asked the Minister for the Public Service the effect of the public service embargo; the reduction in jobs effected (a) in total and (b) on a yearly basis since its introduction; if he is satisfied with this as a means of effecting change in the public service; if he intends to make any changes in the present system; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The Civil Service is the only area for which I currently have statutory responsibility for the control of numbers employed. To the end of 1985 the one in three embargo held open some 3,200 posts in the non-industrial Civil Service. The composition of this figure on a yearly basis since the inception of the one in three embargo is as follows:

In the same period the industrial Civil Service, which is not subject to the one in three embargo arrangement, fell by some 700 posts. The overall reduction in the Civil Service was therefore of the order of 3,900.

The one in three embargo has been a very effective, if somewhat inflexible, means of reducing the size of the non-industrial Civil Service. As I indicated recently in the debate on my Department's Estimate, arrangements are in train for the replacement of the one in three embargo by a system under which the overall staffing level to be reached by each Department a year hence will be determined. The levels to be achieved by end-1986 will, I expect, be fixed soon.

As there has been a reduction of 3,900 jobs in the public sevice, does the Minister agree that if the present rate continues at the level of the past four or five years, the public service will effectively cease to operate? If he agrees, could he state at what stage the situation will be reviewed?

The national plan provides for the continuation of the restriction on numbers entering the public service, at least until the end of 1987. As I said in my reply, the rather inflexible operation of the embargo has been changed to a new system to provide for staffing targets which will ensure greater flexibility within Departments. In so far as reductions are concerned, there are two points to be made. While these posts have been lost as a result of the embargo, other areas have received additional staff which means that all three posts have not been lost in the Civil Service. Where particular staffing needs arose in the Department of Social Welfare or the prison service, additional posts were created. The other point which should be made is that as a result of the embargo there is no doubt that there has been a considerable increase in productivity and efficiency within the Civil Service. If you take into account the overall number, approximately 30,000, obviously there is a point beyond which one cannot go in terms of reduction of numbers. Essentially we are seeking an efficient and cost effective Civil Service which will do the job as well as possible without imposing undue burdens on the taxpayer.

We all probably share those general sentiments. However, does the Minister agree that he received a number of representations from trade unions involved in the public service and that certain Departments, such as Revenue and Social Welfare are finding difficulty, even taking into consideration the efficiency to which the Minister referred, in carrying on a normal efficient service because of lack of manpower? Does the Minister also agree that flexibility is required so that the decision to restrict on the basis of three in one is not applied globally to achieve bottlenecks or additional responsibilities that might occur from time to time?

I am aware that some trade unions made their views known on certain aspects of this question and I assure the Deputy that those views are fully considered in the context of the overall constraints which apply. I am also aware that there are problems and bottlenecks in certain areas. The Department of the Public Service endeavour to approach such problems by undertaking reviews of different Departments in relation to their staff needs and by discussing with them the introduction of new technology which might help to ease such problems.

There is a need for flexibility and that is why the present proposal is to withdraw the current embargo in the Civil Service and to replace it with a staffing target approach. In finalising details of the staffing targets for Departments and taking into account their particular needs, such as those mentioned by the Deputy, it is obvious that there will be a degree of flexibility. In the context of the change from the embargo to the staffing target approach, there will be flexibility within the relevant Departments as to which vacancies will be filled. I accept the point raised by the Deputy in regard to flexibility and I assure him that the new approach will give extra flexibility which will help to solve problems in future.

We cannot debate this question all day.

Will the questions regarding the public service be finalised at 3 o'clock?

Yes, we have only 17 minutes left.

In that case, speeches should not be allowed.

We cannot debate one question especially as we have only a short time left for the rest of the questions in regard to the public service.

You will appreciate, A Cheann Comhairle, that I was faced with the same situation many times and I had to sit without asking any questions.

We should have short questions and short answers.

I will be as brief as possible. Could the Minister explain the system whereby people are recruited in the Civil Service? Is he or are his Department consulted regarding every single person required within a Department? Is it a ministerial decision?

The short answer is yes, but I should add that general recruitment is organised through the Civil Service Appointment Commission.

Does the Minister decide on the recruitment of staff?

Ultimately, yes.

In the switch from the embargo to the new target system, could the Minister say whether that will take account of the 1,000 clerical trainees and can he give an undertaking that they will now get full time employment?

That is a separate question but the temporary clerical training staff are not included in the overall numbers. The term for which they were employed will expire in November and we are arranging a special examination to enable existing temporary clerical staff to apply for 100 posts which will be specially allocated to them.

Does that mean that the 900 trainees have no future after the autumn of this year?

It is to the contrary. I do not know what the attitude of the Deputy is in regard to training but their future prospects will be considerably enhanced by the training which they have received.

Arising out of the Minister's reply when he stated that the object of the exercise was to have an efficient Civil Service, would the Minister explain the rationale of not supplying an adequate degree of staff to deal with those categories expeditiously having regard to the fact that a full commercial rate is charged to the members of the public and that it is self-financing; and when in Land Registry, for example, as a result of staff shortages because of this embargo, it takes anything from months to years to complete a transaction? Likewise, in the Probate Office it takes approximately five months to get out a grant of probate that might be urgently required?

The Deputy pre-supposes that any delay in these areas relates to lack of staff. That should not be taken as read in relation to the areas mentioned. These are, of course, under the direction and control of the Minister for Justice and while we in the Department of the Public Service have an overall role in relation to the overall number of any particular allocation within the areas under a certain Minister's responsibilities, it is a matter for him.

Since the embargo this happens.