I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with special responsibility for food and horticulture, Deputy Sargent, who is here to discuss food labelling. I also welcome his officials from the Department. Officials from the Department of Health and Children are also in attendance and they are all very welcome. I call on the Minister of State to make his opening statement.
Food Labelling: Discussion with Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Tá áthas orm bheith anseo chun an ábhar tábhachtach seo a phlé. Ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil na hoifigigh atá anseo ag déileáil leis an dá Roinn — an Roinn Talmhaíochta, Iascaigh agus Bia agus an Roinn Sláinte agus Leanaí. Tá Mr. Joe Shortall, ón food safety division; Mr. Mick Cronin, ón meat policy division; agus Mr. John Keegan agus Mr. Brendan Tuohy, ón Roinn Sláinte agus Leanaí i láthair anseo.
My Department and I share the view that the existing requirements on the indication of country of origin on foodstuffs should be improved. In 2002 the food labelling group established by the then Minister recommended that information on the origin of meat sold in retail outlets should be declared. Other studies, conducted by Bord Bia, for example, found that the majority of Irish shoppers checked for origin information. Origin is by no means the only, or even the main, item of information of interest to shoppers. Quality and competitiveness are very significant considerations. Nevertheless, many people want origin information and some may wish to tailor their choices in line with their preferences as to origin. I see no good reason consumers should be deprived of origin information; they can then make whatever purchasing decisions they wish.
Another important consideration is the problem of misleading the consumer as to origin. Various practices can create a false impression. These include the sale of imported products under familiar brand names and the use of traditional script or artwork or even the Irish language on packs containing imported products. I am of the view that existing legislation does not provide strong enough grounds for counteracting these practices.
Members are probably aware that my Department drafted national legislation that would require the origin to be included on labels of poultry, pigmeat and sheepmeat and on products containing 70% or more of these meats. Beef is already adequately catered for under EU legislation. The proposed national legislation was prepared in consultation with the Department of Health and Children, as the Health Act would be the legal basis for such a measure. The draft regulations were notified to the European Commission in December last year as required by the EU labelling directive. The Commission issued a negative opinion on our proposal in March but left the way open for further communications on the subject. Since then we have been exchanging correspondence to explain and press our case. There have also been meetings between departmental and Commission officials.
The main points made by the Department in support of its proposal are that consumers are being misled as to origin and that current legislation is not effective in preventing misleading origin indications. Also, surveys show consumers are interested in origin and we believe they are entitled to this information. According to a Bord Bia survey, 72% of consumers check for origin when shopping. The main European Commission argument is that only rules harmonised for the whole European Union are permissible, that national legislation creates a barrier to trade within the single market and that the indication of origin should be voluntary rather than compulsory. The Commission has issued another negative opinion on our proposal and will probably shortly adopt a formal decision prohibiting Ireland from bringing the proposed legislation into effect. A draft of such a decision was examined by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, SCOFCAH, on 13 October. While many member states understand our position, the overwhelming view is that only legislation adopted at EU level and applied in a harmonised manner throughout the Union is permissible. Separate from this matter, the European Commission has brought forward a proposal to consolidate and revamp the legislation on general food labelling. As it stands, it would not require compulsory country of origin labelling. It would, however, establish new criteria under which national rules on origin labelling would be assessed by the Commission. In particular, member states may be permitted to introduce measures concerning the mandatory indication of origin where there is a proven link between certain qualities of a food and its place of origin. In such cases it would be necessary to prove that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of this information.
When the Commission adopted the recent negative opinion it advised that we could use the forum of the new legislation, if and when adopted, to pursue our ambitions. I expect that this new legislation will not be in place for a couple of years. The sooner it is, the better. I would prefer to see an unequivocal mandatory provision in the new legislation requiring the country of origin to be indicated on food in all cases. The Department has fed into the public consultation on the proposal conducted by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland where, in particular, we emphasised our desire for compulsory origin information. These views are also known by the Department of Health and Children, which will take them into account in the course of discussions on the new proposals in Brussels.
At this stage, the best course of action open to us is to seek to have the proposed new EU labelling regulation amended to better reflect our position on compulsory origin labelling. In this regard, my Department will continue to work with the Department of Health and Children to this end in the course of the relevant negotiations. Both I and the Minister of State with responsibility for food safety at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Mary Wallace, have been meeting on an ongoing basis to ensure no stone is left unturned and we push this as expeditiously as possible. That follows my meetings with the former Minister at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher.
As I have mentioned previously, local food diversity and the development of the protected geographical identifications for products would enhance labelling and inform consumers concerning the origin of the food they are buying. As it is clear that Irish consumers are concerned with the origin of their food, I would encourage all operators in our food sector to explore and exploit these opportunities to their advantage and to that of the consumer.
The protected geographical indicator, or PGI, designation is something UCC has been working assiduously to promote. I recommend it to anyone in the food sector who wishes to make the progeny and origin of the food they are producing clearer. It is another very important opportunity on which my Department, as well as UCC, would be happy to advise.
I thank the Minister of State for the clarity of his remarks. It is disappointing to note that an impediment is being put in the way of this at a European level. Generally, the directives emanating from Europe are pretty sensible. It is often in the transposition of the directives into national law that we bring the European Union into disrepute.
I am disappointed that there is a clear impediment emerging at European level to our request for clarity regarding labelling for country of origin. I would like the Minister of State to provide more information on the European dynamic of that, where the resistance is coming from and the reasons for it. I thought the European Union had a strong track record on protecting consumer interests, and this is largely about consumer interests.
I would like the Minister of State to ask his Department to consider making available to all Members a document indicating the respective roles of his Department, the Department of Health and Children, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the European Commission, where primary responsibility rests regarding labelling and the information conveyed in labelling, and a synopsis of the current situation. I appreciate the clarity of what we have heard today.
We have emerged miraculously and fortuitously, thanks to an outside investor, from another calamity in food labelling in the poultry sector, and did so by the skin of our teeth. Notwithstanding the adverse impact the new entity will have regarding terms and conditions of employment, I welcome that jobs have been saved at Cappoquin and I hope that company will prosper.
We have lost too many industries. Only a few months ago Grove Turkeys went, and the list is long in the poultry and other white meat sectors. I would like to hear more from the Minister of State on the dynamic at a European level, because it is very disappointing. I note that in terms of a directive that was up for consideration before us a number of weeks ago, the Commission seemed to be going in the opposite direction, facilitating, if I interpreted the directive properly, the further importation of poultry meats from third countries rather than assisting the industry within the European Union to survive against very difficult competitors.
I would also like the Minister of State to comment on the problems in the aftermath of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty regarding progressing policy issues such as this at a European level.
I am trying to read between the lines and interpret the Minister of State's speech after just one hearing. If I am not mistaken, this is a glaring admission that the Government has no power to change the labelling regime because the European Commission argues that unless rules are harmonised throughout the EU as a whole, no changes can occur and national legislation would create a barrier to trade and potentially impinge on the Single Market rules. That is my interpretation of the Minister of State's remarks.
We are in situation where the issue of substantial transformation — if I interpret the Minister of State's speech correctly — will not now be dealt with as an urgent matter in the immediate future. The question arises whether there will be a labelling regime that will give comfort to those who have purchased products, who want to know whether the product has been substantially transformed and whether the label will state as much. If I interpret correctly the Minister of State's contribution to the committee today, I would say no such legislation is forthcoming.
What was the timeline, choreography or chronology of the interaction between the Minister of State and the Commission or the between the Government and the Commission? I understand that on 25 June last, the Irish authorities re-notified the draft regulations which were not accepted by the Commission on 12 March. I want to know what transpired between 12 March, 25 June and today.
Is there a provision that allows for labelling to be made clearer and can one get around the rules of the European Union framework that would allow one to say whether a product has been substantially transformed? A significant proportion of the food industry in Ireland substantially transforms its product. There could be a significant reduction in that market if consumers were to have full facts on the products they purchase daily and were to know the product had been substantially transformed in any way. That would have a negative impact on the market.
If one is going to substantially transform something, one should tell people it is to be substantially transformed and let the consumer decide. If I want to buy something that is substantially transformed such as a packet of rashers or another meat product, if I happen to like that product, I will buy it anyway but if I have information on whether it has been substantially transformed, at least that will assist me in my purchasing decision. However, there is no regulation or policing of the packaging regime.
The Minister of State is saying frankly that the new legislation will not be in place for a couple of years and that even at that stage, if I am interpreting it correctly, it will be on the basis of each member state producing, of its own volition, a mandatory indication. If that is to happen in a few years, why is it not happening now? That is the big question. It seems from the Minister of State's contribution that things will not change. Anyone who has concerns about the issue of substantial transformation, or the labelling regime as a whole, will not be provided with any comfort from the Minister of State's statement.
Things have moved on. I will explain when I get a chance.
Would the Minister of State prefer if I brought in three or four members or all at once?
To be fair to members, it is easier if I answer their questions directly rather than having a round robin.
I will take one more.
Ba mhaith liom fíor fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit inniu. I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. Like previous speakers, I am very disappointed with the resistance of the European Commission to dealing with this very serious issue. As has been said, we have lost industries and consumers are certainly losing confidence, as they do not know what they are purchasing. They are being fed all kinds of stories in the media, some of which are true. Cappoquin Chickens is only eight miles from my home, although it is in a different constituency. I am glad to say it has survived but, as has been said, we have lost other valuable industries. We will have to fight hard on the issue of labelling and products coming from outside the European Union into this country.
I thank the Minister of State for his interest in and support of farmers' markets. He visited markets in my county recently. I hope we can make progress on this issue.
With regard to Deputy Creed's comments, Italy has been our best ally and shown how things could be. It has gone ahead with country of origin labelling and now finds itself in the European Court of Justice defending its decision legally. Whether this is helpful or a hindrance, it ups the ante. However, it is too early to tell what effect it will have. Unfortunately, as Deputy Sherlock mentioned, there are interests which are as vehemently opposed to country of origin labelling as others are in favour. The Commission is being browbeaten on both sides. It is also being threatened with action by the World Trade Organisation if it endorses any impediment to trade. Everything must be based on quality and health.
There is a call to action with regard to climate change which the WTO has indicated has health impacts. I will be arguing strongly that country of origin labelling should be seen as a health issue in that sense because it encourages localised consumption of food and is, therefore, beneficial in mitigating the effects of climate change. We need to consider all angles, look at the rule book and see if we can play the game and get a result we all want. That is an element of the Commission's thinking on which it is open to suggestion. If we can tell it the labelling system is necessary from the point of view of health and quality, it is more open than if it is said to be in the interests of Cappoquin Chickens or a particular industry.
Or in the interests of consumers.
Exactly. The consumer will be primarily interested in quality. That is why he or she goes for the Irish product.
Another element of the rules is that country of origin becomes a factor if it makes a material difference. This is similar to substantial transformation. How does one go into a court of law and say there is a material difference? Perhaps it is the fact that I have a cousin working in Cappoquin Chickens who will be out of a job if I do not buy its product. That could be seen as a material difference, but the court is the arbiter in that regard and I do not know whether there has been any legal test of material difference. We may be clutching at straws but that is the nature of the way in which the Commission has framed the ruling.
I do not see the Lisbon treaty as a factor in where we are. The issue of labelling is being dealt with on the basis of health and quality, as well as provenance. From what I can gather the treaty is not a factor.
Substantial transformation, like material difference, is one of those woolly concepts. Where does it begin and end? What exactly does it mean and who is going to lay down the law? I disagree with Deputy Sherlock in that I do see light at the end of the tunnel, although it may be longer than any of us would like. The new legislation on general labelling proposed by the Commission on 30 January this year aims to make labels clearer and remove any misleading aspects. That is where substantial transformation is in the dock, because it is far from clear and very misleading. The information I have on the draft regulations mentions that if butter, for example, is made in Belgium using milk from Denmark, it must be labelled as, "Produced in Belgium from Danish milk". This would also apply to chicken or other products. It will be a requirement. It will not be a case of leaving unsaid the country of origin before the substantial transformation. It must be stated a product is produced in one country using a material from another, if that is the case. That is a big step forward compared to where we have been.
The sooner we can get this legislation in place the sooner it will benefit us, if we can amend it. We are in a team here — the European Union. Therefore, we must try to win friends and influence in that way.
When it comes to country of origin, the proposal is that place of provenance labelling be voluntary. What we are striving to do across both Departments dealing with this issue — the Department of Health and Children acts on our behalf, although we are naturally very involved and would like to be even more involved — is to change this from voluntary to mandatory country of origin labelling. If we can change the requirement from voluntary to mandatory then we will have country of origin labelling. This might not be the way we proposed it in the legislation, which was rejected, but we will have it.
There are those who would argue that even voluntary labelling would be a great help because it would impose a certain moral obligation on a company that does not reveal country of origin. That company would be shown up because others will use this labelling. However, I do not believe that is sufficient and a mandatory rule must be our objective. In this instance I am posing the other argument.
I am not the senior Minister but on a State visit I had the opportunity to meet with the Minister for Agriculture in Norway. That is an interesting example because that country is not in the EU but operates by a lot of EU rules. It is a member of the European Environment Agency, EEA, which is a broader umbrella than the EU. Like Ireland, Norway depends greatly on quality assurance schemes and that is where it stands. It does not have a vote at the Council of Ministers and is therefore more or less depending on the rest of us to improve matters.
Here we see the issue as straightforward because country of origin labelling is what we want. Even in Ireland, however, there will be elements of the food sector that will not be as enthusiastic about this. It might suit their importing tradition to have the situation less clear than we want it to be. Notwithstanding that, I take the point Deputy Creed made. The consumer wants country of origin labelling and the European Commission, if it is to be beholden to anybody, should be beholden to the consumers of the European Union. We must continue to force the issue and we have the basis to do this because we have the legislation on general labelling which the European Commission has finally produced. It would be great had it been brought in earlier but it is proceeding apace and it is to be hoped that we will have country of origin labelling as a result.
I asked about the timeline, between March when the Commission gave its negative opinion and when the Irish authorities re-notified the Commission as to its position, and where we stand today.
I am reading Mr. Cronin's writing here concerning the dates. We met the Commission in July and wrote to it in August. The Minister wrote in September and the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, SCFCAH, meeting was in October. That will give the Deputy a calendar of events.
I am not satisfied. I accept what the Minister of State said about the moves taking place at present but what the people want to know, and what I would like to know, is whether there is sufficient political willingness to address this issue head on. My view is that there is not. I believe the Commission and the other member states will kick this matter to touch for another while and we might be back here in three years time with no movement on it. That is why I wonder about the timelines so far. Why did the Government go through the process if we are now at a stage where there will ultimately be a new regime anyway?
The reason for the new regime is a result of the rí-rá and ruaille-buaille that we created. It is a response to the demands that we drove. Unfortunately, it so happens that the legislation we proposed does not meet the Commission's requirements and it tells us that it is not prepared to accept it. What it is prepared to accept, however, is this more harmonised general labelling proposal which gives us the framework to do what we wished to in the first place. This is frustrating, particularly after we drove it with our officials constantly coming back and beating their heads off the wall on this issue.
To be honest, I do not know what else we might have done. If the Deputy has any suggestions he must let me know. The Italians said they were going ahead with this in a "to hell with it anyway" mode, and they are now held up in court. Perhaps that is a nicer place to wait than in the Commission but one way or another it is a roadblock.
We are working on the basis of something that I assume is in the programme for Government, and on the basis of a commitment by the Government. That is the basis on which we ask these questions. It might be wise and might be the most honest thing if the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, were to state publicly that the labelling regime in this country will not now be changed and that the Government must go through more rí-rá agus ruaille-buaille, as the Minister of State so described it, with the member states, and that there will be no outcome for a number of years. That might perhaps be the most honest public statement to make on the issue, as a bridging statement to address the concerns of——
I do not accept that.
——people who are worried about food labelling.
(Interruptions).
I am not going to give the Commission the satisfaction of saying that we are going to sit back and see what happens in three years time. This will be pressed every inch of the way.
Before I call on Deputy White, I ask members to stay back at the end of this meeting to discuss a particular issue on which they have received information in book form regarding bio-fuel production in Europe.
Oil at about 70 cents a day.
I warmly welcome the Minister of State to the meeting.
Deputy Sherlock shows breathtaking political naiveté on this issue.
How?
The Deputy should speak through the Chair.
I compliment the Minister of State for bringing forward the food labelling issue which is very important to the consumers of this country. As one of the 72% who consistently and regularly makes sure to buy Irish every time I shop, if I cannot buy Irish I make sure that I know exactly what I am buying. I do not want to require a microscope to look at the small print and detail. This is a very important issue for consumers. We must fight this together with the rest of our European Union neighbours in the best interests of consumers. I do not accept that this is a negative issue.
I see great possibilities here, particularly because the European Commission is bringing forward a proposal to consolidate and revamp the legislation on general food labelling. I ask the Minister of State to expand on this. He said it would be necessary to prove that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of this information. That should be something about which we should be able to network around the Commission table, to see if we can achieve the legislation.
We are in a great position in Ireland. We are an island, we produce wonderful food, we have farmers who give us that food and we have consumers who want to buy it. All that is missing is the clear dynamic label. We cannot sit on our laurels and throw our hands up——
We do not have laurels to sit on because the Government has done nothing about this issue for the past year.
Our reputation as producer of quality food in this country should be enhanced by good labelling and I believe we are on the way there. I say, good on Italy. If the Italians are pushing out the boat to show the Commission how important this is we can do the same.
One does not have only a battering ram, however. It is part of a negotiating process and we are a part of it with our colleagues throughout Europe. This is what we want and there is a political will in this regard. It is in the programme for Government and the Government has four years to run. We will achieve it.
I am disappointed the Commission is not more supportive of the proposal and I am even more disappointed that we only have one ally in Europe on this matter, namely, the Italians. This is a very serious issue for the country.
We produce some of the best food in the world. I do not suggest that the Minister is not taking the matter seriously, but it is important for the country that we can showcase our food, whether it is pigmeat, sheepmeat or poultry. The proposal is important for those who produce such foods here on a large scale and the survival or otherwise of many of these companies is at stake. Large scale job losses could ensue, which we cannot afford.
There are also serious implications for people, whom I know, who have taken up production of organic food, whether it is chickens, pigs or whatever. This work represents a significant part of the income of many people, whether small farmers or otherwise. Such people produce a good product that should be clearly identified and labelled as produced in Ireland.
It is very important that we find allies from wherever we can to pursue this matter. We may have to go and meet people from other European countries. What is wrong in these countries? Are they afraid of this proposal? The fact is that we have only one ally in Europe. Are other countries afraid of identifying their product by labelling the place of origin?
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent. I too am disappointed that we have not progressed further with the legislation and that it is being blocked. I compliment the Minister of State and the Department for the draft legislation for the inclusion of labelling and origin of sheepmeat, pigmeat and poultry. It is disappointing that we cannot progress matters and that the Commission seems to block progress.
I understand that we are all in the EU together. I have concerns about food imported from outside the EU, especially poultry imported to Ireland, repackaged here and sold as if it originated here. I seek the introduction of legislation to prevent such practices. The main point is that the consumer seeks security and protection in the consumption of food and wishes to know the source of it. Ideally when one goes to a shop or supermarket to buy food one should be able to examine the packaging and labelling and see that a given product comes from a particular source or origin. I recognise that cost implications come with such a measure and that there are cost implications also associated with the practice of voluntary labelling, which is the reason people do not engage in it.
I wish to see the legislation brought forward and I am disappointed that the Commission will not allow us to do this. The Italians have produced such legislation. I am disappointed that we are not bringing forward EU legislation that would cover all countries in Europe, including Ireland.
The Minister of State referred to the matter of beef. I question whether the issues arising with beef are adequately covered in the proposal. People in Ireland are not happy. There was a problem with the labelling and importation of Brazilian beef. For example, if one goes to a restaurant and requests steak one does not really know the origin of it. One can ask about the source, but what proof is there that one is eating Irish beef or French beef——
One knows as soon as one starts to eat it.
It is impossible to know and I seek greater security and labelling regulations. I am disappointed that the EU Commissioner is stalling on the issue and preventing the legislation from progressing sooner rather than later. I recognise legislation is proposed by the Commission and a timescale of some years was mentioned.
Restaurant legislation was introduced in 2006. It is obligatory to label in restaurants and the catering sector.
The Minister of State indicated that it will take from two to three years before the legislation on mandatory indication of origin for certain foods is ready.
It will be 2009 at the earliest.
Perhaps the Deputy could ask his question and the Minister of State can then reply to all questions together later.
The delay is disappointing and it is one of the questions which concerns me. I hope we can proceed in some other way and somehow ensure adequate labelling. I hope we can produce food, label it accordingly, and sell it whether inside or outside Europe.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, to the committee and wish him well. However, I am disappointed with the information he has conveyed. He said that in 2002 the food labelling group established by the then Minister for Agriculture and Food recommended that information on the origin of meat sold in retail outlets should be declared. I acknowledge this was a step in the right direction. However, apparently it has now come up against a stumbling block in the European Union.
The Union is using its big stick to instruct Ireland to behave itself and not to breach its laws. It is no wonder the result of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty was as it was here. People now realise they are being governed from Europe and not from Dublin.
I was disappointed to hear some of the details in the Minister of State's address. He stated that 72% of shoppers require information on the country and region of origin. He further stated that we have only one ally in Europe, namely, Italy. Has the Minister of State been to France recently, or consulted the French authorities?
I did not say we only had one ally in Europe. I explained what the Italians have done.
Fine. The French are doing an excellent job with labelling at food outlets, and I have seen this in France. The country and region of origin is labelled on their food and in their large supermarkets. If the Government pressed its case hard enough in Europe the Commission would be obliged to listen. When Ireland joined the EEC more than 30 years ago we were told we would be the bread basket of Europe. Instead we are going downhill more than uphill, which is a sad situation.
The main argument of the Commission is that only harmonised rules applicable for the whole Union are permissible. It is outlandish for the European Commission to state as much. Since Ireland can produce the best food in the world, why can we not avail of labelling and let the world know that we have the best food?
The Commission has issued another negative opinion on the Minister of State's proposal and it will shortly adopt a formal decision prohibiting Ireland from bringing the proposed legislation into effect. Soon it will tell us what we can and cannot eat and drink. I am sick and tired of dictation from Europe. We seem to be the best Europeans in the whole Union. While other countries can draw horse and cart through every proposal initiated in Brussels and Strasbourg, we seem to accept the dictation that comes from there. It is time for Ireland to stand on its own two feet. We have the best food in the world. The Minister of State said that beef is well covered——
It is in legislation. I do not claim the enforcement is perfect.
One can get steaks in some parts of the country that are not labelled with the country of origin.
That is illegal.
One does not know if they come from the slopes of the Andes or from Adare in Limerick.
The Deputy should give me the evidence and the details, and I will follow it up. Deputy Sheehan has just reported a crime.
One cannot report a crime when the steak is served up and one does not know the country of origin. The crime is evident if one cannot chew it. That is the situation pertaining all over Ireland. There are supermarkets selling meat and poultry products that may come from China, but because it is stuffed with stuffing here it can be labelled "product of Ireland".
The time has come for us to stand in our own shoes and let Europe know. In France one can go into a supermarket and buy fresh salmon from their rivers. One will not get fresh salmon from the rivers in Ireland because the French and Spanish have caught all of them before they come up from the river estuaries. Our fishermen are put off catching them because they were allowed fish for six bare weeks in the summer. The French and the Spanish are scooping them all up by the hundreds of thousands.
We are discussing labelling.
The time has come for reality to prevail. I admired the Minister of State since he entered public life but the time has come for him to stand up to this wretched bureaucracy from Europe. What was wrong with our products being labelled? In the south west of Ireland we had beautiful labelling, the fuchsia label, which was known internationally. Why can we not avail of it?
There is nothing to stop the Deputy using that label.
The Minister of State's proposal has stated that the Commission said it is forbidden. The Commission will probably adopt a formal decision shortly, prohibiting Ireland from bringing the proposed legislation into effect.
It is mandatory.
The Minister of State should wake up.
I will do my best given the litany of comments and questions. They are all useful but need to be answered, hopefully succinctly. Deputy White began that round, and asked if consumers could be encouraged to make it clear that they want country of origin labelling. The surveys make it very clear, and on top of that there are one or more postcard schemes to the Commission to let them know, in no uncertain terms, that Irish people want country of origin labels. We are, and I propose we remain, members of the EU, notwithstanding some of the comment I heard, which could be interpreted otherwise. The EU member states are made up of communities, including their consumers, who all think very differently.
One may say, and I agree, that the wait is too long. There is a three-year implementation period for implementation of the new legislation we are working at the Commission to produce. There are 11 member states who want that period to be even longer. They want five years, to allow their food sector to adjust — I do not know how long the printing contracts to get new labels are — but they feel they want longer to implement it. There are different opinions around the table at the EU. I have great faith that Irish consumers will let their views be strongly known. We need to ensure consumers outside Ireland do that too, because the European Commission does not just represent Ireland.
Most EU consumers are happy to have EU origin. They only make a distinction between non-EU and EU origin. Deputy Sheehan mentioned France. The French have a very similar, if not identical, scheme to that of Bord Bia for quality assurance. They have their French flag on it, we have our tricolour, and that satisfies the need of most people for country of origin, along with quality. Norway also has something similar. France — we also have this even though we have not exploited it — also has protected geographical indicator status. That could be country of origin, but more often than not it is locally, regionally, distinct food products. France has developed this to a huge extent, partly because it began with the wine and spirit sector in which France is very strong. They have developed it into cheeses, breads, cured meats and a range of food.
Finland has three different PGIs for potatoes; they have 15 altogether and three are distinct potatoes. They also have particularly sweet strawberries, because they have a long period of sun in the summer, and they have indicated that is unique and counts as a Norwegian strawberry. They have used the legislation that is there. They have not complained about it, although they are putting pressure in different ways on the Commission. They are also taking advantage of what is there.
France has approximately 55 PGI labels. This includes things like champagne and cognac. In Italy they have Parmesan cheese. Italy has approximately 65 PGIs. Ireland has only four.
We could have had poitín if it was legalised.
I will deal with what is legal. I will try to use terms to best articulate it. Deputy Sheehan can understand if Cork is playing in Croke Park and there is a chance for a point to be scored — one wants a country of origin, which is the goal and the big prize — like a protected geographical indicator from a region, such as fuchsia, and there are many points. One will win the match anyway but it might not be as tidy as if one had a few goals.
Countries such as France convey the fact they are a food producing country by having a multiplicity of protected geographical indicators. Italy is similar, although they are not happy. Ireland has four, compared to 55 in France. Norway has 15, and they are looking for more.
If there is a product that is distinctive, in the way it is made or the conditions, such as the tidal conditions for Clare Island salmon that give a unique flavour for their products, food producers have an opportunity which no-one is stopping them from using. In terms of overall labelling, we have a fight on our hands; we are fighting and we are getting results. We are closer now that we ever have been. We have voluntary labelling and we want mandatory labelling. We can see, incrementally, that we are making progress. We would like it to be faster. Meanwhile there is a whole side of the park that is free to play on and we must also play that side of the field, and get our protected geographical indicator numbers up so that Bord Bia can refer to these distinctive products when we go to various food fairs around the world. One should support that as well as country of origin. Deputy O'Sullivan said that some states want different things. The countries that want a longer period are those we have to convince that it is not in anybody's interest to have any delay in bringing in the new legislation on country of origin.
How many of those countries are there?
There are 11 member states that have expressed a wish for a longer lead-in period. We should be able to convince them that it is not necessary to wait that long. Basically, they are trying to protect their own food sectors which have told them that they cannot make changes that quickly. Therefore, we have to argue the case otherwise. Likewise, organic producers will have a considerable advantage because most of our beef goes into Europe. I remind Deputy Aylward that most of the chicken that is imported comes from other European countries. I know he referred to a minority coming from——
Allow the Minister of State to finish. The Deputy may ask a supplementary question afterwards.
The vast majority comes from other EU countries, so it is EU produce. We might prefer if it was Irish produce. I certainly would. However, this is the reality. The organic producers are definitely getting a much better market opportunity in other EU countries because other countries want to buy organic produce. They have had a huge increase in demand for such produce. Countries are free to bring in voluntary labelling——
I was not referring to the Minister of State but to another meeting that took place.
Countries are free to bring in voluntary labelling. One can put "Fuchsia" on the label. That is perfectly in order and I hope more people do it. Germany is taking advantage of this voluntary labelling as well in a way that we have to look at very closely. In Germany the pig producers got together to see how they can get market advantage and are introducing a voluntary label which would indicate that their pigmeat is produced from non-GM feed. That is one of their voluntary labels. We are endeavouring to sell our pigmeat. The consumer in Germany will see the German label and will not see a corresponding label on other product. That is the way the European countries are using the rules within the rules. As well as seeking to change the rules and improve the situation with country of origin, we need to see how we can make use of existing rules. That applies also to protected geographical indicators and looking at what other countries are doing. It is not all about fighting to change the rule, it is also about making use of the rules that have been put in place, with consumers in mind, to our advantage.
On a comment the Minister of State made about the different countries wanting different time frames, I do not think there is any consumer anywhere in the EU who wants to be misled. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland's consultation process that concluded in September asked what food labels mean. The fundamental rule of labelling of foodstuffs is that consumers should not be misled. It goes on to speak about origin and states that the origin of a product must be declared, only where its absence might mislead the consumer to a material degree as to the true origin of the foodstuff. Consumers could be misled through pictorial representations, such as a flag or map of a country other than the one in which it was produced. Within those parameters, can we put the EU Commission on notice that on that basis we are adopting a country of origin labelling. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland also deals with labelling of ingredients. It also deals with the issue of food safety and levels of salt. Perhaps the Minister of State would clarify the role of the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health and Children and give an overview on how those Departments work. The Minister of State mentioned the branding of different products and the Bord Bia quality mark.
Consumers could be misled through pictorial representations, such as a flag or map of a country other than the one in which it was produced. Within those parameters, can we put the EU Commission on notice that on that basis we are adopting a country of origin labelling? The Food Safety Authority of Ireland also deals with labelling of ingredients. It also deals with the issue of food safety and levels of salt. Perhaps the Minister of State would clarify the role of the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health and Children and give an overview on how those Departments work. The Minister of State mentioned the branding of different products and the Bord Bia quality mark.
The PGIs.
Yes, protected geographical indicators. Coupled with that, is there not a subtle positive marketing campaign for Bord Bia to indicate that by buying a Féile Bia or a Bord Bia quality assured product one can be sure of the product? We should put the message forward without trying to knock anybody. It is probably not a matter for this committee but it is unfortunate that the Bord Bia budget has been cut even though it is taking on the marketing role of Bord Iascaigh Mhara. If we are to adopt that role, the PGIs and the branding, the Department needs to go out and encourage regional co-operative movements. I have said this repeatedly. There is also the whole issue of abattoirs. From Wicklow, I could think of a name "Garden County Products", for instance, that could have a resonance with people if it was encouraged. We need to get in, whether it is through the new Leader, or whatever it is called, in conjunction with the Department, to make a serious effort to develop that end of the market. That will allow for traditionally produced food, organic food and more intensive food, with proper branding. It is the points in Croke Park effort we are talking about. We need to coach people how to take points, if we are to use the analogy the Minister of State used.
There is no point in saying Lisbon does not have an effect. If it is a fact that we are being sold, as Deputy Sheahan said, a decision prohibiting Ireland's development with regard to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's basic premise on food labelling, and if that is to be the regime that is handed down, it will be hard to tell people that the enhanced EU membership we seek is good for us.
The recent US farm Bill which was signed into law during the summer made it mandatory for country of origin labelling of fruit, vegetables and meat before the WTO deal collapsed. They were prepared to do it and they also increased the level of food coupons that would be available. They were out there to protect their market. I do not see why the EU cannot do the same and within that concept that we cannot go with the PGI model and use the Department to roll it out.
Will the Chairman look at the possibility of us going to Norway to see at first-hand the strawberries mentioned by the Minister of State because my mouth was watering while he spoke about them? Being probably one of the most naive here, Deputy Mary White has shown some naivety herself when she said there is four years to go in this Government.
We know on our side.
I would like to think I know a fair bit about labelling and its benefits. I was a butcher in my former life and on the blackboard I had to put the name of the farmer, the herd number, the number of the animal and the number of the abattoir where the animal was killed. All that was missing was a name for the cattle and sheep we killed. In the interest of equivalence, perhaps I will enlighten the Minister of State.
We are importing chicken from 25 countries, not all of which are European Union countries. It is being imported into the EU. The Minister of State said that people are happy to see an EU label on the product. There is a great deal of chicken being imported to this country from Holland and other countries but it has come from China and Thailand. It is only packed in the EU. I assure the Minister of State that people are not happy to see "packed in the EU" on products.
On the beef aspect, and the Minister of State might enlighten members in that regard, the majority of restaurants in this country have dropped the Féile Bia campaign. As other Deputies said, menu cards indicate that all their beef is Irish but there is no proof of that. One would know when one eats it but I will outline a personal experience for the Minister of State.
Some years ago we were supplying every restaurant in our part of the country with striploin. We continue to supply all those restaurants but not one of them buys striploin from us. They are buying imported striploin but is that stated on their menus? Butchers' shops are required to put up a sign indicating the farm the animal comes from and the name of the farmer. If the consumer had a choice between Joe Barry from Abhainn na Sceartán or Joe Gonzalez as suppliers of beef, I know the product the Irish consumer would buy.
If consumers knew that produce came from farmers who killed stock from their farm, they would buy a full side of beef. They will come in to the butcher's shop from week to week but when produce is in from certain farms, they will fill their freezer. That is the effectiveness of labelling. I believe there are very few participants in the Féile Bia campaign.
Mention was made of voluntary labelling, specifically in regard to the Germans. Food labelling in this country is designed to preserve our food producers. That is why we need it. I suggest the Minister of State should take a strong stance on that. Why can we not legislate for what is happening in our own country to protect our consumers? Regardless of what court of the land he would be brought before, the Minister of State would be on a winner and he would have cross-party support. Some people have said it might take two or four years to implement. The Minister of State will have the support of this committee for any efforts he might make to ensure transparent labelling of all foodstuffs for consumers. I support the Minister of State in his efforts.
I welcome the Minister of State. I am disappointed that we will not get our own way on this because I thought that under the enhanced co-operation heading we would be able to go ahead with the country of origin labelling, which I understand was terminology proposed by the EU.
In recent days I discovered that the European Union is about to legislate to have the country of origin label on timber. I read that in a snippet in the corner of a newspaper, which I do not have with me but it is available. If we can have country of origin labels on timber from countries around the world, I cannot understand the impediment in bringing in legislation here on country of origin labelling.
I am talking about choice. I come from a part of the country — Mitchelstown and Mallow — that produces the finest food but where we now have nothing but rubble, so to speak. Our factories have been pulled down and replaced by Himax and so on. We have a new company called Breeo Foods. Our hams are being packed in Scotland by Browns and we have rashers being sold from somewhere else, but no one knows anything about it. There is a label on the pack with IE 20 or 30 on it and if one is intelligent one will ring up and find out whether it was packed here or outside the country.
There is a racket going on in the Irish food industry. People are ripping off the industry and making a fortune as secondary processors. This calls for the creation of a national food agency. The industry is being ripped off by reputable people such as Kerry Group, Dawn Farm Foods and, I have to say, the old Dairygold company in Mitchelstown, which is on its knees, so to speak. The chief executive is now known as "Jerry Rubble".
North Cork had 70% of the market for bacon and cheese products. That is now gone. Jobs have been lost and farmers' livelihoods destroyed. That is what happens when we import into the country because it is cheaper to bring in products from Chile. Dairygold imported rashers from Chile. There is a racket in the industry.
I have travelled much of the world at my own expense. I have been to Denmark in recent months where I went into a number of supermarkets. I had to plough down through the freezers and different shelves to find product from a country other than Denmark. The same practice applies in France and in Holland. I found Dairygold butter in Hong Kong and in Malta. That is good marketing of Irish products by the Irish Dairy Board.
(Interruptions).
Allow Deputy O'Keeffe to continue.
I went at my own expense. I do not want to labour the point but the Dáil is the forum to debate this issue.
Regarding the United Kingdom food industry, Northern Foods in the UK, which is a secondary processor, is on its knees now. It was a supplier to Marks & Spencer. Premier Foods bought the Campbell Soup Company in Thurles and closed it down. That is the racket that is going on.
A food company had to close down a number of lines recently. I do not want to name it but it should be named. We apply a name and shame policy to many areas. We do not know the source of the product they closed down. We have not been told that yet. That is the problem.
This is a major issue. The Minister of State has a keen interest both in organic and other food. He is doing an excellent job in his Ministry and is greatly admired. People like to see him around the country but if he does not pick up the bits and pieces, so to speak, and deal with this problem, there will be no food industry in this country.
The Minister of State should travel to the United States to observe the North American food industry. He should stop off in Philadelphia and travel the route south. Major manufacturers in America are involved in production from the farm to the pot. He should visit Smithfield and other areas. I could name half a dozen areas that have country of origin labelling. We may criticise America but it has country of origin labelling. That is not happening in this country.
We led the way in respect of many foods. We do not have many of the regional foods the Minister of State spoke about, such as those in Italy and in France. We only identified some in recent years, salmon from Mayo being one of them and some cheeses, but we are not at the races in that regard. We must keep to manufacturing the product from our own cows, pigs and poultry. That is the point I would make to the Minister of State.
A great deal of blackguardism has occurred on the part of Irish processors. They wanted the quick buck and to make money for the stock market, but we know the problems affecting the stock market now.
The country of origin label is important to the Irish people because it gives them choice. Choice is essential. If I go into a shop to get a pound of sausages, rashers or chicken legs I want to see the country of origin label on those products. An Bord Bia is a wonderful organisation but has no authority. Its function is not sufficiently underpinned in legislation. It is being fooled, so to speak, by the industry and we should ask the inspectors to monitor that.
I agree with my colleagues on all sides of the House on the question of the beef industry. We used to have a jute factory in Clara that made wonderful flax for fertiliser, pulp and other farming requirements. Brazilian steak is the nearest thing to jute I have ever tasted, and one does not have to be a good judge of meat to discover that. One cannot get a medium rare or rare steak in restaurants because they have been chilled and there is no juice in it. If one gets an Irish steak from Tom Sheahan's butcher's shop in Rathmore, which I did not know he had, when it is put on the frying pan or the grill it will be succulent and worth eating.
This is a major issue. I hope to speak in the budget debate because there is much more I want to say on this issue but I have said here what I wanted to say. I have named the countries and the problems caused for this country. I only have to go to my own area of north Cork to find out about that. Forty pig producers have been put out of business in that area as a result of the closure of Galtee Foods, which was supported by Enterprise Ireland and Derek Breen. That is what happened, as I have said many times at this committee. It was the only factory in Ireland with branded product which we could guarantee. Now we have secondary processing. Today, no pig meat in this country is packed and branded in its own slaughterhouse. It goes to a secondary processor, regardless of where it is.
I sympathise with you, Chairman, because I feel strongly about this issue. These are strange and difficult times for Irish farmers and workers. There was a big march of 1,500 or 1,600 people in Mitchelstown after the closure. I compliment Deputy Ferris for coming up to march with me and support us in our plight. The late Deputy Joe Sherlock also supported us. We did not see the rest of the public representatives though, because they have no agenda.
Other members wish to ask supplementary questions. Does the Minister of State mind if we take them at this stage?
That is fine, Chairman.
There was a comment on the percentage of food in Europe that comes from outside the EU. I do not know if that is factual——
I can give the Deputy the figures.
It is my understanding that food, particularly chicken, is being brought into Germany, Italy and other countries from Thailand. It is then repackaged and sent to this country as European food. That is not country of origin labelling as we know it. The chicken originated in Thailand, which is outside Europe. It is reprocessed by being put in breadcrumbs or broken into chicken legs or wings and is then sent into this country as product from, for example, Germany. The food is labelled as an EU product but it is not European. The original chicken is from Thailand but it is being packaged as European food.
With regard to labelling, if somebody wishes to label or brand their product voluntarily, and the Minister of State mentioned protected geographical identifications, they can still do that under the EU legislation. The issue for a company that wishes to label food in that way is the cost implications. That is the reason they will not do it. We can still do it and sell our product. It is voluntary and it is open to a company or food producer in this country to do it.
I am aware the figures for organic food sales have increased. What is the figure for that increase? While we wait for the Commission to get its act together, we can box clever in this country by promoting the farmers' markets, food that is not genetically modified and seasonality. How many farmers' markets are there in this country? What is happening with the Minister of State's proposal to introduce a flag such as the green school flag for farmers' markets? The Irish consumer is adept at following what is best for his or her family. We have quality food. The labelling can be done locally. Other Deputies have spoken about voluntary labelling while we wait for mandatory labelling. I thank the Minister of State for coming to this meeting to give members this incisive insight into what is happening. It is most important for us as consumers as well as politicians.
I believe food labelling should be transferred to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It should not be in the remit of the Department of Health and Children. That Department has enough to do; we have learned a great deal about health in recent days. Food labelling is a very small matter for the Department of Health and Children and is a different issue from health. The Minister of State is an authority on food labelling.
I will reply to as many questions as possible. Deputy Doyle asked about the relationship between my Department and the Department of Health and Children.
Yes, it follows what Deputy O'Keeffe just asked. It is the same point about the overarching relationship between the two. I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe's remarks.
There is a long history to explain why the Department of Health and Children is essentially the lead Department on food safety and labelling. The Deputy is well aware of that history. With the incidence of BSE and so forth, it was seen as appropriate. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food found it difficult to work across the board. The Department of Health and Children had to be involved as it did not have any responsibility for producers but was simply dealing with consumers. That is the way it has worked and we work closely together. It is important we maintain that link. We are fortunate in that the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Mary Wallace, is familiar with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, having previously been a Minister of State there. Even though we might not be able to turn the world upside down with regard to what the Deputy is proposing, we have a good and constructive working relationship with the Department of Health and Children when dealing with food safety and labelling. The Deputy will have to talk to the Taoiseach if he wishes to go beyond that.
I will do that.
Deputy Doyle spoke about the farm Bill in the United States. I am watching that with close interest, and I accept the Deputy's point. The United States has been quite direct in stating that it was about protecting its producers. I expect that the World Trade Organisation will follow its case quite closely. As Deputy Tom Sheahan said, everybody at this meeting is seeking not just to protect but also to grow and develop Irish food production. There are all sorts of reasons. Food security is one of the main ones while the individual livelihoods involved obviously are equally important.
However, if one argues that something is in the interests of producers, the European Union is very quick to knock it down. The free market is supposed to determine which producers survive and which do not. That is the harsh reality, and it is the reason Bord Bia has been so strong in advocating quality assurance. This does much of what we are seeking in terms of giving producers a clear marketing advantage because of the quality of their product. My Department has put €4.5 million into the quality assurance logo along with Bord Bia. The industry has put in more. We are investing to ensure producers are protected, but on the basis of quality so they can sell what they produce and give the consumer all the information required. The Deputy said we must go out and bat for producers. Yes, but we must frame it in a way that is in line with EU rules. That will be more productive and successful.
Deputy Aylward is correct that there is product coming into the country from outside the EU. However, look at it in proportion to overall imports. Poultry imports amount to approximately 75,500 tonnes: approximately 28,500 tonnes come from the UK and Northern Ireland, 37,500 tonnes come from the continental EU and 9,600 tonnes come from outside the EU.
Does that include product that is repackaged?
Let the Minister of State finish. I can call the Deputy again. We cannot go back and forth all day or we will be here until 4 p.m.
The Deputy is correct. There is product from outside the EU that is being sold as if it was produced in the EU. It must be accompanied by veterinary certificates and so forth but I agree with the Deputy that it is misleading that the product can come under the EU figure. I have given members a breakdown of the proportions. One of the members mentioned China. No raw poultry meat can come from China; it is banned. The product that comes in from outside the EU must be cooked; that is the rule. It is due to the avian flu and the history of production in those countries. I hope that clarifies the matter. We can go into the figures country by country, if the Deputy so wishes, but I do not think we have time to deal with each case.
What about North America?
The US figure is 40 tonnes.
Is that processed or unprocessed?
Will the Minister of State please answer the questions?
Some 39 tonnes are processed, but I do not know where the other 1 tonne is coming from. That is as much as I can say because that is the information I have before me. That brings me to the figures we have from Bord Bia, that pigmeat imports total 64,000 tonnes. Pigmeat exports from Ireland total 113,000 tonnes.
So we are importing the pigmeat we eat.
I ask the Minister of State to continue.
I am just giving the figures.
I will bring Deputy O'Keeffe back in.
The Minister of State is giving us great information, so the Chairman should give him a chance.
I am doing my best.
I did not let other members in earlier with supplementaries. That is the way it will be done.
We need to ask ourselves what we are at if, basically, we are sending pigs on a two-way street, back and forth. Apart from using up whatever last oil reserves we have, I cannot see what the purpose of it is.
It concerns origin.
Indeed. There does seem to be a large amount of imports, but a larger amount of exports.
Where do they come squealing from?
I will speak to the Deputy afterwards because it sounds like he has more information to give me. I would like to hear it, but I do not have the facility to listen now.
The Chairman might not want it.
As regards Deputy White's question, we started off in Government with about 130 farmers' markets and I am told the figure is now about 140. I have been around to a lot of them, but not all yet. I opened another farmers' market in Newbridge last Saturday. Generally, I am opening one such market every week or two. I hope they are all continuing to survive because there is no point in opening them if they are going to close down again. As far as I am aware, however, the ones I have opened are all surviving.
The consultation between my Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is coming together on the flag scheme. As was mentioned, Bord Bia is short on resources and we need to ensure that we have a good-value flag available. I do not have a date, but I will let the Deputy know as soon as I do. I am meeting with officials later today and we will try to get a reply for the Deputy.
I am seeking a point of clarification on something the Minister of State brought to light, which he acknowledged was interesting. Do we have a definite source for the 64,000 tonnes of pigmeat imports?
Is Deputy O'Sullivan finished?
Yes, I just had one question.
It comes back to the first point I made concerning the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. The origin of a product must be declared only where its absence might mislead the consumer. I revert to the fundamental point. Within that rule or concept we have the right to put in the country of origin. We should address it in that context, simply to cut through a lot of the timelines that are there. Let them tell us we are wrong. I am not trying to be militant in this regard.
That is voluntary.
No, it says it must be used. The country of origin must be declared only where its absence might mislead the consumer. It is not voluntary. That is the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's own explanation of what it means. It was issued in a press release from the citizens' information bureau in July and the consultation period concluded on 19 September. The Minister of State referred to that in his speech. In that context, we have the ammunition to make it obligatory. People here are importing and exporting product because the only way they can survive in the meat industry is to beat them at their own game. That is why they are at it. People who were processing nothing but Irish product are now importing the cheaper stuff and sending it back. We got the figures on poultry a couple of weeks ago.
I want to commend the Minister of State on his openness at this meeting. It is something that we do not often experience, so I thank him for that.
Can we follow Deputy O'Keeffe's proposal that responsibility for food labelling be given to the Minister of State, instead of the Department of Health and Children? Can the committee recommend that the function be withdrawn from the Department of Health and Children, which seems to have enough problems and headaches at the moment? It should be given to the Minister of State.
I do not know what the situation is, but we will ask the clerk to the committee to investigate the matter and report back.
I suggest we write to the Taoiseach.
We will leave that to the clerk.
I am quite sure the Minister of State would like to do it.
I will not comment on correspondence because that is a matter for the committee. I look forward to seeing any correspondence that arises.
I will not give a "Yes" or "No" answer to Deputy Doyle's point. I will ask my colleagues in my own Department and the Department of Health and Children to take on board what he has said.
I appreciate that.
They will give me the reasons we are where we are and what we can do in line with what the Deputy has suggested.
The other matter concerned pigmeat imports and I take the point that the product goes back and forth. It can be imported and exported and may be the same product. I was asked about pigmeat imports, as I had figures for poultry. Similarly, in pigmeat terms we are talking about an overall figure that breaks down as follows: imports from the UK, including Northern Ireland, 30,710 tonnes; continental Europe, 36,756 tonnes; and outside the EU, 919 tonnes. That is how the imports break down.
The international breakdown would be very interesting.
For non-EU countries?
Yes, Chile, Brazil and such places.
Chile is the biggest at 679 tonnes, with Brazil at 49 tonnes. Chile is obviously way ahead of everybody else. Australia accounts for 92 tonnes.
Australia is a big importer from Denmark.
Japan accounts for 78 tonnes.
Do we import from Japan? I think they were returns.
That is just to give the Deputy the facts. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister of State and his officials for the presentation and for answering all the queries that were raised today.
Can we have the Minister of State here more often? Once a month?
Is was a very interesting meeting and hopefully we will have the Minister of State back again. We will now suspend the meeting for one minute to allow the Minister of State and his officials to depart.
The joint committee went into private session at 12.50 p.m. and adjourned at 12.55 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 October 2008.