asked the Minister for Lands if he will state: (a) the date on which that part of the lands of Colemanstown in the Barony of Newcastle and County of Dublin containing 59 acres 2 roods and 2 perches statute measure, now the subject of Folio 4048, County Dublin, was acquired by the Land Commission; (b) the total cost of the acquisition, development, etc., of those lands; (c) the area and cost price of the remaining land acquired from the same owner (Shiel estate) at the same time; (d) the amount (if any) deducted from the purchase money for the redemption of a previous land purchase annuity; (e) the date on which each allottee entered into possession of his parcel; and (f) the date on which each allottee had his parcel vested in him, and, if any allottee was given any priority in such vesting, the reason for such priority.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Dublin Estate.
The holding referred to by the Deputy, containing 59 acres 2 roods 2 perches, now the subject of Folio No. 4048, County Dublin, formed part of the estate of Richard A. Warren, Record No. S. 7593, containing 313 acres in the townlands of Colmanstown, Athgoe and Bustyhill, which estate was acquired by the Land Commission on 2nd December, 1935, at a price of £5,450, from which a sum of £2,539 in 4 per cent. Land Bonds, representing the redemption price (£2,506 2s. 9d. cash) of the land purchase annuity charged on the estate, was deducted.
The holding was not purchased separately. It was allotted to a migrant on 31st July, 1937. In connection with its allotment, the Land Commission expended approximately £675 on the provision of buildings and other improvements. Of this sum, £225 is repayable by the migrant.
The lands on the estate were divided among 12 allottees on varying dates:— nine parcels were allotted on 19th December, 1935; one on 23rd January, 1936; three on 31st July, 1937; and one on 4th August, 1937. One of the parcels allotted on 19th December, 1935, was surrendered by the allottee on 25th April, 1938, and was re-allotted to another allottee on the estate on 25th July, 1938.
Three of the parcels have been vested in the allottees. One of these (allotted to a migrant on 31st July, 1937) was vested on 13th June, 1941, at the request of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, to enable the corporation to enter as burden on the folio a charge in their favour transferred from the migrant's old holding. Early vesting in this case was also necessary to enable the Land Commission to deal with matters arising out of the allotment of the old holding. The second parcel (part of the purchase price of which was paid in cash) was vested in the allottee on 13/4/45, and the third (also allotted to a migrant on 31/7/37) was vested on 7/12/45.
Would the Minister say why the last two allottees got facilities for vesting over and above other allottees on the estate? The Minister has given information and reasons why the first allottee was vested, which was on account of the interest of the Agricultural Credit Corporation; but in regard to the last allottee to which the Minister referred, will he say whether special facilities were given to this particular allottee so that he could cash in on an allotment of land given to him by the State, realising the sum of something like £3,000? Will the Minister also say if it is the policy of his Department to facilitate certain persons so that they can cash in on such parcels of land?
It is not the policy of the Land Commission so to facilitate people, but there is a list of priorities. Migrants receive priority and so do people who pay in cash or part cash.
I am sure the Minister remembers that I had a similar question down some months ago. Whether it is coincident or not I do not know, but I indicated to the Minister on the previous question that at least two people in North Kildare got the opportunity to cash in on parcels of land provided by the State. Here again it would appear—I think the Minister must agree——
I do not agree.
—— that in the last case facilities were given to an individual so that he could cash that parcel of land, which has been sold.
I do not know that it has.
I can assure the Minister it has been sold and I am asking him if he approves of that or if it is the policy of his Department?
It is not the policy of the Department, nor do I approve of it.
Will the Minister take the necessary safeguards to ensure that that sort of thing does not occur?
There must be exceptions in some cases.