Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the IFA members. I apologise for being late but I had another committee meeting to attend. I am not a member of the committee but I am a guest.

I brought a delegation from Connemara and Galway IFA to meet the Minister before Christmas to explore some of the issues. Mr. Fadian was present and is aware of the Minister’s view at the time in terms of stopping the request by the National Parks and Wildlife Service for letters to issue, which caused much concern before Christmas. The minimum and maximum figures published in the Irish Farmers' Journal would also have caused much unrest, in particular the issues relating to neglected responsibility.

We had a good discussion last week with the Department and the National Parks and Wildlife Service on the issue. I asked a number of questions at the time. I put the view to the witnesses at that meeting that if a commonage is in good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, for example, like south Connemara, that the Department should not need to deal with individual farmers on the basis that someone is doing something right. Those who are grazing are doing it right and those who are not grazing are also correct. Therefore, if the commonage is in good GAEC there is no need to get involved. There is a need to get involved in other commonages that are not in GAEC for a variety of reasons such as overgrazing or under-grazing.

I put the figures in a simple way to the Minister at the previous meeting. If one has ten shares in a commonage of which three are dormant, four inactive – where individuals do not graze sheep - and three active, and the overall commonage is allowed 300 sheep and the three farmers have 100 sheep each, therefore the commonage is being grazed to its maximum potential by three individuals. Surely that would mean the Department would not need to examine the situation of the farmers who are inactive. The Department pointed out that the Commission will query whether it is right to pay farmers who are not grazing the commonage. I am not sure whether in such cases farmers with cattle are considered active or inactive. Deputy Ó Cuív inquired about the definition of “active” and “inactive” in that regard. I consider an active farmer to be one farming his or her land to its potential. One could not have the same stocking rate across the country because land quality differs.

I do not expect anything to be sorted out on commonages this year but it is becoming increasingly obvious that farms are being under-grazed. There are more farmers now aged over 80 than under 30. If one has a group of elderly farmers, few if any of them are grazing commonages, although there might some on smaller commonages. In effect, one could have a commonage that is not being grazed at all but where a claim is being made. What is the advice for those farmers who might be inspected this year who suddenly find that the commonage is not in GAEC because of the low level of grazing?

The Minister appeared to be supportive of liaison groups. What is the view of the witnesses on them? Do they believe they are workable? A smaller commonage with fewer shareholders is easier to deal with as one can put all of them around a table - assuming they all get on together - and thrash out a plan for stocking rates. I accept that a commonage with a larger number of people involved gives rise to particular problems. I spoke to someone who told me that the commonage of which he is a part has a 100 acre section coming down from the brow of a hill to other land where an individual goes out with a few dogs. Any time sheep come into the 100 acres, he runs them out of it to make sure for whatever reason that sheep are not allowed into that section of commonage. That is one of the unfortunate peculiarities one can find on a commonage.

In terms of dormant shares, I am not worried about individuals not taking up their shares on a commonage. People might not know they have shares or in other cases the owners might have died.

There should be an allowance for people who wish to take up their share of grazing potential and who wish to put more sheep on a hill if there are restrictions in place.

An upland agri-environmental scheme was mentioned. What sort of plans are there for that? Would it be similar to the BurrenLIFE project? Deputy Ó Cuív said he had concerns about that because he would rather see other mechanisms, such as higher single payments. There was reluctance to use the word "compensation" last time but the packages that have been sent around for years state the compensation for designation is REPS or AEOS. My view is that SACs, NHAs and SPAs prohibit farmers from doing certain things, irrespective of commonage or habitat value. If land is designated, farmers are prohibited from planting or installing new wind turbine technology, which has been causing more problems or offering more opportunities depending on one's point of view. The old REPS payment facilitated that compensation.

Questions on traditional stock were not answered the last time. The Kerry and Dexter cattle are not available in large numbers, even if commercial farmers wanted them. Why is that?

Appeals are important, no matter what the regime is. It is important the facilities exist so appeals are quick and effective.