asked the Minister for Lands if he will state the present occupant of the new bungalow on a farm at Brownsgrove, County Galway, which was given up by a person (name supplied) in exchange for a farm at Decoy, Garlow Cross, Navan, County Meath.
24.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meath Farm.
23.
asked the Minister for Lands when the Land Commission offered the Decoy Farm, Garlow Cross, Navan, County Meath to a person (name supplied) from Galway.
25.
asked the Minister for Lands why a person (name supplied) has been transferred from Dunmore, County Galway, to a farm at Decoy, Garlow Cross, Navan, County Meath in view of the fact that (a) there are more than 1,200 acres of land in the possession of the Land Commission in the parish from which this man transferred and (b) there are a considerable number of local deserving applicants near the Decoy farm.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 23, 24 and 25 together.
The selection of allottees for land is a matter reserved exclusively to the Lay Commissioners.
I am informed that the person referred to in the question was migrated because his lands were required for the relief of congestion in the immediate vicinity. The nearest other lands in the possession of the Land Commission is a 44 acre holding about a mile away. The nearest large block of land held by the Land Commission is a group of estates, aggregating 206 acres, some four miles away, situated in a very congested area.
As I indicated in a reply to a previous question on 13th of last month, the congestion in the vicinity of the Smith estate was investigated and all local deserving smallholders were provided with allotments to bring their holdings up to current standard.
The person in question applied first for migration in 1967. In January, 1968, he was accepted in principle by the Commissioners as a prospective migrant but without any decision being taken as to the particular holding which might be offered to him. On 24th March, 1972, he was offered the holding on the Smith estate and. having viewed it on 27th of that month, agreed to accept the exchange.
Because of the requirements of the brucellosis regulations the migrant has not yet been able to give up possession of his Galway lands—cattle are being held there pending testing and clearance.
Will the Minister not agree that within a reasonable distance of the farm from which this man was transferred there were 1,200 acres in the possession of the Land Commission, some of which could have been allocated to him if it was considered necessary to transfer him? Will he not agree also that in the area around the Decoy farm there are 41 applicants for land, 11 of whom have more than 40 acres and the remainder of whom have less than 40 acres and that 31 have herd numbers to prove they are engaged in farming? After the Minister had given an assurance in this House that migrants would no longer be brought to the midlands or to the east, does he consider it to be in order to bring somebody to this part of the country whose only reason for changing was, I understand, that he had a dispute with his neighbour over a right of way? Is that the way the Land Commission should carry out their work? Is this sort of stupidity to continue to operate in the Land Commission?
As I pointed out in the reply, the migrant in question was accepted in principle four years ago. I said to the Deputy in the House and, indeed, in private conversation that after the existing pool of land which was taken up for migratory purposes had been exhausted no further migration from county to county would take place. But the lands here were among those lands which have been earmarked for migration, and the migrants and some others as well who have not yet had any lands actually allocated to them have been accepted in principle for migration purposes.
In regard to the other matter raised by Deputy Tully and Deputy Bruton in a supplementary to a question asked the last day, I asked the Land Commission to reinvestigate the charge that there are within the vicinity of the Smith estate smallholders who are entitled to allotments. I am assured again that all local smallholders were provided with allotments to bring their holdings up to current standards.
Would the Minister accept from me, after Question Time, a list giving the acreage, the valuation herd number, et cetera, of the people to whom I am referring, and have the matter reinvestigated? Would he not agree that the Land Commission officials interviewed those people as recently as a few weeks ago and gave them the impression that they were still in the running for portion of the farm, while, in fact, the Land Commission were making arrangements for the transfer of a migrant and in their office interviewed a group of them in my presence as well as that of Deputy Bruton and Deputy Hilliard, and were making arrangements that portion of the buildings attached to the Decoy farm could be taken over by these people under certain conditions? In view of that, is it not terribly dishonest to do what has been done in this case? I am not blaming the Minister or his predecessor. Is he aware that it is well reported in the area that the only reason why this gentleman was brought along was that he had a dispute with his neighbour over a right-of-way and he is a relative or his wife is a relative of a former Minister for Lands? If that is the way the Land Commission are allocating farms in County Meath, it is about time they changed their tactics.
I do not know anything about these extraordinary, regrettable allegations made by the Deputy, but if he has a list of farms in the area I shall certainly cause further investigations to be made, because this is a matter exclusively for the Land Commission and I am only entitled to ask them for a report on the farms in question of which the Deputy says he has a list.
When was this estate earmarked for migration? If it was earmarked for migration before the deputations from the local smallholders were received, why were they given the impression that they were at least considered to be in the running for allocations of what remained of the estate?
As I understand the situation, the decision to offer the lands was made by the commissioners on 24th March, 1972, and that any discussions that had taken place with the deputations had taken place well before that. They would, therefore, deny that at any stage they were giving the impression to a deputation that something was going to happen when they had already decided otherwise.
Is it not the case that long before 24th March it was agreed that this estate should be given to somebody who was a migrant, not necessarily this particular migrant, and that while that decision had been taken these deputations were still being received and still given the impression that they were considered to be in the running, and that they feel considerably aggrieved that they were, to some degree at least, if not misled, put under a false impression?
I shall further investigate the matter.
The Minister can take it we were both present when the discussion took place, so there is no doubt about the fact that they were misled.