Before Deputy Kennedy rises, I should like to make a point. The Land Commission were considering the acquisition of the whole of this estate. Their decision has been to differ action in the case of the whole of the estate for a year. I would submit that, in that case—completely at your discretion, Sir—you might take into consideration whether this could be considered as sub judice, because a definite decision to withdraw from the proceedings has not been taken—only a decision to defer. I think it may be worthy of consideration that the case is sub judice, in view of the fact that no final decision has been reached.
Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate—Acquisition of Westmeath Lands.
Do the Land Commission take judicial decisions?
They do, yes. Their decisions have been accepted in the High Court and in the Supreme Court as being judicial decisions.
Not for afforestation, surely.
No, but the whole farm in this case is the subject of the consideration.
The farm is one which lends itself to afforestation—a big portion of it.
In respect of afforestation, is not the decision departmental?
In respect of afforestation, yes, but in this instance, Deputy Kennedy is making the case that portion of this farm might be taken for afforestation. The truth of the matter is that we cannot touch it until the commissioners decide whether they will continue or discontinue their proceedings.
A decision in respect of afforestation, in my opinion, is departmental.
Yes.
A decision in respect of acquisition of land for the relief of congestion may possibly be judicial.
Yes. Perhaps I am not making myself clear. The whole of this farm is still the subject of consideration and is awaiting decision by the commissioners. The Minister for Lands, in that case, cannot intervene, until they take a decision. The Minister for Lands cannot intervene at this stage in respect of the acquisition of part of the lands for forestry which Deputy Kennedy might wish us to consider.
When he hears me, the Minister may consider taking the whole of the land for forestry and he may change the mind of the Land Commission.
On a point of order, I do not want to interrupt Deputy Kennedy, but it would be important in a matter of this kind that you should rule on the question of whether this matter is sub judice or not. While I do not want to deprive Deputy Kennedy of an opportunity of speaking, it appears to me that there are two interests involved. On the one hand, there is the Land Commission. My interpretation is that, while they have not made up their minds, or as a definite decision has not been made, the matter could be regarded as being sub judice.
I shall make up their minds for them.
If the Land Commission enter into an estate and propose to acquire it for some purpose, either afforestation or distribution, surely that does not prevent the Deputy from making the case that portion of it should be taken for afforestation. I think Deputy Kennedy is quite right.
Except that I cannot, even though I am willing, intervence to take portion. I dare not intervene to take portion until the commissioners make their decision one way or another.
Can the Minister make the case that it should not be taken for afforestation?
No, Sir, but I do submit that, even although I am anxious to take portion of it for afforestation, I am debarred by virtue of the fact that the commissioners' decision has not yet been reached—completely debarred—and I want to state openly that I am willing to take portion of it for afforestation, but, again, my hands are tied.
If the Minister says that he is willing to take portion for afforestation, perhaps that clinches the argument.
Perhaps anything that may be said now may do harm.
There are two Mayo men and a Galway man entering into the discussion.
May I put it to Deputy Kennedy that what he wants is what the Minister wants and probably anything that may be said may do more harm than good.
The point I want to make, through you, Sir, to the Minister and the House is that we are faced with a position of considerable unemployment in the forestry unit at Castlepollard. For 20 years, that unit has given a fair amount of employment. There is a basic group of 16 men fully employed all the year round and that number is increased in the peak period. That unit has operated on the Gravel estate, where it has planted 600 acres of land, and has taken over part of the Pollard estate and other places in the district. That unit is faced with unemployment.
The deferment of a decision in the Coleman estate for a year is too long a postponement. I advocate that the Minister and the Land Commission should reduce that period and, if necessary, take over the whole of the Coleman estate, so that these 16 breadwinners may continue in employment and the number employed may be increased.
There is nothing to prevent the acquisition of the entire estate. It is non-residential. Nobody has lived on it for years. It has been an uneconomic proposition for a considerable period and, as far as I know, there will not be much resistance on the part of the owner who is a very big landholder in County Kildare. The particular part of the Westmeath concerned is in my parish where there are only about six people on five square miles of land.
The men who work in the forestry unit travel five and six miles to their work. They are very glad of the employment and very proud to be doing this work. They take an interest in it. The Minister and the House and the Land Commission should take great pride in this forest and should expand from there. The forest is in the Inny valley. The Inny will be drained. The Coleman estate adjoins the area.
I want the Minister and the Land Commission to change their minds. If they do not, the land will slip away from them and the employment given in converting the land to forests will be lost. That is the point I wished to make and I have made it now to the Minister.
As I told the Deputy in reply to his question to-day, the Land Commission recently negotiated for the purchase of this property but the owner declined to sell it. The Land Commission have decided to defer further consideration of this matter for about a year. That involves the whole 193 acres. I want to assure the Deputy that any time I hear of a piece of land which might possibly become the nucleus of a forestry centre I am only too delighted to get moving, but in this case my hands are tied because the Land Commission, in saying they have deferred action for a year, are intimating that they have not washed their hands of it. It is not the same as if they had said they would take no further action. That would mean that they had examined the lands and that they were not interested further in them. Deferring action for a year means that the commissioners are still interested, that they have not decided either way.
Why make it a year?
I will put up as strong a case as I can before the commissioners to have this matter reexamined with a view to an early decision one way or the other. That is as far as I can go. I shall bring the Deputy's remarks to their attention and point out also that a Deputy does not go to the extreme of raising a matter on the Adjournment unless it is of fairly grave importance in a particular locality. The commissioners may stick to their original decision or they may re-examine the position and decide they will take no further action. If that should occur, I shall try to secure a portion of the lands for the accommodation of the people in whom the Deputy is interested. I shall expect the Deputy's assistance in that if such action becomes necessary.
This estate is within a mile of the big forest at Castlepollard and the men who work in that forest pass this estate each morning. This estate is within a mile of the 600-acre forest.
In the meantime, there are 16 men employed in Castlepollard. The Deputy expressed a fear that some of these men might be disemployed. I can assure him that none of them will be laid off. I will do what I said in the other matter and that is as far as I can go.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th December, 1955.