asked the Minister for Lands if he will state the date when the Land Commission decided to acquire the Fisher (Carter) estate, Stradbally, County Laoighis; whether he is aware that the present occupier refused to renew conacre lettings last year and thereby deprived a large number of local families of their principal means of livelihood and if these lands will be divided this year.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition and Division of Land.
The Land Commission decided to institute proceedings for the acquisition of part of this estate on 8th January, 1951, and proceedings were subsequently initiated. The owners objected to acquisition and the objection was allowed. I understand that the entire estate is well worked by the owners.
Will the Minister state whether the decision not to acquire these lands has been taken since he came into office which means that the decision taken by his predecessor has been reversed by the commissioners since he took over control of the Department, and will be state the reasons why?
Mr. O'Higgins
Is it not a fact that the Land Commission, in relation to the objection, postponed a decision for 12 months: that they did not allow the objection but postponed the decision? I understood the Minister to say that the Land Commission had allowed the objection. Is that strictly accurate?
According to an answer given in the House in reply to Deputy Davin on the 10th April, 1951, it was stated that the Land Commission had instituted proceedings for the acquisition of portion of the estate and not to acquire the balance. The decision of the commissioners was made on 29th October, 1952.
In reply to Deputy O'Higgins, the information I have received is that theobjection was allowed. I do not know anything about postponement, but I will confirm that, however.
Mr. O'Higgins
Perhaps the Minister might let us know?
Yes.
Did the Minister take any notice of the latter part of the question, or has he any interest in the conacre tenants who have lost their principal means of livelihood?
The Deputy wants to raise a big issue by way of a supplementary question.
It is in the question.
If land is not being properly worked, is not giving sufficient employment and is not producing sufficient agricultural products and there are local smallholders in the immediate vicinity who could benefit by its acquisition, then there is a case for acquiring the land. As the Deputy knows, the determination of what lands are to be acquired, and how they are to be allotted, is not a matter for me but for the commissioners in the exercise of their statutory duties. As far as I recollect, a considerable amount of land has, in fact, been divided already, and a great number of smallholders have been provided with holdings or additions in the constituency he represents.
Not in that area.
Possibly not.
Mr. O'Higgins
Not in that area.
I will have further inquiries made. The position is that if the land is being worked by the present owners and even if a case could be made that there are smallholders requiring land, it would perhaps be difficult for the commissioners to take it over.
Is the Minister actually aware, or has he been told, that 16 families who hitherto used this holding or portion of the holding for conacre lettings at a very high price have, asa result of the latest decision of the commissioners, lost their principal means of livelihood, and is not that a very serious matter for the consideration of the Minister and of his advisers?
Mr. O'Higgins
Is the Minister aware that these 16 families mentioned by Deputy Davin have, in fact, been taking this land in conacre continuously since 1918?
I have no reason to believe that the commissioners had not all the facts before them. These estates, before proceedings are initiated, are the subject of a report. The proceedings involve the consideration of all the factors which the commissioners must consider and apply to the determination of a particular case.
Will the Minister look into it further? Without any desire to be provocative I am of opinion that he has been supplied with misleading information.
Mr. O'Higgins
If the question is repeated will the Minister go into it again?
I am not making any promise. I believe that the position at present is as I have explained in my answer to the supplementary questions. The Deputies have not added anything whatever except to say that there were conacre tenants taking the land there for a period of years. That is a practice that is fairly universal throughout the country.
Mr. O'Higgins
It is not correct to say that the Land Commission allowed the objection.
asked the Minister for Lands whether he is aware that the present owner of the Anderson estate, Timahoe, County Laoighis, was recently fined in the local court for failing to cut 40 acres of weeds, and whether he is now in a position to state if these lands will be acquired by the Land Commission for division amongst the local deserving applicants who are willing to use the land for the purpose of increasing agricultural production.
I previously informed the Deputy that the Land Commission have decided to take no action for the present regarding these lands, because of local intimidatory action. That position still holds.
Would the Minister consult his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, who is supposed to be seriously concerned about getting an increase in agricultural production, and ask him if it is his opinion, or the policy of the Department of Agriculture, that a large acreage of land should be left under weeds when there are suitable local applicants for this land if it is acquired and divided?
The Deputy knows that the Land Commissioners will not allow their judgment to be prejudiced by the violent action taken as has been done in this case. They cannot allow themselves to be forced into the position that they will be asked to take over land by virtue of the local intimidation that is carried on. The position is that the matter may be reviewed later if circumstances permit, but so long as that situation continues, I can hold out no hope that the commissioners will reopen their consideration of it.
May I ask the Minister if he would obtain a report from the Minister for Justice as to the existing peace and goodwill that now prevail there? In view of that, would the Minister undertake to have an immediate inspection of the lands made with a view to their acquisition?
I do not think it is necessary. I see the newspapers occasionally.
Is the Minister aware of what is not in the newspapers, namely, that the present owner is willing to sell to the Land Commission, as I am reliably informed and know, at the market value price?