asked the Minister for Social Welfare why unemployment benefit was refused at two Waterford employment exchanges to an applicant (insurance card number 629612).

The insured person referred to by the Deputy claimed unemployment benefit at Waterford Employment Exchange, on the 17th October, 1960. The claim was rejected by a Deciding Officer who decided that the claimant had lost his employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to the trade dispute at his place of employment and that he was accordingly disqualified by section 17 (2) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, for the receipt of unemployment benefit. This decision was notified to the claimant on the 24th October, 1960.

The insured person has appealed against the decision. The appeal is scheduled for hearing during the present week and the decision of the Appeals Officer will be given without avoidable delay.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this man offered himself for work and that his union had nothing to do with the dispute? This was the newspaper dispute. They offered themselves for work and they were locked out. I always understood——

Speech.

——that a man who offered himself for work and was genuinely seeking work was entitled to draw benefit.

I am sure all the facts stated by the Deputy will be brought before the appeals officer who is, I understand hearing the appeal today.

They were brought before the appeals officer. The Parliamentary Secretary should be aware of that. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me is this man being victimised ?

The appeals officer is hearing the case today.

He is hearing the case today?

Yes.

As far as the people making speeches over here are concerned, very few of you are making speeches over there. It is like a trained dog act—coming in and out.