HC Deb 13 December 1922 vol 159 cc2916-7
31. Mr. JOHN ROBERTSON

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of having Scottish appeal cases under the Unemployment Insurance Act for decision by the Umpire heard in Scotland instead of in London, in order to lessen the expense of such appeals to those claiming to have their cases decided by the Umpire?

Sir M. BARLOW

The first appeal under the Unemployment Insurance Acts is to the Courts of Referees, which are local bodies, and questions of fact, which alone require any volume of evidence, are in practice determined by these Courts. The number of appeals from the Courts of Referees to the Umpire in Scottish cases is not large enough to justify the appointment of a separate Umpire for dealing with them. If a separate Umpire were appointed, there would obviously be a risk of conflicting decisions, and I am not aware that any serious inconvenience is caused by the existing arrangements.

Mr. ROBERTSON

Does not the fact that, individuals have to come from Scotland to London account for the small number of cases?

Sir M. BARLOW

The Board of Referees is the local body to test the evidence of facts. They sit locally. That answers my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. ROBERTSON

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent case decided by the umpire it cost £50 to come from Leith to London and to bring witnesses?

Sir M. BARLOW

I was not aware of that fact. I will look into it. On occasions the umpire has heard cases in the provinces.