asked the Minister for Social Welfare the grounds on which the decision was based to regard a person in County Kildare (details supplied) as ineligible for an old age pension.

It was decided by an appeals officer that the person concerned is not entitled to pension as his means, derived from the beneficial occupation of a holding and the yearly value of capital, exceed the statutory limit. The decision of the appeals officer is final unless new facts or new evidence are produced to warrant revision. Following further representations from the Deputy the case was again referred to the appeals officer who found no new facts or new evidence to warrant a revision of his decision.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a letter from me seeking the information to enable this applicant to appeal took two months to be answered in his Department? It was only answered recently when I put down a parliamentary question. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that information of this nature should be readily available to enable the person making the appeal to present his case properly? Does he further agree that when you send somebody a decision without giving him the information as to how that decision was arrived at you are depriving him of the opportunity of making a proper appeal? Does the Parliamentary Secretary also agree that in this case information was withheld which would have been of help to the person making the appeal, because the grounds on which he was refused were not made known to him?

In relation to letters from the Deputy, the information that I have given him in the reply was furnished to the Deputy from my Department by letter on the 11th March, 1976, and again on the 14th June, 1976. If the Deputy did not convey that to his constituent I can hardly accept responsibility for it.

Seeing that the Parliamentary Secretary has the file would he explain how a letter from me requesting this information in April was not answered until two months later? It did not appear until 14 Meitheamh when I had tabled the question.

I can readily understand that if the Deputy had been supplied with the information on 11th March and he again sought it in April the Department probably had higher priorities and they would be entitled to have them.

The Department had what?

Higher priorities than repeating a reply they had already supplied to the Deputy.

Therefore, in your Department you consider that you have higher priorities than allowing an applicant for an old age pension the evidence to enable him to make a proper appeal?

That is not what I said and the Deputy knows that. I said that they would, I hope, have higher priorities than repeating a reply to the Deputy.

When was this decision first made known to the person concerned—that he had been refused?

As is normal with all appeals, the person concerned had the right to attend at the appeal. The decision was conveyed to him on two occasions because——

When was it first made known to him?

There were two appeals, one on 6th November, 1975 and the Deputy's representations were taken as an appeal against that decision and it was referred back to the appeals officer. He has twice decided on it.

When was the second decision conveyed to the man?

Immediately following the appeal and I——

You are dodging the last one.

I would not like to enter into a dispute with the Deputy. The only reason I adopt this attitude is that in the Deputy's original supplementary he tried to imply that there was negligence, not on my part but on the part of officers of my Department but the officers of the Department have replied on two occasions and have given full details to the Deputy.

You have been deliberately evasive.

Order. I am calling the next question.

Who in the Parliamentary Secretary's Department——

I have called Question No. 15.

I am entitled to know how a decision was made that information should be withheld from an elected representative.

Order. This question has gone on long enough.

I have tried to explain to the Deputy——

If the Parliamentary Secretary were doing his job as well as I am doing mine, he would not have to answer these questions.

Next question, No. 15.

The Deputy was informed on two occasions as I have already explained. He was informed by letter on 11th March——

The Chair must be obeyed by both sides of the House.

——and on 14th June, 1976.

And I looked for it in April. Further information was withheld——

Order.

The Deputy looked for a repeat in April of what he had been told in March.

No——

Perhaps the Deputy lost the letter.

May I ask when was——

No, sorry, Deputy, the next question has been called.