HC Deb 11 July 1923 vol 166 cc1372-3W
Mr. SHORT

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. Marsh, 20d 4h, Dudley Port, Tipton, has had his unemployment benefit disallowed; that Marsh's employers reduced the wages of certain employés in an arbitrary manner; that he presented himself for employment as usual, and that the employer or his representative told him he was dismissed; and will he hold an inquiry into the case, with a view to Marsh's benefit being renewed?

Sir M. BARLOW

I find that Mr. Marsh's claim to unemployment benefit has been disallowed by the insurance officer, and that Mr. Marsh has appealed to the Court of Referees, who are hearing the appeal to-day. I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Mr. SHORT

asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases referred by the Darlaston Labour Exchange to the Court of Referees during 1922, and for the first six months of the present year; the number of appeals allowed; the number disallowed; and the number, if any, cancelled by the insurance officer, despite the verdict of the Court?

Sir M. BARLOW

I am having these particulars taken out, and will send them to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. SHORT

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that when unemployment benefit has been allowed by the Court of Referees, the insurance officer can and does cancel the decision of the Court; and will he state the authority for such action?

Sir M. BARLOW

No, Sir. I am not aware of any such case. Under the ex- press provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the Court of Referees can compel the Insurance Officer either to accept its recommendations or refer it to the Umpire by requesting him to refer the recommendation to the Umpire if he disagrees with it, and in practice the Court almost invariably takes this course.

Mr. GROVES

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into the circumstances attending the refusal of unemployment benefit to Mr. F. Swallow, of 6, Steele Road, West Ham, on the grounds that he is a single man residing with relatives, to whom he should reasonably look for support and, as the father is a general labourer with low wages and a growing family to support, will he consider the grounds of the assumption that, in this case, the father could reasonably be expected to maintain this lad?

Sir M. BARLOW

I am having inquiries made into this case, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.