§ Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister Labour whether he is aware that Samuel Alexander, 47, Graham Street, Govan, appeared before a committee, 7th February, 1925, at the Govan Exchange; that the committee was composed of one member; and that, on Alexander objecting to his case being heard by one man, he was told by the insurance officer he had not the right to object, and his case was proceeded with and his claim to benefit disallowed: whether he can state upon what grounds or authority the insurance officer repelled the objection, and in what Regulation it is stated that a committee can be composed of one man, not a chairman of committee; and whether he will issue instructions that this case shall be reheard before a properly constituted committee?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe rule for the composition of rota committees provides that two members shall form a quorum, but that if two members are unable to be present at the hearing the case should be dealt with by the remaining member, and his recommendation should be submitted for confirmation to a fully-constituted sub-committee. According to my information, Mr. Alexander did not object to his case being heard by only one member of the committee, but took objection to the presence of the assistant secretary of the1342W local employment committee. The case was considered subsequently by two rota committee members, who were emphatically of opinion that the applicant was not making reasonable efforts to obtain work. He is stated to spend a great deal of his time following whippet racing when he ought to be looking for work. I see no ground for revising the recommendation of the local committee.
§ Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that John Smith, 23, Alma Street, Govan, was refused benefit for six weeks on the ground that he left his employment of his own accord; that Smith was employed at Fairfield shipbuilding yard and was paid £1 3s. 2d., whereas the rate of wage on the Clyde for this class of labour is £1 17s. per week; that, at the expiry of the six weeks, Smith was summoned before a rota committee, and refused benefit on the ground that he had failed to prove that he had made every effort to obtain employment suited to his capacities and was willing to accept such employment; and whether he can state why this man was refused benefit for declining work at a rate of pay lower than the district rate, and was further penalised for an indefinite period when his six weeks' disqualification had been completed?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe decision to refuse benefit to John Smith on the ground that he left his employment voluntarily without just cause was given by the chief insurance officer in accordance with the statutory provisions if the Unemployment Insurance Act. 1920. No appeal was lodged against this decision, and I have no power to review it. I may mention, however, that the employment which the applicant left was that of a boy helper, his age being under 18½, and I am informed that the wage was the usual one for a youth of his age. The local employment committee recommended further disallowance of the claim to extended benefit because they were of opinion that the applicant had failed to prove that he was making every reasonable effort to obtain employment. I see no reason for asking them to reconsider the case.