asked the Minister for Lands if he will inquire into the circumstances surrounding the interview between James Agnew, Stabannon, Castlebellingham, County Louth, and the Land Commission Inspector who called on him; and whether he is aware that the Land Commission proposes compulsorily to acquire James Agnew's holding of 12 acres at Drumcashel although this man is a working farmer with six in family who is temporarily embarrassed by failing health.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Louth Holdings.
asked the Minister for Lands if the Land Commission have taken any steps to acquire the lands of Patrick and Minnie Nagle, of Stabannon, Castlebellingham, County Louth, and, if so, on what grounds he proposes to acquire 11½ acres from a farmer whose total holdings amount to 14 acres.
asked the Minister for Lands whether the Land Commission have taken any steps with a view to acquiring the farm of Owen Marry, of Drumcashel, Castlebellingham, County Louth, and if so, on what grounds he proposes to acquire a 7½-acre farm from a working farmer.
asked the Minister for Lands whether the Land Commission have taken any steps to acquire the farm of Miss Brady, of Drumcashel, Castlebellingham, County Louth, and, if so, if he will state the grounds for the compulsory acquisition of this land.
asked the Minister for Lands whether he is aware that Mrs. Matthew, of Stabannon, Castlebellingham, County Louth, from whom the Land Commission proposes to take over 11 acres is a widow with six in family and is dependent on her widow's pension and whatever she can earn on this land; and if he will state the reasons for such a proceeding.
Mr. Boland
I propose to take together the Deputy's five questions regarding parcels of untenanted land on the Macan estate in County Louth of which the respective allottees were James Agnew, Patrick and Mary Nagle, Owen Marry, Lizzie Brady and Mrs. Matthews, widow of the late John Joseph Matthews. Parcels of land on this estate were allotted to these parties under agreements for letting for temporary convenience. Subsequently it was ascertained that they were letting either the whole or portion of their parcels in conacre in contravention of a clause in their agreements and the Land Commission decided to terminate their agreements and take up the parcels from them. Notices were served on the allottees in July last giving them three months' notice of the termination of their agreements as from the 1st November last, and on the 2nd November the inspector called on the parties and took over possession of the lands.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, I would like to know if the Minister is aware, in the case of James Agnew of Stabannon, that the reason for his failure recently to till his holding has been because of the man's illness? Is the Minister aware that when the inspector called on him, Agnew had to send to school to get his child home from school so as to help him to put on his clothes? Does the Minister realise that the failure in this man's case is simply because he has been temporarily very indisposed?
Mr. Boland
The information of the Land Commission in this matter was that these lands were let and that from the very beginning there was no attempt on the part of the allottees to use the lands at all. That is the information of the Land Commission and I am quite sure that that information is correct.
Is the Minister aware that in the case of Owen Marry, the tenant can prove beyond all doubt or question that even last year he spent £10 on seeds and manures for his particular piece of land, and does the Minister realise that if this land is now taken from him his successors in title will enjoy the fruits of Owen Marry's labour and expenditure?
Mr. Boland
I am not aware of that.
Arising out of the Minister's answer, I want to ask if he will give me an undertaking to give these cases his personal attention, because in the district there is universal condemnation of what has been done by the Land Commission, and the suspicion has been raised that this action on the part of the Land Commission is not altogether above board and that improper influences have been at work. Is the Minister aware that these tenants are deserving people? Is he aware that one of them is a widow, the eldest of whose family is only 13 years, and that he would be able to help her soon? Is he aware that all these people have their land virtually taken from them and that overnight they have been changed from small farmers into labourers? Does the Minister know that it was said locally that there are going to come into these holdings five persons, two of whom were very acrimoniously engaged in politics and one of them a person whose past record contains no glowing testimonials? If the Minister will give me an undertaking that he will himself personally examine these cases I am prepared to let the matter stand over, but I want to assure the Minister that the facts are altogether exceptional and deserving of his personal attention?
Mr. Boland
The Deputy ought to know that this is not a matter for me. I do not go out and inspect land and see how it is worked. Inspectors are employed for that purpose. The Deputy himself drew attention last year to what has been happening in cases similar to these where people were not making proper use of the land. I then said that if that was continuing we would have it stopped. In pursuance of that undertaking these lands were visited by an inspector. On the report of the inspector, and without any interference from anyone, this matter came to a head. When the inspector went there he found that these lands had not been worked by the people to whom they had been allotted. That being the case, and it having continued for a number of years, the Land Commission decided to take over the lands. In the case of the widow the matter will be reopened. I will ask the Land Commission to reconsider that case. So far as I am concerned it is not my job, as the Deputy and every other Deputy here know, to go around and inspect each of these holdings myself.
I quite agree that the allotment of land is not a matter over which the Minister has any discretion, but in cases like these, where the land has to be taken up from existing tenants, it is a matter in which the Minister should be concerned. If, in view of the representations now made to the Minister, he will undertake to look into the matter himself and see that justice is done, I am now prepared to let the matter drop.
Mr. Boland
I will look into the matter, but I want to remind Deputy Dillon that if we are going to do what Deputy Dillon is asking to have done we are going to have that trouble in every district where land has been given out, and is being neglected by the tenants. If the matter is raised here, then we will have trouble in every instance where we want to take over land that has been neglected. I shall look into this case and see if there is anything in what the Deputy has said. If there is, the Land Commission will probably reconsider it.
Will not the Minister agree that in these cases in which, undoubtedly, the whole issue of fixity of tenure is raised——
Mr. Boland
May I remind the Deputy that these lettings were merely for temporary convenience?
In these cases in which the whole question of fixity of tenure is raised—where the Land Commission interferes with a smallholder in the enjoyment of his holding—does not the Minister agree that—if the Commission is going to embark on this type of activity—Deputies should be free to raise a question in this House even in categorical cases?
Mr. Boland
These were temporary convenience lettings, and are quite different from the cases in which people have signed purchase agreements.
There is not much difference.
Will the Minister explain why these people only received notice last July, although they had been in possession of their little farms for the past ten years? Does not the Minister agree that it would have been much more charitable on the part of the Land Commission to have given these people a preliminary warning that unless they tilled their land it would be taken from them? Instead of that, the people only got notice last July, and were evicted in the course of two or three months.
Mr. Boland
They got three months' notice.
They had been in possession for ten years previously, and no inspector of the Land Commission seems to have been aware that these people were not dealing with their land until a certain dispute took place in regard to a pass.
A 14½ acre ranch.
It is the unanimous opinion of the people there, independent of politics, that these people were illegally dispossessed.