I will take members through the document. The point I am trying to make is a procedural one. Regarding No. 1 on the document, on 11 February 1999 a proposal was made by a company to place this product on the market. On 8 December 2003, having gone through a scientific assessment, this matter came before the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in Brussels. If the decision had been made at that stage, this matter would never have come before the Oireachtas. That is what is known as the comitology procedure, as I understand it. It is a devolved authority which rests on the Commission under certain procedures of the Single European Act. Had the decision been made on that date the Irish public would never have heard about it.
On No. 2, because the official level committee could not agree by a qualified majority, it then had to go to the Council of Ministers and because it had to go before the Council, it came before the scrutiny committee here on 11 March 2004. We correctly referred it on to the health committee. We discussed it on 11 March 2004 but it was not until 13 May — No. 5 on the document — that it came before the Oireachtas health committee. That is a period of more than two months. During that two months, the Agriculture Council meeting took place on 26 April. Ireland voted in favour at that meeting but a qualified majority was not achieved.
Had the decision been taken at stage 4, European Council level, it would not have gone through the Oireachtas scrutiny process because the health committee did not have it in time, so to speak. I would be concerned that other proposals might be treated in the same way. In other words, items for discussion would be sent to sectoral committees but in the meantime the Council of Ministers would make a decision without the input of the Oireachtas. That is a serious matter.
Members will be aware from the document that on 13 May the Joint Committee on Health and Children unanimously rejected the proposal. On 19 May, the EU Commission decided to allow this product on to the market. It is a serious matter when the standing committee on health and the Council of Ministers cannot agree, and then an unelected body like the Commission makes the decision. That is not a reflection on the Commission; it has to make a decision. In many ways it is a reflection on the Council of Ministers. They have the sovereign power in Europe and they should decide whether to go forward with some proposal.
I am not just talking about decisions on genetically modified products. It could be a proposal on anything. The Council of Ministers should not abrogate their responsibility and leave it to an unelected body like the Commission because in ten years' time, when somebody asks about this decision and they are told it was made by the Commission, they will say the Commission is not an elected body. This case is an example of the democratic deficit.
I understand the legal basis for the comitology procedure stems from the Single European Act, which was passed by Ireland. The comitology procedure is as follows: once a framework regulation has been put in place, any number of decisions under that regulation can be taken by unelected bodies, bodies of civil servants or the Commission without referring back to the Council. This committee should brief the members on all the other areas where important decisions are being made under the comitology procedure because we may never hear about them. For all I know, decisions may have been made in 100 different areas which we will not hear about until they affect our lives in some way in ten or 20 years' time when it is too late to do anything about them.
I raise this issue not to discuss the substantive issue of GM foods — that was raised in the health committee — but to make the procedural point. We have to examine the timing involved here to ensure that it does not happen again.
