asked the Minister for Lands if he will state in relation to the undermentioned estates in County Meath (a) the exact date of acquisition, (b) the reason for acquisition, (c) how the land has been used since acquisition, (d) the cost to the Land Commission of each estate, (e) the profit made on each estate in each year since acquisition, and (f) why the estates have not been used for the purpose for which they were acquired: (1) Langford, S.20235 Summerhill Demesne; (2) Roscrea Meat Company, S.9969 Newtownclonbun etc.; (3) Sweetman, S.21548 Drumbaragh; (4) McDonnell, U.C.165 Riggins and (5) Killian, S.21717 Pagestown.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meath Estates.
49.
Following are replies to parts (a), (b), (d) and (f) of the Question:
(a) 27th January, 1953; 17th April, 1957; 1st October, 1958; 1st June, 1959, and 1st December, 1959, respectively.
(b) Estate No. 1 was acquired pursuant to Section 24, Land Act, 1923, and Section 25, Land Act, 1936, for the purposes of Section 31, Land Act, 1923, as extended by Section 30, Land Act, 1950. Estates Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were purchased pursuant to Section 36, Land Act, 1923, for the purpose of providing parcels of land for any of the persons or bodies to whom advances may be made under the Land Act, 1923.
Estate No. 4 was purchased pursuant to Section 27, Land Act, 1950, for the purposes mentioned therein.
(d) The purchase money in respect of Estate No. 1 was £11,750. The other properties were purchased from the owners concerned on a voluntary basis and it has not been the practice to publish price details of such transactions.
(f) The estates have been, or will be, utilised for the purposes for which they were acquired or purchased under the Land Acts.
As regards parts (c) and (e), this information is not now available, but I am asking the Land Commission to communicate with the Deputy thereon.
Can the Minister say, along with all the information with which he has already supplied me, why it has taken the Land Commission so long to use the farms for the purpose for which they had the authority to acquire them?
That is a separate question. With all the questions the Deputy has included in this global question, he has not asked that one.
Does the Minister not realise that I have in fact asked why they have not been used for the purpose they were acquired? Surely the Minister can read that in my question?
I am sure the Deputy is quite capable of reading my reply, in which I have stated that the lands acquired have been or will be used for the purpose for which they were acquired.