Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has 28 been called to a case decided in the Court of Appeal on 20th March, where a workman was unsuccessful in his claim for compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in respect of injuries inflicted upon him by strikers during the Manchester carters' dispute; and whether, with a view to meeting such cases, he will introduce legislation making trade unions liable to give compensation for injuries to workmen inflicted by their members?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The case referred to merely decided that the workman was not entitled, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to compensation for the assault. It did not decide that he had no remedy. He would, of course, have a remedy against those who assaulted him, and against those who authorised the assault. The facts of the case, so far as known to me, do not appear to justify a proposal to reverse an Act of Parliament against which no Member of the House of Commons thought it right to vote on its Third Reading in 1906.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDWould not this man have a claim against the employer who was his security while performing this duty?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSNo, Sir. The question was raised. He did bring an action under the Compensation Act, and it was decided that he had no remedy.