asked the Minister for Lands if he will state (i) how the residue of the O'Callaghan Westropp estate at Fortane, O'Callaghan's Mills, County Clare, consisting of five acres of land, has been disposed of; (ii) what acreage of land the allottee who was given this residue had previously received from the Land Commission; (iii) how many applicants were considered in respect of the allotment and what acreage of land each of the rejected applicants had; and (iv) what considerations induced the Land Commission to allot this residue to the present allottee.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Clare Lands.
The residue has been allotted to an ex-employee of the estate who had already been allotted 26½ acres with a poor law valuation of £13 5s. Od. He was considered by the competent authority to be the most deserving of some 30 applicants, including some adjacent farmers who hold from 23 to 43 acres each.
Does the Minister consider that a small holder with five, six or ten acres is not a more suitable allottee than a man who has already got 26 acres from the Land Commission and on whose holdings out-offices were erected by the Land Commission? Does he consider that this is a fair or equitable system of division or has he any explanation to offer as to why it should be so allotted?
The Deputy, I am sure, is aware that the Minister does not allot land. The Land Commission, whose function it is to allot land, decided to give the residue in this particular case to this man. Whether I hold different views from them would not count a lot. They inform me that they have gone over the full list of 30 persons in the immediate locality, apart from 11 others who were too far distant to be considered. They consider that this person is the most suitable in their opinion and that is the end of the matter.
Does the Minister's reply simply mean that the division of land is no concern of this House, that this House has no control over the activities of the Land Commission, that it is an autonomous body and that the Minister has no means of revising their decisions and that they are not in any way subject to this House?
The activities of the Land Commission are not beyond the scope of this House, but the purchase of land, the fixation of price and the allotment of land are three of a few certain matters that are left to the entire discretion of the commissioners. I think the Deputy will agree that it would not be safe or prudent to interfere with these powers of the commissioners, though I agree with the Deputy in so far as he says that their decisions from time to time would appear to be not exactly the decisions that the Deputy or I would make if we had charge of these matters. However, this House has handed complete power in these matters over to the Land Commission and, while that power is in their hands, we must leave these functions to them, although we may not always agree with their decisions. If, as I stated in reply to the debate on my Estimate, the House at any time considers that we should take back these powers, that is a matter for the House to decide.
Have representations been made that the decisions of the Land Commission in Clare in most cases are partisan, definitely partisan?
Would the Minister give a lead to the House in introducing the legislation necessary?
asked the Minister for Lands (i) if the scheme for the distribution of the Sampson estate at Whitegate, County Clare, is completed; (ii) if a holder of 100 acres of land in the district has been granted an allotment; (iii) if several small landholders have been passed over; and (iv) whether the general demand for a cowpark has been acceded to; and, if so, what is the area of ground allotted for that purpose.
The answer to the first part of this question is that this scheme has not been completed.
In regard to part 2 of the question, I would point out that it is a common feature of Land Commission schemes to ask a farmer to surrender to the Land Commission an area required for Land Commission purposes on condition that the Land Commission compensate him perhaps on the other side of his farm for the land so surrendered. The scheme for the Sampson estate provided for such an arrangement with a local large holder who was allotted a small plot in exchange for an area surrendered by him.
As regards 3, the Land Commission have not found it possible to provide land in this area yet for several deserving applicants. In the case of most land division schemes the number of deserving applicants exceeds the number of allotments available and the fact that some deserving applicants cannot be accommodated in a particular scheme does not say that the Land Commission have not their case at heart with the intention of coming to their rescue at the earliest opportunity.
In connection with 4, it is proposed to allot a cowpark of some 35 acres in this case.
Can I get a definite answer to the question as to whether a man with 100 acres of land was given under this scheme an allotment out of this estate?
In the strict sense of the word, it would be correct to say that he did get an allotment, but it should be borne in mind that he was asked to surrender some land, in exchange for which he got the allotment, which was nearer to the congests apparently.
The corollary to that was that a man who had only six acres got none?
I cannot say.
Is the Minister aware that down in Cork——
This question is about Clare.
——that a man got 100 acres of land from the Land Commission——
Not in Clare.