Sixteen hill farmers on the Knockmealdown Mountains in west Waterford are facing the imposition of rent increases of 900% by a British absentee landlord. This increase will put them off the land. These are generational farmers; families who have farmed the mountains for generations and centuries. I have met them several times. Only last week, Deputy Cullinane and I were up on the mountains with them.

What is happening is a stark injustice. It has echoes of darker times when absentee landlords, British aristocrats, pushed Irish farmers off the land. That is a comparison that should concern all of us, and it certainly should concern the Government. It is 2026 not 1846, yet farmers in Waterford are being forced off land that their families have farmed for generations. The Government is making matters worse. At the very moment that these farmers are under the most pressure in this land dispute, their farm payments are being withheld. The Government is holding them over a barrel and is strengthening the landlord's hand. The Government and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine are taking a side in this and are pushing these farmers towards the edge. I raised this issue previously with the Minister of State's colleague the Minister, Deputy Heydon. There have been protests. There has been strong public support. This has been raised by Congressmen and MPs in the United States and Britain, but there has been no action on the part of the Government. That is not acceptable. This cannot continue.

These farmers are doing everything they can to remain on the land. Will the Minister of State ensure that these payments are released to them? Will he meet the farmers to hear their concerns and stories? Will he clearly support their right to remain farming on the land in question and make a statement in the Dáil in the interests of supporting them and other hill farmers and sheep farmers in maintaining their way of life and agricultural activity?

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.

The Minister of State and this Government need to make a clear intervention here. I am more than happy to say that what is happening here is wrong, that the demand of a 900% rent increase by a British absentee aristocratic landlord on Irish farmers is wrong. I would urge the Minister of State to make that statement and for his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Heydon, to make a similar statement. That would carry an awful lot of weight.

To return to the farm payments issue, it is important to put on the record here again that all farm payments are being withheld from farmers who are unable to produce this commonage letter from the aristocratic absentee landlord. Effectively, the proof that Government requires to show that these farmers are actively farming, on these lands that are in dispute and on all other lands they are farming, is a commonage letter from the landlord with whom they are in dispute, and that is an unfair burden. It is an unfair intervention into this dispute and it is not necessary. There are creative means by which the Department can establish that these farmers are actively farming land and ensure that they have some kind of income rather than holding them over a barrel while this dispute continues.

There are sometimes cases where there is a grey area but I think this one is black and white. The people whom I have spoken to, including the hill farmers but also people in the wider west Waterford area and in Waterford city, are outraged that a British absentee landlord who goes by the name of the Duke of Devonshire, who owns tens of thousands of acres of land and is a billionaire as far as I can see, is imposing a rent increase of 900% on 16 hill farmers in the Knockmealdown Mountains who just want to farm. They say they are being driven off the land.

What they have asked the Minister of State, through us, is for him to meet them to try to see if there is some resolution. That is a reasonable request. That would be a big step forward if the Minister of State were to agree to that. That, in turn, could put pressure on the landlord, because the landlord needs to move. I accept that. This is an issue that the landlord has to step up to the plate on as well. It is greed that is at the heart of this.

I appeal to the Minister of State to meet these hill farmers.

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.