asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries whether the Commissioners have so far decided what action they propose to take regarding the lands of Mr. Peter G. Alley (Record No. S/2536), Knockaroo and Kilcotton, Ballybrophy, Co. Leix; if he will state the total acreage of land held by Mr. Alley, the number of persons continuously employed on the lands referred to, and the number of small holders (under £10 valuation) living within two miles of these lands.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Leix Lands.
The lands of Knockaroo and Kilcotton referred to were published in a provisional list of lands to be vested in the Land Commission. The owner lodged an objection to their acquisition, and his objection has been heard by the Land Commission in court, but a decision has not yet been given. In addition to these lands, Mr. Alley holds 376 acres which are subject to Land Purchase annuities. It is understood he employs six men permanently, five of whom have cottages on the lands.
What was the date of the hearing of the objection? Will the Parliamentary Secretary make further inquiries regarding the allegations that six men are being continuously employed? Will he also give the information asked for in the last part of the question?
It is impossible to give that information without sending down an inspector to make inquiries. Such information will only be obtainable when we have prepared a scheme for the division of the land. I do not know what date the land comes to be dealt with by the Land Commission.
Has an inspector not visited this land, and does the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that the information asked for could not now be given?
The inspector reported on the lands for the purpose of valuing the land. It is only when a scheme for the division of the land into small holdings has been prepared that the information asked for by the Deputy can be supplied.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the inspector visited a number of small holders, and is he not in a position to give the information now?
I am not in a position to give the information now, but if the Deputy will put down a question after a scheme for the division of the land has been prepared, he will then get the information.
asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries whether several inspectors visited and inspected and reported in favour of the acquisition of the holding of Mr. John Mansfield, on the estate of William Hopkins, Lyrogue, Co. Leix (Record No. S/2406), where Mr. Mansfield resides, and if he will state what other land he owns or occupies; whether the Commissioners have already decided to acquire these lands and disallowed the objection lodged by Mr. Mansfield; whether he can state the cause of the delay on the part of the Commissioners in dealing with these lands; whether a division scheme has so far been prepared by the Commissioners; and, if so, when same is likely to be put into operation.
The Land Commission proposed to resume the holding in question and served notice on the tenant of their intention to apply to the Judicial Commission for an order authorising resumption of the holding. The tenant objected and his objection was heard by the Land Commission in court and allowed, and accordingly, the proceedings for resumption came to an end. Mr. Mansfield lives in Co. Kerry. He is tenant of holdings of 44 acres on the estate of A. V. Carden and 34 acres on the estate of Ellen Wilson, both of which are pending for sale under the Act of 1923. He is also the registered owner of a holding of 4 acres.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary seriously suggest that the owner's objection was allowed by the Commissioners in court?
Yes.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on the 22nd of April, 1927, Reference No. 2484/27, the Minister for Lands and Agriculture informed me that "This holding will be retained by the Land Commission under the provision of Section 28 (6) and an objection by the tenant was disallowed by the Land Commission." What is the meaning of the Parliamentary Secretary's answer now?
The first stage of resumption of proceedings is the inspection of the holding of the tenant objecting. That objection was overruled. The next stage was that an application was made to the Judicial Commissioner to resume the holding. That application was granted by the Judicial Commissioner. The tenant again objected, and the Judicial Commissioner upheld the objection. This latter objection was heard in court and the objection was upheld.
When was the objection made, and what was the date of the hearing?
I cannot give the date of the hearing, but it was in court.
I desire to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory answer of the Parliamentary Secretary I will raise this matter on the adjournment.