asked the Minister for Lands if he will state what progress has been made towards the rearrangement of the townland of Cushinsheeaun, Westport; whether it is likely that the rearrangement will be completed this coming spring and if it is contemplated migrating tenants from this townland; and, if so, the number.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Mayo Rearrangement.
The holdings in Cushinsheeaun, with one exception, were rearranged where possible and vested in the tenants some 30 years ago. The tenant of the remaining holding refused to agree to rearrangement and his case has been noted for attention when circumstances permit. There are no proposals for migrating tenants from the townland.
Do I take it from the Minister's reply that the Land Commission do not propose to improve that village further, either by way of buildings or rearrangement or enlargement of holdings?
It is difficult to see what can be done. The inspector is considering what can be done in the particular case to which I have referred.
Is the Minister aware that the holdings of these tenants have only £3 valuations? I am not asking anything unreasonable when I request the Minister to take this matter up with the commissioners. The policy they seem to follow is that so long as holdings were rearranged by the Congested Districts Board 30 years ago, they can vest them and wash their hands of all responsibility. They are leaving the tenants as badly off if notworse off than they were in the landlords' time. Would the Minister take that question up with the commissioners, as it is a matter of Government policy, and it should not be left to the commissioners to decide these things for themselves?
I am not in a position to agree with what the Deputy says. There is a limit to what even the Land Commission can undertake. They are doing their best to proceed with rearrangement generally, and it is a very slow process. If it is possible, I will try to get the Land Commissioners to look into this question again. I would like to be convinced that it deserves priority over the other cases which the inspectors have been dealing with, both during the Deputy's time and during my time as Minister. Are they to put aside the cases they are dealing with and to which we are pressing them urgently to find a solution, to take up new cases?
I did not ask for priority. There is nothing about priority either in the original question or in my supplementary. What I am complaining about is the way the Land Commission are, in my opinion, trying to side-step their responsibility. They are a State Department established by law and voted money by this House each year for a very specific job of work necessary in the congested areas. In my opinion—and I am sure the Minister in his heart agrees with me —they should not act like this. All I am asking the Minister to do is to take the matter up with the commissioners and give them a direction, even though the tenants may have got a slipshod settlement in time gone by from the Congested Districts Board. It is very difficult to deal with these cases, but the commissioners should deal with them until the holdings are brought up to a reasonable valuation.
The Deputy knows very well it is quite impossible to bring all the holdings of this kind up to a decent valuation. There is not enough land for them. It would be necessary to bring thousands instead of scores out of the West of Ireland if we were toattempt to do that, even with the cases we have in hands at the moment.
That is not true.
The Deputy wants us to go back on cases which have been more or less closed already.
It was one of the things I was constantly interested in when I was in the Department.
Why did you not move, then?