§ 61. Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the case of passenger-guard J. Downey, Newcastle-on-Tyne, London and North Eastern Railway, who was instructed to work a passenger train on 24th December, 1930, on which the regulation minimum vacuum of 18 inches brake pressure was not being registered on the gauge in the guard's compartment; and whether, in the interests of safety, he will give directions that Rule No. 165 of the company's rules be strictly carried out in future?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe attention of my hon. Friend has been called to this matter. He has carefully considered the circumstances, and it does not appear to him one in which he can usefully intervene.
§ Mr. HICKSIf the minimum amount of brake pressure was not available and a workman refused to work the train, would the Ministry regard the refusal to work the train as justifiable, and would he support the workman in his refusal to work the train under conditions which he considered to be dangerous?
Lieut.-Colonel HEADHEADLAMThat seems to be a hypothetical question. It is perfectly clear that if the guard of a train or anybody else refuses to carry out instructions for which his superior official takes all the responsibility, it is a matter of railway discipline.
§ Mr. HICKSIs it not a fact that the minimum brake pressure permitted is 18 pounds? If the brake pressure regis- 1978 tered is less than 18 pounds and it may be dangerous to traffic and to individuals, would not the workman be perfectly justified in refusing to work the train, and would not the Minister of Transport support him in refusing to work it under those conditions?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe railway companies are responsible for the safety of the passengers travelling on their lines.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is becoming pure argument.