asked the Minister for Labour why a man receiving extended unemployment benefit is not considered for corporation and other work, as he was when receiving unemployment assistance prior to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1967.

Persons receiving unemployment assistance are regarded as having a stronger claim to consideration for work on State-financed schemes——

Unless they work in the town of Monaghan.

——and are therefore given precedence over persons in receipt of unemployment benefit when names are being sent to public employing authorities by the employment exchanges.

The selection of persons for work is, of course, done by the employing authority in each case.

I hope Deputy Dillon's interjection does not become part of the answer in the Official Report.

Are both categories referred to by the Minister given a preference over persons in insurable employment?

Persons already in employment?

The Minister said that persons in receipt of unemployment assistance for a protracted period would be given preference over persons in receipt of unemployment benefit for a relatively short period and I would like to ask him if both these categories are entitled to preference over persons who are already in insurable employment?

The original preference laid down was that work should be confined to people who depend on their labour for their livelihood, that is, those who normally follow a labouring occupation and have no other means of support. There is no absolute rule.

I think the Minister gave the information in replying that the general practice was that a person in receipt of unemployment assistance over a protracted period would ordinarly be preferred to a person in receipt of unemployment benefit for a relatively short period and I want to ask a supplementary question: would these two categories of persons to whom he refers have a preference in practice over persons already in insured employment?

I cannot imagine anybody in insurable employment seeking these——

Is it not astonishing? I can produce in the House the names of four men in Monaghan, two of whom were in insurable employment, stamping cards, and who were both allegedly recommended to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for employment in lieu of two men who were in receipt of unemployment assistance. The two who were in insured employment got the work and the two men in receipt of unemployment assistance are still unemployed.

They were members of the Fianna Fáil cumann.

There is no absolute rule about it.

But why is an exception made?

You cannot have an exception if there is not a rule.

Yes, you can, if there is what is described in the reply as the general practice as between these two classes——

But the Deputy is speaking of a third class.

And does the general practice not extend to them?

No.

If you are employed and in the cumann, you get preference over the men on unemployment assistance?

That is a very oriental procedure.

You must be suitable for the employment. You must be able for the job.

I have a suspicion that the Minister for Finance intended to answer a question on this case and I should like to hear from him?

Deputies on the other side of the House are so unruly that I cannot be heard.

Question No. 33.