asked the Minister for Lands why Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Rathcore, Enfield, County Meath, a dairy farmer, who is losing his livelihood because of the division of the Stackpoole estate, Tobertynan, did not receive any portion of the estate.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meath Land Division.
44.
The selection of allottees is a matter that is exclusively reserved to the Commissioners. I gather, however, that Mr. James P. O'Reilly has been taking substantial areas of land for grazing, etc.—mostly on the McGarry estate, which is now in possession of the Land Commission. Mr. O'Reilly has no land of his own and having regard to the overall number of already existing small farms in need of enlargement, the land is not available to set up new farms for applicants in Mr. O'Reilly's circumstances.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that a man who has been living off the land, for a number of years, carrying on dairy farming on rented land, and who has been able to make a good living for himself, his wife and his family at that type of work, is not entitled to a holding of land when a farm is being divided?
The Deputy can be assured that the Land Commission gave the fullest possible consideration to this man's claim and, if it had been possible in the circumstances to allot land to him, that would have been done.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that people who, by no stretch of the imagination, would be entitled to land were, in fact, given land by the Land Commission over the last few years? That type of case has occurred again and again. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary should recommend to the Land Commission that they should have a bit of sense and the people who work on the land should be entitled to holdings when land is being divided.
I am not aware that what the Deputy has just stated is the fact, but surely the Deputy does not suggest that the claims of very small farmers, who are trying to rear families on uneconomic holdings, and who can neither buy land nor rent land, should be excluded to accommodate those who are obviously in such a big way of business as this gentleman appears to be.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates that this man has been put out of business because of the activities of the Land Commission. Does he not agree that, since the Land Commission have taken over all the lands that this man was in the habit of renting, he will now have to emigrate unless the Land Commission make some provision for him? Is not that clear?
I have answered the Deputy's question as to the reason why this man did not get land. I have pointed out that the allotment of land is strictly a matter for the Commissioners. A fuller discussion on this matter, remembering that the individual in question is identified, would entail discussing the private affairs of an individual and I do not think I should go any further in my reply.