asked the Minister for Lands if he will state why the Land Commission considered an offer of £370 adequate for a 32-acre holding in County Monaghan (Record No. S.9947 A & R 202/51) in view of the fact that the present owner bought this farm by public auction in 1923 for £442, and that the price of land has been considerably increased in recent years and the value of this farm enhanced by improvements such as drainage, fencing and tree planting by the present owner.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Offer for County Monaghan Holding.
While this farm may have cost £442 in 1923, it must be borne in mind that the sum of £370 offered by the Land Commission is for part of the farm only. The area being acquired does not include the residence and part of the lands which were, I presume, included in the original purchase by the owner.
The 32 acres cost £448, not £442. Will the Minister say why the Land Commission consider giving £78 less now after 28 years of occupation by the present owner? Does it not suggest that the lands have deteriorated to that extent, whereas, in fact, the lands have been improved by the present owner by drainage and, as is stated in the question, by tree planting and fencing? Is it the Land Commission's intention to take up the lands compulsorily now, whether the owner likes it or not?
As regards the latter part of the question as to whether the Land Commission will take up the lands compulsorily or not, that is a reserved function of the commissioners, and I cannot say. As regards the price, the determination of price is also a reserved function of the commissioners, but they are obliged by statute to fix the price at market value. It is a matter over which I have no control. In this particular case, this is only an offer made by the Land Commission and the owner has the right to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, if he so wishes, if he is not satisfied with the price offered. In either case, it is a matter in which the Minister has no function whatever. It is reserved for the commissioners by law.
The owner of this land has no redress whatever in this matter, except he appeals to the tribunal. Is there any possibility that they will increase the Land Commission's offer to the owner?
It is not correct to say that the owner has no redress. The Appeal Tribunal was established by law for this very type of case, where the owner may not be satisfied with the price given, and the only advice I can give the owner is to take advantage of the tribunal and appeal against the price.
I would like an assurance from the Minister that in case the owner does not take any further action the lands will not be taken compulsorily.
I am sorry; I could not give that assurance. It is a matter for the commissioners and if I gave that assurance now the commissioners would have power to acquire, or not, afterwards.
It seems to me that that is dictatorship personified, that the lands will be taken compulsorily from this man whether he likes it or not at a price which is £78 less than he paid for it 28 years ago. I do not see any justice in it.
If it is dictatorship, it is the House that is guilty of the dictatorship in giving these exceptional powers to the commissioners.