asked the Minister for Lands whether he received from a number of smallholders and landless men in the vicinity of Ballinameen, Boyle, County Roscommon, a petition demanding the immediate subdivision of the Camlin farm and the lands of Carrowkeel, the property of Mr. Joseph Poynton, Lloyd Estate, Record No. S/1987; whether, as alleged by the petitioners, the acquisition of these lands has been the subject of negotiation for a period of nine years; whether the petitioners were informed by his Department in 1936 that steps had been taken for the resumption of these lands, and whether in view of the fact that the tenant emphatically denies the assertion that he objected to the proposed resumption, the Minister will state what is the cause of the failure of the Land Commission to acquire the lands during the period since 1936.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Division of Roscommon Lands.
asked the Minister for Lands whether he is now in a position to say when the lands of Mr. Joseph Poynton (Lloyd estate, Record No. S/1987) will be acquired and subdivided amongst the small farmers and agricultural labourers in the neighbourhood; whether these lands have been the subject of a local agitation for almost 50 years; whether, in 1935, Mr. Poynton advised the neighbouring tenants that he was about to surrender his land for subdivision and desired that they would apply for allotments; whether he is aware that only six acres of these lands out of a total of 259 acres have been tilled during the current year; whether he is aware of the congestion and poverty in the vicinity amongst landless men who cannot get enough land on which to grow the food which they need to feed their children and whether, in view of the fact that other farms in the district mentioned in a petition sent him on September 2nd last, were acquired by the Land Commission, he will state the reason for their failure to acquire Mr. Poynton's lands which have deteriorated to a condition of utter neglect.
I propose to take together the questions of Deputies Davin and Pattison relative to a petition from a number of smallholders and landless men for the resumption of the holding of Mr. Joseph Poynton on the Lloyd estate, Record No. S.1987, County Roscommon. This case is somewhat peculiar and illustrates remarkably the great difficulties—legal, technical and financial—with which the Land Commission have had to contend and which it is well that Deputies (and also the public) should understand. This holding comprises 258a. 2r. 25p. of the lands of Camlin and Carrowkeel, and on the 29th October, 1935, the Land Commission published a notice under Section 31 of the Land Act, 1933, of their intention to apply to the Appeal Tribunal for leave to resume it for the relief of congestion. Prior to the publication of the notice an inspector of the Land Commission had been authorised to make the tenant a a definite offer for his interest, conditional upon his agreeing to resumption at the price offered. On service of the notice a communication was received from the tenant's solicitor stating that his client had no objection to the resumption of the holding, but that the price offered was quite inadequate and ought to be considerably increased. In reply he was informed that in the event of an Order authorising resumption being made by the Appeal Tribunal, the price would be fixed by the tribunal.
Owing to a judicial decision on the law then governing resumption procedure, it was not possible for the Land Commission to proceed further in the matter unless the tenant consented, and in January, 1937, they accordingly approached the tenant's solicitor again with a view to obtaining his client's signature to a form of consent to resumption at such price as might be fixed by the Appeal Tribunal. In reply, they were informed that the tenant held other lands (as registered owner) in the townlands of Carkfree and Granny, which he would find it impossible to manage if his holding at Camlin and Carrowkeel were resumed, and that he desired to know whether the Land Commission were prepared to purchase these other lands also. After consideration the Land Commission in March, 1938, made Mr. Poynton an offer for these other lands, which he refused, and they thereupon decided to proceed for compulsory acquisition of these lands under Section 24 (sub-section 3) and Section 25 of the Land Act, 1923. In July, 1938, they again asked Mr. Poynton's solicitor whether, in view of this decision, his client was prepared to consent to the resumption of his holding at Camlin and Carrowkeel at such price as the Appeal Tribunal might fix. The reply was that Mr. Poynton would not sign such consent unless the Land Commission made him a greatly increased offer for his lands at Carkfree and Granny. By this time a further legal decision had held up the acquisition of land compulsorily by the Land Commission, and it was not until the amending Act of 1939 became law that the Land Commission were again in a position to continue proceedings for the resumption of the tenanted lands or the acquisition of the untenanted land belonging to Mr. Poynton. And unfortunately the restrictions placed on the activities of the Land Commission consequent upon the emergency conditions prevent them from taking any further action in the matter for the present.