asked the Minister for the Public Service if the Government have any plans to review their recruitment policy for the public service, whereby only one in three vacancies can be filled, in view of the evidence that this policy may be creating difficulties for some Departments.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Public Service Recruitment.
2.
As announced in the national plan, the Government decided that the general policy on filling vacancies in the public service will be maintained until the end of 1987.
Having regard to the huge increase in public service numbers in the seventies and particularly in the period 1977-1981, the Government are satisfied that considerable scope for staffing efficiencies still exists. Any temporary difficulties arising are being alleviated by a policy of redeployment of staff to the areas where they are most urgently required.
Is the Minister aware of the remarks made by the Comptroller and Auditor General recently to the Committee of Public Accounts to the effect that due to shortage of staff as a result of the embargo it was possible only to carry out a limited audit of the expenditure of three major Departments? In view of that statement is it the intention of the Minister to review that area of th Comptroller and Auditor General's staff?
That matter was the subject of a parliamentary question yesterday from Deputy Treacy. It was dealt with fully then.
Has the Minister any intention of making alterations in the embargo in regard to the Revenue Commissioners where there are 518 staff short at a time when under assessment of £3,500 million is due in tax? In view of that, and the great loss to the Exchequer, has the Minister any plans to increase the staffing in the Revenue Commissioners?
No. Previously the Government placed a levy on other Departments so as to get more than 100 staff for the Revenue. I am glad the Deputy has raised this matter, because it is worthy of consideration. There are approximately 30,000 non-industrial civil servants in the various Departments of State. Some 7,000 of them are employed in the Revenue Commissioners. Virtually one quarter of the total non-industrial civil servants are employed in one form or another in the collection of revenue. That is a considerable proportion by any standards and by the standards of any service. What is most important is to ensure that the staff within that large grouping are deployed as efficiently and effectively as possible.
With regard to the reference to £3,500 million of tax assessments I am glad the Deputy has raised that also. This is a hoary old chestnut that is dragged up from time to time and, without wishing to be contentious, I must say it is dragged out very often by the Deputy's party. It is advanced as if it represents tax uncollected. This of course is the total of assessments made by the Revenue——
I have pointed that out already.
——and it is usually made on people who have not made tax returns to encourage them to do so. Generally it is accepted that the assessments are set at a level far in excess of the probable liability so as to further the encouragement of returns. It is a figure which can be very misleading if presented in isolation and not explained clearly.
My Department at present are carrying out a comprehensive review of the operation and staffing of the Revenue in various areas. We have already identified areas where if changes were made staff might be redeployed to other areas with the possible beneficial improvement in revenue collection. We are in discussion with the Revenue Commissioners regarding this possible redeployment of staff to areas where they can be most effective.
I want to elicit from the Minister if he regards this as a matter of priority. I have mentioned already that the £3,500 million is an assessment.
A question, please, Deputy.
Does the Minister agree that the Revenue Commissioners have insufficient staff to go through these outstanding assessments to see how much is actually due? Is it true that 120 tax posts are unfilled? Does the Minister see this as a priority to bring revenue into the Exchequer so that taxes will not have to be paid by other people to make up for those who have not paid? Does the Minister see this as a priority to get around the embargo to fill the posts in the Revenue Commissioners' office?
There are sufficient people trying to find methods to get around the embargo without me joining that group and my task is to ensure they do not get around the embargo. The Deputy asked if I agreed that the Revenue Commissioners did not have sufficient staff. My belief is there are sufficient staff overall — 7,000 approximately — but I accept that there is a case to be made that within certain areas of Revenue additional staff might be redeployed from other areas with particular attention being paid to potential revenue outstanding. I take the essence of what the Deputy is saying. Perhaps he is suggesting that the staff in Revenue might be more effectively deployed? That is the subject of the review which my Department, in co-operation with the Revenue Commissioners, are carrying out at present and I hope we will be in a position to report considerable progress in the near future.
What are the Minister's present powers in relation to redeployment or mobility of labour within the Civil Service? The Minister has made it clear that he will not change the three in one system. Must there be an investigation carried out in each Department before staff can be redeployed?
On several occasions over the last two years the Government decided to place levies on other Departments to meet an immediate or particular need in individual Departments. The Revenue Commissioners are a case in point because, to my recollection, 104 staff were supplied to them early in 1983. The deployment of staff is exercising our minds more and more. For example, when winding down the Land Commission, it will be necessary to carry out large scale redeployment of the staff of that office. In connection with redeployment to Revenue where there are a number of departmental grades, there can sometimes be difficulty. In general we have received co-operation in the area of redeployment and it is important that that should be so. If the service is to operate is effectively as possible there has to be general recognition that from time to time activities on which personnel may have been engaged do not retain as high a priority as they might have had 20 years ago and it might, with benefit, be suggested that they be redeployed in some other area. That is the policy we are pursuing at present.
Would the Minister agree that the non-established grades, messengers and porters, have suffered unduly under the embargo? These grades have always been used to reduce staff while the clerical grades have maintained their quotas.
The embargo operates on the basis of filling every third post as it becomes vacant. If this were bearing more heavily on one grade than another this could only be attributed either to extraordinary coincidence or, as Deputy Mac Giolla said, to people trying to get around the embargo. We try to ensure that this does not happen. There is some justification in the Deputy's suggestion that in some areas the embargo appears to have impinged on certain grades to a greater extent than on others and that is something we are trying to rectify.
In his remarks the Minister mentioned the winding down of the Land Commission staff. Could he give some indication of the numbers of staff involved and the present position?
That appears to be a separate question.
The Minister mentioned it in passing. Would he indicate what is the position in regard to the administration of the new land tax and in particular the assessment of adjusted acres throughout the country, which we have been led to believe would be undertaken by the Land Commission?
That is going into another field, literally and metaphorically.
It is a very important matter.
This is for a different Minister.
Has the Minister any plans to recruit new staff to administer the land tax, or does he intend to avail of the staff in the Land Commission for this purpose?
I take it the Deputy is referring to the proposed farm tax.
No, the land tax.
In the Chair's opinion it is not necessary to quibble about it because it clearly does not arise on this question.
The Minister is trying to be smart.
If the Deputy is referring to the farm tax, the intention is that a large number of the qualified personnel in the Land Commission would be utilised for this purpose, together with personnel from certain other areas. The decision is very close to finality and will be announced within the next week or two. It would be reasonable for the House to take it that the core of the staff to be utilised in carrying out assessments for adjusted acreage purposes would be drawn from the Land Commission.
The Minister is talking about winding down the staff but what proportion of that staff will be retained?
The intention is to abolish the Land Commission by 1986 and the staff will be wound down towards that objective. The staff who might be redeployed to the farm tax adjusted acreage assessments would come from the qualified inspectorate of the Land Commission. I am speaking from memory, but I think that inspectorate totals 150 officers from a total staff complement of between 500 and 600. The Deputy will appreciate that we are straying outside the remit of the question.
I must discourage a discussion on the Land Commission.
It was a very useful exchange of information and the purpose of Question Time is to get this information for the benefit of the public.
The Chair does not dispute that but——
Good.
Question Time should not be used to wander down every avenue and country road.
And field.
I am always anxious to expand on Deputy Haughey's knowledge.
Would the Minister say what was the reduction in Civil Service staff for 1984 because of the implementation of the embargo?
That is a hard one.
I agree with Deputy Haughey. I am not in a position to give a figure specifically for this year alone but the total number of posts which have been affected by the embargo since 1981 is 2,650.
What areas are not included in the embargo. I know that the Labour Court are not affected by it.
The embargo applies to the entire Civil Service. However, there are specific exclusions in relation to the teaching profession in particular. The embagro is applied to local authorities and health boards through cash limits rather than the embargo implementation centrally controlled by my office.
What agencies are not covered by the embargo? We heard this morning that additional staff will be allowed in the Employment Equality Agency. Is that breaking the embargo?
In that case there was a recognition of the need for staff for a particular purpose and that was agreed between my Department and the Department involved. To some extent the Department involved will find compensating savings and in cases like that there is an examination of their needs and an identification of where staff might be obtained.