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

We must recognise that when agreement was reached on the regulation in June 2013, we had the EU Presidency and the Department was party to agreeing this minimum activity clause. That was two years ago. The Department was aware of it and, presumably, since it was in the driving seat, it did not agree to something without thinking through its implications.

Have there been discussions about what happens in the Alps, which are covered by snow even at this time of the year? They are still skiing over there. They obviously have no activity for most of the year. This is also the case in northern Sweden or Finland, in the Arctic Circle, where the growing season would be very short as it would be very dark in the winter. What are their eligibility rules for grazing land and what is the minimum activity in those extreme climates?

If one has a hill, which is in a commonage of two or more people, one gets €120 a hectare. Is that not correct?

However, if the hill happens to be owned by one person and is not in a SAC, NHA or SPA, that person does not get paid at all under GLAS for the exact same hill. Have the witnesses raised that issue with the Department? If so, how did it explain it? If a husband and wife are lucky enough to own the land, is that a commonage? There is no legal definition of commonage; we do not even know what a commonage is. Have the witnesses had any clarification from the Department of how it makes fish of one and fowl of the other? I have never had any such clarification. Land is land, and surely the ecological basis is exactly the same irrespective of how it is owned.