RAILWAYS (ACCIDENT BRADWELL) (Hansard, 9 February 1960)

§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make with regard to the railway accident at Bradwell, Sandbach, Cheshire, on 8th February.

§ The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)
At 1.18 a.m. on Monday. 8th February, the 9.52 p.m. express passenger train from York to Swansea was derailed on plain track between Holmes Chapel and Sandbach in the London Midland Reigon of the British Railways. The train became divided into three sections and a number of the coaches were tilted on their sides towards the down line, but none of the 150 passengers was injured. A relief train left Crewe at 2.55 a.m. to collected the passengers so that they could continue their journeys.
The permanent way was seriously damaged, but the up line was opened for traffic at 7.11 a.m. this morning and the down line at 12 noon.
Colonel W. P. Reed, an Inspecting Officer of Railways, examined the site yesterday, and he will open an inquiry into the accident on Friday, 12th February, at Crewe.

§ Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport
Although both sides of the House will have been glad to hear that there were no casualties on this occasion, would my right hon. Friend consider that there have been since 1948 over 1,000 railway accidents each year or an average—

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir, to ask a supplementary question which is so far from the terms of the original Question?

§ Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport
Further to that point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member will ensure that he keeps within the rules of order by relating his supplementary to the Question and the Answer given.

§ Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport
The purpose of my supplementary question will appear like a beautiful flower opening in the sun.
The point of my question is that since 1948 there have been over 1,000 accidents 242 each year, or an average of over three a day, and over 600 killed and over 9,000 injured—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order, order. If the hon. and gallant Member does not restrain his supplementary question within the rule of order, he will not be allowed to ask it.

§ Mr. Short
On a point of order. Quite apart from the relevance of the supplementary question, which is surely an abuse of the rules of the House, may I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Does the fact that you have allowed this Question, and the fact that you allowed a Private Notice Question yesterday from the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), dealing with a newspaper report which proved to be completely "phoney", indicate some relaxation of the rules?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not intended to do so. I agree that questions about accidents in the constituencies of hon. Members are anomalous. They are accepted as anomalous by Erskine May, but it has long been the practice of the House to allow them.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), and your answer to it, Sir, is not the fact that Private Notice Questions on accidents in the constituencies of hon. Members are an accepted exception to the general rule an additional reason for supplementary questions to be related strictly to the Question of which Private Notice was given?

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, I think that the hon. Member is quite right.

§ Mr. D. Griffiths
Further to that, Sir, is it not a custom of the House that Private Notice Questions are asked when fatal accidents arise, and that although this accident might have been serious, the damage has been infinitesimal? Therefore, regardless of the point of view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on a constituency matter, I suggest that advantage is being taken by him of the use of a Private Notice Question and of the custom of the House, and I suggest, with respect, that Private Notice Questions should not be asked unless there has been a fatal accident.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is one of the matters which the House entrusts to the absolute discretion of the Chair, namely, whether or not a Private Notice Question is allowed. It seems to be a matter of good fortune on this occasion that although nine coaches were derailed there was not a fatal accident. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will try to ask his supplementary question in a way that is relevant to the Question.

§ Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport
Sir, with great respect—

Hon. Members
Apologise.

§ Mrs. White
On a point of order, Sir. With the greatest respect, the matter cannot be left at this point, because there must be some degree of seriousness in the accident before a Private Notice Question can be permitted. If we are to accept your Ruling as you have now given it, the most trivial matter could be raised under the guise of an accident in a Member's constituency.

§ Mr. Speaker
I would not seek to allow the most trivial matter to be raised. The hon. Member and the House will follow that the Chair may be limited at the moment of the Private Notice Question being submitted by what appears in the newspapers about the accident in question. From what appeared in the newspapers about this one it did not appear to be in the least trivial. As an accident it was grave enough, but the consequences were not as grave as they might have been.

§ Mr. D. Griffiths
Hon. Members should read the Yorkshire newspapers.

§ Mr. Speaker
That was the appearance of it and although the Chair may sometimes be misled, like other mortals, by the appearance of things, I hope that the House will not impose upon me in the matter a rigid rule. I would never seek to allow Private Notice Questions to pass by the Chair unless I, to my best judgment, conceived them to come within the rule with regard to public importance.

§ Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport
In view of what I have asked my right hon. Friend, would he consider—

§ Mr. J. Hynd
May I with all respect put this point of order, Mr. Speaker? 244 You have just said that absolute discretion must rest with the Chair in deciding whether or not a Private Notice Question is in order. Since it is now clear that the purpose of the Question was not genuine, since it was put down for the purpose not of the hon. and gallant Gentleman concerning himself with the consideration of his constituents, but of continuing an attack on the nationalised industries, and since it is now apparent from his attempted supplementary question that he has no intention of doing anything else but try to exploit the occasion for that purpose, is it not incumbent on the Chair, with its responsibility, to ensure that this is not permitted?

§ Mr. Speaker
First, the hon. Member puts his gloss on the original Question. I would not necessarily have to accept that, and it might not be fair to the hon. and gallant Member's Question to do so.
With regard to the supplementary question, I respectfully agree that its beginning was unfortunate. I still hope that it has some proper substance, and that the House will allow me to hear what it is.

§ Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport
In view of what I asked my right hon. Friend, would he consider setting up a court of inquiry to inquire into the cause of these terrible accidents and try and make our railways less dangerous?

§ Mr. Marples
An inquiry is to be held on this accident, and the report of the inspecting officer will be published in due course. I would prefer to wait for that.

§ Sir J. Barlow
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was on the site of the accident at dusk the evening before, as some very interesting operations were taking place, and soon after breakfast, following the accident? Is he further aware that there was supposed to be a 10-mile speed limit for trains over the temporary line? From the way in which the coaches came to rest it would appear that there had been considerable negligence.

§ Mr. Marples
I think that the inspecting officer will go into all the relevant details.