asked the Minister for Lands the total acreage of land acquired for distribution and which has not yet been allocated.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Land Commission Lands.
38.
(Cavan): The total area in possession of the Land Commission at 31st December, 1975, was 108,430 acres, approximately, of which about 90,440 acres were classified as lettable.
Can the Minister give an indication as to when any proportion of that land will be let?
(Cavan): The year just ended, 1975, has been one of the best years the Land Commission has had for many years in regard to both acquisition and allocation of land. Last year the Land Commission, on figures which are not yet checked but which are fairly accurate, allotted 34,353 acres. Taking one thing with another, the Deputy will see that the Land Commission have on hands about two years letting.
39.
asked the Minister for Lands the normal time lag between the acquisition and the allocation of land.
(Cavan): There are standing instructions that all lands on hands should be allotted as quickly as possible and in any case should not be retained for longer than two years.
This is not always feasible however —for example where buildings are being erected or other improvements carried out, or where the preparation of resale proposals must be deferred pending the acquisition of other lands so that the scheme of division ultimately settled will be the best possible.
Since I assumed office, the inspectorate staff of the Land Commission has been strengthened with a view to ensuring that there will be no undue delay in this vital sector of the work of the Land Commission.
Is the Minister aware that there is an idea abroad that the Land Commission are holding land in some cases for as long as eight or ten years? If that is not true, will the Land Commission disabuse those people who are of that opinion?
(Cavan): I am aware that that idea is abroad but I think if we were to break down these cases and came to a situation where the Land Commission had land on hands for eight years we would find that there were peculiar circumstances, either relating to the acquisition of other lands, to the erection of buildings on the land or perhaps some trouble in the locality. I would say that eight years is very exceptional.
Will the Minister accept that there are many such cases of eight years and that when the Land Commission acquire or accept land and set it for tillage in their own minds they are embarking on an idea that the land will not be divided for some considerable time and that it will probably be set for some years? Will the Minister agree that there is a trend of thought abroad that the Land Commission attempt to get back some of the money they paid by setting the land and that when it is eventually handed over it is in a worse state than when they acquired it? I would ask the Minister not to dismiss my question lightly because it is based on experience.
(Cavan): First, I do not agree with the Deputy that eight years is typical or normal——
It is not unusual.
(Cavan): I am satisfied it is exceptional. Letting land for tillage is very exceptional. It has only come about in recent times in the west where there has been a direct, and I think a reasonable, request that the Land Commission should permit tillage in order to ensure a supply of beet for the Tuam factory. I must say that has my benediction within reason. I will give the Deputy some figures in this matter. In 1972 there were 129,726 acres on hand while at the present time there are only 108,430 acres on hand. The work is going on and it is improving. I want to make it clear to the House that I am exhorting the Land Commission, and will continue to do so, to get rid of land as quickly as they can. It is no pleasure to me to see land being held on hands for a long time but one swallow, or even 20 swallows, do not make a summer. I do not accept that a period of eight or ten years is normal—it is exceptional.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper. I am calling the next business.
On a point of order, I served in the office of the Chair yesterday evening a Private Notice question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce asking him if he was aware that 68 employees of J. & F. L. Goodbody, Limited, Clara, County Offaly, had received notice of termination of employment——
The Deputy has been informed of the reason for my disallowing his question. He knows full well that he may not raise the matter in the House. It is disorderly to do so. If he requires further information on the matter I will be pleased to have it furnished to him but he may not raise the matter in the House.
Does the Chair not think that the loss of 200 jobs in Clara is a matter of national importance——
The Deputy may not persist in this way.
It is a matter of importance for the people.
Perhaps not when there is an unemployment figure of 117,000 people——
There will be an additional 200 now.
The Deputy has been told he may not pursue this matter. He must allow the business of the House to continue.
I want to know how the Chair based his ruling——
It is not usual for the Chair to give such reasons and I have no intention of giving them.
Political expediency.
I thought I could ask the Chair a question on the matter.
The Deputy may discuss the matter with me in my office.
But I cannot do it here?
Why?
Political expediency.
I have called the next business.
I do not agree with the ruling of the Chair. May I raise the matter on the Adjournment?
I will communicate with the Deputy on the matter.