asked the Minister for Lands if he will give a detailed report regarding the sale of an estate (details supplied) in County Galway and its eventual allotment by the Land Commission to a farmer in that locality.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Galway Lands.
20.
I am informed that the lands in question were advertised for sale by public auction to take place on 24th January, 1972. Prior to the auction—on 13th January, 1972—the Land Commission served a notice, under section 40 of the Land Act, 1923, of their intention to inspect the lands to ascertain their suitability for the purposes of the Land Acts. The service of such a notice prohibited, for a period of at least three months, a sale of the land without the consent in writing of the Land Commission. The auction was held and the lands were purported to be sold. As a result of their inspection, however, the Land Commission decided to institute proceedings for the acquisition of the lands. The relevant statutory notices were published and no objection to the proceedings was lodged. The case then proceeded to the price negotiations stage and at this point the auctioneer acting for the owner informed the Land Commission that an adjoining smallholder was prepared to buy the lands. Having investigated the matter the Land Commission decided to allow sale to the smallholder in question and to terminate their proceedings.
Is the Minister aware that when this land was offered for public auction quite a number of farmers bid on it, eventually one of them was successful but in the eyes of the Land Commission he was not suitable? After the usual paper work the Land Commission decided that they would acquire the land. They later decided they would not acquire the land because some individual made an application to buy it. Were all those people who bid for that land at the auction not entitled to the same opportunity to buy that land from the Land Commission as the individual in respect of whom the Land Commission sanctioned the sale of the land?
I understand the Land Commission decided that the person they ultimately allowed buy the land would, as a result, have an economic holding.
I agree, but the individual concerned seemed to have been selected by the Land Commission. He made application to buy and they sanctioned the sale to him. What about the other individuals who also bid at the auction? What about the second, the third, and the fourth highest bidder?
Will the Deputy allow Questions to proceed? We cannot debate this question all evening.
This is an important question and I want to get a satisfactory answer if I can.
I am calling Question No. 21.
I do not know that I can give a satisfactory answer. I am not the Land Commission. I understand the Deputy's point of view. The Deputy is trying to say that all the other people at the auction were entitled to a fair crack at the property.
Yes. Why were they not given the opportunity to purchase after the Land Commission decided not to acquire it?
Apparently they did not bid.
I am calling Question No. 21.
They bid at the auction.
They did not bid subsequently.
When was subsequently? They got no opportunity.
I do not know about that. Maybe they did not get an opportunity.
They did not get an opportunity. Why did the second, third or fourth highest bidder at the auction not get the same opportunity as the individual the Land Commission decided eventually would be a suitable man?
I would not know that. The Deputy is saying they did not get an opportunity.
I am calling Question No. 21. We cannot debate this any further. Would Deputy Donnellan please resume his seat and allow Questions to proceed?
Surely the Land Commission cannot have this selection of an individual?
The Deputy says that the Land Commission selected an individual but I do not think this is so.
I said this individual made an application to the Land Commission saying he was prepared to purchase. On the day the land was offered for public auction he was the fifth highest bidder.
The Deputy has already said all this.
Why was the same opportunity not given to the second, third and fourth highest bidder?
The Deputy has said that at least three times. Could we get on with Question No. 21.
Is the Deputy saying they did not have an opportunity to bid?
They did not.
I will hear no further supplementaries. I am calling Question No. 21.
Is the Minister prepared to do anything about this?
The Deputy is making an allegation.
Surely we cannot have selection of an individual in this way?
I am not aware there was selection of an individual.
I would ask the Minister to look into this and I will repeat the question in a fortnight's time.
Very well.
Did the other people who were bidding for this land make an application to the Land Commission?
They did not because they did not know. They were not given the opportunity. That is the answer to it.
According to my notes the auctioneer wrote stating that a local small farmer was willing to pay cash for the holding. There is nothing here to suggest that the others were willing.
The others were willing to pay as well. They did not have an opportunity of making a bid if they wished.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat? I am calling Question No. 21. The Deputy cannot go over this matter again.
On a point of information, the objection as far as I can see is that the seller would not accept land bonds.
The people I am speaking for had cash.
Nobody will accept land bonds.
Could we have the reply to Question No. 21.
21.
asked the Minister for Lands when the Land Commission intend to divide the Mooney estate. Davris, Milltown, County Galway.
The holding referred to came into possession of the Land Commission in August. It is as yet too early to say when the lands can be allotted.
22.
asked the Minister for Lands when the Land Commission intend to divide the land at Mount Bellew, County Galway, known as the demesne or cow park.
Some five acres of the lands referred to have already been allotted to Galway County Council as an industrial site.
Pending completion of the necessary inquiries on the ground it is not possible to indicate just now when allotment of the balance of the lands will take place.
An area of 1½ acres has been offered to the county council for use as a cemetery.
23.
asked the Minister for Lands the present position regarding the John H. O'Brien estate, Hillsbrook, Tuam, County Galway.
The Land Commission did interest themselves in this property and endeavoured to purchase on a voluntary basis but the negotiations proved unsuccessful.
They have recently carried out a detailed inspection of the lands with a view to determining whether acquisition proceedings should be instituted and the report on that is now being studied.
I want to impress on the Minister the necessity of acquiring this land. It is an estate of approximately 200 acres and there is a large number of very small holders in the area who want the Land Commission to buy this land and divide it among them.
24.
asked the Minister for Lands when the Land Commission intend to divide the Burns estate, Moyarwood, Craughwell, County Galway.
The preparation of allotment proposals for the holding mentioned together with four other neighbouring holdings which the Land Commission have acquired has been deferred pending the outcome of proceedings for the acquisition of a further holding in the locality. In the event of this latter holding being acquired a composite scheme of division will be prepared for the aggregate area of 252 acres.