asked the Minister for Finance if he intends to continue the restrictions on recruitment to the public service introduced by the previous Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

8.

asked the Minister for Finance (a) if the embargo on recruitment to the Civil Service was lifted for the period July to December 1986; (b) if it is now in place; (c) if the Government intend continuing the embargo on recruitment in this fiscal year; (d) if so, the ratio of vacated posts to posts recruited; and (e) the number of new posts which will be created in the present financial year.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.

The one in three embargo was replaced for 1986 by a system of end year staffing targets for Departments. I am considering staffing policy for 1987 in the context of my Budget Statement.

Can the Minister tell us how many posts were filled in the period when the embargo was lifted last year?

There were 200 fewer.

Could the Minister indicate whether in the review of staffing for the current year he would envisage an increase in the numbers to be appointed and in particular if he would have regard to the chronic situation that has developed in many of the Departments such as the Department of Foreign Affairs dealing with embassy services and naturalisation applications, with regard to the Land Registry dealing with a backlog of some 16,000 ground rent applications, in regard to the courts and the massive increase in the workload of the District, Circuit and High Courts, all revenue-making areas——

A question, please, Deputy.

——of Government? My question was if the Minister would envisage that as a matter of urgency the numbers would be increased in the public service to cover the areas of major backlog in work that needs to be done on behalf of the people.

Speaking personally, I have to say to the Deputy that I would look at it in the opposite way. The numbers would have to be reduced. I am going to take the opportunity at this stage arising from these two questions to say that we have had embargoes and replacements of one in three, and the difference between 1981 and 1987 is we have still the same numbers in the public service, 187,000 costing £2,840 million.

On the reduction in numbers will the Minister not give a commitment and here indicate the areas where there is a clear need for an increase? We have in the Government's policy been told that forestry, for instance, and agriculture are areas of growth for this economy and they are also areas where there is a need for the input of more personnel——

That is a speech.

The Deputy is embarking on a speech.

I agree with the Deputy fully but that does not necessarily mean increasing the overall numbers. There can be redeployment, and that is the important thing. I will examine that carefully in great detail in every single area of the public service.

Do the figures the Minister quoted with regard to the public service relate to the public service, and will he give equivalent figures for the Civil Service? Will he confirm that these indicate that while there may not have been a reduction in the public service there was a reduction in the Civil Service? Further will he confirm that it was only to the Civil Service that the embargo applied in its full form? In that context would he confirm that it was effective and that, furthermore, the reduction in numbers in the Irish Civil Service over the period was considerably greater than the number reduced in the Civil Service in the UK by proportion? Furthermore, will the review he is undertaking with regard to Civil Service numbers be such as to ensure that there will be no need to make any increase in the Estimates provision for pay during 1987 as provided for in the Estimates already published?

That is a separate question. However, I am delighted the Deputy brought me back to it because there was a saving of about 3,000 in the Civil Service but it is wrong to say that the embargo applied only to the Civil Service.

In its full form, I said.

It was to apply right across the public service which it did not.

It did not apply to teachers.

When does the Minister envisage that he will be in a position to report back to the House on the completion of his review?

As quickly as is possible, because it is a very important factor and a huge item of expenditure on the overall expenditure on this sector.

Can the Minister be any more precise?

As soon as is possible.

Can the Minister say something further on how many posts were filled in the Civil Service. My question relates to the Civil Service rather than to the public service. I wonder if he can be more specific. We said there was a diminishment of 200 posts. I do not think that is very clear. I wonder can the Minister make it a little clearer, please.

The Deputy is asking me what happened after the embargo was listed. As I said, there were 200 fewer jobs in the Civil Service which was the target and that target was achieved. I am sorry if I gave a brief reply but that is the position as I know it.

How are the number of new offices that have been created by the Government proposed to be staffed? Will there be new posts created in the Civil Service for these?

That is a separate question but I can assure the Deputy in the light of what I already said to other Deputies that it will not mean the employment of additional people.

May I ask the Minister, arising from his previous reply, if the review he has undertaken will extend to teachers, medical and paramedical staff and to the Garda Síochána? Is there an implication in what he said that there may be butbacks in the numbers in those areas?

I am considering the staffing policy for 1987 in the context of my Budget Statement. This day week we will all know the position.

The Minister said that in the public service in general there had been no reductions. He seemed to imply that his policy would be to reduce those numbers in general. I want him to assure the House on the question of——

It was the Deputy's policy too.

There were no cutbacks in education. I want the Minister to assure us that it is not his policy to cut the number of teachers in our schools and the number of medical and paramedical staff in our health boards.

I have already replied to that aspect and it will be considered in the Budget Statement.

The Minister has not replied——

I want to conclude. I have given a lot of latitude on these questions.

You did not give me any.

Will the Minister agree that the embargo, as it relates to the recruitment of nursing staff by health boards has a serious effect in so far as the standard of service provided in the hospitals is concerned? Will he agree that there is a need to increase the number of public health nurses to provide a better community care service?

An occasion may have arisen where there was some difficulty with the embargo but I am sure that could have been resolved in the context of the overall staffing of the particular unit in the hospital or the hospital generally.

Bearing in mind the experience of the staffing target level approach we adopted last year and the good results achieved by way of suppressing 500 posts and being able thereby to create posts where they were needed and yet reducing the overall numbers by 200, does the Minister agree that that approach was very successful? If so, does he accept that it is one which should be followed by the present administration in an effort to continue the policy of the previous Government of getting greater efficiency from the Civil Service at less cost to the Exchequer?

As I said, it was successful and I am sure it will be part of the overall deliberations in relation to the overall staffing policy.

Given the need to have a very strict embargo in the public service except, perhaps, in the case of certain professional expertise that may be required from time to time and is not available, and recognising the great shortages that exist in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social Welfare and in particular the fraud squad, and in the courts as outlined by Deputy McCartan, will the Minister undertake as a matter of urgency the deployment of public servants from areas where they are not required as much to these areas so that the public will get the service they require and the revenue side of the State does not suffer as a result of having a shortfall in staff?

I referred to that already but I agree fully with everything the Deputy says.

That was the effect of the staffing target level approach.