XN000022-1995-05-10 — Page 44

- 21 -

Reply:

Mr President,

Let me start by defining "wastage rate" for the purpose of my answer. The figures I shall refer to represent the number of staff who have left posts in any given Department during a calendar year expressed as a percentage of the average strength of such posts in that year.

follows:

On the basis of this definition, the wastage rates of the following posts are as

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

In the Department of Health, which has only a relatively small establishment of such allied health workers, there are four posts of physiotherapist, the wastage rate was 66.7% in 1992 but since then there has been no wastage. There has been no wastage of speech therapists between 1992 and 1994. The only wastage rate for clinical psychologists was in 1994 - 36.4%. For occupational therapists, the wastage rate was 28.6% in 1992 and 1993. There was, however, no wastage in 1994.

In the Social Welfare Department, there are no speech therapist post. As for the other three disciplines, there has been no wastage over the past three years.

The Education Department has 8 posts for speech therapists. There was no wastage in 1992. The wastage rates for 1993 and 1994 were 25% and 33.3% respectively.

In the subvented sector, as we do not know the number of those leaving their jobs nor the number of new recruits for physiotherapist, speech therapist and occupational therapist posts, it is not possible to work out the wastage rate. As for clinical psychologists, the wastage rate was 12.5% in 1992, 40% in 1993 and 42% in 1994.

Turning to the second part of the question, it is clear that the wastage rate is not a problem for the Social Welfare Department. While the Health and Education Departments have wastage rates in some of these professions, only a relatively small number of posts are involved and the wastage has caused no serious operational problems.