asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the delay in paying unemployment benefit to persons (details supplied) in County Kilkenny who have been out of work since 15 March 1982 because of their firm's decision to cease production.

(Mayo West): A deciding officer of my Department has decided that the persons concerned are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit with effect from 15 March 1982 in accordance with the provisions of section 35 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, on the grounds that they lost their employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at their place of employment.

This decision has been conveyed to the persons concerned and they have been advised of their right, if dissatisfied with the decision, to have the matter referred to an appeals officer for determination. Forms on which to lodge an appeal may be obtained at their nearest local office.

Firstly, the Minister has not answered my question, but I am very grateful for the information which he has given. One of the reasons for putting down this question was my anxiety to know the reason for the delay in the decision on the question of eligibility for unemployment benefit in this case. The Minister has not explained that reason. He has stated the decision. Is the Minister aware that there was no trade dispute at this firm since 15 March 1982, that the workers concerned have been reporting for work, are available for work and willing to work ever since that date but, for reasons on the management side, a decision has been made to close down operations? Surely it is really stretching the interpretation of the relevant section of the Act beyond the limit to suggest that these people should be debarred from unemployment benefit because of a non-existent dispute?

(Mayo West): The explanation given to my Department is that there has been a dispute and while that is the case social welfare payments cannot be made. The deciding officer discussed the matter with the management of Castlecomer Mills on 28 April to clarify the matter of the negotiations taking place. He was informed that there had been a number of unofficial strikes in the company since its inception and that the plant would remain closed until agreement was reached for an end to that type of unofficial action which was taking place. The deciding officer, having examined the evidence, considered that there was a dispute within the meaning of section 35 (6) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 and decided that claimants were disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under the provisions of section 35 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 with effect from 15 March 1982.

I am astounded at the Minister's statement, which I think I heard correctly. The substance of it was that these people were disqualified because the management side had said that there was a history of disputes. A legitimate claim for unemployment benefit made on 15 March 1982 is now being disallowed because of alleged disputes in the past. Surely this is stretching the section of the Act far beyond any reasonable interpretation. Last week, we discussed the situation at Clover Meats, but this is even worse. People are told that they are in dispute with their company because of alleged disputes which were over and done with years ago. Surely this is completely ridiculous?

(Mayo West): The officials in my Department have investigated this matter in the normal way. From the information available to them they appear to be satisfied that there is a trade dispute and while this dispute lasts it is not possible for the Department to pay social welfare benefits to the workers concerned.

Would the Minister arrange for an immediate appeal in this case? I do not feel that he would stand over such an injustice being done, where people are now being victimised because of alleged disputes in the past and are now being refused unemployment benefit. Would the Minister arrange for an immediate hearing on the appeal cases, possibly early next week, or within the next few days?

(Mayo West): When a deciding officer makes a decision on matters of this kind it is final unless some new evidence can be produced. If the Deputy can produce new evidence. I shall be glad to have the matter reinvestigated.

The appeals have been lodged. Could the Minister arrange for the hearing of these appeals as quickly as possible, because a large number of workers and their families are suffering severe hardship and dire poverty since 15 March as a result of this gravely unjust decision of the Minister's Department?

(Mayo West): I shall be glad to give the Deputy every possible assistance to try to ensure that justice is done. From the evidence available at present, it appears that there is a dispute and, because of that, it is not possible for the Department to pay social welfare in these circumstances.

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.