asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a number of men employed with Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teoranta in Tuam, County Galway for several years were refused unemployment benefit this year although they registered with the National Manpower Agency and made several other efforts to get employment, and if he will make a statement on the matter.

According to the records at my Department a number of men who had been employed by Cómhlucht Siuícre Éireann Teo, Tuam, on a seasonal basis had their claims to unemployment benefit disallowed on the grounds that they were not available for work.

In the disqualification of these claims the deciding officer took into consideration registration of the claimants with the National Manpower Service and all aspects of their employment history.

Appeals against the disallowance were lodged in a number of cases and claims were referred to an appeals officer for determination. In the majority of cases the appeals officer upheld the disallowance of the deciding officer.

The determination of claims for unemployment benefit is a matter for statutorily appointed deciding officers and appeals officers. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to make a statement on how the decision of the deciding officer or the appeals officer was arrived at in any of the cases in question.

Does it not sound very peculiar to the Minister that for the last 20 or 30 years many of those people have been in the same situation and their claim for unemployment benefit has always been allowed? How is it that on this occasion it has not been allowed, bearing in mind the fact that they received a blanket reply from the Department stating that they were seasonal workers only while at the same time they had registered with the National Manpower Service and the labour exchange for employment? Indeed, to prove the point, many of them were employed. My question is, taking all of that into account how can the Department, the deciding officer or appeals officer come to the conclusion that they are not available for work when it has been proved conclusively that they are and have been so for the last 20 years?

All the factors were taken into account. This is not a matter for me. It is a matter for deciding officers in the first instance and appeals officers in the second. The test is whether the employees concerned are in fact available for work. There are altogether 117 of these cases. Quite a number of them have been allowed but a number of them have been disallowed on the basis that they are not available for work. A number of them are smallholders and that was taken into account. The fact that they had registered with the National Manpower Service was also taken into account. But in all of the cases where appeals have been refused all the facts were considered and the reasons given were explained to the people concerned. I repeat that these matters are governed by statute. There is this independent deciding system: the deciding officer in the first instance, the appeals officer in the case of an appeal, and I am bound by decisions taken by these officers.

Would the Minister consider the following fact in proof of my case and perhaps have a decision taken on it on this basis—that two people who received this blanket reply stating that they were seasonal workers only at that time were signing in the labour exchange and, when they were called to Galway for whatever type of hearing they have in the Department of Social Welfare, on that date, they had to go to their new employers to request the day off in order to go to Galway to attend the deciding officer's hearing so that their case could be made for the receipt of the money to which I feel, and I think the Minister also, feels they were entitled, which proves conclusively that they were available for work despite what the deciding officer and appeals officer said? Furthermore, in an effort to inform the Minister and to ask if he might act on this, I believe that this is a case where—

The Deputy has said all that before.

——wrong information is being reported to the deciding officer and the appeals officer by the pension officer on the ground.

Order. Question No. 35.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Are the appeals officers and deciding officers given any guidelines, as a matter of policy, on which to work?

No. they interpret the statutes.

(Cavan-Monaghan): So they have a free hand.

I might say, in reply to Deputy Killilea that if there is new evidence and some information which was not available to either the deciding officer or the appeals officer, then that would constitute grounds for re-opening the case for further appeal.

I accept what the Minister says. But it is a sad day — and I ask the Minister to do something about it — when I as a TD, or any other Member in this House, has to come to the Minister with the facts when there is a pension officer on the ground in Tuam, and I am sure in many other towns also, who will not supply the facts correctly. That is where the problem lies, when there are hypocrites working for the Department who will not give the facts correctly.

It is a particularly sad day when a Fianna Fáil backbencher cannot twist and bend the rules. It is a good day for democracy.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is it in order to attack named civil servants in this House when they have not an opportunity to defend themselves?

I am attacking the facts.

Order, please, Deputy.

Deputy Fitzpatrick is no one to talk. We know what he did when he was in the Land Commission, when he gave land to the pals. We know them well down in Galway too.

Order, please. Will Deputy Killilea please resume his seat?

The leadership vote in the Deputy's party will give him all the direction he needs.

Deputy Quinn has not a problem because he has not the potential either.