Vol. 398 No. 9
6 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason new regulations such as the furnishing of copy deeds and folio numbers are now required by his Department from all applicants for cattle and sheep headage grants; the origin of such requests and if it was stipulated by the European Commission; and if his attention has been drawn to the fact that such demands will result in vast areas of undivided mountains in the country being left ungrazed in the future.
My Department have not introduced any new regulations regarding copy deeds or folio numbers to the cattle and sheep headage schemes in disadvantaged areas. Applicants for these schemes are required to declare the area of land used by them for forage purposes. Since there are limits on the amounts of grants that can be paid per forage hectare devoted to the different types of livestock it is necessary that the accuracy of declarations be checked, especially in the case of new applicants or in the cases where the forage area for sheep headage purposes differs from that quoted for cattle headage purposes or where areas differ from year to year without any obvious explanation. The European Commission do not stipulate the precise nature of the legal documentation required, although various EC auditors have commented on discrepancies in areas quoted on applications from year to year. We are obliged to implement controls to eliminate these discrepancies.
The claim that vast areas of undivided mountains will be left ungrazed in the future because of requests to substantiate declarations made on cattle and sheep headage applications is without foundation.
I am amazed at the Minister's reply; he must not have his ear to the ground. Is he aware that his departmental and the BTB offices throughout the country are requesting farmers to submit evidence of their folio numbers and to produce a copy of their deeds? Is he aware that if they cannot produce a copy of their deeds they must furnish their folio numbers, when his Department's offices then check with the Land Registry the ownership of the land in question? Would the Minister ascertain how somebody grazing a mountain commonage can produce evidence of his claim to that mountain commonage when it is undivided? Will the Minister say whether such a person will be debarred from receiving a sheep headage grant this year because he cannot furnish either a folio number or produce a copy of the relevant deeds?
The Deputy will have noted that I said: We are obliged by the European Community auditors to implement controls and regulations to ensure proper certification of the applicant's title, the land he possesses and indeed also his entitlement in terms of the numbers of animals in respect of which he is claiming. The reality is that, since the EC provide the bulk of the funds, they are entitled to lay down those requirements. I did not say — perhaps the Deputy misunderstood — that we do not require evidence of title. I said the Commission do not specify exactly the evidence that is required but they do require us to satisfy them as to the controls we are putting in place.
As a follow up to that reply, it is clearly evident that staff in Land Registry offices throughout the country are inundated with applications for folio numbers and copies of deeds.
That is a separate matter and is not the responsibility of the Minister in possession.
A Cheann Comhairle, I merely want to get the Minister's word on it now. Will he say whether any applicant who cannot prove his folio number or produce a copy of his deeds will be debarred from receiving a cattle or sheep headage grant in 1990 or future years?
As the Ceann Comhairle has noted, I do not have responsibility for the Land Registry. I am very anxious to ensure that in these circumstances whatever evidence of title that is required, can be made available as efficiently and easily as possible to farmers by the Land Registry. I have been conveying that view to the Land Registry.
It is not a question of the Land Registry. The Minister's departmental officials are insisting on it.
What I did say was that we have not introduced any new regulations regarding copy deeds or folio numbers. We have not introduced new regulations. That remains the position. But I have to satisfy — and Deputies must fully appreciate this — the European Commission as to the ownership of herds and the land on which herds are grazed; otherwise the operation just would not work. After all, since it is the Commission who pay the piper, they are at least entitled to lay down requirements.
A Cheann Comhairle—
I have given Deputy Sheehan quite an amount of latitute. I am calling Deputy Stagg.
Given the content of the Minister's reply in regard to undivided mountain areas and commonages, can he confirm to the House that there is no connection between the type of proofs about which he is talking as being required and the proposal to divide such a commonage in Mulrany in County Mayo into 27 acre lots which will be useless to sheep——
The Deputy is raising a specific matter worthy of a separate question.
I am asking if there is a connection between the Minister's reply about proofs and the proposal to divide commonages generally?
The Deputy mentioned a specific area.
If there is certainly I am not aware of it.
May I appeal to the House to facilitate the Chair in making appreciable progress on other questions. I cannot — nor can the House — be expected to provide an inordinate amount of time for any one question. There are Deputies awaiting replies to their questions and they have a right to have them answered.
Is not it true that, despite what the Minister says about our accountability to Brussels, many Departments of Agriculture in other European countries have a less harsh regime than ours? Would the Minister not agree that that was always the case?
May I make just one comment? I can say this quite openly to the House, the more we succeed — and I am happy that we have succeeded — in increasing the level of European Community contributions to whatever payments come through to farmers — for example in the case of the ewe premium they pay 100 per cent, for which I can claim some modest credit — the more they are entitled to say "it is our money; we are at least entitled to know it is being spent properly". That is the reality of it.
It is a regime——
I am calling Question No. 7.
There was nothing wrong with the procedure adopted for the past decade. Why change it?
The Deputy should realise that they are now getting more.
