§ 12. Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the decision of the court of referees to disallow benefit to Mr. James McIntosh, Montrose, was made despite the fact that there was no evidence of any kind that he was engaged in an illegal occupation during the period for which he made a claim; that the police report on which the decision was based dealt with periods other than the period for which the claim was made; and will he take steps to stop this abuse of the regulation that allow the Employment Exchange to make inquiries relative to the period for which an applicant makes a claim?
§ Mr. E. BrownIt is not open to me to review the decisions of the statutory authorities determining claims to benefit, but I would point out that the decision of the court of referees was not unanimous and that Mr. McIntosh has the right of appeal to the Umpire against the disallowance of his claim. I do not agree that any improper action was taken by the exchange.
§ Mr. GallacherIs it not the case that the decision was based on a police report which referred to a period other than that for which the claim was made, and in view of the fact that bookmakers have been granted relief from taxation when they pay fines for runners, is it desirable to refer to this an an illegal occupation?
§ Mr. BrownThe hon. Member's question shows how difficult and complex these cases are. The House knows that those who are called "runners" are not easily dealt with. The man has a right of appeal to the Umpire, which he has not exercised, if he feels aggrieved.