asked the Minister for Social Welfare how a person (details supplied) in County Louth had means assessed at £18 per week, in a claim for unemployment assistance.

The means of the person concerned were assessed by a deciding officer under the provision of the Unemployment Assistance Acts. The assessment was in respect of the benefit of board and lodgings being afforded to the applicant on her sister's farm and was calculated by reference to the estimated net annual income of the farm and the position occupied by the applicant in the household.

The person concerned lives in County Meath but the postal address is County Louth. Would the Minister agree that a girl who lives with her farming family, has to go to work and works for 18 years and is then declared redundant, and drew unemployment benefit for the relevant period, is entitled to unemployment assistance? Or what do the present Government consider to be the qualification for somebody, a single girl, anxious to draw unemployment assistance?

That is a separate question. It is a generalised question while the original relates to a specific case.

I am asking the Minister if this person, a member of a small farming family, employed for 18 years and then declared redundant has been refused unemployment assistance after she had signed for the relevant unemployment benefit period. Does the Minister consider that is the way this section of the Act should be interpreted?

That seems to be the question the Minister answered.

The Deputy knows the facts of the case. Unfortunately for this lady, under the Acts the deciding officer allotted £18 of means to her and the unemployment assistance is £11.35, so she is not eligible.

Would the Minister try to explain to the House and to me how they could allocate income of £18 to somebody who lives with other members of her family who have been working a small farm for many years? How could it be decided that she is now getting benefit of £18 from the farm, although all along she has paid a share for her keep in this house as if she was living in another house? How do they explain that?

I can only tell the Deputy the decision of the deciding officer. The decision of the deciding officer in this case was that her means, arising presumably from the benefit of board, lodging and residence in her sister's farm, are valued at £18 a week.

A Cheann Comhairle, would you allow me one final question?

A brief one.

In view of the fact that evidence can be produced that this lady paid for her keep on the farm for 18 years while she was working, and was just a lodger there, and does not do any work because there is no work for her to do as there are other members of the family there, would the Minister not agree she is entitled to unemployment assistance, or what kind of a racket is going on in the Department of Social Welfare at present?

I do not think the Deputy should use the word "racket". He knows the situation as well as I do. The decision of the deciding officer is final in these matters. The deciding officer in this case decided that the means which had to be allotted to this lady amounted to £18 a week. I cannot comment any further.

The Minister did not answer the question I asked. If evidence can be produced——

Deputy Tully might withdraw the word "racket".

It is a racket which I believe the Government are carrying out. They promised that people who were unemployed and single, women in particular, would be entitled to draw benefit. This person was refused such assistance when she applied for it.

The Deputy does himself less than justice by saying things like that. He knows these provisions are the same now as they were when he was a Minister, and that the same deciding officers and appeals officers come to the same types of decision in these cases.

Strangely, I never came across a case like this until after the change of Government.

In assessing the income or the means as £18, does that mean your inspector is saying to the family——

He is your inspector as well as mine.

He is your inspector, not mine.

Deciding officers are appointed by statute of this House and they are independent in the exercise of their functions.

They are working for the Minister's Department. In this case is the inspector saying to the family "This member of your family has been stamping cards for a number of years. . . ."?

This is a statement. I have answered the question.

A Cheann Comhairle——

I will permit the Deputy to ask a question.

I will ask a question if the Minister will allow me to.

I have dealt very fully with the facts of this case in response to questions from Deputy Tully. That may not be satisfactory to the Deputy——

I want to ask——

The Deputy has not asked a question yet.

The Minister should not interrupt. Is the Minister telling the House that an inspector employed by his Department goes to visit this lady and tells her family they will have to pay her £18 a week so that she can pay them back £18 for her keep?

The Deputy knows that is not a relevant question.

That is what is happening.

Is the Minister satisfied with the regulations?

These are the regulations as they exist at present and as they existed when the Deputy's party were in power. It is slightly hypocritical for Deputy Harte to take this attitude when he knows the same regulations are applied by the same deciding officers as applied when he and his party were in Government. I have taken a number of significant steps to ease these petty types of restrictions.

When the Minister was in Opposition he promised that he would change these things. He should come down off his high horse.