asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the delay in the payment of disability benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny.

The person concerned was in receipt of disability benefit at the maximum appropriate rate from 1973 to 16 June 1980 when payment was disallowed following examination by a medical referee who expressed the opinion that he was capable of work. He was examined on 26 August 1980 by a different medical referee who also expressed the opinion that he was capable of work.

He has appealed against the decision to disallow payment and his claim has been referred to an appeals officer who proposes to hold an oral hearing of the case shortly. When the result of the appeal is received his claim will be reviewed.

How long has this person been waiting for the appeal to be heard from the time he indicated that he wished to appeal?

His claim was referred to an appeals officer on 6 February 1981. The appeals officer proposes to hold an oral hearing into the case shortly. When the result of the hearing is received his claim will be reviewed.

I asked the Minister when did the claimant indicate that he wished to appeal, not when it was referred to an appeal?

He appealed and was examined by a second medical referee who also said he was capable of work. These cases occur all the time. When someone comes along and says he is incapable of work and it is doubted by the social welfare officer, the social welfare officer feels the person is capable of work and the case is referred to a medical referee after a certain length of time. If, as in this case, the medical referee finds the person is capable of work, if the person appeals it is referred to a further medical referee. On appeal for the third time it goes for an oral hearing. It is difficult for the Department to do much more in such a case.

I will allow Deputy Mitchell one final supplementary, provided it is relevant.

On this specific question and on a number of questions——

Not on a number of questions.

Is the Minister sure of the facts? I know the Minister is not intentionally misleading the House, but is the Minister aware that information was given to me which turned out not to be a fact? In the circumstances would the Minister agree to refer all these questions to the ombudsman when he is appointed?

This has nothing to do with the question before us.

This should be referred to the ombudsman when he is appointed.

Will the Minister reply to Ceist 9?

Is the Minister saying——

Will the Minister reply to Ceist 9?

I will raise it on the adjournment. It is unfair to be disallowing questions like this. Will the Minister allow a person's own doctor to attend?

I am not allowing any of these questions. These questions are specific, dealing with specific cases.

9.