57. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case of Andrew Torrance, the sole proprietor of a business on which the support of his family exclusively depends, and for the carrying on of which in his absence it is impossible for him to make arrangements; whether he is aware that his appeal for exemption was rejected by the Lanarkshire Appeal Triunal, not on the ground that he had failed to prove that serious hardship would ensue on account of the above circumstances, if he were called up, but on the ground that, in the opinion of the sheriff, the business, that of credit 136 draper, was not of national importance, and all the goods could be bought in shops; whether he is aware that a decision on such grounds is contrary to the instructions with regard to the sole proprietors of businesses issued to the tribunals; whether he can state what has been the result of the appeal to the Central Tribunal; and whether he proposes to take any action to secure the carrying out of the instructions?
§ Mr. TENNANTMy attention has been called to the case referred to by my hon. Friend, and, after inquiry, I see no ground to suppose that the Lanarkshire Tribunal did not act in accordance with the instructions. The grounds of the Appeal Tribunal's decision were not as stated in the question, but were that the tribunal were not satisfied that a case of serious hardship, owing to business or financial obligations or domestic position had been established, or that the carrying on of the business of credit draper by the appellant was of national importance. I am informed that the Central Tribunal has sustained the decision of the Appeal Tribunal and dismissed Mr. Torrance's appeal, and in the circumstances I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
Mr. SCOTTWhen a man makes an appeal on one statutory ground of business hardship and domestic hardship, is it competent for the tribunal to reject his appeal because he does not conform with another statutory ground?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo; I do not think it would be; but my hon. Friend is misinformed as to what the Appeal Tribunal did actually do. This is the actual position in the case. The Appeal Tribunal gave the man temporary exemption from 1st September, and gave him leave to apply for exemption again. That application was not entertained, but a recommendation was made that he should be exempted until 30th November, that was three months further. That went before the Central Tribunal, which did not grant the exemption, but recommended that the man should not be called up till the end of the year, so that he has not been treated very hardly.