HC Deb 02 September 1895 vol 36 cc1449-50
MR. WEIR

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been drawn to a circular recently issued from the office of the Superintendent of the Highland Railway Company, showing the hours of labour for men engaged on night ballasting to be from 6 p.m. to 6.55 a.m., or thirteen hours less five minutes; and whether he can take any steps under the Railways Regulation Act to prevent the Highland Railway Company working their men so many hours?

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE, Croydon)

I have seen the circular referred to by the hon. Member. It would appear to be a direction to the engineer with reference to the movement of a train, and not to the hours of employment for men. However, as I have already told him, if he is in a position to make a representation in writing, complaining of the hours on behalf of the men, inquiry will be made.

MR. J. H. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

asked whether, under the Railways Regulation Act a question asked in the House of Commons, making a suggestion of overwork, was not considered a sufficient representation?

MR. RITCHIE

No, Sir, I don't think it is.

MR. WEIR

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will agree to the Motion for a Return relating to the number of hours per week engine drivers, guards, pointsmen, porters, and other servants of the Highland Railway Company are employed?

MR. RITCHIE

Having regard to the fact that there is a distinct provision in the Railways Regulation Act, 1893, under which a Return such as that desired by the hon. Gentleman can be called for by the Board of Trade, I think that, unless the railway servants in question, or the hon. Gentleman on their behalf, make the necessary representation under that Act, I ought not to call on the Railway Company for such a Return. I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that if such a representation is made to me it shall receive my attention.