Vol. 651 No. 2
66 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the details of the economic analysis carried out by her Department on the impact the World Trade Organisation agreement is expected to have on the beef, dairy, pig and sheep sectors, if accepted in its current format; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13250/08]
The current round of WTO negotiations is ongoing and in the coming weeks further intensive efforts will be made to reach agreement in 2008.
The chair of the WTO agriculture negotiating committee, Crawford Falconer, issued his latest draft modalities paper in February, with a view to making progress in the agriculture negotiations. These negotiations are now focused on addressing several significant outstanding issues across the domestic support, export competition and market access areas which make up the agriculture negotiating pillar. Several substantial issues have yet to be decided upon and there is, as yet, no certainty as to a final outcome.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food carries out a continual range of assessments and analyses of the different negotiating proposals that emerge from the WTO discussions. This analysis covers all agricultural sectors, including the beef, dairy, sheep and pig sectors. It includes, in particular, the assessment of the impact of these proposals on specific product categories.
Similar estimations have been made by various representative bodies and shared with the Department. These detailed calculations are used to evaluate the various negotiating proposals which emerge from the discussions and to develop the Irish negotiating position.
Several other bodies and research institutes, in Ireland and elsewhere, have also carried out economic studies. Some of these analyses attempt a broader assessment of possible outcomes of the negotiations. Inevitably, these studies are based on a wide range of assumptions about issues yet to be decided in the negotiations. The Department also considers and uses these studies to inform negotiating strategies.
The EU Commission recently presented its latest analysis of possible impacts of the most recent proposals from the chairman of the WTO agriculture committee. This analysis is the subject of ongoing discussions between EU member states and the Commission.
The outcome of these negotiations will represent a significant challenge for Irish and EU agriculture. I am concerned with the current direction of the negotiations. I, and my Government colleagues, have and will continue to take every opportunity to express our concerns in the strongest terms in the various EU and WTO meetings dealing with these negotiations. We have also been very active in seeking allies for our position.
The Government will continue to insist the final WTO agreement is a balanced one. It will not be acceptable to me or the Government that EU agriculture is sacrificed for the sake of a deal. The EU has made significant contributions to these negotiations, including the move in the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy reforms to non-trade distorting decoupled payments. The reforms allowed the EU to commit to significant reductions in the levels of trade distorting supports, particularly in production-linked price supports. It is the responsibility of other WTO negotiating partners to make equivalent contributions.
I will continue to insist the Commission pursues balance in the negotiations. The EU, and in particular EU agriculture, cannot be the banker for this WTO round.
Much jargon surrounds the whole WTO process and, implicit in that, there is much of it in the Minister's reply. I am trying to cut through the fog and find out where we stand.
Various bodies have done analyses on the impact of the negotiations. Does she agree with one analysis that states a 70% tariff reduction in the beef and dairy sector would result in the loss of 50,000 jobs at farm gate level and another 50,000 in the food processing sector, costing the economy €4 billion? Does that tie in with the Department's analysis of the current proposals on the negotiating table?
Those figures are from the IFA's analysis which I have noted. I met the IFA, with the Taoiseach, to discuss these figures which are part of all discussions concerning the negotiations. We are at a difficulty in that we are progressing to a ministerial decision in May and cannot say what will happen. We have seen the outcome of analyses of a number of proposals over the past seven and a half years. We do not have a final analysis completed. The IFA——
The Department does not have a final analysis of the current WTO proposals.
The Department does not have a final analysis. The IFA has put forward its analysis and met senior officials in the Department. FAPRI and IBEC have also done their analyses. All these are part of the negotiations and the team. We are in a negotiating position. We have also listened to the EU Commission. However, I do not have a firm analysis completed on Crawford Falconer's, chairman of the WTO agriculture committee, proposals.
The Minister is dancing on a pinhead when answering this question. She either agrees or disagrees with the IFA's analysis. What were the consequences envisaged by the Department of the 2005 EU Agriculture Council directive to the Commissioner, Peter Mandelson? Surely, it had an analysis done on those proposals.
We have a 2005 analysis. The only problem is that is not where we are at now. We are at the 2007 analysis.
We need to know what the Minister was prepared to concede then.
Perhaps the Deputy will reflect on what he said and retract it. This is a negotiation. There was no agreement.
It was poorly handled.
If the Deputy allows the Minister, I will give him a brief supplementary.
The agreement in the Hong Kong round was not about market access. The current WTO negotiations are on this issue. We have agreed, to an extent, the 2005 proposals from the Hong Kong round. These were based on parallelism and the methodology being finalised by the Commission and member states, which has not yet happened. It was based on outcome of financial perspectives. When negotiating——
One needs to know the bottom line.
——one does not show one's hand. We were not negotiating market access in 2005. We are negotiating it in 2007 and 2008. We could be negotiating it in 2009 and 2010. Until such time as we reach that, it is inappropriate to analyse because matters are moving. It would be important for Deputy Creed to understand that we are not at the bottom line phase of negotiations. There was no bottom line in the Hong Kong round. We came to a final agreement in 2005 on the issue of export refunds only.
Although we are over time on this question, I will allow a final supplementary.
I hope the Minister will answer this question as it is of vital national interest for on-farm and off-farm employment. Will the Minister use the veto to defeat the current proposals on the table?
It is very simplistic of the Deputy to ask this question. I will only agree that we have had good discussions on this matter in the House. Every Member, whether involved in agriculture or otherwise, believes the outcome of the WTO negotiations is important. I believe a balance is the most important outcome that I must attain for Irish agriculture and the agrifood sector.
We are not yet at a position where a final decision must be made. There are ongoing discussions in the Commission and among member states. I will raise this matter once again on Monday when attending the EU Council meeting. I will also have further discussions with the Commission and like-minded Ministers. We are in a process and we are not at the stage of making a final decision.
67 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the initiatives being undertaken by her Department to promote farmer participation in forestry in view of the new opportunities presented by the emerging wood energy sector; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13061/08]
I am fully aware of the opportunities presented by the emerging wood energy sector. Wood biomass is one of the most versatile of renewable energy sources and has the potential to play a major role in the supply of Ireland's energy in future. Solid biomass, mainly wood, is already the largest source of renewable energy in Ireland, accounting for 57% of Ireland's total renewable energy consumption in 2004.
A new capital grant scheme to support emerging enterprises in the wood chip supply sector was launched by our Department last year. Under the wood biomass harvesting machinery grant scheme, funding of €500,000 has already been approved to support the purchase of self-contained and self-propelled whole tree chippers. A second phase of this scheme was launched in late 2007, making an additional €600,000 in grant aid available. The additional wood energy harvesting capacity created by this support measure will have a significant impact in assisting developing enterprises in the wood chip supply sector.
Our Department is also supporting a number of pilot projects, such as producer group support, aimed at making more thinnings available to the local energy markets. Our Department also offers a comprehensive package of incentives and supports which promote farmer participation in forestry. Some €126 million will be expended by my Department specifically in the forestry sector this year.
The afforestation premium and grant scheme, for example, combines 100% grants for planting and attractive premiums of up to €574 per hectare payable for 20 years for farmers. Only last week my Department paid out over €52 million in the annual forestry premium payment to more than 10,000 forest owners, most of whom are farmers.
Under the forestry environment protection scheme, FEPS, a landowner will receive a FEPS premium of up to €200 for each hectare of woodland planted. The FEPS premium is payable for five years in addition to the existing afforestation scheme grants and premium available. Farmers can plant up to 50% of their land and still draw down the full single payment, as well as the forestry premium. Financial support is also available for the growing forest in the form of grants for forest roads to facilitate access and management operations, for shaping and pruning operations, and for reconstitution in certain circumstances.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
My Department engages in significant promotion of forestry to encourage farmer participation. Among the range of promotional activities supported are the joint national promotion campaign with IFIC and the RDS awards, which promote good forestry management. We also support a number of other projects which contribute to the sustainable development of forestry.
My Department, working in co-operation with COFORD, the National Council for Forest Research and Development, and Teagasc actively encourages the development of the wood-energy sector through a range of support measures aimed at creating an effective and efficient supply chain from the landowner-producer to the end user. Since 2006, COFORD has been managing the ForestEnergy programme. The programme includes a series of nationwide forest thinning and chipping demonstrations, workshops and trials aimed at those wishing to become involved in the wood biomass supply chain.
Funding is also provided to Teagasc, which plays an important role in the development of forestry through promotion, training and advice. Forestry advisers at Teagasc offices run a number of training courses, information evenings and field days and provide free and independent advice on all aspects of forestry to farmers.
My Department is working closely with other State agencies such as SEI and Enterprise Ireland in support of developing an increased biomass percentage of energy supply in Ireland.
I welcome the reply from the Minister of State and my response will be very brief. Does the FEPS encourage the growth of native woodland? Will the Minister of State potentially consider an additional premium for those farmers, landowners or forestry owners who wish to grow more forestry on the basis that it would reduce CO2 emissions for this country? Perhaps an additional premium could be given to those farmers who are not already growing forestry but who may potentially embark on growing it.
Over the past couple of years, we have provided many incentives and much encouragement to farmers not already growing forestry to participate in the growing of forestry. That is one of the main reasons we introduced FEPS. We considered that many farmers involved in REPS would plant forestry except that the REPS payment was so attractive. FEPs looks to balance that position and we have noticed that many farmers involved in REPS are looking at forestry as an option in a REPS plan, which is very positive.
On the native woodland aspect, many of our schemes look to encourage the growing of native woodland. At this time, some 30% of what is being planted is native woodland.
It is important to mention that we have promotional schemes and the Deputy may have heard some of the advertisements currently on radio. We have a joint promotional scheme with IFIC and we also have the RDS awards, which promote good forestry management. That also involves native woodland and our actions are all about promoting both types.
I accept the Minister of State's answer but there is potential to give a further premium purely on the basis there is room to have carbon off-setting, for want of a better expression. There is major scope for the private sector to become involved in forestry. As I understand it, to date there is less than 20% involvement of the private sector in forestry and it is an area of agribusiness that has even more potential.
I am not convinced the €7,604 per hectare payment, the maximum, is adequate given that one would have to operate on large economies of scale in order to get some sort of a decent return. Many smaller forestry owners do not currently have the economies of scale to be able to thin back forests to allow for greater potential. The cost of thinning and maintenance would eat into the premium.
We are trying to make a case, in essence, for more grant aid or financial incentives to be provided. Will the Minister of State consider that?
The amount of €7,604 referred to by the Deputy is probably the planting grant. If a person goes to plant a forest, the cost is covered. On top of this the person receives an annual premium of €573 per hectare and an additional €200 per hectare for FEPS.
I agree with the Deputy on growing forestry as it is important for people to maintain and thin them. If we do not do so, we will not have good timber at the end of the day. One of our chief promotional issues at the moment in encouraging farmers to go into forestry is to indicate they will get the 20-year premium, the planting grant at the beginning and income tax-free. We have brought in many schemes under the heading of thinning and maintenance, such as the high pruning of conifer scheme, which is important. There is also the shaping of broadleaves scheme and a forest road scheme, which helps to maintain forests.
There are two messages. The first is that the 20-year-old forest must be maintained and thinned, and wood energy must be reaped from it. We encourage farmers to do this. The second is that it is very worthwhile for farmers to consider forestry as a real option at this stage. Many REPS farmers are looking at it this year who would not have considered it before.
68 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she plans to deliver the €34 million package committed to the development of the sheep sector; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13251/08]
The series of measures I announced last May in support of the sheep sector constituted my response to the report of the sheep strategy development group, known as the Malone report. Together, the measures form a comprehensive package that recognises the importance of the sheep sector and addresses the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
Good progress is being made in implementing the various measures and I am pleased for this opportunity to set out the main points. Under REPS, my Department secured European Commission approval for a new supplementary measure in REPS 4 promoting mixed grazing of cattle and sheep. Under this supplementary measure a farmer can qualify for an annual payment of up to €1,000 in addition to his or her basic REPS payment
Payments of an additional €6 million to qualifying sheep farmers are currently being issued under the 2007 national reserve and all payments are due to issue by the end of May. Progress is being made by my Department in discussions with ICBF, Teagasc, breed societies and farm bodies on the proposal for ICBF to take over the management of a sheep breed improvement programme for the sheep sector. It is hoped to have an interim structure in place for the 2008-09 breeding year.
A capital scheme has been made available for the beef and sheep processing sectors. Trials are currently under way on the use of new technology to allow for the mechanical grading of carcases in the sheepmeat sector. The lamb quality assurance scheme, which was established in 2007, has seen almost 6,000 farms being registered to date with over 4,200 farm audits having been carried out. I have made €400,000 available to support inspections under the scheme.
Bord Bia will continue to organise strategic marketing campaigns in selected European markets. Along with its French and British counterparts, Bord Bia is undertaking a three-year generic lamb promotion on the very important French market to promote lamb to younger consumers. Teagasc has developed a comprehensive plan to restructure sheep support services, including a programme for technology evaluation and transfer farms, which includes hill and lowland areas.
These measures complement those to be taken by the industry itself in implementation of the Malone report. I am confident these form the right approach and will help to address potential difficulties. I remain very much conscious of the concerns within the sector and I raised these at the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting on 17 March. Definitive conclusions on possible support action were not reached but my concerns were shared by a large number of colleagues and it was generally recognised that the needs of the sector should be borne in mind in the "health check" of the Common Agriculture Policy.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I note the date of the announcement of the package was May of last year, the run-in to a general election. Regrettably, there has been very little progress on it to date.
The Minister may need to be reminded of the signs of crisis in the industry at a practical level. This Easter, consumers could not source an Easter lamb. Sheep numbers have declined dramatically, as there has been a drop in the region of 2 million ewes in the past number of years. That is an industry in freefall. The European Commission recently contracted consultants to advise it on how to stabilise the position and reverse this trend. The consultants — Ernst & Young — were, I am sure, paid a great deal of money to arrive at a recommendation with which the House came up last October to the effect that there should be a return to a direct payment, perhaps €30, to farmers. There will be an opportunity for the Minister to deliver on this matter under the health check.
Why was the farm investment scheme suspended, particularly when €8 million in funding for sheep farmers was ring-fenced under it? At the stroke of a pen, the Minister removed this scheme. The idiocy behind all this is that on 18 October costings relating to the scheme were published on the Department's website, while on 20 October it was suspended. Will the Minister reintroduce the farm investment scheme in respect of sheep-handling and fencing grants — "Yes" or "No"?
"Yes" to what and "No" to what?
Will the Minister reintroduce the farm investment scheme?
The Deputy asked five questions so I will take the opportunity to reply to them.
The Minister will avoid answering them.
On the scarcity of lamb, and not to be overly facetious, the Deputy is well aware that Easter was celebrated early this year.
If that is the Minister's defence, it is damn poor.
The Deputy's hip is obviously still annoying him.
Perhaps we should consult the churches on this matter.
That is a separate question.
It is an ecumenical matter.
However, that will not happen for another 40 years and Deputy Creed and I will not be too concerned about it.
We are returning to the position prior to the ewe premium stage. The Deputy is correct. There has been a considerable reduction in the number of sheep in the country. It was on that basis we came together to consider the proposals we could implement and it was from there the Malone report emerged.
The Deputy is acutely aware that we are not in a position, in a decoupled area, to introduce direct payments. On the basis of an appreciation of the difficulties involved, however, we introduced a special scheme under both the national reserve and REPS 4. We are not in a position to witness the final outcome of REPS 4 as a result of difficulties experienced in clarifying the matter. Clarity now exists, however, and I await the outcome of the applications on 15 May.
Deputy Creed is correct. This issue can be dealt with under the health check. However, we will be obliged to proceed carefully.
We do not want to pay for it under modulation either.
That is exactly the issue. The Commissioner stated that we could consider modulation or that we could examine another formula under which money would be taken from one set of farmers in order to pay another set. The French do this but they have the option of transferring money from large cereal farmers into the sheep sector. I would be obliged to take money from beef producers and I am sure Members will agree that this would not be the correct formula.
I will take a brief final supplementary from Deputy Creed.
The Deputy is aware that we have serious concerns, with which he is in sympathy, regarding compulsory modulation. We are awaiting the outcome of a number of matters. We increased the REP scheme by 17%, which is considerable.
I am not stating it is particularly easy and we must consider a multifaceted approach. The bottom line is that the consumption of sheepmeat in Europe has decreased dramatically. The number of people under 45 years of age who consume sheepmeat has reduced to a huge degree. Even in countries where it is extremely popular, sheepmeat has become quite expensive, particularly in the context of the price farmers obtain for it.
I am obliged to call Question No. 69.
There are also consumer and price issues of which we must be cognisant. We will deal with all these issues.
69 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if her attention has been drawn to the difficulties surrounding the arrangements recently announced relating to REPS 4; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13252/08]
The arrangements for REPS 4 are derived from a new regulation, which reflects the European Commission's objective of integrating and harmonising the operation of the various farm payment schemes, including the single payment scheme, REPS and the disadvantaged areas scheme. For REPS 4, this means that applications to join the scheme must be submitted by 15 May each year. Payments will relate to the number of months in a year during which a farmer is in a REPS 4 contract and will be released in two phases of 75% and 25%.
The arrangements we announced recently emerged from intensive discussions between the Department's officials and their counterparts at the Commission. In those discussions, my officials pointed out that the previous arrangements had worked well since REPS was first introduced in 1994 and had contributed to the success of the scheme, with almost 60,000 farmers participating in REPS 2 and REPS 3 by the end of 2006. The Commission was adamant, however, that the new regulation must apply to REPS 4. The discussions, therefore, focused on how to apply the new arrangements in a way that mitigated as far as possible any inconvenience they would create for farmers. It was in this context that the Commission agreed to special transitional arrangements for farmers in REPS 2 completing their contracts during 2008. As long as these farmers have submitted applications for REPS by the new closing date of 15 May, they can submit their farm plans thereafter and still receive payment during the year. The Department's officials have written to every farmer in this category to inform them with regard to what they need to do.
This was a significant concession by the Commission. If it had not agreed to these special transitional arrangements at a late stage in the discussions, farmers completing their REPS 2 contracts this year would have had to submit their farm by 15 May or else wait until 2009 to join REPS 4. The Commission insisted, however, that the new regulation must apply strictly to all other farmers joining REPS 4 in 2008 and to everyone joining the new scheme from next year onward.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Although payments will now come at different times of the year from those with which farmers have become familiar, no farmer will lose out on his or her payments under REPS 4. Nevertheless, I am aware that the 15 May deadline for applications and the departure from the existing practice of paying farmers in full at an early point in each year of their REPS contracts are significant changes. The previous way of doing things was better but we are constrained by the regulations. I hope that planners, both within Teagasc and in the private sector, will do what they can to accommodate farmers who want to enter REPS 4 this year. I have asked my officials to make every effort to explain the new rules clearly to both farmers and planners and to be as flexible as possible in implementing them.
I reiterate that there is no change to the rules governing REPS 2 and REPS 3. For the remainder of their time in these schemes, farmers will continue to be paid in full at an early stage in each year of their contracts.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. There are two issues at stake, which run parallel to each other. The first is the revised pay arrangements and the second is the deadline of 15 May. Will the Minister of State confirm that it is the Department's policy to facilitate the maximum take-up of REPS 4. If that is the case, does he not agree that — this is the view of Teagasc advisers and independent consultants — the 15 May deadline by which forms must be completed will be extremely difficult to meet, particularly in light of the volume of applications to be processed? This deadline coincides with that relating to single farm payments applications, etc.
Will the Minister of State consider using a device previously employed by the Department in respect of the farm waste management scheme, namely, the expression of interest form? Such forms could be submitted by 15 May and completed applications could then be submitted by mid-September. This would facilitate a much greater take-up of REPS 4. This package has a potential worth of €70 million to agriculture in this country. Will the Minister of State consider implementing the proposal I have put forward in order to maximise participation in the scheme?
I am appalled that the Department was involved in deception during its promotion of REPS 4 throughout the country, particularly when it was fully aware that revised payment arrangements were on the way. It did not advise farmers of this fact and encouraged them to transfer from REPS 3 to REPS 4. The Department also encouraged new entrants to become involved in REPS 4 but did not inform them that the payments would be back-loaded rather than front-loaded. This will cause severe difficulties for farmers who have obligations to meet in respect of their plans. Will the Minister of State indicate whether this matter has been decided upon and that there is no possible way for it to be addressed at EU level? Will he say whether he has failed in this regard?
The Deputy is absolutely correct. It is extremely important that there should be a maximum take-up of REPS 4. I feel particularly strongly about this in light of how closely it is linked to the development of the organic sector. There are many factors involved and I share the Deputy's enthusiasm for them.
What we have arrived at, as a result of banging together a number of heads, is a compromise and this is particularly predicated on the fact that it is an EU regulation. I reject any impression that anyone was involved in deliberately misleading people. REPS 2 and REPS 3 had been in operation and no red flags were raised. There was, as a result, a natural expectation that REPS 4 could continue in a similar vein.
The roadshow toured the country to inform people and the Minister knew of the forthcoming arrangements.
The Deputy will be able to reply to my comments in a moment.
What Deputy Creed stated is completely untrue.
The Minister knows it is the case.
The Minister of State, without interruption.
The Minister is preparing to depart and leave this mess behind her.
I previously answered a parliamentary question from the Deputy——
I ask the Minister and the Deputy to allow the Minister of State to answer the question.
I was enjoying the exchange. However, I will continue with my reply.
The Minister of State will continue in the Department but the Minister might not.
I am trying to answer the Deputy.
The one thing the Deputies should learn is that they will not be over here for a while.
Sweet parsnips all around.
I will strive manfully to answer the question, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I appreciate that 15 May is a limitation, but the farm plans can follow on from that. We are minimising the expectation of compliance by 15 May. Teagasc resources for this purpose have been increased to ensure——
It is not just Teagasc; private consultants are involved as well.
I am sure people will get help from wherever they can, but Teagasc is there for everybody.
It does not deal with everybody.
I want to make sure it is clear to the Deputy that Teagasc is getting additional resources to help in every way. We cannot move back the date of 15 May but we can do everything possible to help people comply.
Can I ask the Minister of State to clarify one point?
We are well over time.
Did the Minister of State say that expressions of interest would be accepted and that completed plans submitted later would be acceptable?
Only if the person concerned is completing REPS 2 this year. In that case, one just ticks a box.
That is not good enough.
Everyone else just ticks a box. If one is new, one must have a plan.
I appreciate the joined-up Government response. We must move on to Question No. 70.
It is not good enough.
Five thousand people are already in the scheme.
There may be 70,000 potential applicants. We will see how many get in.
70 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the way she will pursue the issue of import substitution in the fish sector; if she has a strategy to deal with the high level of fish imports; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13253/08]
The report of the seafood strategy review group, Steering a New Course — also known as the Cawley report — includes a number of recommendations aimed specifically at enhancing the value and quality of Irish seafood in the areas of both marketing and processing. The implementation of the report is being overseen by the seafood strategy implementation group, which is chaired by Dr. Noel Cawley, and substantial progress has been made in putting the recommendations into operation in the past 12 months. The Government has adopted the Cawley report in full and I fully support the work being done in implementing the recommendations.
The potential for sales growth and import substitution is most effectively addressed by enhancing national production and meeting the needs of the market. The Cawley report sets down a vision for a sustainable, profitable and self-reliant industry that will maximise its long-term contribution to coastal communities. The strategy clearly recognises that the long-term vision for the seafood sector must revolve around developing a strong and positive identity for Irish seafood on the domestic market and in key international export markets. This identity will assist in positioning Irish seafood products at the upper end of the industry's targeted market. To do this we must work aggressively to ensure that Irish seafood is recognised for excellence in product quality, the provision of a superior eating experience due to product freshness facilitated by frequent landings, a range of positive environmental traits and a customer service approach second to none.
The strategy recognises that the industry's approach to the market and its performance within the marketplace are well below those of other sectors of the Irish food industry. It considers that this gap in performance represents an industry opportunity. The recommendations of the strategy across all fronts — marketing, processing, aquaculture and the fleet — offer a blueprint for change in the industry which will maximise the value of seafood, delivering a sustainable, profitable and self-reliant industry.
The seafood strategy has been endorsed by the Government and its efficient and effective implementation is my top priority. I am satisfied that we have already achieved significant progress and work on delivery of the full range of recommendations is well advanced. I am confident that we can look forward to a strong and vibrant seafood sector that can compete successfully on the domestic and international markets.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. At the heart of this question is the empowerment of consumers to make informed decisions. It is not in any way against imports. We must ensure that I or a housewife, as consumers, know what we are buying. For example, when one goes into a restaurant or into one's local fish shop, SuperValu or Tesco and sees fish on the counter, one does not know whether it is Irish or imported fish. It has been put to me that the busiest fish port in the country is Cork Airport. I am not against imports, but I believe there is a significant opportunity for displacement by Irish fish of high quality.
Does the Minister of State have any plans to pursue a policy similar to that pursued in the beef sector which resulted in the formation of Féile Bia? The Seafood Circle initiative is good as far as it goes but it has only been taken up by around 100 outlets. Is there a way to empower consumers so that they know what they are purchasing? When one goes to a fish shop, one assumes that the fresh fish has been caught in the last couple of days. However, if it has come in from Cork Airport it may have been out of the sea for two or three weeks. That is not fresh fish. Consumers need that information so they can make informed decisions. Does the Minister have any proposals in this area?
The Cawley report raised many of the issues mentioned by the Deputy. We are working with the industry at present, particularly with BIM, our marketing body. One of the issues mentioned by the Deputy was the launch in the next few weeks of a unique and identifiable brand for Irish seafood.
When will that happen?
In the next few weeks. The difficulty is that 55% of fish consumption in Ireland consists of cod and salmon, and we are not catching enough cod and salmon to meet the demands of the Irish consumer at present.
That is a cod if I ever heard one. It is rubbish.
The implementation body is working on this matter. Some of the suggestions put forward by the Deputy are being developed at the moment within the Cawley implementation group. This is the first time we have had a road map for the fishing industry covering the next five to ten years. In addition, all strands of the industry are working together to implement the strategy and make sure we have a vibrant and sustainable fishing industry in the future.
