Michael Creed
Ceist:44 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the progress made with the EU Commission regarding support for the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12209/09]
Priority Questions.
Dairy Sector.
We have an unprecedented situation in the dairy sector at present and the outlook for dairy markets in the short term is poor. Market prices have been adjusting following historically high prices in 2007 and early 2008 and there is the further complication of the credit crunch. These two factors have put an enormous burden on the sector and we have seen a slump in demand as a consequence. In Ireland we are entering a period of abundant supplies and the levels at which export refunds and intervention function will be critical to the speed at which the sector emerge from the current difficulties. I have urged a short sharp utilisation of the market management measures to get the market back to equilibrium as quickly as possible.
I have maintained close contact with Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel regarding the need for appropriate action to support the market. The Commission responded initially with the early introduction of private storage aid for butter and with the reintroduction of export refunds in January. In addition, the Commissioner gave a commitment to continue intervention for butter and skimmed milk powder under the tendering arrangements once the fixed limits were reached. These were welcome developments and well judged at the time.
I met the Commissioner in Brussels on 11 March to discuss developments and to explore the options open to us. In particular, I had two main issues to press her on. The first was the need to buy butter into intervention at prices close to the fixed price level. The second was to stress the need to export larger quantities of butter and skimmed milk powder to international markets. I am pleased to report very positive progress on both these key points. At last week's management committee meeting it was agreed to purchase a total of 6,665 tonnes of butter into intervention at levels very close to the intervention price. This is a very important development.
In addition to this, increased quantities of butter and skimmed milk powder were granted export refunds at the meeting. The volumes supported with export refunds last week were almost equivalent to the combined totals of the three previous tenders. This is a very welcome and needed improvement and should help bring stability to the market.
At yesterday's meeting of the Council of Ministers there was a debate about the unprecedented situation at present in the dairy sector and the short term outlook for dairy markets. I informed my colleagues that in Ireland we are entering a period of abundant supplies and the levels at which refunds and intervention function will be critical to the speed at which we emerge from the current slump. While I was encouraged by recent developments in community support, I further urged a short, sharp utilisation of the market management measures to get the market back to equilibrium as quickly as possible. It is clear to me that the elements which will lead this recovery are competitive refunds that allow the sale of dairy products onto world markets in considerable quantities and the continuation of intervention under the tendering mechanism, provided that these arrangements remain relatively attractive.
The Commission was left in no doubt by myself and by a number of other member states of the importance of fully using all available supports to manage the market in the upcoming period.
There is unanimity on all sides of the House regarding the crisis. Most people are interested in hearing about what progress is being made to deliver a solution, not just at the farm gate where, at prices of 20 cent a litre, many farmers will milk cows twice daily for no financial return. Another issue is the processing sector where, in the previous milk year, processors probably subvented the price of milk to the tune of €100 million but are not capable of doing so for a second successive year. The carnage may not stop at the farm gate. There is a real danger that there also may be casualties in the processing sector.
I welcome what the Minister said, up to a point. Did I understand him correctly when he said an additional 6,665 tonnes of butter could be bought into intervention as a result of last week's agreement? That is the equivalent of about less than half a day's production. We need to put that in context. The original 30,000 tonnes of butter available would be filled in less than two days. Therefore, 6,000 tonnes is but a drop in the ocean.
Apart from the bilateral meetings which the Minister is having with Commissioner Fischer Boel, what political arrangements is he organising? What alliances is he forging with other member states who have a similar issue?
One example is the issue of cheddar cheese and export refunds. Processors who are dependent on exports of cheddar cheese are finding that export refunds are useless because they are meeting a tariff on the other side which is greater than the refund available to them. We need to know what political alliances are being forged to deliver meaningful intervention for farmers in order that they get a fair price for their product and ensure that those employed in the processing sector are equally protected.
We all share the same views outlined by Deputy Creed. I understand he outlined a similar viewpoint at a previous question time. There are particular difficulties and we know the price being quoted now by the different co-ops and processors, and the difficulties that poses for farmers. I know the co-operatives and processors also face difficulties.
Regarding the quantity mentioned, to be accurate I wish to put it on the record that at last Thursday's management committee meeting 6,665 tonnes of butter were accepted at a level very close to the intervention price. This was an extremely positive response. The overall volume accepted amounted to some 70% of the total offered and the Irish component which was not accepted will be eligible for the next tender. It is worth putting on the record that in the case of skimmed milk powder and export refunds, 14,663 tonnes were equivalent to the combined volumes of the three previous tenders. Regarding butter, the total supported was 5,257 tonnes, compared to some 7,000 tonnes for the combined three previous tenders.
The general reaction of the operators was favourable to the decisions made at last Thursday's meeting. The next meeting will take place on Thursday week, where there will be further product moved along. As we all know, we need to get product out of the market to ensure we get the proper supply.
What most farmers are concerned about is how the Minister's statement will translate into their monthly milk cheque. At a price of 20 cent a litre, it is a loss-making enterprise for farmers. Will what the Minister has achieved deliver 26 cent a litre, which is the target figure for profitable milk production? Anything less than that will not bring any comfort to the dairy sector which for many years has been the real engine of the agri-economy at the farm gate and in the processing sector. We need to know if the Minister is delivering something tangible or if he is delivering the status quo, which is prices below the cost of production and financial ruin facing farmers and processors.
It is not just now that we recognise the difficulties which will face this sector this year. We know historically about the welcome increase in prices in 2007 and the early part of 2008 and the subsequent major surge in supply onto the world market. The dollar, New Zealand currency and other factors all play a role in making it difficult for Europe to sell product. The prices, as all of us know, are set by the processor and not by the Department. I began intensively lobbying the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development last November regarding the need to use the market management measures and the aid to private storage was brought forward on 1 January, two months ahead of the normal time.
I met the Commissioner in the latter months of 2008 to impress upon her the need to make the best and most effective use of the management measures which are in place.
Sean Sherlock
Ceist:45 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the measures and guarantees he received from his recent meeting with Commissioner Fisher Boel on the dairy crisis; his strategy to secure support from his fellow agriculture Ministers in Europe for greater levels of support from the EU Commission to stabilise dairy markets and to speed up their recovery; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12009/09]
I met Commissioner Fischer Boel in Brussels on 11 March to discuss the dairy situation and explore the options open to us to restore market confidence. In particular, I had two main issues to press her on. The first was the requirement to continue to buy butter into intervention at prices close to the fixed price level. The second was to stress the need to export larger quantities of butter and skimmed milk powder to international markets. I am satisfied that we have seen positive progress on both these key points.
At last week's management committee meeting it was agreed to purchase a total of 6,665 tonnes of butter into intervention at levels very close to the intervention price. This is a very important development. In addition to this, increased quantities of butter and skimmed milk powder were granted export refunds at the same meeting. The volumes supported with export refunds last week were almost equivalent to the combined totals of the three previous tenders. This is a welcome improvement and should help bring stability to the market.
I have of course had ongoing contact with the Commissioner long before my meeting on 11 March regarding the need for appropriate action to support the dairy market. The Commission responded initially with the early introduction of private storage aid for butter and with the reintroduction of export refunds in January. In addition, the Commissioner gave a commitment to continue intervention for butter and skimmed milk powder under the tendering arrangements once the fixed limits were reached. These were welcome developments and well judged at the time.
At yesterday's meeting of the Council of Ministers there was a debate about the unprecedented situation in the dairy sector at present and the short-term outlook for dairy markets. I informed my colleagues that we are entering a period of abundant supplies and the levels at which refunds and intervention function will be critical to the speed at which we emerge from the current slump. While I was encouraged by recent developments in community support, I again took the opportunity to urge the Commission and the Commissioner to utilise the market management measures to get the market back to equilibrium as quickly as possible.
It is clear that the elements that will lead this recovery are competitive refunds that allow the sale of dairy products onto world markets in considerable quantities and the continuation of intervention under the tendering mechanism, provided that these arrangements remain relatively attractive. The Commission was left in no doubt by a number of other member states and myself of the importance of fully using all available supports to manage the market in the coming period.
Given that what the Minister has outlined represents a short-term response, will he indicate whether a long-term response has been discussed? I ask this question in the context of the announcement by Dairygold, one of the main processors in Munster, that it has had to reduce milk prices by 17.4 cent per litre in the last 12 months. The price is currently bottoming out at some 20 cent per litre. The intervention mechanisms to which the Minister referred, such as aid to private storage and export funds, will have a short-term effect in terms of improving price. Has there been any political discussion on the overall quota regime?
Some member states raised the possibility of revisiting the Health Check of the Common Agricultural Policy. I vehemently oppose such proposals. Last week I travelled to Germany to meet the German Minister. Germany has strongly advocated additional support for the dairy sector. However, it also favours revisiting the health check. As I said, we strongly oppose that proposal.
During the course of the health check negotiations, we sought and initiated a debate within the Health Check mechanism to ensure that we retained the market management measures that are currently in place. If those measures were not in place, the dairy sector would be in serious trouble. We are all aware of the serious difficulties that exist both at farm gate level and at processor level. Several member states have indicated that they would like to see the additional quota put on hold. One member state advocated that the butterfat adjustment should not be implemented. I disagree entirely with these proposals.
The Health Check has not led to the deterioration in the dairy market. The reality is that we are under quota. There was a welcome increase in prices in 2007 and the early part of 2008 at which time there was a reduced supply from New Zealand as a result of drought. Since then, however, there has been increased supply from New Zealand and the United States. In the case of the latter, the weakness of the dollar made for a favourable currency arrangement. The currency situation has since changed somewhat. To reiterate, we do not support a revisiting of the Health Check under any circumstances. We may stand to lose out in a major way from any such review.
Why has the Minister entirely ruled out revisiting the health check? As he said, we are under quota. In the current global economic environment, the demand for dairy-based products is reducing significantly over time. Has there been any political analysis of how that will pan out? Given our emphasis on milk-based production, there will be serious implications for the agriculture sector if there is no improvement in global demand. There will be little choice but to revisit the health check because it will have serious implications for how we produce dairy-based products into the future. I do not see how such a review can be ruled out emphatically without some degree of debate and analysis of where we are going.
There is a provision in the health check for a review of its measures in 2010. Some member states have proposed that this review be brought forward to 2009. As I said, I do not support this proposal. We must be careful not to send out a message that Europe is chopping and changing policy. That would lead to instability. We must look to the situation of the processor or individual farmer who intends to invest and provide additional on-farm facilities. The political analysis that has been done in regard to the long-term demand for dairy products is favourable. The Food and Agriculture Organisation has provided detailed analysis of the potential of the dairy market to expand.
One simple statistic is that the world population is increasing by more than 6 million per month. Prior to the economic turmoil that has been with us for almost a year, there was growing affluence in the world. There has been a change in the dietary requirements of people in the huge population blocs of Asia, China and India. India and China have populations in excess of 1 billion, and new markets for dairy products have emerged in these countries. We have reached a crunch period. The upward trajectory in prices that we saw in 2007 was followed by a decline in global demand because of the credit crunch and the lack of disposable income in the international community.
The health check is the proper mechanism under which to address these issues. Ireland has the capacity to grow its dairy industry, and the medium to long-term outlook is positive. This is not to minimise the serious difficulties currently faced by the industry, as referred to by Deputies Creed and Sherlock.
Farm Waste Management.
Michael Creed
Ceist:46 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he will finance the commitments made under the farm waste management scheme for 2009 in view of the shortfall in his Department’s Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12210/09]
The arrangements for payment of grants under the farm waste management scheme on a phased basis have been confirmed, with 40% being paid this year as claims are approved. A further 40% will be paid in early January 2010 and the remaining 20% in January 2011. I have also announced that a special ex gratia payment not exceeding 3.5% of the value of the deferred amount will be made to farmers whose farm waste management grants have been partially deferred. This payment will be made in January 2011 along with the final instalment.
The Revised Estimates for the public service will be published following the budgetary adjustments planned for 7 April. Funding for my Department, including the allocation for the farm waste management scheme, is being considered in that context.
I assure the Minister that I am not seeking any budgetary figures and do not intend to probe into confidential Cabinet deliberations. Does the Minister accept there is a shortfall of €105 million in his Department's capacity to make the 40% payments in 2009? Farmers seek an assurance that the payments they are receiving under various schemes will not be reduced. In other words, there must be no robbing of Peter to pay Paul. Rather, supplementary funds must be allocated to meet the Government's liability under the farm waste management scheme. Will the Minister confirm that the suckler cow welfare scheme, for example, will not be further reduced in order to make up the Department's shortfall?
Provision will be made in the Revised Estimates to meet the commitments we have given to those farmers who are due grant payments under the farm waste management scheme. So far this year, of the 40% to be paid, almost €66 million has issued to almost 5,000 farmers. Departmental officials at local level are carrying out inspections as expeditiously as possible in order to ensure that appropriate payments are made at the earliest possible date. This is a scheme of investment of €1.1 billion over a short period.
Will the Minister answer the question? Is there a shortfall of €105 million?
The Minister should be allowed to respond without interruption. I will call Deputy Creed in due course.
This represents the largest infrastructural investment ever made——
We are not interested in that. Will the Minister answer the question I have put to him?
The Deputy should be interested——
The Minister must be allowed to answer the question in the way he chooses. The Deputy will be allowed to put a supplementary question. He should not waste the time allocated.
This is the largest infrastructural investment ever made in on-farm facilities. It is funded entirely by the Exchequer. Grant aid of 70% in some areas and 60% in others was provided.
We know all that.
Moreover, the maximum eligible investment ceiling was increased and the scheme was extended to include other sectors previously denied access to on-farm investment schemes. I assure Deputy Creed that the 40% payment to all eligible applicants will be made in the course of this year.
I will put my question to the Minister once again. Will he confirm that the shortfall is currently €105 million? Will he also confirm that in order to make up that shortfall there will be no cutback in other schemes under which farmers benefit? I mention, for example, the suckler cow welfare scheme. Will the Minister give an assurance that disadvantaged area payments will not be impacted? Will he give an assurance that access to REPS 4 will not be closed off as was done? If the Minister takes the liberty of repeating issues, I will take the liberty of recalling chapter and verse the cutbacks he has introduced already — disadvantaged area payments, installation aid and early retirement scheme. Are we going to have a further litany to make up for the mathematical bungling in the Department which did not provide adequate funding from the first day? Is the shortfall €105 million? Will there be no robbing Peter to pay Paul in the Department?
I call the Minister for a final reply.
The question asked was when people would be paid and if funding would be made available. I want to assure the Deputy as I have done previously that provision is being made to ensure that the 40% element of all eligible grant applications will be made during the early part of this year. Inspections are being expedited as rapidly as possible.
How?
I already mentioned to the Deputy that almost €66 million was paid out during the first two and a half months of this year.
How will the Government make up the shortfall? A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, are we not entitled to an answer to the question on the Questions Order Paper, which asks——
I have no control over how the Minister answers.
——the manner in which the Minister will finance the commitments made in view of the shortfall. Will he confirm the shortfall is €105 million? Will there be a Supplementary Estimate?
I call the Minister for a very final reply.
As the Deputy is well aware this is an Exchequer-funded scheme and the Minister for Finance provides the funding to the relevant Department to meet obligations under different schemes. We will not be getting the money from Europe but from our own Exchequer.
So there will be a Supplementary Estimate. There will be no cutbacks in the Department.
Common Agricultural Policy.
Michael Creed
Ceist:47 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the way he will allocate the unspent CAP funds in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12211/09]
I announced yesterday that unused funds available in 2009 from the single farm payment national reserve would be paid to hill sheep farmers in the form of an uplands sheep payment. The amount in question is approximately €7 million in 2009. These funds have become available as a result of a request by me, supported by a number of my counterparts from other European Union member states, in the context of the health check negotiations, for the facility to use unspent funds from the national single farm payment ceilings to fund measures targeted at specific sectors in need of assistance.
Under the scheme I announced yesterday and based on the eligible area declared by farmers in 2008, approximately 14,000 hill sheep farmers will benefit from the new payment this year. On the basis of data available for 2008, I estimate that the level of aid will be of the order of €35 per hectare with a maximum payment of €525 per farmer. Payments will commence on 1 December 2009. In introducing this payment my main objective was to address the difficulties and specific costs, including compliance costs, facing the sheep sector. In reaching the decision I was mindful of the need to ensure that it created no additional burden for farmers, was simple and had a low cost to administer.
This payment, for which I sought and secured the agreement of the Commission, is for 2009 alone. I will make a decision on the use of unspent CAP funds from 2010 onwards when further information is available on the detailed EU rules that will apply. I understand that the Commission will bring forward its proposals in this regard very shortly and they will be adopted in May or June of this year.
A maximum payment of €525 per sheep farmer will do nothing to arrest the alarming decline in sheep numbers and in particular the decimation of sheep stock with the slaughter of ewes in recent years. The Minister's decision is motivated more by the numbers game rather than any strategic analysis of what the industry needs and flies in the face of the Malone report, for example, which clearly indicated the problems. What the Minister gives with one hand he takes away with the other. As late as last Monday at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council he decided to proceed with the compulsory electronic tagging of sheep which will take away more than the €525, which is the maximum payment. How can the Minister claim that what he is delivering to sheep farmers will in any way address the critical structural problems in the industry, which are the exodus of farmers from the industry and the need to ensure the breeding population is maintained in order to sustain the off-farm employment associated with the industry?
The only funding available within unused funds that we can access during 2009 comes from the national reserve fund, which amounts to €7 million.
Why did the Minister not link it to ewe numbers?
When we succeeded last year in getting the European Commission to give approval in principle to member states having access to unused funds — we sought to have access to all the unused funds for 2009 — that was not agreed at European Union level. The only funding to which we have access is the €7 million. I was conscious that it is a relatively small amount of money. We wanted to ensure there would be no administrative costs in disbursing that money and that we would have quick and ready access to the relevant data to enable us to pay it. The easiest and most effective way of paying out that funding was on the basis of the 2007-08 sheep census. People within that category will make the appropriate application with their single-payment form. If we were to issue it on the basis of any other scheme there would be administrative costs, which would not be beneficial to the individual flock owner. I was very conscious that we needed to ensure that it went towards an economically or environmentally sensitive category. That was another consideration.
The Fianna Fáil 2007 general election manifesto promised €27.5 million for the sheep industry to tackle the type of issues specifically identified in the Malone report, particularly the issue of the alarming decline in the number of breeding ewes in the country. That would have been the correct strategic decision to make. While I accept that the €7 million available is nowhere near adequate, it would have sent the type of message necessary to stabilise sheep numbers and give some indication that, for example, in 2010, as the French Minister for Agriculture has already done, the unspent CAP funds in 2010 would be targeted in that direction also. Would the Minister not accept even at this late stage that he should send a signal to the industry that there will be a reward in 2010 for maintaining the number of breeding ewes on any farm and that that reward will be the ring-fencing of unspent CAP funds, which will in 2010 be in the region of €29 million to farmers who will maintain their breeding ewe numbers for that season?
We were anxious to allocate this money on the basis of ensuring that there was the smallest possible administrative cost. There is practically no cost — it is only a matter of changing the application form that goes out to each single-payment applicant. I do not know whether the industry is interested in going along the French route. The French took a linear cut from the single payment under Article 68 and then put it into a specific fund for sheep.
We do not need to do that.
Allow the Minister to speak.
The Deputy may not have had a chance to read my press release of yesterday. In the final paragraph I indicated that all sectors would be eligible for consideration for the unused funds. In particular I mentioned that mountain and lowland sheep production would be eligible for consideration under the unused and modulation funds. As I said earlier we do not have the details of the scheme or proposals from Europe that would enable us to use the unused funds.
I do not accept that. The French have done it
No. The French have done it under Article 68 with a linear cut and it is not from the unused funds. It is slightly different. I know it is confusing. I just want to emphasise that we have not yet got the specifics of what programmes will be eligible for consideration under the unused funds.
On a point of order, the Minister does not need the specifics——
That is not a point of order as the Deputy knows.
——to give a signal to the industry that it would be available to it next year.
We need to move on to the next question.
Earlier I referred to the statement I issued in announcing this. If the Deputy has an opportunity to read the final paragraph he will see there was a clear message.
Fishing Industry Development.
Tom Sheahan
Ceist:48 Deputy Tom Sheahan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the initiatives he proposes to ease the financial hardship for fishermen in the north west arising from the reduced days at sea; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12212/09]
New rules restricting fishing vessels' days at sea in the Irish Sea and the waters to the north west of Ireland and Scotland have been introduced as part of the EU's revised cod recovery plan. The plan has introduced a new system of effort management that sets effort ceilings, expressed in kilowatt days, for groups of vessels or fleet segments. The management of these ceilings has been devolved to national level. Member states have received annual allocations of fishing effort for the areas covered by the plan, which include the Irish Sea — International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, area VIIa — and the waters to the north west of Ireland and Scotland — ICES area VIa.
The effort allocation levels were established by the EU Fisheries Council on the basis of a European Commission proposal. They were calculated by averaging the fishing activity levels of each member state in the areas during a reference period of 2004-06 or 2005-07 and then reducing that effort by 25%. This methodology means there is now limited fishing effort available for all Community vessels, including Irish vessels, fishing in the designated areas.
Under the plan, each member state is required to introduce a licensing regime to manage its effort allocations. Any vessel longer than 10 m overall must have an authorisation from its member state in order to operate in one of the designated areas using the fishing gears covered by the plan. Member states can decide on the method of allocating their national pools of fishing effort, which are broken down by fishing gear type. Following consultations with representatives of the Irish fishing industry, a pilot system of authorisations and allocations of fishing effort was introduced for the period 1 February to 30 April 2009.
The pilot scheme used the following approach to allocate fishing effort in areas VIa and VIIa to Irish vessels for the pilot management period of 1 February to 30 April 2009. First, the track records of vessels operating in areas VIa and VIIa during the reference period of 2005-08 were assessed to determine their eligibility to receive an authorisation to fish and an allocation of days at sea under the pilot scheme. Each vessel's "best year" of fishing days in the areas during the reference period was used to establish its track record. Second, distribution bands were established for each of the specified gear types to facilitate the allocation of days at sea to vessels based on their track records with those gears. Each vessel's level of track record with a gear type fit into one of the distribution bands for that gear type. The vessel was then allocated the number days at sea for that gear which were associated with that distribution band. Third, the days at sea allocations for the first management period, 1 February to 30 April 2009, were given on a pro rata basis for each gear type based on Irish vessels’ traditional fishing pattern with the gears in the area during that those months. For example, if the months were traditionally very busy for a gear type, a higher portion of days at sea were allocated for that gear.
The balance of the reply will be included in the Official Report.
While I appreciate that, the remainder is actually the essence of the answer.
That should have been front-loaded in the answer. I call Deputy Sheahan.
The last page is exactly what the Deputies want to hear.
This is outrageous.
It is not outrageous. The time has been limited.
The Minister should answer the question instead of waffling.
There is an understanding that the Minister of State has two minutes to answer.
I appreciate that.
I gave him two and a half minutes. The Department should understand that the information should be front-loaded.
He wanted to answer a question he was not asked.
If I may, I will afford the Minister of State my time to answer the question.
I appreciate the Deputy's sincerity in this regard. If the answer had been front-loaded, I would have read the following.
I appreciate that the introduction of these new conservation measures are a challenge and, therefore, we have established a steering group involving the Federation of Irish Fishermen, the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the Marine Institute and the Department to provide support to the industry in regard to the practical implementation of these new measures. The effort allocations already made were done on a pilot basis only and I am prepared to make amendments where proposed by the steering group within the legal framework that was established.
With regard to specific initiatives available to Ireland under the terms of the regulation, the group has, at our request, examined the possibility of applying for exemptions for groups of vessels catching less than 1.5% of cod in their catch. On the basis of this examination, our officials have now made a submission to the European Commission seeking an exemption for any vessel which on an annual basis for the years 2007 and 2008 had less than 1.5% of cod in its catch.
Other measures being examined by the steering group could, under the regulation, be applied in order to buy back effort, which would reduce it from 25% to perhaps 20%, which would mean we would have more to distribute in terms of allocation for the boats that need it. The measures would include, among other things, the introduction of highly selective fishing gear that reduces cod catches to below 1% and cod avoidance measures such as both mandatory and voluntary seasonal and real-time closures. The Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara are currently examining options in this regard which will, in turn, be considered by the steering group.
The Minister of State might add that vessels under 14 m would be exempt. Some vessels have no days at sea, as the Minister of State noted in his reply, because of history. With regard to job creation in rural and coastal areas, it is a well known fact that any job created at sea creates seven other jobs on land.
With regard to the scientific evidence on which this draconian measure, the cod recovery plan, was based, I do not believe there is any such evidence. Will the Minister of State provide funding for the steering group to undertake in-depth, real-time scientific surveys of stock assessment with immediate effect? We would then have real data and scientific evidence. What is happening at present is that vessels are moving to area VIIa.
Indeed, and I understand the dangers inherent in that. I agree this is an extremely difficult issue. However, the scientific evidence is appreciated, even by the fishing organisations, which are not saying to us that there is no evidence pointing to a need for a cod recovery plan. What has been surprising to all of us is that the Commission has been so drastic and quick in implementing the plan. We thought we would have a little more time but we must live with what the Commission has decided.
I take the Deputy's point with regard to vessels of under 14 m. That would certainly suit my area of Balbriggan and Skerries. Many such fishermen are not members of the Federation of Irish Fishermen or the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and they do not feel their voice is being heard. I am glad I will be able to report that the call for us to seek an exemption is also coming from the other side of the House.
I cannot give the Deputy an answer at present in regard to providing funding, as he can well understand, but it is something I would appreciate following up on.