asked the Minister for Social Welfare why the unemployment benefit claim of a person (details supplied) in County Meath has been refused; and why her appeal has been disallowed at Drogheda, County Louth, by an appeals officer.

: The unemployment benefit claim of the person concerned was disallowed by a deciding officer on the grounds that she was not available for employment. Her appeal which was held at the employment exchange, Drogheda, and at which she attended and gave evidence, was disallowed by an appeals officer on the same grounds.

As the Deputy is aware deciding officers and appeals officers are independent in the performance of their duties and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on their decisions.

: Having regard to the undertaking in the Fianna Fáil Manifesto to treat women equally with men and to the Minister having said that he delivered on his promises, is it not most unfair that a woman who was employed for a long number of years but who was dismissed because of redundancy and was in receipt of redundancy payments should be disallowed unemployment benefit subsequently merely because the State wishes to save money?

: I should hope that the deciding officer or the appeals officer would not approach their task with the sole purpose of saving State money. These are independent officers with statutory obligations and duties and it is not for me to comment on their decisions.

: The Minister is responsible for health and social welfare and the people who operate the various schemes work within the regulations laid down by the Government——

: Laid down by the House.

: ——but is it not the position that since Fianna Fáil were returned to office hundreds of people have been treated as the lady referred to in the question has been treated? Is there any explanation for this situation other than the effort to carry out the promise of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development to save £30 million in the area of social welfare benefits? Is the Minister aware that a letter was sent to me suggesting that the lady concerned submit documents stating that she had not been able to obtain employment and that she should sign with the local manpower agency? There is the suggestion that if she acted in this way her case might be considered. Surely there is something wrong in this whole area, and has not the change occurred within the past 12 months?

: The Deputy is not correct in saying that there has been a change in the administration of his schemes during the past 12 months. The same schemes, the same deciding officers and the same regulations are there now as were there when the Deputy was a Minister, and there has not issued from me or from my Department any instruction to change the situation.

: In those circumstances can the Minister explain why the lady in question has not been able to draw unemployment benefit although all those people who had been laid off up to the past 12 months by the firm concerned had been able to draw unemployment benefit? The same firm are again, because of a fall in trade, to lay off a further 80 workers. Would the evidence not suggest that there has been a hint to the officers concerned to tighten up in the area of social welfare?

: It is immaterial to me whether the Deputy accepts my word, but I reiterate that there has been no indication from me or from my Department to deciding officers or to appeals officers in this area.

: Neither is there equal treatment for women although this was promised in the manifesto.

: The Statutes and the regulations are the same as they were when the Deputy was in minsterial office.

: Apart from the lady in Meath would the Minister not agree that it is very difficult for married women to sustain applications for unemployment benefit? The returns indicate that most of the claims are disallowed or rejected.

: The question relates to a specific case.

: The Minister must know that there has been some change in the regulations or in the instructions given to the officers concerned.

: There has been no change in the regulations. In order for them to be changed the proposed change would have to be put before the House.

20.