asked the Minister for Lands why Mr. William Slattery, Cormackstown, Holycross, Thurles, County Tipperary, did not get some land on the Molloy Estate, Farney Castle, Thurles, as he was promised a farm on this estate.
72.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Allotment of Thurles Estate.
71.
asked the Minister for Lands why Mr. Thomas McGrath, Cormackstown, Thurles, County Tipperary, did not receive a parcel of land on the Molloy Estate, Farney Castle, Ballycahill, Thurles, as he was an uneconomic holder adjacent to this estate; and if he received consideration for an allotment.
73.
asked the Minister for Lands why Mr. Thomas McGrath, Cormackstown, Holycross, Thurles, County Tipperary, was not considered for portion of land on the Molloy Estate, Farney Castle, Thurles, as this man worked on the estate for a number of years.
74.
Mr. Dunne
asked the Minister for Lands why Mr. Thomas Cooke, Garrynamona, Ballycahill, Thurles, County Tipperary did not receive a parcel of land in the Molloy Estate, Farney Castle, Ballycahill, Thurles, as he was a smallholder adjoining this estate; and if he received consideration for an allotment.
75.
asked the Minister for Lands why Mr. Tom Cooke, Garrynamona, Ballycahill, Thurles, County Tipperary did not get any division on the Molloy Estate, Farney Castle, Thurles, as this man is a small farmer living alongside the estate.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 70 to 75 together.
Applications on behalf of William Slattery, Thomas McGrath and Thomas Cooke were carefully considered by the Land Commission, who have exclusive jurisdiction in such matters. I am informed that it was found impracticable to provide allotments for them having regard to the numerous claims of the other competing applicants.
There was no commitment to Mr. Slattery. The document which he signed was a provisional one taken for the purpose of considering his application.
Is the Minister aware that one of the people here, Thomas Cooke, is a smallholder and that he received nothing, while others got land bringing their holdings up to 69 acres?
I have had a lot more experience of this than Deputy Tierney since the former Deputy Mrs. Ryan and I succeeded in getting the lands taken over. As regards Thomas Cooke, I think he should have been the first man considered.
Will the Deputy ask a question?
Is the Minister aware this man is a smallholder? Is he further aware that William Slattery was asked to resign his position in the sugar factory in order to qualify, and will he say why this man did not get land?
I have no doubt both men are uneconomic holders and probably deserving of consideration, if the necessary land were available. The fact remains that in the final consideration of the scheme, there was not room for these men as migrants. I am so informed by the Land Commission who should have the accurate information.
Are we to assume from the statements made that the officials of the Minister's Department asked William Slattery to resign his employment in a local factory in order to qualify for land? That statement has been made by Deputy Fanning and it is a very serious matter. Are we to assume therefore that the Land Commission are not functioning fairly and properly?
The Deputy is not to assume any such thing. I do not know whether any such suggestion was made to this applicant for migration and I should be inclined to doubt it very much from my experience of the Land Commission.
Is the Minister aware that a single man with 32 acres got a holding of 20 acres? Why give preference to a single man over a married man who is also a smallholder?
The Deputy was referring to a migrant or migrants and allotments made. I have not particulars of them here. Suffice it to say that under the new policy the local allottees got more land than they would normally have got. Consequently, that left less land for migrants.