I do not propose to unduly delay the Dáil over this Estimate, but there were some points raised in the discussion last night that, I think, should be referred to before the discussion terminates. In my concluding remarks last night I referred to the various criticisms that had been advanced in respect of the regulations made defining the order of preference to be observed in placing men in employment on schemes of work financed out of State funds. I pointed out that the idea behind these regulations was two-fold: first, to ensure that in no possible circumstances should political influence operate in the selection of men for work; and, secondly, to ensure that so long as there was not sufficient work for all, such work as was available would be given to those who were in, relatively, the greatest need of it.
These two declarations of policy represent the intentions of the Executive Council, and the regulations which were made were designed to give effect to that policy. If the regulations are defective in any way, or if they do not give effect to that policy in full, they can and will be modified, but that has not yet been demonstrated. In fact, as I understand from the statements made, it is admitted that the regulations are satisfactory, but that cases have been known in which their operation might be subject to criticism. I pointed out that any general regulation, no matter how carefully framed or no matter how praiseworthy the intention behind it, was bound to operate contrary to the intention in individual cases and that that could not be avoided. The experience of my Department, however, is that the working of the regulations has been, on the whole, satisfactory. The number of complaints we have received have been remarkably few in all the circumstances. They are confined to a few localities, and in these localities to a very small number of individual cases when one has regard to the total number of persons placed in employment under these schemes. The only substantial ground for criticism advanced is that the branch manager, unavoidably, occasionally places in employment a person with other means of livelihood when destitute persons are available. I pointed out that that was due to the fact that the employment exchanges are now being called upon to do work for which they were not originally designed. Originally, they were merely designed to enable unemployed men seeking work to get in touch with employers of labour. At the present time we are endeavouring to use the exchanges, not merely for that purpose, but also to determine the relative degrees of hardship existing between classes and individuals in the community, in the selection of people for relief work. It has taken some little time to adapt the exchange machinery to carry out that additional function. It is anticipated, however, that the difficulties which have arisen heretofore will be obviated when the information to be ascertained by the new registration form has been analysed and becomes available to branch managers. A suggestion was made that, in cases where a large number of persons were being selected in a particular district for a relief scheme, the branch manager might get the advice of the local relieving officer. That is a suggestion which I will have examined.
The other points related to the significance of the figure of registered unemployed. Deputy McGilligan stated that we had to take three figures into account. First, the figure of registered unemployed at this period last year; second, the figure of unemployed persons revealed by the Census of 1926, and thirdly, the present figure. He gave his opinion of what significance was to be attached to each of these figures. Under the old system, the number of registered unemployed represented part, and probably the most considerable part, of the persons who were ordinarily in insurable employment and who were seeking such insurable employment in urban areas. It was not contended —and I do not think it is seriously contended by anybody—that it could be regarded as an index of the number of unemployed persons in the country. The Census of 1926, despite obvious difficulties to which the Deputy referred, did give us a figure. It showed a total number of 78,000 people out of work from various causes.