Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Mar 1938

Vol. 70 No. 9

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Secretary of South Cork Board.

asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he is aware that the late Mr. Daniel Egan was appointed as acting secretary to the South Cork County Board of Public Assistance on the 20th January, 1925, at a salary which was to be determined later; if he is aware that such salary was fixed in February, 1926, at £750 (£500 board of assistance and £250 board of health) plus certain emoluments amounting to £190, and that this salary was only sanctioned in February, 1928, from which date Mr. Egan received the salary agreed on in 1926; if the Minister is aware that the amount due to him in respect of the period from the date he took up office to the 14th March, 1928, is £443, and if the Minister will state why, despite the expressed wish of the local authority concerned, sanction has not been given for the payment of this sum to the representatives of the late Mr. Egan.

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative except that the salary fixed was not a salary which was to be determined later but the salary the late Mr. Egan was then receiving from the board of public assistance. As regards the second part of the question the reply is in the negative. On the abolition of rural district councils Mr. Egan who was Assistant Clerk to the Cork Rural District Council at a salary of £210 a year, with bonus of £99 2s. — was retained as secretary to the Southern Committee of the Cork County Board of Health but the committee decided to discontinue the bonus of £99 2s. a year. At that time Mr. Egan held the post of Superintendent Registrar of births, deaths and marriages and his total income from all sources was, approximately, £700 a year. As regards the third part of the question the answer is also in the negative. As regards the concluding portion of the question the inclusive remuneration of Mr. Egan fixed at £940 per annum in 1928 was not retrospective to 1925. In fact a request for its retrospective application was definitely refused at the time. The matter cannot now be reopened.

Top
Share