asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that there are over 11,000 more civil servants in the employment of the State at present than there were in 1939, and that most of the extra civil servants were specially taken on during the period of the emergency, to deal with rationing, etc., which is now ended; and, if so, if he will state what steps, if any, he is taking to remove the extra burden on the taxpayer caused by these employees.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Extra Civil Servants.
I am aware that the number of civil servants increased by about 9,800 between January, 1939, and January, 1952, the latest date for which final figures have been prepared. Whilst it is true that extra civil servants were taken on during the periodof the emergency to deal with rationing and the like, the present increase is mainly attributable to another cause, namely, the steady expansion in the services demanded from and provided by the State. As illustrations, I would give the taking over of the staffs formerly employed by the National Health Insurance Society, the development and extension of the telephone service and the introduction of further schemes for the benefit of agriculture.
The staffing of the various Government Departments is at all times kept under careful review both by the Department immediately concerned and by my Department. For some years past special survey arrangements have been in operation which are designed to ensure that the numbers in the Civil Service will be kept at the minimum compatible with efficiency in the services provided.
Does the Minister consider it right that the people of this country should be taxed to the extent of £5,000,000 a year in order to maintain an unproductive surplus tribe of drones known as civil servants?
That is a remark that should not be made by the Deputy.
On a point of order. I take it that the language now used by Deputy Corry is parliamentary so far as civil servants are concerned, and that it may also be used in this House to describe other classes in the community?
The Chair has pointed out to Deputy Corry that he may not use language of that kind.
He has used it, and if other Deputies use it are they merely to be told that they may not use it after having done so?
Question No. 33.
What does the Chair propose to do about Deputy Corry's language?
The Chair has reprimanded Deputy Corry for using language which is not parliamentary.
Is the position to be that a Deputy who uses language of that sort may be reprimanded after having used it, but that he may not be called on to withdraw it?
That is a matter for the Chair.
That is an excellent example of Satan rebuking sin.