§ 54. Mr. Caryasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment given on Friday last in the King's Bench Division, in the case of Metcalfe versus the London Passenger Transport Board, in which the plaintiff, Frederick Metcalfe, conductor of an omnibus, suffered grave injuries as a result of a collision between his omnibus and a tramcar; and, in view of the interpretation put upon the term common employment by the Court of Appeal in the case of Radcliffe versus the Ribble Motor Services, which governed this case, he will take steps to amend the law in this respect?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have seen a report of this case. With regard to amendment of the law, this question was fully debated on a private Member's Bill on 11th March last, and a Bill proposing to abolish the doctrine of common employment was negatived.
§ Mr. Benjamin SmithWhile the Bill which was introduced by a private Member may have been negatived, the fact remains that, owing to an act of this House, the bringing together of various companies and municipal authorities has resulted, arising out of a collision, in a man, who would have received, according to His Lordship, proper compensation, being deprived of it, and cannot the hon. and learned Gentleman say that he will give time for legislation to remedy what is undoubtedly an evil?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThere are, obviously, two sides to this question, or the House would not have divided upon it on 11th March. After very full discussion, the House did negative the change in the law suggested in the Bill, which it would be highly impossible to debate on one side or another by way of answer to a supplementary question.
§ Mr. MacquistenWould it not be better to burst up these big combines?
§ Mr. AttleeDoes not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise now that the Government gave extremely bad advice to the House?