asked the Minister for Lands what steps his Department are taking to remove the threat to crops caused by flooding at, and adjacent to, lands at Kenure, Rush, County Dublin.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Dublin Flood Threat.
12.
A sub stantial portion of the Palmer estate at Kenure Park, Rush, County Dublin was allotted to local applicants in April last year and the Land Commission have no responsibility for any flooding which may have since occurred on these lands.
Such information as is available to the Land Commission is to the effect that some disruption of the drainage system on the estate may have resulted from clearance of growing timber and scrub undertaken by a number of allottees on their allotments. It is a matter for the parties concerned to co-operate in a drainage scheme and it would be open to them to seek assistance under the Land Project in carrying out any such scheme.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the flooding complained of occurred as a result of scrub clearance carried out by the Land Commission in the process of division, that drains were seriously interfered with? Surely it is not right or reasonable that the total responsibility for settling this problem should be left on the shoulders of the small farmers themselves? Is the Parliamentary Secretary further aware that in at least one instance, that of a man who has 5½ acres under winter greens, the crop is threatened with destruction by flooding for the third year in succession? In the light of these facts, will the Parliamentary Secretary take immediate steps to ensure that the estate will be left in proper condition? It might represent a very big problem for the farmers were they to have to do it themselves out of their own resources but represents a very minor matter for the Department of Lands and, indeed, it is part of their duty to leave an estate in a proper condition, once they have divided it. Would the Parliamentary Secretary not have this matter dealt with urgently because it concerns the livelihood of small farmers in the Rush area who are, as everybody knows, the best and most productive farmers in the country?
With regard to the first part of the Deputy's supplementary question, I do not accept that the Land Commission is responsible. In fact the scrub clearance was carried out by the allottees themselves with assistance from the Land Project Section of the Department of Agriculture and the position is that even now some of the parties concerned have made application to the Department of Agriculture for assistance under the Land Project. It would appear from the information I have that there are eight parties concerned and that the eight would need to participate in a drainage scheme. Already, five of these parties have applied for assistance. I think the best way out of this difficulty would be if the other three also applied and operated a drainage scheme under the Land Project.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that it is essential for the eight to apply? Can the matter not proceed on the basis of the five who have applied? Can it not proceed expeditiously?
What I do say is that unless the eight applied, the job would not be a good one. If the work were carried out by five of the allottees, it would not be as effective as if they all applied and carried out the total job.
That might be so. Will the Parliamentary Secretary take a special interest in this as a matter of urgency and try to get a remedy for this flooding under way immediately by whatever means are open to him?
In view of the fact that it was so obvious that this scrub clearance was essential before the land could be productive, does the Parliamentary Secretary consider that it was reasonable for the Land Commission to allot it in this state and not take responsibility for the job that needed to be done on it? Is it fair now to put the cost on the backs of these very small farmers?
That is an entirely different question.
It is very much the same question.
I do not accept that it is.