Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The indication was given in response to a question posed by Deputy Kyne that if commonage was not actively used no payment would be made. As pointed out in the example I gave, this does not assist the Department. If one forces all farmers who declare commonage in their area aid to put sheep on that commonage those already doing so will be required, because of the cap, to reduce the number of cattle or sheep they have on their commonage. This is of major concern. Perhaps the delegates would confirm that the IFA proposes to oppose any such approach.

We know the figures in relation to the issue raised by Mr. Bryan. To obtain a disadvantaged area scheme payment a person is required to have 0.15 livestock units per hectare in a mountain area. If I recall it correctly, it must be a severely disadvantaged area, which is a ludicrous stocking requirement in respect of that area but reasonable in respect of the hills. We know for certain that while 10,000 applied only 2,000 were refused. In other words, 80% of the derogations were granted. I have asked for a breakdown between severely disadvantaged, less favoured and mountain areas. The figures I received at Christmas indicate that more farmers on severely disadvantaged and less favoured areas than on the mountain areas were refused a derogation, which means we can surmise that fewer than 1,000 farmers on the mountain do not meet minimum stocking requirements. I have said time and again that we should have a minimum stocking level and that there should be four levels to that minimum stocking level, one each for the mountains, severely disadvantaged and less favoured areas and another for good land. That should be a requirement for single payment. This does not pose a problem for farmers in mountain areas because there is very little under-stocking of land in the mountain areas. The problem is more severe in other parts of the country. We know that for farmers with 0.15 of livestock on severely disadvantaged land it is an even bigger problem. The suggestion that there are many farmers in mountain areas declaring a great deal of land but who have no stock does not stand up to examination. A farmer who did not use the hill had to make up to 0.15 on his low land. As such, that farmer would have to have had 0.03 or 0.05 or more on the low land to make up for the hill.