§ 24 and 25. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Divisional Court that a Salford omnibus guard, who was beaten up and seriously injured by several persons while at work in his omnibus, was not entitled to Industrial Injuries benefit on the grounds that this was not an industrial accident as it did not arise out of his employment; and if he will consider introducing amending legislation to give employees redress in such cases in future;
(2) In view of the fact that Section 7 (4) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, only requires an injured workman to prove that his accident arose in the course of his employment and that it is for the Minister to establish that the accident did not arise out of the employment, and having regard to the Divisional Court decision in the Richardson case, whether he will consider amending legislation which will state that position beyond reasonable doubt.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI am aware of this case, but as I told the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on 28th July, I do not think it discloses any defect in the present law, which is not completely set out in the hon. Member's second Question.
§ Mr. AllaunWas not Mr. Richardson at that spot at midnight precisely and solely because it was his job to be there? Was it not grossly unfair that he should be off work for 50 weeks and should suffer permanent injury without being able to receive a penny benefit under the Act? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this decision means that benefit will be denied in many cases to busmen, railwaymen, shop assistants, insurance agents—all those who have to meet the public? Since the Minister himself has had recently to be defended against violence, should not these busmen be defended against violence in other circumstances?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf the hon. Gentleman will study the judgment of the learned Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Devlin in the Divisional Court, he will see that this case, decided on its own facts, does not sustain the general proposition which he has made but is related to the circumstances of what the Lord Chief Justice called an attack on all and sundry, whether in their occupation or not, by a gang of hooligans. That does not seem to disclose any defect in the existing law. In reply to the hon. Member's kindly personal reference to me, I can only quote Mark Twain and say that it was very much exaggerated.
§ Mr. HaleSurely this is against the principle which it was endeavoured to apply when the Industrial Injuries Measure was passed. Would not an Amendment—"in the course of or out of employment"—fulfil the necessities of the situation for what is now a contributory service?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThis is a contributory benefit as are the other benefits of National Insurance allied to it. After studying the case very carefully when it was first raised some months ago by the hon. Member for East Ham, North, I am bound to say that I am satisfied, that it does not indicate that tie law is different from what Parliament believed it to be when it was passed.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsWill the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter, bearing in mind what I said earlier, that there is a general view among trade unionists experienced in these matters that some decisions made nowadays are not as liberal as were decisions in the old days and that that cannot be justified in a scheme which differs from the old in one important respect, that nowadays workmen make a contribution towards the scheme?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe right hon. Gentleman has referred to other cases; do not know what he has in mind. If he will invite my attention to those cases, I will consider them.
§ Mr. AllaunOn a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.