Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Mar 1943

Vol. 89 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Acquisition of Longford Estate.

I asked the Minister for Lands to-day if it was his intention to proceed with the acquisition of the lands of Killeendowd, the property of Mr. George W.K. Gilliland, Barry House, Colehill, County Longford, upon whom notice of intention to acquire was served as far back as 12th January, 1938. The Minister, in the course of his reply, said that such a notice was served, pursuant to Section 23 of the Land Act of 1927, that the Land Commission had not taken further steps in the matter, and the case, with many others, was now governed by the emergency restrictions, which prevented the undertaking of fresh commitments, except in special circumstances. He then went on to say:—"There is no question of withdrawing proceedings which have not yet been instituted, or of communicating further with the owner at present."

I want to make it perfectly clear that I advocate, have advocated, and will continue to advocate the acquisition of this holding. It is suitable for the purpose, and could be divided amongst a great number of people in the way of allotments for some and of new holdings for landless men and others. I want the Minister to say that he will acquire it now or, if not, that he will be fair to the owner and occupier by telling him that he does not propose to acquire it. The Minister says that proceedings were not instituted. I respectfully submit that statement is incorrect. The serving of notice of intention to acquire a holding on the owner means the initiation of proceedings for acquisition. The owner cannot appeal so far as that notice is concerned. It is only when further steps are taken that he can appeal. Therefore, I submit that in this particular case this man has been treated unfairly, and neither the Government nor anybody else has the right to treat a citizen of the State unfairly. The owner in this case, as well as the applicants and others expecting some of this land, have been, I think, treated unfairly. Speaking here on behalf of the majority of the applicants for parcels and plots of land on this holding, I want the Minister to say (1) that it is his intention to proceed with its acquisition, (2) that the serving of the notice on the owner was the first step in the institution of proceedings for its acquisition, and (3) that the holding is not exempt under the Emergency Powers Order. If the Minister does that he will be doing a good day's work and will be serving the interests of a very large number of people who are anxious to till that land as their own.

This land has been set in parcels. I hold that the tillage on it is not being as well done by the present owner and those to whom part of it has been set as it would be if it were divided and given out by way of permanent allotments to the applicants for it. In the present emergency, and especially when the owner is willing, I submit that its acquisition should take place. The question of price, of course, would arise, but that could be settled afterwards. That is not a matter for the Deputy for the constituency or the Government either. It is one for the Land Commission and their valuers. What I resent in connection with this case is that, prior to the 1934 General Election, Land Commission inspectors—of course the usual resolutions were passed by the local Fianna Fáil club—came down and inspected the lands. The same thing happened in connection with the 1937 and the 1938 General Elections. On the 12th January, 1938, this notice of intention to acquire was served. Therefore, I hold political use was made of this farm. One would be inclined to say that the present is an opportune time to send down a fresh batch of inspectors. The Minister, in my view, has put the case in an unfair way in the last paragraph of his written answer to the question where he says: "There is no question of withdrawing proceedings which have not yet been instituted, or of communicating further with the owner at present." I submit that once notice of intention to acquire land is served the land is no longer the property of an owner. He cannot do anything with it. In fairness, therefore, to the owner, if the Government are not going to allow the Land Commission to proceed with the acquisition of this land, that notice should be withdrawn. I want the Minister to do either one or other of these two things.

Deputy MacEoin is not correct in saying that this land was under consideration for acquisition at any time in connection with a general election. There is no record in the official file of anything in connection with these lands until 1935 when representations were made regarding them. In 1937 an inspection was made, and in 1938 the notice, to which the Deputy has referred, was published. A legal decision held up all acquisition proceedings by the Land Commission from the year 1938 to 1939. It was then found necessary to introduce amending legislation. This legislation could not be brought into effect as the rules of court were not available until well on in 1940, so that even if there had been no emergency situation, nothing could have been done either with these or any other lands held up by reason of this legal decision until towards the end of 1940. The emergency, however, having arisen, a decision was come to late in 1939 and again in 1940 restricting the proceedings of the Land Commission on the basis that commitments that had been entered into, and where proceedings had been initiated, should be continued but that in all other cases matters should be held up for the present.

Technically, proceedings, as the answer to the question points out, had not been instituted in this case. They would not have been instituted until the legal notices prescribed by the Land Acts had been published. The communication issued to the owner was simply an intimation that the Land Commission, after inspecting the lands, had decided to proceed with their acquisition and to issue the statutory notices in due course. The notices were not issued. I do not think there is any disability, therefore, upon the owner, and as regards the claimants for the land, they are in the same position as others. This is not the only estate—the House knows there are a great many estates, probably hundreds and very many thousands of acres of land—in this position. It is precisely because we have that difficulty—of being unable to select particular cases without opening all the cases which remain on hands to be taken up when circumstances improve—that this case has to remain over. Even if the cases were, by a Government decision, to be reopened the Land Commission at the present time has not the staff to deal with them. The Land Commission has more than enough work on hands to keep the present staff occupied for a very considerable time.

Until that situation is altered, until the Land Commission gets back its full staff and has had an opportunity to clear off all the work that is in the hands of inspectors at the present time, and which is coming into their hands in those cases where proceedings are at present going on, it would be useless even to pretend that we can deal in any reasonable time with cases such as that which the Deputy has in mind. I regret that I cannot hold out any promise, therefore, to deal with this matter. The whole situation regarding the Land Commission activities is under review; but, as I mentioned to-day, we have these physical difficulties which render it impossible for us to deal with all these cases. They will have to remain over, I fear, until conditions improve very substantially.

Is the man free, then, to sell? This is leaving him suspended in mid-air. There are two questions I would like to put to the Minister. Firstly, was the decision to stop proceeding with the acquisition of lands made by the Government? Secondly, if they decided not to proceed with the acquisition, surely they should say so and leave the person free to resume—that is, they should withdraw the notice and let the man resume full ownership and his full rights to free sale.

I do not agree with the Deputy that there has been any interference and I am sure that, if the owner consults his legal representative, he will be so informed. There is no interference whatever with him in the ownership of his land, nor would there be even if things had gone further than they have gone. Technically, as I have said, proceedings have not been instituted, but we are not in a position to withdraw the notice that has been given, without having regard to all other similar cases. In the same manner as we cannot proceed in one case in an arbitrary way, without having regard to all the other cases, so we cannot withdraw notices in one case without having regard to the reactions in the other cases. Deputy MacEoin himself sometimes has to make a decision as to whether, in the long run, a matter ought to be dropped or proceeded with, and he has made the impression that he is strongly in favour of going ahead with the acquisition in this case.

Yes. At the same time, I wish to have this made clear. I want the Minister to go ahead with it. If, however, he is not prepared to do that, I want him to say, in fair play, that he is not going ahead with it and withdraw the notice. The Minister says he cannot withdraw the notice. He says at one stage that proceedings have not been initiated. Of course they have been initiated—the very moment that notice is served; and that they have been initiated is proved by the fact that the Land Commission will not withdraw the notice. In fair play to the owner and to the owners of other land, I think that, where the Land Commission have decided not to proceed with the acquisition of land, under the orders of the Government, they should let the land revert to its original situation.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 7th April.

Top
Share