Mr. Bertie Wall:

I thank members for their questions which I will take in rotation, beginning with Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív. Our dealings with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine have been about CAP reform to date and have been very poor as it did not want to hear our viewpoint. We have sent it our policy document and will request meetings with it. Our first priority was CAP reform.

The whole question of the absent stakeholders has to be handled very gingerly. I remember being called to Donegal, Sligo and Kerry on one or two occasions when people wanted to put afforestation on to commonages. That caused an amount of trouble. The area where the trees were to be put in place had to be fenced. The whole concept of putting fencing on a commonage was so alien to some people that it created horrendous problems. People who thought they owned shares in particular commonages and found that other people had turbary rights then objected. I foresee all these issues arising again. There may be a situation where one could rent another person's share but then a family member will object because he or she considers they have turbary rights on it. There is a huge lore of hidden problems in the management of commonages. As Deputy Ó Cuív said, the key is to take our time and give ourselves a good lead in period. If we insist on implementing all of those changes it will not be possible. First, the people whom we expect to increase stock numbers, or do it rapidly, will not have the financial resources to do so; therefore, they will have to be given time and financial assistance. Perhaps the best method, as far as possible, is to allow the farmers who want to actively farm the commonages to rent the space from other stakeholders in the commonage.

In regard to the collective agreement issue, we all know that where farmers enter into a agreement voluntarily, that is fine. If, as Deputy Ó Cuív has said, there is an element of being forced into it, farmers are suspicious of legally binding agreements and always have been. Farm owners and landowners are intrinsically very independent minded people who like to do their own business and mind their own business and mind their own patch. Therefore, a fundamental change in thinking and mental attitudes will have to be brought about to this concept which is a pretty new one. People will raise all sorts of problems in regard to the collective agreement issue. If I keep the proper stocking rate, while another guy with whom we are in agreement does not keep to the stocking rate and we will all be punished, why should I accept that? All of these issues will have to be addressed at meetings and explained to people. The matter will have to be taken gingerly.

Deputy Martin Ferris asked for a definition of what is meant by term "active farmers". Our definition in United Farmers Association is anybody who is producing from the land, whether it is cereals, animal farming, fodder for other farmers who do not have sufficient land to keep their stock and require a neighbour to provide silage or hay, or vegetables. That is our definition of an active farmer. Regardless of whether he is part-time or full-time he is actively producing something from the land. Every hectare that produces something that is saleable and worthwhile should attract the same level of payment. Our attitude is that there should be no discrimination between good land, poor land or the product produced on that land.

On the introduction of new breeds, if there is an insistence on a short period - we suggest five to ten years - for getting the stocking rates up to the specified stocking rates and bringing in new breeds, huge problems will unfold. The committee is aware that commonages are vast open areas. These sheep have no sense of place or locality and will wander all over the place. Are we going to fence the commonages, which is against the whole idea? Will we have to fence the sides of all public roads running through commonages? In a county such as Donegal let us think of the amount of fencing that would be required there. The State is reluctant to fence in its own land in the national park and allows its stock to wander all over commonages owned by private individuals. Therefore, is the State going to fund the huge cost of fencing? It is either that or we slowly introduce the sheep over a period and allow them to become hefted sheep, in other words, accustomed to the area. These are the problems. Do I have a solution to the absent stakeholders? They have to be encouraged to allow people who want to farm to rent or sell their stake to them. At the end of the day, I do not have a legal answer to those who will do neither.