asked the Minister for Social Welfare if the embargo on filling vacancies in the public service is causing delays in the processing of applications for unemployment assistance; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

13.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the long delays in processing applications for unemployment assistance because of the centralisation of the decision-making system in Dublin and of the hardship to applicants arising from these delays; if he will consider streamlining the process; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 13 together. Entitlement to unemployment assistance depends on the means of the applicant and individual investigation must be made in each case. It has not been possible to obtain the staff that would be necessary to deal with applications for unemployment assistance as promptly as I would like. This, combined with the continuing rise in the numbers claiming assistance, inevitably gives rise to delays in certain areas.

The effects of the embargo on staffing recruitment are kept under continuous review and are mitigated to the greatest extent possible by reviewing administrative practices and by the reallocation of staff. Since the embargo began in 1981 additional staff has twice been allocated to the unemployment payments area. It is my intention to seek further allocations of additional staff for that area. Among the administrative measures taken has been the devolution of decision-making to a number of local exchanges. This process is being continued to the greatest extent possible where resources allow. It does, however, involve additional work on the offices concerned which they are not in general in a position to undertake at present without additional resources.

Can the Minister tell us the number of social welfare officers there were working in 1981 when the embargo came into operation and the number of social welfare officers working at present? Would the Minister not accept that the length of time people have to wait at present to have their claim to unemployment assistance processed is entirely unacceptable? In reply to a question in this House yesterday I was told that a man applied for unemployment assistance on 13 September 1983, that his claim warranted extensive inquiries which are still proceeding and that when those extensive inquiries are completed a decision will be taken. Is the Minister telling the House that we should be satisfied with that situation? The number of people unemployed has doubled since 1981 and I should like to know if the number of staff has increased to deal with the claims.

I do not know how the Deputy could have interpreted from my reply that the Minister or I was satisfied with the position. The reply stated that the Minister got increased allocations of staff on two occasions and that he is at present seeking further allocations of staff. I want to make it quite clear that the seriousness of the delays is fully appreciated by me and by the Minister and that every effort is being made to get additional staff. In a time of recession the workload in the Department of Social Welfare increases in proportion to the depth of the recession. There has been and continues to be unsatisfactory delays in dealing with claims, particularly with regard to unemployment assistance because each case has to be visited and examined and information compiled.

I appreciate the Minister's concern. Will he tell the House how many social welfare officers were working in 1981 and the number at present in view of the fact that unemployment has doubled in the three years? I have no doubt that the reason people have to wait six months to have their claim processed is that the Minister has not appointed more staff.

If the Deputy will put down a question regarding staffing I will be happy to give him the precise information he requires.

I am calling Deputy Mac Giolla for the last supplementary question.

Arising out of the Minister's reply——

We are now past Question Time. I allowed the Deputy to ask one supplementary question after 3.30 p.m. and in fairness I am giving Deputy Mac Giolla the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.

Unfortunately the Minister did not answer the question——

Unfortunately we took so long at the other questions, and Question Time has now finished.

I am asking the Minister if extra staff are available in view of the fact that unemployment has doubled since 1981.

I am trying to ensure I do not give the Deputy any haphazard information with regard to the number of people employed and that is why I suggested to him to put down a question. However, I can give the Deputy some information. In November 1982 an additional 90 posts were given and in May 1983 the Minister sought approval for 240 additional posts in employment exchanges but only 140 were sanctioned.

We are now nearly five minutes after Question Time. If Deputy Mac Giolla will frame a short question I will allow him to put it to the Minister.

If I may make a point about that, I object to the Minister taking these two questions together.

The Chair has no control with regard to taking questions together or separately.

My question has no relation whatever to the embargo. It is about procedure. Taking the two questions at two minutes to 3.30 p.m.——

If the Deputy wants to ask a question he should do so now.

The Minister did not answer my question. I am asking him now if he is aware of the procedure outside Dublin where an applicant coming off stamps applies for unemployment assistance at his local exchange. This is forwarded to the local social welfare office who send out an officer to assess the applicant's means. The completed assessment form is sent back to the labour exchange——

That is not a question.

I am asking the Minister if he is aware of this procedure. The form is then sent to Townsend Street, Dublin, and a deciding officer makes a decision——

All of this sounds very familiar to the Chair.

The form is then sent back to the local social welfare office and they send it to the employment exchange who eventually pay out. Is the Minister aware that under the normal procedure with everything going well this takes from six to eight weeks but if there is any delay at any point——

The Deputy is going a very long way about putting his question.

If it was not 3.35 p.m. the Chair would give me plenty of time to ask a question. The Chair should allow me to ask the question because the Minister did this dirty trick in taking the two questions together shortly before 3.30 p.m. Has the Minister any intention of appointing deciding officers locally to make decisions rather than sending the matter to Dublin? My question had nothing to do with an embargo; it related to procedure.

Because of the pressure on the system, formal decision making on the officers' reports and the award of qualification certificates in the more straightforward cases has been devolved to the exchanges at Cork, Drogheda and to Gardiner Street and Werburgh Street, Dublin. It is in the process of being devolved to Thomas Street and Navan Road exchanges. While this process can bring about an improvement in the time taken to deal with cases, nevertheless it imposes an extra burden on the exchanges which are overburdened already. However, extension of the process will be made to other exchanges as circumstances permit. The need for the referral of cases by branch offices to their parent exchanges is being examined closely with a view to its elimination where possible.

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper. I am calling Item No. 11.

I had a Private Notice Question to the Minister for Justice about the very urgent matters we discussed yesterday and the questions that have arisen since then. The Chair has ruled——

I ask the Deputy to bear with the Chair for a moment. The Chair does not want any heat or unpleasantness about this. I am going to adhere to the long-standing rule that the Chair's decision and ruling on that question, as conveyed to the Deputy, cannot be questioned in the House. If the Deputy genuinely wants to have a chat with me about it he is very welcome to come to my office and I will discuss it with him. I am going to be firm about this.

The reason the Chair gave me was that there was no urgency in the matter.

No matter how nicely one ignores the Chair it is still disorderly——

Perhaps I am adopting the wrong attitude.

If after being warned the Deputy goes ahead it becomes grossly disorderly.

I accept what the Chair has said in relation to it being an ongoing matter——

The Deputy is now discussing the ruling of the Chair.

I am not discussing it. On a point of order——

The Deputy may not discuss the ruling of the Chair under the smokescreen, umbrella or call it whatever you like of a point of order. It will not work.

I want to know if the Minister for Justice has taken a vow of silence or if it is being imposed on him. He will not come into the House, he will not go on RTE and he will not speak anywhere on the matter. It raises very serious questions.

I have called Item No. 11.

Given the very serious questions raised yesterday, how can I get an answer? The Taoiseach said yesterday he was not informed until 19 February by the Minister for Justice——

In order to avoid a second scene on the same day, I am asking the Deputy to resume his seat and not to pursue this matter.

In fairness I must point out that I have resumed my seat any time the Chair spoke. Let us have some fairness in the matter. A very serious question arises here and if it is not answered in this House it will be answered outside it.

I advise the Deputy to look at Standing Orders and if there is any procedure available he will find it in Standing Orders. If there is not, he should take steps to have Standing Orders amended.

The question is why the Minister has taken no action. Unless the Minister comes into the House I do not know how I will get an answer.

I will not tolerate this any longer. If the Deputy gets up once more on this matter I will have to take action.

(Limerick West): I am amazed that you have disallowed the Private Notice Question which I attempted to put to the Taoiseach. I wanted to ask for a report on his discussions yesterday with the French President. I am amazed you did not see fit, in view of the urgency and the importance——

The Chair is amazed that Deputy Noonan should raise the matter after I had explained the position so thoroughly to his colleague, Deputy Woods.

I asked nothing about the visit of the French Prime Minister or the urgency of it. I was referring to the urgency in regard to a statement by the Minister for Justice. The urgency is different in the two cases.

It appears to the Chair that there is a concerted effort to prevent the business of the House proceeding. If that develops I can take only one action.

(Limerick West): I do not think that is fair comment. I am not disorderly, but when a matter arises of such importance as a visit from the French President and I am not allowed to ask the Taoiseach to make a statement on it I think it is wrong.

When the Chair gets up Deputy Noonan should sit down. Deputy Noonan put a Private Notice Question through the General Office. It came to me in the ordinary way. I ruled on it, that it did not meet the criteria laid down for Private Notice Questions. That decision was conveyed to Deputy Noonan by my Private Secretary and it cannot and will not be questioned in the House.

(Limerick West): I am looking for your guidance. How do I get decisions——

If Deputies would come to my office they would get decisions.

(Limerick West): I am looking for guidance on how I will get the Taoiseach to make a statement on his talks yesterday on the milk super-levy and how it will affect this country.

Will the Deputy look up Standing Orders? Deputy Denis Foley on the budget.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the problems of disabled people in regard to casting their votes because they do not have access to postal voting.

Is it not shabby treatment of this House that throughout the second half of Question Time and for the quarter hour since, there has not been a Minister in the House? What is wrong with the Government? Where have they gone? Are they checking the bugging devices in Howth?

Back to Watergate.

They have gone to Kilbarrack.

(Dún Laoghaire): The Deputies are trying their best.

I will not allow the House to be brought into disrepute. If there is any futher effort to do so——

With respect, would you mind addressing these remarks to the other side.

Deputy MacSharry.

I am not attempting to question your ruling. You stated that Deputy Noonan's question did not come within the criteria governing Private Notice Questions. I think that the imposition of the super-levy is the most important decision affecting our biggest industry, agriculture, and the Irish farmers. This decision is to be taken in the near future by the EEC——

The Deputy should resume his seat.

I think it is a fitting question to be raised.

I am adjourning the House for 30 minutes.