asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he will state the reasons why the claim to unemployment insurance benefit made by Patrick Lawlor. Ballyknockan, Blessington, was disallowed.

On his claim of the 14th December last Patrick Lawlor was entitled to nine days' benefit, which was paid to him. This exhausts the contributions standing to his credit and no more benefit is therefore payable to him without further contributions.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he will state the reasons why unemployment insurance benefit due to George Flynn, Ballyknockan, has been withheld.

The unemployment insurance benefit withheld from George Flynn was in repayment of money, formerly received by him by way of unemployment benefit, to which he was not entitled. Recovery of moneys so received by insured contributors is authorised by the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he will expedite payment of unemployment insurance benefit to William Byrne, Lynam Gardens, Ballytore, Co. Kildare, Serial Book No. 915, Athy Branch Office.

I regret that William Byrne is not at present entitled to unemployment insurance benefit, being disqualified by Section 8 (4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920 (as amended), in the circumstances stated in the letter which issued from my office to the Deputy on the 14th instant.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he will state when unemployment insurance benefit will be paid to Martin Kelly, West End, Monasterevan, Co. Kildare, who lodged a claim to benefit on the 19th March, 1929, at Kildare Branch Office.

On the claim made by Martin Kelly on the 19th March, 1929, he received unemployment benefit up to the 17th April, 1929. Before any further benefit became payable on that claim, it was found that the claimant had claimed sickness benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts, and in doing so had represented himself as incapable of work as from the 29th April, 1929. His claim to unemployment benefit had, therefore, to be disallowed because he no longer satisfied one of the statutory conditions for its receipt. He was duly notified of the disallowance and did not appeal against the decision. The claimant did not again attend at the local office of the Department until the 25th January last. Subsequently, on the 5th instant, he produced medical evidence to show that he was capable of work from and including the 29th April last, and it was then ascertained that the claim for sickness benefit made at that time had been refused as it had been found that he was not incapable of work. On receipt of this information the question of his right to unemployment benefit was re-opened and his claim, as a result, allowed. Part of the benefit that had accrued has already been paid to him, and the balance will be paid next Friday.