the issue itself, which we can consider at a later date, and that the EU scrutiny sub-committee receive a report on draft decisions being considered by the Commission and whether it has a role in them and that this be reported directly to the sub-committee. That concludes this matter.
I suggest the Chairman put a time on the receipt of the report from the Department of Health and Children and not leave it open-ended.
Within a month?
Within a month.
Before we go into private session, I welcome Ms Laura Real from Limerick University who is one of our students and has come to join us today. It is her first meeting, and I welcome her. That concludes the public part of the meeting.
The joint committee went into private session at 2.29 p.m. and adjourned at 2.47 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 11 February 2004.