Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 Jun 1984

Vol. 352 No. 3

Estimates, 1984. - Vote 18: Office of the Minister for the Public Service.

Minister for Defence Mr. Cooney (for the Minister for the Public Service)

: I move:

That a sum not exceeding £7,158,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1984, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Public Service for payment of a grant-in-aid.

I propose to discuss Vote 19 — Civil Service Commission — Vote 21 — Superannuation and Retired Allowances — and Vote 49 — Increases in Remuneration and Pensions — with this Vote.

I do not propose to discuss Vote 20 — Office of the Ombudsman. This Vote has already been agreed by the House. Deputies will recall that, as the office was a new service and could not come into operation until the money had been voted, it was necessary to vote the money before the end of 1983.

Before dealing with the financial details, I would like to refer to a number of the most important developments in the management and modernisation of the public service. I have on previous occasions underlined to this House the great importance which the Government attach to the modernisation of the public service. In this concern, the Government are, I believe, responding to a widespread felt need in the community at large. This need springs from a number of sources. There is a recognition that, if the increasingly complex business of government is to be effectively handled, and if the national plan which the Government will bring forward shortly is to become effective in action, the quality and effectiveness of the public service will be a key factor. There is also a widespread feeling that the transparency and accountability which ought to characterise all public service activities need to be restored to what, in the opinion of many, has become a rather opaque and complex network of decision-making. This will require the development of clearer systems of accountability for public servants, and, of course, there is the feeling on the part of all of us who are taxpayers that the cost and size of the public service must be kept to the minimum.

For all these reasons, the Government consider that one of the most important measures it will take in the near future will be the publication of a White Paper on a better public service later this year. The White Paper will spell out the public service reforms which the Government have decided upon. Earlier this year, submissions were sought through the public press from any individuals or organisations who wished to put forward ideas on the modernisaiton of the public service. These have been taken into account in the work done within the Department of the Public Service on the preparation of the White Paper.

Already, in advance of the publication of the total package in the White Paper, many significant changes have been made. Perhaps the most prominent change has been the introduction of a new system for making appointments to top levels in the Civil Service. From the beginning of this year, all appointments to Civil Service posts from assistant secretary level upwards, including professional, technical and departmental grades, are made — by the Government or by the responsible Minister, as before — on the recommendation of the newly constituted Top Level Appointments Committee. This committee consists of four secretaries of Departments and the Chariman of the Public Service Advisory Council, who by definition comes from the private sector and who at present is Dr. Liam St. John Devlin. The objective of this new arrangement is to ensure that the best people are appointed to senior posts irrespective of the Department or class of grade in which they have been serving previously. This new system has been described in some of the media as representing a switch from a system of Buggins's turn. This is a misleading description. Promotions at this level in the Civil Service have not, in fact, been on the basis of seniority. However, the previous system did contain too many rigidities. For example, it was difficult for an outstanding officer to be picked out for the highest posts because top-level promotions were normally made within each Department and opportunities did not always match talent.

The new system is supported by a service-wide system of assessment or appraisal of all officers from the level of principal upwards. This is an important feature of the new arrangements. It is an indication that the selection of people for promotion is now intended to be based on job performance and not on any other criteria. At the same time as this new promotion system was introduced, the Government made a change in the tenure of secretaries of Departments. Secretaries appointed under the new arrangements will hold office for not more than seven years and will retire from the Civil Service at the age of 60. There are special provisions to cover the position of officers who were already over 55 at the time of introduction of the new arrangements. The purpose behind this change is to increase mobility at the very top of Departments and thus to give more able officers the opportunity of operating at this level.

Naturally, these new arrangements will prove upsetting for some. The general reaction to them, however, from outside as well as inside the public service has been favourable. There seems to be a general acceptance that the most able people will come to the top under the new arrangements.

The principle of competitive promotion supported by systematic appraisal is being applied further down the Civil Service hierarchy as well. An appraisal scheme for officials at principal and assistant principal level has recently been agreed. The arrangements for competitive interdepartmental promotion to the assistant principal grade are being extended, and agreement is, I understand, near on arrangements to apply the same type of system to the principal grade.

In speaking generally about the need for modernisation and reform, I made reference to the importance of greater accountability on the part of officials. This is a thorny and complex issue. It is Ministers who are statutorily responsible to this House for all the business of their Departments. It is right that Ministers should be responsible for the development and review of policy and that they should be answerable in this House for that. It is less clear that they ought to be so heavily immersed in the day-to-day executive tasks arising from the implementation of these policies but at the moment they must also answer to the Dáil for this. The Minister for the Public Service has said on a number of occasions that he envisages changes in this situation.

Even under present arrangements, however, it is intended to focus more clearly on the specific responsibilities of officials within the system. At the moment, the secretary of a Department, usually, is statutorily the accounting officer who is answerable to the Committee of Public Accounts for all expenditures from the vote for his Department.

The Minister is at present developing a management system within his own Department which builds on a carefully worked out and agreed statement of the aims and objectives of the Department as a whole. Flowing from these, the objectives of each manager down to certain levels are formulated and the criteria by which his or her performance will be judged are spelled out. This system is in the process of development in the Department. It is the intention in the new system to make each manager responsible for the efficient use of the budget over which he has control. This will lead not only to a keener sense of personal responsibility on the part of each manager but also to a more cost-conscious approach to management.

One of the most important programmes of improvement in the Civil Service at present is the drive to improve the service at the point of contact with the public. This is an area which has too often been neglected in the past. In common with most OECD countries, Ireland is beginning to take steps to improve the situation. The forbidding, uncomfortable public reception area with its daunting hatches is being replaced by, to borrow the computer terminology, user-friendly spaces which are pleasant and which give a modicum of privacy. Staff dealing with the public either face-to-face, or by telephone or letter, are now required to identify themselves. This means that they will wear name badges, they will sign their names legibly and have their name and designation typed underneath the signature on letters and they will give their section, title and name on the telephone. This move does away with the all too common practice in the past where civil servants dealing with the public remained anonymous and aloof, so that the citizen doing business with a Government Department found it almost impossible to follow up a query arising from an earlier contact. As part of the same programme, forms are being systematically improved so that they will prove a help rather than an obstacle to the citizen using them.

All these references to reforms and changes should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the Civil Service gives a highly competent and dedicated service to the public day in day out. This ought to be well known and understood by the public. The changes now in train are designed to improve this service further. Again, it is important that these improvements are known and recognised by the citizens who are the beneficiaries. For this reason, the Minister has launched a campaign to inform the public of the improving service now available from Government Departments. The importance of improving communication between those providing a service and those served is clear.

It is abundantly clear that computers will be a conspicuous factor in all aspects of management and administration in the future and that this will have vast implications for the organisation and deployment of people. Furthermore, the technology of the future will not, unlike the computers of bygone days, be capable of being bound into particular corners of an organisation, to deal only with the mass processing of clerical data. In that situation, it was always possible for top management to say that they did not have to become familiar with or understand the new methods or equipment. This is no longer possible. The new technology will pervade all areas of the Department or business and everybody, right up to the top, will need to understand what it can do for them and how it can do it.

That is why the Department of the Public Service have been organising appreciation courses in information technology for top management levels including secretaries of Departments. The response to these courses has been most encouraging and the feed-back very positive.

The containment of the numbers and cost of the public service has, of course, been a prime concern of the Government. Since 23 December 1981, only every third vacancy arising in the Civil Service may be filled. The effect of this policy has been that, despite a need to create new posts, the numbers serving in the Civil Service — excluding what are now An Post and Telecom Eireann — fell from 32,600 in July 1981 to 30,800 at the beginning of June this year.

This policy remains in force (though vacancies arising from the "career breaks" scheme are exempt from this embargo). Departments will continue to be allowed to create a certain number of new posts where they can find compensating savings to pay for them. There will be a widespread and systematic review of all Departments to identify the opportunities for such savings.

Arising from the decisions of the Government Task Force on Employment, two schemes were introduced, aimed at providing new job opportunities for young people in the Civil Service and, at the same time, facilitating staff with domestic and other interests who wish to avail of the new arrangements.

The first of these is job-sharing. This scheme, which was introduced at the end of February, will enable serving officers to share the duties of a particular post in return for half pay and other benefits. The resultant vacancies, including those occurring at recruitment level, will be filled. In addition, some Civil Service posts will be advertised on a job-sharing basis. Job-sharing recruits will be offered full-time employment after a minimum of two years.

The second scheme referred to is that of career breaks. Under it, most civil servants will be eligible to apply for a career break which will consist of special leave without pay of a period of one to three years. Career breaks may be availed of for a wide variety of reasons, including domestic responsibilities, further education, setting up a business, etc. Consequential vacancies will be filled. Again this will increase job opportunities in the Civil Service for young people.

The initial response to both schemes has been reasonable. It is intended to extend them to the health, education and local authority areas and to State-sponsored bodies. Ministers have been written to in this regard. The Minister for Health has already introduced a career breaks scheme in the health area.

I have mentioned that I did not propose to discuss the Vote for the Office of the Ombudsman. Deputies will be aware that the Ombudsman took office on 3 January last. Since then he has been inundated with representations of all kinds. While many of these do not come within the Ombudsman's writ, they are a clear indication of the need for the office in the first place.

It is the Minister's intention to review the extent of the Ombudsman's writ with the objective of ensuring that he has the widest possible powers which are desirable.

The Government have agreed on a scheme of staff exchanges not only within the public service and the wider public sector but also between the public service and the private sector. While the response to date has not been as good as had been hoped for, the scheme is being continued. In particular, it is the aim to have many more exchanges between the public and private sector. A small working party comprised of both the public and private sectors has been set up to encourage greater exchange between the two sectors.

I turn now to some of the financial details relating to this group of Estimates. The Estimate for Vote 18 — the Office of the Minister for the Public Service — is £7.158 million, which is an increase of £516,000 on the 1983 outturn. The Vote covers the day-to-day running expenses of the Department and comes in the main under four broad heads, three of expenditure and one (appropriations-in-aid) of income.

Pay for staff amounts to £5.371 million which is 75 per cent of the total Estimate.

The second item of major expenditure is £1 million for the purchase, leasing, renting and maintenance of computer equipment used by the Department's central data processing services.

There is a provision of £999,000 as a grant-in-aid for the Institute of Public Administration. This grant-in-aid is a contribution towards the general expenses of the institute and includes the corporate subscriptions on behalf of Government Departments. The institute are heavily involved in the training and educating of public servants, in promoting and undertaking administrative research and in publishing valuable sources of material on public administration.

Receipts on the Vote are expected to come to £1.3 million in 1984. These derive mainly from the charges made by the central data processing services in respect of computer work carried out for bodies other than Government Departments.

The second Vote is Vote 19 — the Civil Service Commission. The cost of running the Civil Service Commission and Local Appointments Commission in 1984 is estimated at a net amount of £1.115. This amount is required to cover the cost of salaries, wages and allowances of the staffs of the two commissions, the cost of the competitions run by them and various other expenses. The gross cost comes to £2.357 million but revenue received will reduce this by £1.242 million to £1.115 million. Estimated receipts in 1984 are considerably less than those for 1983. The decrease is due largely to the fact that, as indicated in the debate on the Estimates for this group of Votes last year, it has been possible this year to discontinue the charging of fees for competitions.

The Government have decided that a number of Civil Service Commission competitions, i.e., the adult executive officer, clerical assistant (clerical duties) and clerical assistant (shorthand typing) will not be held in 1984. It has been the practice to hold these competitions annually but, at present, there are large numbers of candidates available from existing panels who are sufficient to fill several times over the vacancies likely to arise for those jobs this year.

In April, at the request of the Minister, the Civil Service Commissioners made a regulation under the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, which strengthened their long-standing prohibition against canvassing, or the use of influence, on behalf of candidates at Civil Service competitions. The effect of the regulation is to ensure that attempts, direct or indirect, by a candidate to influence the commissioners in the selection of persons for employment in the Civil Service will automatically disqualify the candidate.

Vote 21 — Superannuation and Retired Allowances — requires a net amount of £43.244 million. The Estimate covers payments of pensions and retirement lump sums to established and non-established civil servants, to their widows and widows of the Judiciary. Inevitably, the cost of superannuation increases each year because of the increase in the number of pensioners and the annual revision of pensions in line with pay increases. In addition the Government decided, in the context of the 1984 budget, that in the case of general pay increases, pensions would be increased as from the same date as salaries for serving officers. Previously, pension increases were payable only from the first of July following. This has added somewhat to the cost in 1984.

As regards Vote 49 — Increases in Remuneration and Pensions — full provision has already been included in departmental estimates for general increases under the 1983 Public Service Pay Agreement. That agreement also provides for the implementation of certian other special pay increases on a phased basis. Vote 49 contains a special contingency provision of £54 million to meet the additional costs of these special increases to the extent to which they cannot be met from existing departmental pay allocations. These amounts will be allocated and paid to the Departments concerned later in the year when the full extent of their additional liabilities is known.

On the general question of public service pay policy, last year the cost to the Exchequer of pay and pensions increased by 10 per cent to £2,181 million. The provision for 1984 has been increased by a further 9 per cent to £2,376 million to meet the carryover costs of general pay increases under the 1983 Public Service Pay Agreement — including parity in such cases for public service pensioners — and the continuing commitment under that agreement to process and implement on a phased basis certain other cost-increasing claims in the period to 1986. This increase of £195 million is the limit of what can be afforded in 1984. In these circumstances the Government have made no provision for any further general pay increases under the 24th pay round in 1984.

The Government have issued guidelines for pay in the context of the needs of the economy as a whole and the foregoing outline of public service pay policy falls within the scope of these guidelines.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

It appears that today is the day when Deputy Calleary and I are to reply from this side of the House to the various matters being discussed. The Civil Service, the administration of the affairs of Government, is extremely important. It is important that the Department of the Public Service, which is charged with the responsibility of providing an efficient and up to date service, should be discussed in the House. The Minister put some thoughts before us and gave us an opportunity to highlight any defects. We are entitled to charge the Government with making a presentation of activity that is less real than it is projected to be. That can be said more of the Department under discussion than of any other Department. There was little new in the Minister's speech other than a few items which I shall deal with later and the appointment of the Ombudsman. I am glad that the latter service is being availed of. Earlier I expressed support for the appointment of the Ombudsman and wished the person appointed well. I expressed the hope that he and his officials would not suffer from that cruel instrument, the embargo.

The embargo has been in operation for three years. It is a crude instrument which successive Governments have found necessary to introduce to reduce the numbers in the public service. I was disappointed that the Minister did not announce his intention to lift the embargo in a selective manner. I appreciate the need to reduce the numbers in the Civil Service in an effort to cut administration costs. There is a great need for tax reform although the Government cannot be persuaded to embark on such a course. There is an acceptance that some servces will have to be curtailed but that should not occur at the expense of productive investment or in such vital areas as health or education. The embargo, and its crude implementation, is of major concern to us all.

In the course of his speech the Minister said that the Minister had introduced a career break scheme in the health area. I do not think it would be possible to get a truer statement than that. All regional health boards will agree that the Minister for Health has done everything possible to introduce a career break scheme in his area of responsibility. The health services are breaking down in many areas. Wards are being closed in hospitals and consultants do not have adequate staff to carry out their essential specialities. It is in that area that the embargo is doing most damage. In the Southern Health Board the cardiologist on the staff of the regional hospital has indicated his intention to resign because of the impact of the embargo on staff numbers. I understand that he may have reversed his decision. I hope that his threat motivated somebody somewhere to apply commonsense in this area. Many people in the area with heart complaints were very concerned about this. The responsibility for this rests with the Department of the Public Service.

I could give many illustrations of problems in the health services that have arisen because of the embargo. I live beside the 600 bed Cork Regional Hospital which has been in operation for a few years and I am aware that there have been serious cutbacks there because of the embargo. The cleanliness of the hospital is not as it should be because there are not enough people to carry out the ordinary daily chores. That must be considered in conjunction with the decision to close wards in July and August.

Let us look at the Revenue Commissioners. I am given to understand that about 640 posts remained unfilled in the area of taxes, customs and excise and so on. This is alarming at a time when we hear so much about the non-payment and non-collection of taxes. Is that figure correct? If not, what is the correct figure? Is the large number of vacancies one of the reasons the collection of taxation is not on target? Is it one of the reasons one finds so much discontent and frustration with the tax system? VAT is not being refunded in some cases, despite all the procedures having been followed.

Is the embargo being applied too rigidly in sensative areas such as this? The embargo is a crude instrument which has been in operation for three years and I suggest that the time has come for a selective lifting of it. There is a backlog of work in the courts. Has this anything to do with frustration on the part of the Department of Justice due to posts being left unfilled? I was long enough in Government to know that many Departments can put a gun to the head of their incumbent Ministers to try to get additional posts filled. There must be a limit to the application of the embargo and the position may be getting very serious. One could ask what impact the embargo is having on some essential semi-State bodies. I appreciate that the Minister has no responsibility for the brevity of the time allocated for this discussion but we must know where cuts are being made.

We need an extremely efficient, informed and courteous Civil Service. For the most part we have it, but I support the Minister in his efforts to bring about continued improvement because it is very important that service should become more personalised. Those of us who represent areas far removed from Dublin often find ourselves performing an information function at our clinics in regard to the entitlements of people. We must try to ensure that service is available and that people are properly informed as to their rights and entitlements. It is a tribute to politicians on all sides that people have confidence in approaching them for information, although it should be made known to them through a different system.

In regard to the new promotions system for secretaries of Departments, I support any changes which work towards improvement. In my experience secretaries of Departments were in almost all cases very competent, committed and dedicated people who had come through a system which was very critical of itself. No Government ever sought to appoint as secretary of a Department anybody but the best. However, I accept that if we can improve the system we should do so. I am prepared to wait and see how this system works. The Minister has made an effort to take some kudos for himself by defending the system in the Civil Service and criticising the media for representing the new system as being a switch from "Buggins's turn". Nobody could accept that this was the approach in the former system. There is a continuing programme to improve the image of the public sector and service at the point of contact with the public. I was deeply committed to this during my time in the Department, as was my colleague, Deputy Calleary. We spent a lot of time and effort on it and towards the end of my period in office we produced a very effective film for members of staff to inform them what the public expect of them. As public representatives we often find it difficult to communicate with the public sector and get our point of view across. The ordinary man in the street finds it even more difficult and we must improve the situation. No Minister can say that this task is being undertaken for the first time. It has been an on-going process.

There are schemes whereby staff are exchanged, not only within the public service but between the public and private sectors. When I was Minister for the Public Service I had a private secretary who was involved in one of those staff exchange schemes. He was a credit to that scheme and he was the kind of person who would be an ornament in any sector, public or private. He was probably able to avail of the scheme to his own advancement. The scheme has been very successful but it is not an innovation. I support the Minister in his view that is has not been availed of to the greatest possible extent.

This Government Task Force on Employment came up with some rare suggestions on how we should advance as a people, two of which have been mentioned in the Minister's introductory remarks. For example, he had this to say:

Arising from the decisions of the Government Task Force on Employment, two schemes were introduced, aimed at providing new job opportunities for young people in the Civil Service and, at the same time, facilitating staff with domestic and other interests who wish to avail of the new arrangements. The first of these is job-sharing.

I ask the House: what is all this job-sharing about? We are told that young people may be recruited to the Civil Service on a job-sharing basis and that after a minimum of two years' service — there is no guarantee — they will be offered fulltime employment. In this respect I want the Minister to answer a few questions for me. For example, in the case of an executive officer recruited on a job-sharing basis, does that mean that his or her salary would be in the region of £57 per week and that such a person would be expected to pay for their accommodation, if they are from the country, in this city out of that money? Again, in the case of a clerical assistant, does it mean that they would earn about £40 a week and would they have to make the same provisions for accommodation, food and so on? If it does mean that they must so provide then I wonder is this Government Task Force on Employment moving in the right direction or have they made recommendations that could be regarded as progressive ones or otherwise? In this respect I should like as much information as it is possible to give. I should like to know also if the staff associations were consulted and, if so, what was their response to this innovation.

I should also like to know if any people have already been recruited as a result of the recent job-sharing advertisements. If so, what is the level of their salaries and, if they emanate from, say, Cork, Kerry, Donegal or Mayo, are they expected to pay for their accommodation out of their gross earnings?

The second scheme referred to is that of career breaks. I referred earlier to the Minister for Health causing career breaks; certainly he has broken many a career in the general health services. I understand that a number of people have availed of career breaks in the public service. I should like to know also if what I am told is correct, that their return to the Civil Service after a maximum of three years is guaranteed but that the date of such return is not guaranteed as near as possible to the date of application. I should like the Minister to clarify that point for the House and to say specifically how one returns to the Civil Service after, say, one, two or three years' absence under this career breaks scheme. I should like to know also how many people have availed of the provisions of the scheme, how many consequential vacancies have occurred, how many have been filled and whether or not promotions have arisen as a result of such consequential vacancies. In other words, how bright an idea is this of the famous Government Task Force on Employment and how many jobs has it or will it create?

One of the most important areas of the public service today is the pay scene. No doubt it is of tremendous concern to the Government, the Minister for Finance, this House and indeed the community as a whole. Here I refer to the size of our annual pay bill. As a Minister who successively renegotiated a previous public service wage agreement under very difficult circumstances, it appears to me that there is a new laissez faire approach on the part of this Government to the whole question of discussions, consultations and negotiations. In fact what appears to be a new docile approach on the part of many of the trade unions and associations concerned with the public service surprises me. There seems to be a total absence of discussion, consultation and negotiation. I support entirely the need for pay restraint at a time when what this country needs more than anything else are jobs. It also needs tax reform and a cutback in real tax being paid by people. Considering that the 23rd round ended the last day of May, I am not aware of any meetings having been held yet with the Minister or of what happens henceforth. I presume the Minister will be seeking a pay freeze. I read recently that the Minister for Finance would be seeking a pay freeze for the entire year but, to my knowledge, no discussions have taken place nor is it intended that such should take place, constituting a new approach by the Government, taking their decisions in their own way without consultation with anybody.

I do not want to hog the time of the House because I know other members are anxious to contribute in an area in which I believe contribution from this House is very important. I believe the role of a Member of this House in the administration of the public service is extremely important. At our ordinary clinics we Members can detect, perhaps more easily than any Minister, some troublesome areas. Any Member can alert a Minister to an area of Government where something appears to have gone wrong because of an excessive number of representations having been made to him or her in any one week. I believe also we have a duty to ensure that bureaucracy is not allowed to bog down democracy. If I were to offer the Minister a constructive suggestion — one I have made in this House before — it would be in the whole area of physical planning which is the responsibility of a different Minister. I am speaking here, through the Minister present, to the Minister for the Public Service who has responsibility for the whole of the operations of the public service. I fear we have a much too bureaucratic approach to physical planning which is stultifying development, slowing down job creation and rendering development generally more costly. I shall not go further than that except to suggest that the Minister might, along with his colleague, or in consultation with him, examine this area. I believe it warrants urgent examination and that a lot could be done by way of job creation.

Through the Minister present I want to support the Minister for the Public Service in any positive, progressive steps he may take in his Department to improve the efficiency of the public service generally in order to render it what is most needed and best suited to the community to whom we are all responsible.

Mrs. Barnes

Like Deputy Gene Fitzgerald I welcome the progressive policies outlined in the Minister's introductory remarks, look forward to their implementation and indeed to others also.

Obviously the fact that we live in an infinitely more complex world, with the more leisurely, straightforward type of life and administration being gone forever, has been grasped by the Minister, presumably also by the public servants in his Department and hopefully those in other Departments also. If the administration is to keep pace with the work and improve on it, this progression, not alone in the field of computerisation but also in the selection and promotion of people within the public service, is to be welcomed. It must fit within the national plan of Government. We all know the challenges facing us in the eighties and nineties in all areas, particularly in administrations and new administrative aids are necessary. Much will be achieved with the publication of the White Paper which, as the Minister, Deputy Cooney, said here tonight, will react and respond to much of what the public has said over the years which now, it is to be hoped, will be translated into action in that White Paper. It will also help the Civil Service to feel that they are part of a community. At times they seem to be ghetto-ised or a people apart. We will be reflecting and acting out the response of the public. We are a small country, a small community, and civil servants should not be made to feel that they are alienated or a separate part of the public.

Within the Civil Service itself the changes that have come about since the beginning of this year in appointment to Civil Service posts from assistant secretary level upwards are to be welcomed. Professional and technical grades will be opened up. There has been a public perception and also an experience within certain areas of the Civil Service itself that really there was no acknowledgement of initiative or further training because promotion would come only with seniority and it might be dangerous to be seen as in any way radical or innovative within one's own Department because that might be counter-productive to one's promotion.

To get rid of that notion, perceived or real, is essential. Up to now civil servants received no real acknowledgement of a lifetime of work of public service because their names could not be acknowledged. Therefore, incentive was absent and perhaps even promotional opportunities were not there or at least were not based on what they would have been based on in the outside world, an acknowledgement of the very real resources and potential that people brought to their jobs. Now there is a real incentive for young civil servants to seek further training and promotion and to respond to the challenges within their Departments and their efforts in so doing will be not alone acknowledged but rewarded.

I note also that secretaries of Departments appointed under the new arrangements will hold office for not more than seven years and will retire from the Civil Service at the age of 60. It could be argued that after seven or perhaps ten years people have used up all their ideas and initiatives. Maybe politicians also should look at their tenure of office and consider whether a time scale of ten or 12 years might not burn up their initiative also. Perhaps we will consider some large transfer of politicians with new ideas and initiatives. That is just a thought and perhaps the electorate will sort that out for us.

Greater accountability is very necessary, not alone on the part of the officials — we are already experiencing evidence of this — but in what the Minister has referred to already as the base for further democracy, the responsibility of our elected representatives as executives or administrators vis-à-vis legislators. As legislation becomes more necessary, complex and difficult and more and more research into it is needed, it will be impossible for a Minister of a Department to meet all the needs or take responsibility for everything that happens in his Department. One topic that might be welcome on a debate on this would be the responsibility of the Minister vis-à-vis his Department, not taking away from the authority of a ministerial position, but recognising that physically and mentally a Minister could not possibly cope with the incredible complexity of the day-to-day running of his Department. This matter needs discussion in depth which should produce a signal of the kind of perception that politicians will have of their role in future. It has become increasingly evident that politicians, even backbenchers, certainly Ministers, cannot continue to carry the incredible workload that they have been asked to carry in all areas and to bear the whole responsibility for it also. I look forward to further discussion on this which I take will be a large part of the contents of the White Paper.

I notice that the Minister is developing a management system which will allow the manager of a Department to be responsible for the budget within that Department, with consequently a more cost-conscious approach to management. A great amount of our budgeting and the funding that we give to outside agencies through different Government Departments is based strictly on an annual budget and the arrangements are so rigid that if any of that budget is left over — for instance as in the year 1983-1984 — for whatever good and honest reason, that cannot be brought over into 1985. We are talking about cost-conscious approaches and the managers within such Departments having the resources and authority to project budgets on a three-year or five-year basis, certainly on a programmed plan. We are all aware of a certain amount of wastage and a mad dash at the end of the year to spend money on what may not necessarily be the most effective or even necessary part of an agency's needs, but rather than return the money this is done.

Deputy Fitzgerald has referred to the tremendous workload of politicians. It would seem that the point of contact with the public by civil servants has not been efficient or effective enough to allow that public to believe that they were getting the right information or that they had the right or authority to demand such information or the resources and the right to complain. Therefore, much of politicians' time is taken up with people coming to them who either do not understand the system or feel that their queries or complaints will not be dealt with within the ambience of the Civil Service itself, particularly at the point of contact with the public. There are two ways of doing this. One would be to make sure that information is disseminated much more widely than at present. The Minister has talked about reforming the forms etc. Sometimes forms are printed in official jargon and none of us can be sure of what they mean.

Next — I know that the Minister for the Public Service is thinking along this line — rather than having the most junior people placed at the hatches and the information desks throughout our public information and social welfare sections, for instance, we should change around dramatically and have middle or even senior level people who have not alone the information but the experience of working within the legislation, some of which is very complex. The situation of having the member of the public on the one side embarrassed and the young person on the other side embarrassed and with a queue of people being detained leads to frustration on both sides. It is endemic throughout our public employment exchanges and social welfare agencies. However, rather than taking up the time of even more senior and better-informed personnel at the ordinary hatch and in order to preserve some degree of privacy where that is required, we should strive to have information-cum-complaints desks where people would be treated with privacy and with courtesy, where they would not be treated as if they were a nuisance but as having the right to such information.

This must be one of the areas that has been emphasised most in the response to the views sought by the Minister. Unfortunately, a great number of people at the receiving end of what they consider to be frustrating and humiliating experiences are the ones who do not have the competence or the confidence to write and tell us about it. As Deputy Fitzgerald has said, we as public representatives have been made very much aware of this problem by people who experience a total sense of powerlessness and who believe that through the intervention of a politician or someone else their problems can be solved when all that is at stake are their rights. We cannot over-emphasise how damaging that situation is from the point of view of both sides because if this is the perception people on the informing side have towards applicants, a sense of contempt could creep in. On the other hand, if people are led to believe that their entitlement to information is sometimes privileged there will continue to be a psychological dependency within our society which is damaging in the area of reform not only in the public service but outside it. I hope that when the White Paper is produced we will have the opportunity of a longer debate on that.

Regarding the situation of only every third vacancy in the Civil Service being filled, while we all realise that there must not be an overmanned public service and that the more balance we get as between the public and private sectors the greater will be the level of income distribution, I am concerned that if we adhere rigidly and inflexibly to the regulation of filling only every third vacancy in each Department there might be areas in which there would be real need for a vacancy to be filled but that the vacancy would be left unfilled. We are not talking about the filling of every third vacancy in certain areas but there should be interchangibility so that people could be changed from one Department to another in accordance with the requirements of any Department. There is no point in having a formula based on numbers but which is not contributing towards what we want to achieve.

I have some questions to put to the Minister in relation to two schemes that have been introduced with a view to providing job opportunities for young people. I refer first to job sharing. My concept of job sharing is that it would not be confined to the lower paid. There is reference here to job sharing leading to full-time employment after two years but that is referring to people who are new to the work force. I submit that we should examine the concept of job sharing at the higher as well as at the lower levels. A couple, for instance, at the higher level though not necessarily at that level, might like to work on a job-sharing basis and thereby share all the responsibilities within the home as well as outside it. If we are talking seriously about full employment we must be prepared in the future to give everyone the opportunity of working outside the home in gainful employment. What concerns me about this question of job sharing is that there seems to be creeping in the notion that it is some kind of deal for women and that this would mean that women once again would be channelled into cul-de-sac situations in which pressure would be brought to bear on two or three women to share one job without the same situation applying to men. This would mean that once again women would be denied the same promotion, training and even pension opportunities that apply to men. There is no point in talking about the idea of job sharing if we do not think of its equal applicability to both men and women.

On the question of career breaks, we are told that they be available for a wide variety of reasons including domestic responsibility. I enter the caveat that, as in the case of job sharing, we think traditionally of domestic responsibility in terms of women. Let us hope we are talking about men taking career breaks also, including breaks to cater for domestic responsibilities. We will need to put a good deal of publicity and debate into ensuring that both men and women will be part of this concept. The Minister may be able to tell us what the figures are for men and women respectively in terms of those who have availed so far of those breaks.

Mr. Cooney

As they would be sexist statistics we would not have them.

Mrs. Barnes

They could be significant.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I think the Minister has won that round.

Mrs. Barnes

All of us here welcomed the appointment of the Ombudsman but the evidence emerging from that Office so far is that both the Ombudsman and his staff are constantly frustrated by the fact that many of the cases being brought to their attention cannot be coped with because of the absence of appropriate legislation. There is an inbuilt injustice in many instances because of that situation. One area in which there is a great number of complaints and a great deal of distress is the whole area of social welfare. On many occasions they are powerless because we have not reformed the legislation. The Ombudsman is powerless to resolve these cases with justice. Reform of the legislation must go hand in hand with reform of the public service.

The Civil Service Commission's regulation on the prohibition of canvassing has taken a tremendous burden off of politicians. There was pressure on politicians. When they did not want to act in an unjust way they found themselves in the invidious position that, if they did not canvass for a person, another politician would do so. People should get jobs on their own merits and on the basis of interviews and so on. The most insulting thing we can suggest to people who get jobs is that they did not get them themselves but through someone else's influence.

Reference was made by the Minister to the payment of pensions, retirement lump sums and so on. I wish to make a plea on behalf of pre-1968 Civil Service widows. Such widows have courageously fought to get full pension rights. They have now reached a stage where they get four-fifths. As they are a dwindling group and as some of them are living in certain need, perhaps in the next budget they would be given the other fifth and so receive a full pension.

The Minister for Labour said he was fully committed to bringing about a programme of equality for women even to the extent of discriminating in favour of women, which is what affirmative action is about. I should like to believe that the Minister for the Public Service is imbued with the same spirit of commitment. Without such a programme it will not be achieved with any sense of urgency. There are many models we can offer the Minister if he needs them. One area which has been defined in the courts as being an indirect discrimination against women is where an age limit is imposed. There are times when women have to leave their jobs and then wish to come back. I know a commitment has been given by the Minister for Labour that unless it is absolutely necessary to the job the age limit will be removed. I should like to think that is one of the first areas the Minister for the Public Service will look at also.

Mr. Calleary

I join with Deputy Barnes in making a plea for the pre-1968 widows. There is a very small number of people involved and it would hardly make any difference to an Estimate of £49,747,000.

Mention was made of the embargo by Deputies Fitzgerald and Barnes. I accept the need to cut back on the number of civil servants, but we must have a sense of reality and a commonsense approach to the way the embargo is managed. We are getting a tremendous amount of money from the European Social Fund this year. It is about £30 million over and above what we got last year. Most of this money is to go for vocational training. A lot of it will be spent by AnCO on training schemes. However, some schemes are held up because there is no available manpower to carry them out. The payment of grants is delayed to such an extent that their value is halved by the time they are paid out. There should be people available to carry out inspections for the various grants, particularly in the agricultural sector. We have all been inundated by representations from people who are desperate to have their grants paid.

One can envisage a situation somewhat similar to that pointed out by Deputy Fitzgerald. I know of one Department where a vacancy for chief engineer cannot be filled until two more people retire. This is due to the embargo. It is ludicrous in the extreme and it takes the embargo to the stage where it is farcical. Thousands of pounds worth of jobs are held up because it is necessary to get the imprimatur of the engineer in charge. Everyone has to wait for two people to resign before the vacancy is filled. The Minister should ask his colleague to look again at the embargo particularly as it relates to areas where there is only one person in a particular grade.

There are delays in the Land Registry because they are completely understaffed. I do not have to tell the Minister what that could lead to as regards the payment of loans, land transfers and so on. The mapping section is completely understaffed. In the Vote for the Civil Service Commissioners examiners fees are up. It is ironic that their fees are up when the Minister said that competition would not be held for three sections this year. In his speech the Minister said:

The Government have decided that a number of Civil Service Commission competitions, that is, the adult executive officer, clerical assistant (clerical duties) and clerical assistant (shorthand typing) will not be held in 1984.

As the last two examinations normally get a very large number of applicants one wonders why examiners' fees are up.

I am very glad the post of Ombudsman's is working well and I hope the commitments I gave on behalf of Fianna Fáil to extend the Ombudsman's writ will be honoured quickly and within the time limit set out in the Bill. It is important that commitments to look at the areas of the public service which up to now have not been included would be met as quickly as possible by this Government.

I am sad that there was no mention of decentralisation in the Minister's speech. I know that this scheme has been cancelled because we had the Minister for Finance's views on this many times. He is on record as stating that it would not create a single job at a time when the numbers in the Civil Service are diminishing and therefore there was no need for decentralisation. I hate to appeal to the Chair, but Nenagh was one of the areas which was to get one of these offices. I am positive that there would have been extra jobs created in Nenagh as well as in Ballina if this programme had gone ahead. The spin-off alone of having £50,000 wages per week in the town of Ballina would be enormous.

Fianna Fáil were blamed for not providing various sums of money in the 1982 Estimates, but the £6 million which was provided in the 1983 Estimates was not spent in the areas for which it had been provided. This is because the programme was cancelled. I ask the Minister to have another look at this because accommodation is still needed and is still being acquired. I presume that the allocation of £750,000 is for alterations to office accommodation in Dublin and that the money will be spent not so much on the actual building but on renovations of existing offices which are not suitable. The offices designed by the Office of Public Works suited the particular needs of the relevant Departments.

In his speech the Minister mentioned computers. I welcome the greater computerisation of the public service. I agree with the sentiments expressed in the Minister's speech, but when I look at the Estimate I find that the amount provided for the Central Data Processing Service this year is less than last year. I wonder how the Minister can reconcile these two facts when one reads of the importance he places on computers.

I will deal now with representations. I want to ask the Minister one specific question: what is the position of the hundreds of young men and women who sat the last Garda recruiting examination? A number of these people are in limbo. They do not know where they are going, when or if they will be called, or if they should try to get alternative work. The Minister should ask the Government to set a limit. If they decide to recruit 900 or 1,000 young men and women, at least these people will know what the situation is. It is not fair to keep them in suspended animation for 18 months. If people were given this type of information there would not be a need for any candidate to come to me or any other public representative to find out if he or she is going to be called in X number of months or if he or she will ever be called.

The twenty-fourth pay round was mentioned. When I was in the Department of the Public Service and the Department of Finance I remember sitting in this House listening to the then Opposition Deputies lambaste Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, then Minister for Finance, because he had not included in the budget a sum for special pay awards. Those people who are now in Government sat here with their calculators and said that the Minister was cooking the books because he did not provide about £70 million which would be needed to meet special claims. We all know the twenty-fourth pay round for the public service finished at the end of May and it is unrealistic to present a budget to the Dáil without providing some small amount for this pay round, unless the object is to provide the money needed in next year's budget.

I notice consultancy services have increased by 74 per cent. I presume the advertisements in the newspapers and on television have led to this increase. I do not know who is behind those advertisements, but to say that Mr. A. or Mr. B. answered ten telephone calls and has in the case of one individual given a grant to a farmer in Mayo, Meath, Roscommonor Westmeath, and has signed 19 letters in a day is the height of foolishness. I do not believe anybody in the public service does so little work. I know the Department of the Public Service. I was in that Department for about 18 months and it is foolish for an advertisement to say that a civil servant can only do that amount of work in a day. If that is all he can do, it is no wonder we have so many civil servants. That advertisement should be changed immediately because it does not give a true picture. It is said that a civil servant has an easy job but it is not so easy that a person can only sign 19 letters in one day and answer ten telephone calls. I wish that was all I had to do in a day.

Mr. Cooney

That is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

Mr. Calleary

The majority of the civil servants I have met are conscientious, hard-working and very civil people. The few who have besmirched the good name of the majority and unfortunately soiled the name of the Civil Service are the people the Minister should be after.

Easy contact with Departments is very important. Sometimes the media criticise Deputies for making too many representations, and they in turn cannot be criticised for doing so. Representations by Deputies at their present volume would not be necessary if full information could be elicited in response to inquiries. One of the great bones of contention at my clinics is delay in getting answers. For that reason it would be very handy if the Department had the type of information desk Deputies have asked for. It is frustrating for people who need information to be put from one section to another and to another, and to have their telephone bills mounting, sometimes up to £4 a call. Such an information desk would mean that Deputies would not have to make so many inquiries. Ordinary people would be able to get the information they seek. There is still the possibility that one must go to the Minister's office to get a reply, or Deputies may have to seek the information by way of parliamentary question.

There has been reference to the system of promotion and recruitment. There have been changes, which I welcome, but I do not think they will make any great difference. Civil servants in the Departments whom I have dealt with are very intelligent and capable, particularly in the upper strata. They work very hard. However, I question the new system by which secretaries of Departments can hold that position for seven years only. Most of them will be in their mid-forties or younger. At the end of seven years, apparently, they will be demoted. Will there be somewhere like "a retired secretaries' corner" into which they will be put? I am afraid this change is not to the best advantage. Many such people in their early fifties will have their talents wasted.

I am very cynical about job-sharing. Perhaps I am under a misapprehension, so I will quote what the Minister said:

This scheme, which was introduced at the end of February, will enable serving officers to share the duties of a particular post in return for half pay and other benefits. The resultant vacancies, including those occurring at recruitment level, will be filled. In addition some civil service posts will be advertised on a job-sharing basis. Job-sharing recruits will be offered full-time employment after a minimum of two years.

Does that mean that half a job will become a full job after two years? How will it affect subsequent recruitment? Will those people who have retired have to do another examination, although they did one for recruitment in the first place?

This scheme has been causing considerable anxiety and people have been asking what their position will be when they make a clear break with the Department and then come back. It appears that they must make fresh applications, but they may have to wait for God knows how long to be reinstated. Does this new system mean that after two years away from a job a person will have to wait until a vacancy arises?

Still on the question of employment, I should like to deal with the waiting list. Why have people to wait for interminable periods to be called for appointment after competitive examinations? I think it would be much better if successful applicants could be told immediately that they were, say, placed 40th rather than to have them waiting up to 18 months before they know were they are. I hope the Minister will reply to these points.

Mr. Carey

I will not be too long. First, I should like to compliment the Minister for the Public Service on his radical approach. In his brief period in office, Deputy Boland has shown his capacity for making radical changes. Consequently, a breath of fresh air has blown through that Department. He has got the Civil Service asking themselves questions, and in his reform programme in regard to promotions in the Civil Service he has brought new radical thinking to the Department and the lot of civil servants throughout the Government service has been improved.

PAYE workers have to contribute £5,370 million annually to the bill for the public service and the taxpayers have begun to ask if they are getting value for that money. Heretofore, the public have not examined properly how much value they are getting for what they pay towards public policy decisions. Deputy Barnes spoke about budget control. The whisper is going about that when it comes to October or November there is a rush to spend unspent money within the Department.

Mr. Calleary

There will be no rush this year.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Tell us the Departments that have that money.

Mr. Carey

If it is a fact that money is spent on ungainful schemes, this should be corrected. The public should be made aware of this.

I compliment the Minister on changing the face of the public service by asking people to acknowledge their names. The public will respond to the public servant who answers and looks after a detail personally. I do not agree with Deputy Calleary that when the public from the country contact a Department at present they are being let down. I know if one contacts the Department of Social Welfare and asks for the public servant's name that public servant will give the answer about the entitlement of the individual.

The Minister has included other reforms and is asking about job breaks and job sharing. In my constituency in Shannon, Aer Rianta have been operating a job break scheme for some years past. Some semi-State employees are serving in Africa and the Middle East. Some, for instance, have set up duty-free shops for the Arabs and expect when they come back to get employment here. Some have been given a job break to work with Trocaire in South America. If Aer Rianta can operate it in a small way, the Department of the Public Service are well able to make the headlines and use the job break system satisfactorily.

The Minister has at least started down the road towards changing the "Yes, Minister" relationship which has existed between the public service and the Oireachtas Members. As far as those who hold portfolios are concerned, his attitude in his proposed promotion scheme appears to be to give people their heads and to control the policy decisions properly.

Criticism has been offered from the other side of the House to the seven year term which he proposes for Department Secretaries. Yet, a few days ago we were honouring the greatest public servant of all in the free world, Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Hush, hush. Deputy Barnes will hear you.

Mr. Carey

The maximum term which he can serve is eight years. Surely there is a headline in that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has one minute.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

It is just as well.

Mr. Carey

Finally, I would ask the public service——

Mr. Calleary

I knew it.

Mr. Carey

—— to acknowledge the number of years spent in the Defence Forces. If one is in the service, for instance, of the CIE when making up gratuities that company do not acknowledge those years in the Army or Naval Service. I ask the Minister to get the semi-State sector to make this acknowledgement with regard to gratuities. When I make representations about this matter I am told that this cannot be included in the pension. I can understand that, but in the calculation of a gratuity a number of years in the Defence Forces should be acknowledged. I wish the Minister well and hope that he continues to be the successful, radical Minister he has been.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Good man.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Cooney)

I shall pass on that message with pleasure. I am sorry that the time constraint on the debate has limited the contributions. It has been a very interesting debate and I want to thank the Deputies for their contributions.

The time constraint on my reply will probably prevent my dealing as fully as I should like with some of the points that have been raised and, indeed, will restrain me from dealing from some as politically as they deserve.

Mr. Calleary

The Minister would not do that.

Mr. Cooney

The points made by Deputies fall under a number of headings. The general efficiency of the public service was touched on by Deputy Barnes. With regard to the financial programme in advance, I can assure the Deputy that that exercise goes on in Departments in conjunction with the Department of Finance. Also, I want to assure her that there is no rush to spend money at the end of the year. If there were such procedures in the past, I can assure the Deputy that it is now frowned on and has been eliminated.

Mr. Calleary

There is no money left now.

Mr. Cooney

The Departments are very happy to hand back any surpluses in the knowledge that they are benefiting themselves ultimately.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Minister for Health has no surpluses.

Mr. Cooney

The other matter to which Deputy Barnes referred was that of the Minister's responsibility vis-à-vis senior management in the Department and relieving the Minister of some day-to-day executive functions. This subject has been skirted around by various administrations for a long time and has been the subject of reviews by expert outside bodies, but permission has never yet been granted. I have every confidence that the present incumbent of this office will live up to Deputy Carey's expectations to introduce radical reforms and I am confident that he will achieve reform in that difficult area as well.

Another subject which has got considerable airing and in which considerable misunderstanding has been shown is that of career breaks and job sharing. Indeed, I was quite surprised and disappointed to hear Deputy Fitzgerald say — and I quote: "I ask you, what is all this job sharing bit?" He now nods his head, repeating the question.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

That is right.

Mr. Cooney

He was a former Minister in this portfolio. He is now about to represent this country in the great European Parliament and asks that question. This is a concept which has been under active discussion——

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

It is the £40 a week that worries me.

Mr. Cooney

—— in all the OECD countries for a number of years. It is an attempt being made by the western developed countries to tackle one facet of the problem of unemployment. Job sharing is not new. I daresay in the public service — and Deputy Calleary asked some questions about it——

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

What about the £40 a week that I asked about? A smart alec thought that up.

Mr. Cooney

With job sharing, they do half the work.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

And get slave labour money.

Mr. Cooney

They do half the work and share the job with another person.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

£40 a week would not let a Corkman pay for his digs in Dublin.

Mr. Cooney

You do not have to work. It is voluntary.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I would not want to be smart alecky with regard to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy please allow the Minister to reply?

Mr. Cooney

Deputy Fitzgerald is merely emphasising his ignorance of the concept. The concept of job sharing is widely practised in many developed and sophisticated economies.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

And people are paid for it. It is not a cheap labour concept.

Mr. Cooney

It is a concept which can suit many people in the public service. It can suit many people in the private sector as well. It is not a novel concept, but one which we are introducing into the public service.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

It is not a cheap labour one.

Mr. Cooney

Really, Deputy Fitzgerald is letting himself down with that repetitious and inaccurate criticism of this long established concept.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Minister is covering up. How much money are they getting?

Mr. Cooney

When a person applies to join the public service as a job sharing applicant, to deal with the question raised by Deputy Calleary, quite obviously he will be doing half the work. He will be sharing the job with another person and the remuneration for that job will be shared between the two people.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

How much will they get?

Mr. Cooney

After a couple of years, that person will be entitled to apply for and be appointed to a full-time vacancy in the public service.

Mr. Calleary

Just to apply? Will he have to do a competition for it?

Mr. Cooney

No, because he will have already done the competition to get in initially. He will be slotted into——

Mr. Calleary

He will have done his apprenticeship?

Mr. Cooney

If you like to call it that. He will have experience of the post.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

His salary will not pay his Dublin digs if he is a Corkman.

Mr. Cooney

It is a novel concept. There have been applications for it in my Department. The majority of the applicants have been female employees. It has suited them. The numbers so far are small. I anticipate that, as the concept gets greater acceptance in the public service, there will be no sexist imbalance in it — not that there would be anything wrong about its being particularly suitable to one section of our community. I do not see anything wrong about that.

The career break is a new concept. So far, there has been a fair amount of interest in it, and 69 applications were received for career breaks. These people apply on the understanding that it will suit them to have a break in their career. They also know that, when they end the break and re-apply to the Civil Service to rejoin, they will synchronise the termination of one with the recommencement of the other. This will be part of the mechanism of organising the career breaks. As a matter of interest 186 people have applied for job sharing. If it had the unfortunate consequences which Deputy Fitzgerald attributes to it due to the misunderstanding of the concept, it would be surprising that as many as 186 people would actually apply. It is a new scheme.

On the question of the embargo which was raised by all those who spoke, we all have to acknowledge that, when it was introduced initially, it was introduced in an emergency situation. Due to the policy of the previous Administration between 1977 and 1981 the numbers in the public service had escalated out of all proportion to the previous growth of the public service. From 1977 the figure went from 48,670 to 60,700 in 1981. In fairness, I am not comparing like with like, because in 1981 there was a change in the staff information system. The order of magnitude is right because in 1980 the figure was 53,822.

These were quite startling increases in the numbers in the public service. Those figures were for the Civil Service proper. They all had to be paid for out of public funds. This is one of the reasons why we are in such a financial bind at the moment. The Administration of the day naively thought you could cure unemployment by expanding the Civil Service. We are now paying for that piece of political and economic naivete. The embargo was a direct consequence of that policy. The embargo was to try to halt and cut back on the growth of the public service so that the Exchequer would not find itself strangled in trying to pay for a top heavy public service.

The embargo was applied because a quick remedy had to be found. In its application since then the embargo had been refined all the time. It is not as inflexible as Deputies tended to suggest. For example, the Department of Social Welfare have had extra staff allotted well over and above what they would be entitled to if the embargo had been strictly applied. They were made available by staff savings in other Departments. Officers of other Departments were assigned to the Department of Social Welfare. The same happened in the Revenue Commission. I am puzzled at Deputy Fitzgerald's figure of 600 vacancies in the Revenue Commission. I cannot see that, because that would represent——

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

How many are there?

Mr. Cooney

I understood the Deputy said there were 600. I have not got the figure. Obviously 600 cannot be right.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

What is the right figure?

Mr. Cooney

Because 600 would represent 9 or 10 per cent of the whole Department. I know it would represent 8 or 9 per cent of the total establishment as being vacant. That is not right.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

What is right?

Mr. Cooney

I am aware that the Revenue Commission was one of the first areas — even before the Department of Social Welfare — to have hands allocated to it from other Departments.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

What is the right figure?

Mr. Cooney

The embargo is being applied in as flexible a way as possible. It needs more refining, and this is under consideration. It is not the cause of delays in the courts, because the courts were in arrears during the massive growth of the Civil Service under the regime of which Deputy Fitzgerald was a member. Likewise the Land Registry. Unfortunately that is not new. When I left the Department of Justice we had a new scheme of organisation arranged for the Land Registry which was implemented in 1977. Having been in practice thereafter, I know it produced quite significant changes in speeding up the work of the Land Registry. A sheer volume of work has now come in on top of the Land Registry again and there are delays, but these may be due to matters of organisation as much as a question of personnel.

The embargo is tied up with the whole question of pay. I thought it a little naive of Deputy Calleary to ask could some little thing not have been provided in the Estimate and in this year's budget in connection with public service pay. A 1 per cent increase in public service pay costs £24 million.

Mr. Calleary

I know.

Mr. Cooney

We are not talking about some little thing but sums of a huge order of magnitude.

Mr. Calleary

Which the Government will have to pay next year.

Mr. Cooney

The Government have indicated what the position is with regard to public service pay. Consultations are proceeding apace through the normal departmental and inter-union channels.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

They have broken down.

Mr. Cooney

Disagreement has been recorded. Deputy Fitzgerald seems pleased which, again, is typical of the irresponsible naive approach which characterised the Administration of which he was a member, and which has led us into the awful predicament in which we now find ourselves. Disagreement has been recorded in regard to some of the pay negotiations and in other areas claims have been made. There are procedures and mechanisms for pursuing all these things. The Government made their position clear in the budget statement of this year.

Decentralisation was raised by Deputy Calleary. It was a plea for decentralisation to be implemented. That had to be shelved to save money. It would have cost £45 million in this year to implement the proposed decentralisation programme. I quite agree decentralisation would bring some social benefits to certain areas. The town of Ballina would have been one of them. I am sorry the town of Ballina has had to be deprived of this social and some financial benefit.

Mr. Calleary

The Minister is not half as sorry as the people of Ballina.

Mr. Cooney

To provide that benefit for the town of Ballina and the other selected areas would have meant asking the general taxpayer to find £45 million at a time when everyone is complaining about the undue high level of taxation. If Deputy Calleary reflects a while, he will agree that he would not ask the hard-pressed taxpayer to provide £45 million to improve the social and financial position of a couple of areas. It is a question of balance, and the balance came down in favour of shelving the decentralisation programme.

Mr. Calleary

Ninety million pounds for Irish Steel.

Mr. Cooney

Deputy Calleary asked why was the estimate for computer costs down. There is a tendency now to locate data processing facilities in Departments, and not on a central basis as heretofore. In addition, some leases which were part of the cost have ended and the computers are now owned by the Departments.

His query with regard to Garda recruits will have to be put to the Minister for Justice. The Civil Service Commissioners merely act as agents for that Department. The names are given to them and the level and pace of recruitment are matters for them. With regard to secretaries who may retire at a young age, I have every confidence that, if a person has the ability to achieve the secretaryship of a Department at an age which means that he will retire in his early fifties, or possibly in his late forties, he will have displayed a level of expertise and attainment which would make him a most desired person in industry, or semi-State or other areas. I would not have any worries about the career prospects of such a person.

Mr. Calleary

He will be lost to the public service.

Mr. Cooney

Nor would I have any worries about getting the benefit of his advice in other areas in the public service. It is an excellent innovation. The Minister on whose behalf I am speaking deserves our full commendation for all the innovations he has introduced into the organisation of the public service. Deputy Fitzgerald and Deputy Calleary have welcomed these innovations and I thank them. I am sure the Minister will be encouraged by that welcome to continue the good work.

Vote put and agreed to.