asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he is aware that in a letter dated 7th October, 1935, Mr. Timothy F. Begley, Fortlands, Charleville, was notified by the secretary of the North Cork Board of Health and Public Assistance that he had been appointed temporary whole-time caretaker of the Charleville sewerage works at a salary of £1 per week, and if he is aware that Mr. Begley has not yet been allowed to take up duty, and if he will state what is the cause of the delay in the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Charleville Sewerage Works Caretakership.
When this proposed appointment was submitted for his approval the Minister suggested to the North Cork Board of Health and Public Assistance that it would be preferable to assign the duties of caretaker of the Charleville sewerage scheme to the existing waterworks caretaker who is in a position to undertake the duties of both posts. The policy of the Department is opposed to the multiplication of minor positions carrying small rates of remuneration. The board of health and public assistance have not given any reason why the suggested arrangement is not possible.
As it is the wish of the local board of health to make this a whole-time separate job will the Minister say for what reason he is standing in the way of the board of health dealing in the matter in the way they wish?
There is in the employment of the board a waterworks superintendent who can do the duty without very much additional time being occupied. The waterworks and sewerage scheme are close by and there is no reason why a separate appointment is necessary.
Is the Minister aware that the holder of the present office about which he speaks is holder of that office as a full-time job, and is the Minister aware that the present appointment was offered as a full-time job too? Would the Minister say why, with so much unemployment in the area, it is necessary to amalgamate those two full-time jobs and give a double salary to one person?
In our view there is not really full-time employment for the present man who is filling the waterworks post.
Will the Minister say if the depreciation of this post in his Department is based upon representations from local person?
I have had no representations whatsoever.
Does not the Minister understand, therefore, that if it is the unanimous wish of the local board of health that a separate appointment should be made in this instance he ought not to interfere with their making the appointment in the way in which they wish to make it?
It does not follow.
Do I understand from the Minister that he is not going to allow a separate appointment to be made?
I have not had what I regard as a good and sufficient reason put up to me by the local authorities as to why a separate appointment should be made.
Do I understand from the Minister that he is not going to allow this appointment to be made?
Did the Minister authorise the appointment to be made before it was filled?
No.
I do not want to go into this matter in detail, but I do want to know from the Minister if his attitude is that he is not going to allow the local board of health to make a separate appointment in this case?
Well, I can say this much without having gone in great details into this case, that it does not follow—and I certainly would not allow the rule to apply—that because even a unanimous wish of a local authority to make an appointment which is unnecessary were put forward to me I would allow that appointment to be sanctioned.
Hear, hear!
Is it not clear that if the person who was being appointed was a member of the Minister's organisation he would allow the appointment to be made?
The suggestion comes badly from the Deputy.