asked the Minister for Finance (a) the number of vacant posts in each State company on 1 July 1981; and (b) the number of such posts not filled as a result of the Government embargo of 21 July 1981.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - State Company Vacancies.
11.
I assume the Deputy wishes to have the data requested in respect of all State bodies rather than just State companies. As the Deputy will be aware, it is not the practice to furnish replies on matters of day-to-day administration of State bodies. I am, however, prepared to give global figures for State bodies, the pay of whose staff forms part of the public sector pay bill, including health and fisheries boards.
My reply relates to vacancies as of 21 July, the date from which the embargo applied since data are not readily available in some instances in relation to 1 July.
There were the equivalent of 869 full-time vacancies on 21 July. A total of 684 have not been filled, of which 11 have been identified as not having been filled for reasons other than the Government embargo.
The remaining 174 posts, which were or are to be filled, consist of posts for which recruitment had reached an advanced stage on 21 July and which were, therefore, exempt, certain AnCO training posts later exempted by the Government and certain posts in the National Concert Hall the filling of which was necessary for the hall to function.
In relation to the 684 posts, will the Minister give an indication of where the posts are and how long it is intended to leave them vacant?
Obviously operation of the embargo is something that falls to be reviewed by the Government in a budgetary context and, therefore, it would not be possible for me to say how long the posts in question may remain vacant. I have been advised, however, that it would not be in accordance with proper practice to give detailed information in respect of each of the bodies concerned as it is considered that is a matter for day-to-day administration by the bodies concerned for which the Minister has no official responsibility.
How can the Minister justify his reply to this question and the totally contradictory reply to the previous question regarding the appointment of non-established civil servants?
I justify it on the basis that I was appointing in my own office someone——
Not one appointment, at least six.
The appointment in my office was similar to previous appointments by the former Government in many ministerial offices. I will be happy to provide at a later date full details of the appointments of this type made by the previous Government.
How can the Minister justify leaving 684 posts unfilled in the State bodies in what should be a job-producing area when there are at least 130,000 people unemployed and some 35,000 of this number are people under the age of 25 years?
The reason for the introduction of this limitation on the very rapid increase in the numbers employed in the State sector is that we had reached the point when this Government took office where that process could simply not continue. Our borrowing capacity was endangered by the irresponsible financial policies pursued by the previous Government. Unfortunately very difficult measures had to be taken to put a stop to the situation that had been created by those irresponsible policies. The present Government will not be deflected from the pursuit of their present stance on these matters.
Is the Minister saying it is irresponsible to create jobs?
Is the Minister saying that the 684 posts in question were not necessary in the bodies he mentioned? At a time of such high unemployment is it not advisable not only to fill the posts but to create as many jobs as possible for our increasing population?
In most cases the salary of the people concerned was being paid by the taxpayer. The Deputy may not be aware that there is a limit to the extent to which the taxpayer is prepared to disburse funds for the appointment of people in the public sector, for however good the reason. If we did not take action to restrict the uncontrolled growth of public spending that occurred under the previous Government we ran the risk of being faced with the choice of imposing an unacceptable level of taxation or simply no longer being able to pay our way. The Government acted quickly in order to avoid either of those eventualities.
Is the Minister saying——
We have gone way past Question Time.
The Minister has said that the taxpayer was not prepared to pay for the employment of those people, but who is paying for their unemployment?
We cannot enter into a debate on this matter. The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.