P. J. Sheehan
Question:5 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development his plans to expedite the division of mountain commonage land throughout the country. [30232/01]
Priority Questions. - Commonage Division.
In 1998 my Department took the decision to withdraw from commonage division but to complete, where possible, cases already on hand. Many commonages are not suitable for division due to the nature of the terrain and the need for sheep in particular to graze over an extensive terrain. Should it become apparent that there is a demand for a division of a large number of commonages and that it would be generally beneficial, I would be willing to examine the matter.
I am amazed at the Minister of State's reply. The Department has been dragging its feet for the past ten years on the question of mountain commonage. There is no need to remind the Minister, who is a Deputy from my constituency, that I was obliged to ring Michael Davitt House in Castlebar on behalf of a constituent who has 400 acres of land and 19.5 acres of commonage. He is debarred from securing a sheep quota for the year 2002 and from leasing such a quota because he has 19.5 acres of commonage.
A question for the Minister.
It is time the Minister corrected this anomaly. If he does not want sheep to graze on commonage land, he should remove them from the grant system and allow farmers with alternative land to participate in the scheme. The Minister and the Ministers of State stand indicted for this grave anomaly.
The Chair must remind the Deputy that this is Question Time.
It is not a rare problem. It occurs in the Minister of State's constituency in Galway West. When will the Minister take firm action to divide the hundreds of thousands of commonage acres throughout the country? The farmers are crying out for assistance from the Department. The Minister abolished the Land Commission and took over this responsibility but did nothing with it.
Deputy Sheehan is trying to address two different issues. One is a regulation in relation to the allocation of sheep quota that arose out of the overgrazing difficulty that the EU perceived in the commonages. The second is the division of commonage. The division of commonage is not necessarily the answer to the first problem because many commonages are not suitable for division. Where there are 30 farmers with commonage of 300 acres of hill, for example, and where the sheep need to range over the hill, dividing the commonage into simple mathematical ten acre plots does not solve the problem. Deputy Sheehan knows that hill sheep need a range to graze so division of commonage is not the solution to the first problem in many cases.
The second issue the Deputy raises is the non-allocation of quota. If he puts down a parliamentary question on that issue, I will be happy to answer it.
The Minister is on cloud nine where this question is concerned.
Is that a question?
Neither he nor the other Ministers in the Department has done anything towards alleviating this problem. The farmers are crying out for the division of commonages and they are right. The farmers must stipulate on their area aid forms that they own a certain percentage of the commonage. Surely it is not beyond the capabilities of the Department to streamline this process and to abolish the commonage problem by returning the land to the respective farmers.
Deputy Sheehan is not listening.
He is listening intently.
In reply to a parliamentary question on 6 October 1999 the Deputy was told it was not the Department's intention to continue with commonage division except with the cases on hand.
The fact that the Minister says it does not mean we believe it.
Deputy Sheehan is usually a fair-minded man. I thought he would accept my comment today that if it became apparent that there was a demand for the division of a large number of commonages and that it would be gen erally beneficial, I would be willing to look again at the issue. However, I must also stress, as the former manager of a sheep farmers' co-op, I am aware of the problems in hill sheep farming. It must also be stressed that division is not the solution to many commonage problems and every hill sheep farmer will agree with that.
There are commonages that would suit division but there are many where division is not a practical solution to the problem. The sheep must have a large range of land to graze and where there are a large number of shareholders the division would result in parcels that were too small. Think of the hills that are common in the Deputy's part of the country and mine. If the land were to be divided into little blocks, the person with the little block on the top of the hill would not be able to carry on farming.
I was born on a small mountain farm with 25 acres of commonage, which is still a commonage, so I know the commonage problem too well. If the area aid scheme insists that the farmers must show that they have a legal right to a certain percentage of commonage when they submit their area aid applications and where there is demand for subdivision of that commonage, the Minister should stop dilly-dallying and divide the land among the farmers concerned.
I will repeat the answer I gave the Deputy. I have said there is not a universal demand for division of commonage for the reasons I have given.
The Minister of State has not got his ear to the ground.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy must recognise that it is a totally different answer to the one he got in 1999. What I said today is that where there is a demand, where there is agreement amongst the shareholders in the commonage and where it will be seen to be generally beneficial, I will look at the division of the commonage. I suggest that the Deputy show me cases where there is general agreement amongst the shareholders that they want their commonages divided. If I had that information I certainly am willing to look at the situation.
Has the Minister the finance the will and the power in his Department to carry out what he has promised here in the House?
What I am saying to the Deputy is quite clear. If there is a problem, let us find out what it is. Because of the High Court case that was taken, all commonage divisions must be by agreement of all the shareholders. That is probably—
Not necessarily. One person cannot hold it up.
Yes he can. I beg to differ with the Deputy. The Deputy is incorrect. There was a High Court case taken and as a consequence of that, unless there is full agreement there is nothing in practice I can do about it. That is the major hold up.