Vol. 508 No. 3
61 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if he met the United States Secretary for Agriculture in early 1998; if so, the purpose of the meeting; at whose initiative the meeting was arranged; the matters discussed at the meeting; the discussions, if any, which took place concerning Ireland's or the EU's position on genetically modified foods; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18727/99]
66 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if United States authorities made representations on 17 March 1998 or thereafter in relation to genetically modified crops; if so, the Government's response to these representations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18740/99]
96 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if Ireland participated in a vote at an Article 21 committee meeting in March 1998 or at any other time to approve the release of a genetically modified variety of maize; if Ireland voted in favour of the proposal; if so, the reason Ireland voted in this way; if he instructed his Department officials in relation to the vote; if he was lobbied by representatives of other Governments or by any commercial interests in connection with the vote; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18728/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 61, 66 and 96 together.
I refer to the reply to Questions Nos. 139 of 2 February 1999 and 31, 55 and 102 of 3 March 1999 in which I indicated that I was not lobbied directly by the US National Security Adviser, Mr. Sander Berger, in relation to genetically modified crops. However, during the Taoiseach's visit to the United States in March 1998 the issue of Ireland's attitude to genetically modified products on the EU market was raised in the margins of unrelated meetings by members of the US administration, including Mr. Berger. This was conveyed to me by the Taoiseach's office in the context of Ireland's position on four marketing proposals which were considered at a meeting of EU member states on 18 March 1999.
I was not personally lobbied by representatives of any other Governments or by any commercial interests in connection with these four votes. However, a letter from the Canadian embassy to my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, in relation to one of the proposals, a genetically modified oilseed rape product, was passed on to me.
In the reply of 3 March 1999 I also placed on the record of the House my meeting in Dublin with the US Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Richard Rominger, on 26 March 1998 during which the issue of Ireland's position on the marketing notifications was also raised. This meeting was a courtesy call on foot of a request from the United States in the course of a short visit to this country by Mr. Rominger and his wife. We discussed developments in genetic engineering, particularly in relation to environmental considerations. We did not discuss genetically modified foods specifically, as responsibility for legislation in this area rests with my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children.
With regard to the four marketing notifications on which member states were invited to vote at the meeting on 18 March 1999, three related to genetically modified maize products and one to a herbicide tolerant oilseed rape product. The four notifications had been referred by the European Commission to the relevant EU scientific committees and there was no reason to believe that they would cause any adverse effects on human health or the environment. All four notifications received qualified majority support and marketing consent was approved. Ireland supported only one of the maize products, sponsored by AgroEvo France, and abstained on the other three. While Ireland had not previously voted to approve the release of a genetically modified maize product, we previously voted in favour of a number of other genetically modified products, including soya beans, chicory and oilseed rape. At the March 1998 vote my overall preference was to abstain in individual votes pending the completion of the national consultation process. However, in the case in question, particularly in view of the advice from the EU scientific committees, I took the view that it would be inappropriate that this preference should affect the wider Community position. Ireland was represented at the meeting by an official of my Department who acted on my instructions.
Will the Minister confirm that the date on which the discussions took place between Mr. Berger and the Taoiseach was 17 March 1998, the day before the EU meeting on 18 March? Did the message conveyed to him from the Taoiseach's Department before the meeting on 18 March relate specifically to the maize plant in favour of which Ireland voted? On the Minister's statement that Ireland's voting position was taken on his direct instructions, did he instruct his officials attending the meeting to vote in favour of the maize plant to which he referred?
It is my understanding that the discussion took place on or around 17 March. I do not have an exact date but I presume it took place on St. Patrick's Day, during the Taoiseach's visit to the United States in March 1998. The message I received did not refer to the specific product for which Ireland voted. It was a general message relating to the votes in the European Union and the importance that was attached to them. What was the Deputy's third question?
Did the Minister instruct his officials to vote for the maize plant?
Yes, I did.
The Minister said that the basis on which Ireland voted in favour of this maize plant, the first time Ireland voted in favour of a genetically modified crop at European level, was scientific advice? On what basis did he give instructions to his officials attending the meeting and were those instructions issued after he received the communication from the Taoiseach's office?
This was not the first time Ireland voted approval for GMO products. Ireland voted to approve such products in 11 cases since 1991. We voted against approval in four cases and we abstained in five cases. The five cases in which we abstained were ones in which I was involved directly. There were approximately 20 cases and we voted for approval in 11 cases. The vote took place, if I recall rightly, on 18 March which was after I had a conversation with someone from the Taoiseach's office.
What was the basis of that?
Did Ireland's vote on 18 March make a difference? If we had abstained, as we have done on other occasions, would the result be the same as the one we have now? Have other representations been made, through the Taoiseach's office, directly to the Minister from the United States Secretary for Agriculture?
I do not mean this as a smart answer, but whether a person votes for something, against it or abstains, has an effect on the outcome. I have replied to the question I was asked. The only contact I had with Mr. Rominger was when he visited here on the 26th, a week after the vote took place in Europe. He was anxious to point out the importance of GM foods to the economy of the US and I was equally anxious to point out the serious concerns people of Ireland and of other members states of Europe had in relation to genetically modified foods. One could say the result of the meeting we had was that we agreed to disagree on the issue overall during the course of that conversation.
Does the Minister think it was appropriate to instruct his officials to vote in favour of the release of genetically modified organisms on foot of lobbying from the US Government at a time when he was supposedly engaged in consultation with a range of interests in this country to formulate Irish Government policy on genetically modified organisms?
Deputy, it was as appropriate to instruct an official to vote for it as it was to instruct an official to vote against it or to abstain.
It appears that following a call from the Taoiseach's office the Minister spoke to Secretary Berger.
The Deputy asked me if I thought it was appropriate to instruct an official to vote for this and I said I thought it was as appropriate to instruct an official to vote for this as against it when we had not finalised our position on this and consultation was taking place on it.
The Taoiseach met Sandy Berger on 17 March—
Deputy, I will hear a brief final supplementary as we want to move on to another question.
Was the Minister not pre-empting the entire consultative process over genetically modified foods by voting in line with lobbying which had taken place the day before, between Secretary Berger of the United States and the Taoiseach?
Was I pre-empting the whole process of consultation when I abstained on a whole series of votes prior to that and when I voted against others more recently? The Deputy's argument does not hold water.
The Minister was leaned on to vote in favour of it. He made a joke of it.
