asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries when it is intended to resume work on the division of the lands of Toghboy and Curradoon, on the estate of G. McK. O'Rorke, in County Roscommon; and if he is aware that considerable inconvenience and actual loss have been sustained by some of the tenants owing to the mutilation of their old holdings with roads and fences.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Land Division in Roscommon.
I propose to take together the Deputy's three questions relative to the estate of G. McK. O'Rorke, County Roscommon:
The division scheme which has been prepared in this case involves the re-arrangement of some 30 vested (registered) holdings and their enlargement by the division of 680 acres of the adjoining untenanted lands of Curraghdoon and Toghboy. A sum of about £3,000 has already been spent on general improvements (roads, fences and drains) and the draft scheme provides for the expenditure of a further considerable sum on similar works which will be put in hand when the scheme is approved of.
As regards the Deputy's first two questions, the scheme for the re-arrangement of the holdings and the division of the untenanted land on this estate not having yet received the approval of the Commissioners, particulars as to the fixing of annuities on new holdings and the substitution of annuities for grazing rents cannot be given at the moment.
I may say, however, that it is intended to give tenants generally, to the fullest possible extent, the benefits of the revision provided for in Part III of the Land Act, 1933, of annual payments which are in the nature of prospective purchase annuities and the Deputy may take it that the tenants on this estate will be given every reduction provided for by the Act.
As to the concluding question, it is expected that the scheme will be completed and approved at an early date and it is then intended to resume work in respect of the division of the lands. A certain amount of disturbance to tenants in the matter of making roads and fences is inevitable in the rearrangement of holdings, but I am not aware that any undue inconvenience has been caused to the tenants on this estate. The rearrangement of holdings will, of course, be for their benefit.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that two of those tenants—a man named Kelly and the other man named Kennedy—have had their holdings pointed out to them as far back as 1931, and since then they have been working these holdings, and that they have been informed as far back as 1931 the amount of the annuities they would have to pay on these holdings? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of that? If he is I would like to ask him, with regard to the present charges on these lands as grazing lands, does he know that one of these tenants—Kennedy—was informed that the annuity would be £9 1s. 0d., on which he would be entitled to a 50 per cent. reduction, making the yearly annuity £4 10s. 6d., and he would be only liable for half of this for the half year, that would be £2 5s. 3d.? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that man has been charged £16 by the Land Commission for the past half year for the grazing of these lands when he should only have been charged £2 5s. 3d. if the allocation was complete? I have a letter here from the Land Commission setting out that no reduction could be made to him.
I would like to hear the Deputy's supplementary question.
I was just coming to the supplementary question. I must be excused, because of the grouping of the three questions into one answer. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these two men have been unjustly treated in this matter? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of these things, that one of these men who should be charged only £2 5s. 3d. is being charged £16, and that the other, who should be charged £3 13s. 3d., has been charged £15?
These two tenants are not treated in any different manner to what has been the custom as regards the other tenants.
I agree.
They will get the full benefits of the Land Act of 1933 just in the same way as their neighbours.
I have not picked them out as being differently treated to anybody else, but I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary does the Land Commission think it is just and fair to charge a man £16 when he should only be charged £2 5s. 3d., and to charge another man £15 when he should be only charged £3 13s. 3d.? Is he aware that were it not for the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary failed to complete the allocation properly in the last three years these men would not have been penalised in this way?