Vol. 507 No. 4
3 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason mountain sheep farmers are not entitled to use certain commonages for area aid purposes; the reason rented commonages are excluded for stocking purposes; if his attention has been drawn to the devastating effect these regulations will have on the economic and social fabric of the most disadvantaged areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17077/99]
There are no requirements of the nature outlined by the Deputy for area aid participants. However, farmers are required to provide evidence of their entitlement to use all commonage lands claimed for area aid purposes.
There are, however, controls on the use of commonages under the REP scheme. A new supplementary measure – supplementary measure A – has been introduced under the REP scheme to address, among other things, the problem of overgrazing of commonages. Under this measure farmers are given enhanced compensation to follow an agri-environmental plan which may include a reduction in the stocking levels on some commonages.
In the discussions leading up to the approval of supplementary measure A the European Commission insisted that commonage shareholders could not use other shareholders' commonage rights. This precluded the use of leased commonage as eligible land under the scheme. However, as a concession to existing participants in the scheme who receive REP scheme payments in respect of leased commonage, these farmers may continue with their current agreement subject to amending their REPS plans to comply with the stocking provisions of supplementary measure A.
In recognition of the fact that the REP scheme might not be appropriate to cover all cases where farmers require compensation following an agri-environmental plan, another scheme of compensation from national funds is being drafted by my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.
I put it to the Minister that bureaucracy has gone mad and that the EU, the Government and the various Departments have placed so many restrictions on farmers who use mountains for sheep grazing that all we are doing is ensuring there will be less people living in disadvantaged areas than ever before. If somebody put a restriction on the use of gardens owned by people outside farming who know nothing about SACs or mountain grazing there would be uproar. However, a restriction is being put on the land worked for generations by farmers. This is being done unnecessarily and without adequate compensation or consultation.
What is happening is nothing short of a disaster. What is the Government approach to this matter? I think the Government is hiding behind the EU directive. Shareholders' rights cannot be used for all eternity because the land cannot be rented to someone else. Does the Minister accept the measure, which concerns the most disadvantaged areas, is draconian and that it is time for somebody to act?
Concerning the analogy used, there is a restriction on private gardens. For example, it is no longer possible in Dublin to keep a horse in one's back garden under the Control of Horses Act.
In 1998 many commonages were over claimed, in other words the same people claimed for the same commonage without definition of rights. As a consequence in 1999 we had no option but to apply this control measure to all area aid applicants claiming commonage in order that commonage could be processed efficiently. The onus rested with the applicant to ensure that documentation submitted as proof was adequate to support a claim. I appreciate what the Deputy said. There are areas where there are problems and where there is no proof of right to graze. An area could have been grazed for 200 years but documentation may not exist because the landlord or other person did not grant it. Any evidence, such as a copy of a Land Registry map, a land vesting order, a certificate of relevant estate papers, a grant from the free legal hold owner, grazing, trust or grant deed, or a deed by the original estate landlord or any such acceptable documentary evidence may do in terms of establishing rights. Where ownership or other entitlement cannot be established for a precise land area in a commonage in respect of grazing rights, sworn affidavits from shareholders will be accepted where they all agree to their respective shares. The problem arises because many people cannot get agreement regarding shares. We recognise that there is overgrazing while over claiming caused terrible problems in terms of administration.
In so far as shareholders' rights are concerned regarding rented commonages, is that not a gross intrusion into the rights of private property ownership? The way it is going, will it finish up in the courts?
To take the wider view, there is overgrazing on many mountains.
I am not talking about overgrazing.
We are also talking about where two people are claiming area aid for the same area.
What about the unused commonages? The Minister of State is side-stepping the issue.
The Minister should conclude.
I am not side-stepping the issue. If there is documentary evidence to prove that rights are passed on—
He cannot do it because it is outlawed.
Deputy Connaughton, we must conclude this question.
As I said here on many occasions, all the departmental officials, whom the Deputy unfortunately referred to as bureaucrats, are trying to be inclusive in this rather than exclusive.
It is going down like a lead balloon.
Lead balloons usually fall.
