§ MR. GERALD LODER (Brighton)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the case of James Vousden, a post office inspector, who was permanently injured by a fall when on duty in 1895: on what grounds compensation under the Superannuation Act 1887 has been refused; and, whether compensation is invariably granted when it can be shown that the accident was specifically attributable to the nature of the duty being done, such as travelling from place to place as in the present case?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston)As the hon. Member points out, the Act is confined to cases where, inter alia, the injury is specifically attributable to the nature of the duty, but it by no means follows that every accident that befalls a civil servant while travelling on duty is specifically attributable to the nature of his duty. If Mr. Vousden's duty had required him to run some extraordinary risk, the case might have been different; but the fact is that he simply slipped and fell on the high road while walking from one place to another, It is not even certain that the hip disease which led to his retirement was caused by the fall; but even if it was, I could not, with justice to the taxpayer, admit that his duty 297 caused his fall. He has received a pension of £45 a year and a compassionate grant of £25, and I cannot hold out any hope of further assistance from public funds.