asked the Minister for Social Welfare the grounds on which an applicant (name supplied) in County Donegal was disallowed unemployment benefit.

A claim for unemployment benefit made by the person concerned on 26th May, 1976 was disallowed by a deciding officer on the ground that she did not satisfy the statutory condition for entitlement to benefit which requires a claimant to be available for employment. She appealed against this decision and after an oral hearing of her case before an appeals officer at which she attended and gave evidence on her own behalf, the appeals officer upheld the decision of the deciding officer.

Subsequent representations made on her behalf by the Deputy were referred to the appeals officer who considered that they did not disclose any new facts or fresh evidence which would warrant a revision of his decision. An appeals officer's decision is final in the absence of new facts or fresh evidence.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that this is one of hundreds of cases which are not allowed? Could he let me know if any such cases are granted? Is he aware that since this lady got married she actually succeeded in getting employment? There is no question whatever of any ties in relation to family or otherwise. This is a question of discrimination.

I would not agree with the Deputy at all because my information is that far more cases of this nature are allowed than are disallowed. However, it is not up to me to go into the merits or demerits of the case, as the Deputy in particular should know, because both the deciding officer and the appeals officer under the laws passed in this House are completely independent of the Minister. They assess the case individually and each case is decided on its merits. There is no question of discrimination with regard to this or any other case.

I am painfully aware that the decision of the deciding officer or the appeals officer is final in these cases. I accept that I had to confront this situation when I was Minister for Social Welfare. Nevertheless, I do not agree. I ask if the Parliamentary Secretary will now give an undertaking in the interests of young married women that they will be given the benefit of the doubt in these cases. This is a case where it was held that owing to the young woman in question having a child she was not available for employment, while, in fact, her mother-in-law lives beside her and takes care of the child.

Each case that comes up will be decided against the background of the law which was passed by the Deputy's own party.