§ MR. DALYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man, named Shanaghan, has been appointed to the position of Assistant Secretary to the Board of Works, and that much dissatisfaction exists among the staff in consequence; whether he can say if Shanaghan's appointment was competitive, or had he any previous knowledge of the work of this office; whether it has been customary to appoint to the office in question only men who passed Civil Service examination; and, whether Shanaghan did this?
§ MR. HANBURYThe office of Assistant Secretary to the Board of Works is a new post created in 1896, in order to strengthen the staff, especially with reference to Railway work. The appointment was made under Clause 7 of the Order in Council of 4th June 1870, which requires the Civil Service Commissioners to be satisfied of the fitness and qualifications of the person presented to them, with the consent of the Treasury, by the Department concerned. The post being a new creation, no officer of the Department had a claim to be appointed to it and none had the special qualifications required.
§ MR. DALYThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of my question, namely: Was there dissatisfaction amongst the staff at the appointment of Shanaghan over the heads of men who had spent all their lives in the office?
§ MR. HANBURYI am not aware that there is any dissatisfaction? If it do exist, there is no reason for it, because none of them were qualified for the appointment.
§ MR. DALYWill the right hon. Gentlemen make inquiries to see if there is any dissatisfaction amongst the staff?
§ MR. HANBURYI have made inquiries about it already. I know all about it.
§ MR. DILLONI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many applications for loans to build workmen's dwellings have been received by the Irish Board of Works during last year; and, how many have been refused?
§ MR. HANBURY17 Memorials for loans were presented last financial year. Of these seven were sanctioned, four are still under inquiry, one was withdrawn 965 temporarily for private reasons, one was withdrawn because the Board of Works, in view of the insufficient security offered, declined to recommend the full amount asked; one was withdrawn because the Board limited the advance to suitable houses, excluding houses that were too large and expensive, one was postponed by the Board until existing arrears on other loans should be paid up, one was refused on account of the inadequacy of the security offered, and one was refused because the projected houses were in excess of the size and cost suitable to the purposes of the Act.
In reply to a further question from Mr. DILLON,
§ MR. HANBURYsaid that, as he had already stated, 17 memorials were sent in, and of these seven were sanctioned. He had full particulars of the other ten, but they were too long to state across the Table of the House.