I thank Deputies McGuinness and Cullinane for raising this issue. The farmers to whom they refer have been farming on the area in question for generations, indeed some of the families involved have had hundreds of years of continuous farming in the same area. However, I am informed by the Department that the land in question is, as the Deputies identified, owned by a third party. Regardless of how that came about or the historical dimension to it, it has to be accepted that it is a third party who owns the land. That third party has requested substantially increased rents for use of the land. Therein lies the problem for everyone. Unfortunately, the Department has no role in how farmers and landholders agree rental prices. This is clearly something that must be arranged between the landowner and the farmer renting the land. I do not see that situation changing in the future either; it is a private commercial transaction between two parties. The Department routinely corresponds with farmers to establish that they have land at their disposal and that they are actively farming the lands declared on their applications. I understand that the farmers involved here are also concerned about payments that the Department administers which are dependent on the right to farm this rented land. Deputy McGuinness raised this issue during oral parliamentary questions a few weeks ago and requested that the Department waive the requirement for the farmers to have this land at their disposal. It is a core principle of Common Agricultural Policy funding that farmers have the right to farm the land they declare; in other words, that the land is at their disposal. Unfortunately, in this case it is clear that these farmers will not have the land involved at their disposal as a result of all of the issues the Deputies raised as long as the disagreement over the rental price continues. The Department is constrained by the terms and conditions of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is not, therefore, within the gift of the Department to make payments to farmers who are not able to assert a legal right to be on land. I fully get the situation here, but, unfortunately, it is no different to circumstances where the Deputies might be renting land from me or where I might be renting land from them. The historical context to this of course makes it challenging and emotive for all of us. I am aware that this has happened in other parts of the country as well. There is the infamous case of the Shirley Estate in Carrickmacross, which was the subject of protracted battles in the courts. Through the Deputies' colleague, Deputy Matt Carthy, they may be able to ascertain some information as to how those challenging issues were addressed. I see this as somewhat similar, from my own observation rather than from a departmental perspective. It is challenging for all of us to grapple with it but I accept and recognise that it is most challenging for the 16 farmers whose lives and livelihoods depend on this.

Sentiment score: 0.11

I am aware of this issue, obviously, but I am also conscious of the constitutional rights of property owners. Deputy Cullinane says that there is often a grey area and this is black and white. Emotionally, it is black and white. For any of us and for any member of society, the picture that the Deputies paint is black and white in terms of what should transpire, but from a departmental perspective and from a Government perspective, we have to be conscious of the Constitution and the laws and be seen to uphold those and also uphold the terms and conditions of the Common Agricultural Policy, and that puts very significant constraints on what the Minister, Deputy Heydon, and I can do. However, I am more than happy to meet the 16 hill farmers as soon as possible and I will go through it with them, and if the Deputies or others can come up with a greyness or find a route through it or a solution, I am happy to look at that. As I said, I am more than happy to meet the 16 hill farmers.

Sentiment score: 0.32