asked the Minister for Social Welfare when a person (details supplied) in County Monaghan first appealed against the amount of means assessed against him; the number of days in respect of which he did not apply for unemployment assistance; and the reason for the delay in processing his case.

An appeal was made by the person concerned against the assessment of means in his case and the appeal was received in the headquarters of my Department on 7 April 1983. The case was determined by an appeals officer on 12 May 1983 and he upheld the assessment of means at £11.50 weekly.

During the last two years the person concerned did not apply for unemployment assistance on 165 days.

An examination of the appeal papers shows that the person concerned lodged the appeal at his local office in January last. It is not possible at this stage to say how the delay arose between the time the appeal form was despatched from the local office and the time it was received in the headquarters of the Department. The volume of correspondence received in the Department is so great that it is not possible to trace what precisely happened in this case.

This particular case was also the subject of a written question put down by the Deputy for answer on 10 May 1983. I should like the Deputy to know that when the reply to that question was prepared the appeal papers were not readily available and it was assumed that the appeal had been received and dealt with in the normal course. It was not known that there had been a delay in transmission of the appeal and the reply was prepared accordingly.

What criterion was used in this case in assessing the means of the applicant?

That does not arise.

In view of the case in question, it does arise.

Assessment was made on the basis of the social welfare officer's information concerning the self-employed earnings of the applicant.

Is the Minister aware that in his capacity as a self-employed person this man calls first to the local labour exchange to sign off before proceeding to do a day's work and that when he has completed his work he signs on again? Therefore, it would appear that he is being victimised by reason of his honesty.

One would hope that people were not being victimised because of doing what is correct. The means of the self-employed are assessed as I have outlined. We are checking generally around the country to ensure that people are not drawing money to which they are not entitled.

In view of the information I have put before the Minister, would he be prepared to have this case re-examined?

I am not in the business of re-examining every case that is brought up here by way of question.

The reason I ask is that this man was not self-employed on a regular basis. When he gets the odd job he takes the honourable course and signs off the unemployment register.

I should hope that everybody would do that.

We all know that is not what is happening.

I would not necessarily regard doing what is right to be honourable. We seem to have slipped into the attitude that when somebody does something right it is assumed that everybody else is doing wrong. I am surprised by this attitude. Because somebody does what is right it is hardly necessary that he be eulogised or paid for taking that course.

Will the Minister reassess the case?

I will have a look at it.

The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.

Yesterday Deputy O'Hanlon and I sought to raise a matter by way of Private Notice Question, which was not allowed. I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle's decision. I wish, with your permission to raise on the Adjournment, the matter relating to the people who had difficulty in signing the unemployment register in Tallaght on Tuesday.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.