Vacancy embargo and unemployment
Burke and Fitzgerald argued that leaving 684 posts vacant was unjustified amid high unemployment and asked whether the jobs were necessary. Bruton defended the embargo as necessary to curb public spending and protect the State’s finances; the Chair ended the exchange as Question Time had passed.
How can the Minister justify leaving 684 posts unfilled in the State bodies in what should be a job-producing area when there are at least 130,000 people unemployed and some 35,000 of this number are people under the age of 25 years?
Comment on this
The reason for the introduction of this limitation on the very rapid increase in the numbers employed in the State sector is that we had reached the point when this Government took office where that process could simply not continue. Our borrowing capacity was endangered by the irresponsible financial policies pursued by the previous Government. Unfortunately very difficult measures had to be taken to put a stop to the situation that had been created by those irresponsible policies. The present Government will not be deflected from the pursuit of their present stance on these matters.
Comment on this
Is the Minister saying that the 684 posts in question were not necessary in the bodies he mentioned? At a time of such high unemployment is it not advisable not only to fill the posts but to create as many jobs as possible for our increasing population?
Comment on this
In most cases the salary of the people concerned was being paid by the taxpayer. The Deputy may not be aware that there is a limit to the extent to which the taxpayer is prepared to disburse funds for the appointment of people in the public sector, for however good the reason. If we did not take action to restrict the uncontrolled growth of public spending that occurred under the previous Government we ran the risk of being faced with the choice of imposing an unacceptable level of taxation or simply no longer being able to pay our way. The Government acted quickly in order to avoid either of those eventualities.
Comment on this
The Minister has said that the taxpayer was not prepared to pay for the employment of those people, but who is paying for their unemployment?