Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

I am happy to deal with questions which may not have been answered. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked about inshore seafood products and differential labelling. He also asked what needed to be put included in legislation to make this happen. There are various reasons, but it is not for the want of legislation. Deputy Noel Harrington referred to the fact that, in general, fishermen wanted to fish. Inshore fishermen are not marketing experts; they just want to go out, catch the fish, sell them today and do the same tomorrow. In general terms, that has resulted in it being a world market rather than a niche market.

Deputy Michael McNamara referred to the market for Irish beef. Rather than legislation, we might instead need awareness and an appetite.

It is fair to say local is the new organic with reference to produce. There is an increasing consumer desire for low carbon mile figures. The proximity of Ireland to the rich natural fishing resources and the lower volume of diesel used by Irish fishermen in the search for fish are marketing points that might have benefits. We are in the middle of a recession, but the high-end food market seems to be relatively recession-proof and perhaps this should be considered.

There is a need to improve the awareness of consumers. For example, what does the term "line-caught mackerel" mean to the average consumer? Are consumers aware of the benefits of it not being towed in a trawl? Are they aware that larger fish, rather than the smaller fish, will bite the bigger hook? This is an example to simplify a very complex issue.

The question of freezing fish was raised. The Common Fisheries Policy is extending the fishery control regulation to the retail sector. The descriptive labelling of fish as not previously frozen will become obligatory at retail level. This will give an advantage to this type of fish product. I have observed marketing ploys in use in some member states for terrestrial food, whereby the food is labelled to indicate that 30% of the retail price is returned to the primary producer. There are ways available that do not require legislation. However, as a regulator, I have to express the view that we need the courts to take seriously any non-conformance with labelling regulations. It must be taken on board. I acknowledge that it is not the end of the world, but any non-conformance with regulations misleads the consumer and needs to be taken seriously.

Will I deal with the other direct questions?