asked the Minister for Finance the decision taken to relax the restriction in relation to the non-filling of two out of every three vacancies in the public sector in respect of industrial civil servants in the Office of Public Works.

(Clare): The decision to fill certain vacancies in respect of industrial civil servants in the Office of Public Works was taken because of special circumstances pertaining in these cases. The industrial staff are employed on a large number of widely scattered projects some of which it would not be feasible to carry out without a minor relaxation in the restriction in relation to the non-filling of two vacancies in every three.

There were two vacancies involved.

(Clare): Two out of three are not filled. That is the current position.

How many vacancies were filled that would not have been filled if the two out of three rule applicable elsewhere in the public service applied?

(Clare): It has taken us some time to go around the country to clarify the position but I will give the Deputy an example. Where we have a team of people working and a fitter retires that retirement could result in the team being immobilised if a replacement is not appointed. It is understandable that that vacancy would have to be filled and in such cases we try to cutback in some other area which would be less important so that we can keep the work in progress.

Is it not the case that permission to fill one in three vacancies is given precisely to enable that type of case to be met? That should not justify departure from the rules. Will the Minister state clearly how many posts have been filled over and above those that should have been filled had the rule been applied strictly in the industrial section?

(Clare): We are trying to establish the overall picture from a series applying throughout the country. When the result has been arrived at I will let the Deputy have the exact figures.

Was a decision taken not to apply the one in three rule in regard to the industrial section?

(Clare): That is not the case.

Did the Minister not give me earlier information to that effect?

(Clare): Only in very exceptional cases would the number be exceeded.

But the Minister does not know which cases, if any.

(Clare): I will give the Deputy details when I get them from areas throughout the country. As of today we do not have the necessary details — the information has not come in from all places.

Has the Minister any information?

(Clare): If it was available I would have given it. Replies will come from scattered areas throughout the country.

The Minister will agree I have given him adequate notice — this question has been lying on the Order Paper for at least two weeks. He has had much more than the normal three days notice.

(Clare): I agree with that.

I am puzzled by all that. Will the Minister tell us what are the terms of the deviation from the rule and how many posts are involved in it? The Minister must know if authority has been given to employ more people.

(Clare): I will let the Deputy have the information as it happens. I have given the House an example of how it could be made more flexible in the filling of certain vacancies in cases where the one in three rule has been exceeded.

Either authority has been given to depart from this rule or it has not. If it has not, there should not have been any departure from the rule of one in three. It it has happened, will the Minister tell us the terms of the authority for departing from it? The Minister must know if there has been a decision to depart from the rule.

(Clare): I will let the Deputy have the information if the numbers have been exceeded, but I am not aware of any general authority having been given.

How, then, has it been exceeded.

(Clare): I did not say it has been. I am checking to have the position properly clarified.

Surely if there is an embargo on recruitment, nobody has any authority to employ more people? Will the Minister give an assurance that the rule is being maintained?

(Clare): It is, with rare exceptions.

These exceptions must have been authorised by the Minister for the Public Service. Is the Minister telling me that people are being employed contrary to the authorisation of the Department of the Public Service and the Government? Would that not be a serious breach of public responsibility?

(Clare): It happens only in exceptional cases.

Which cases?

This is a matter of accountability and it is a serious matter. Either there are cases of people employed without authority contrary to the Department of the Public Service and Government instructions, in which case it is a serious breach of authority and one that requires disciplinary action, or the Government and the Department have given authority. If such authority has been given, how much deviation has there been?

(Clare): As Deputy FitzGerald is aware, this embargo has been in existence since last July——

Wrong. The one in three rule has been in operation since the beginning of this year.

(Clare): During that time I am not aware whether it has been breached throughout the rest of the country. We are checking the position and in cases where it has been I will let Deputies have that information. It is not my intention that it should be breached without consultation with the Department of the Public Service.

Is the Minister seriously telling me that the personnel division of the Department of Finance have not readily available and could not have found out during the two weeks while the question has been on the Order Paper information specifically about the Dublin area where the Board of Works have several different workshops?

(Clare): I have not got specific information in relation to Dublin.

Why not?

(Clare): I have not information in regard to Dublin but when I get it I will let the Deputy have it.

In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's successive non-replies I give notice that I intend to raise the subject matter of this question on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I hope the Deputy will be more successful than I.