asked the Minister for Lands if the recent decisions of the Land Commission Tribunal not to acquire lands on the estates of O'Connor and Nolan (Record No. S. 5873) and T.J. Kyne (Record No. S. 7598) indicates a change of policy in respect of land acquisition for the relief of congestion; and, if not, will he say if evidence of the acute congestion existing on or in the vicinity of these estates was given to the tribunal; and can he say how it is now proposed to relieve it, if at all.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Relief of Congestion.
No change of policy is indicated by the decisions of the Land Commission on the objections against resumption made by the respective tenants on the estates of O'Connor and Nolan and T. J. Kyne. The particulars of congestion existing in the neighbourhood of these holdings were before the commissioners and the respective decisions were arrived at after full consideration of all the circumstances in each case. The Land Commission are fully aware of the congestion existing in the localities in question, and all such localities are always under consideration in their general policy of endeavouring to relieve congestion by the acquisition of suitable untenanted land or by migration.
With reference, first, to the Mynish lands, could the Minister say if the tribunal was aware that there are 80 tenants on the fringe of this farm who have between them only 59 acres of the worst land, and that their forebears were dispossessed of this land in 1856? Can he say also if the tribunal was aware that these applicants were refused housing grants by his Department until such time as this farm was divided amongst them? With reference, then, to the T.J. Kyne lands, can he say whether the tribunal was aware that the Land Commission actually pointed out holdings to congests as far back as 1936, and if it was aware that each of the owners gave consent to the acquisition of these estates by the Land Commission?
As I have already informed the Deputy, the Land Commission, in hearing these cases, were aware, according to my information, of all the particulars of congestion in the area. I cannot say what the position is with regard to the building grants to which the Deputy refers. I should like to have notice of that question.
How can the Minister say that the tribunal was aware of all the facts and circumstances, in view of the fact that only one side of the case was put to the tribunal?
The Land Commission court has been granted certain powers by the Oireachtas and is operating a policy which has been laid down by the Oireachtas, and I have no doubt but that the same procedure was followed in this case as in all other cases, and that full particulars of the circumstances, so far as local needs, from the point of view of the congests, were concerned, were in the knowledge of the commissioners, who are very familiar with conditions in both areas.
Is the Minister aware that the Mynish tenants have issued a piteous appeal in connection with this matter and that there is blank dismay among them? Can he hold out no hope at all for them?
The case was duly heard and a decision taken. I am not in a position to say that there is any likelihood—I do not believe there is—of this matter being reopened. May I point out to the Deputy that it is the policy not to interfere with lands which are being worked according to a proper economy, and that, perhaps, the Deputy has not adverted sufficiently to that point of view?
As a matter of fact I can tell the Minister that I have, and that the tenants contest every word of the evidence given on the other side. They did not get a chance of putting their views before the tribunal.