HL Deb 11 May 1877 vol 234 cc709-23

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS,

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that this measure was no attempt at paternal legislation. It only sought to intervene between employer and employed, because, to use the words of the Preamble— the length of time during which servants of Railway Companies are sometimes employed is such as to be prejudicial to their health, detrimental to the proper working of railways, and a cause of great danger to the public travelling thereon. He did not seek to introduce the principle of Parliamentary interference with free contract in adult labour; and in order to carry out this intention he proposed in Committee to exempt platelayers from the operation of the Bill, and to include only persons engaged in working the traffic; the Bill would thus deal only with that class of railway servants on whose capacity the lives of travellers depended. The Prime Minister found fault with him the other night because he wished to apply the principles of the Factory Acts to adult male labour. The noble Earl ignored the fact that his own Government in 1875 drew a distinction between workmen engaged in ordinary pursuits and those on whose labour the safety of the public depended. The present Government had lost no opportunity in claiming credit for having done so; and he thought he was entitled to ask the noble Earl, or some Member of Her Majesty's Government, to point out in what respect the principle of this Bill differed from that upon which Mr. Cross based a claim for special provisions in his Conspiracy Act of 1875 with respect to persons employed in works affecting the safety of the public. In the present case he would not ground the necessity for this Bill on humanity to the men—though there was much to be said on that head. Labour, he was glad to say, was strong enough to protect its interest; though when they saw in "Jones v The Great Western Railway Company" the widow's cruse pitted against a rich Railway Company in four expensive lawsuits for damages for her husband's death, a combination for the prevention of cruelty to railway travellers and railway servants might become necessary. What this Bill sought was to remove the great danger which Captain Tyler stated in his evidence and reported to exist to the travelling public from overworked railway servants, arising from an insufficient staff; and to this cause Captain Tyler attributed no fewer than five accidents in 1875. He would, with their permission, read some extracts from the evidence taken before the Railway Accidents Commission, and he thought they would agree with him that a real evil had to be dealt with. In the minutes of Mr. Jackson's evidence there were these passages— 17,678 (Sir Seymour Fitzgerald).—Take Monday, the 1st of February. I find that 28 guards were on duty that day, and half of them were on duty for considerably more than 15 hours?—That is possible: that book shows the true working according to the men's own time and figures. 17,679.—I find two men that were on duty for 16 hours and four minutes, another one for 17 hours 20 minutes, another 21 hours 30 minutes, another man 20 hours, another man 17 hours 10 minutes, two that were on duty for 21 hours 30 minutes, one that was on duty for 16 hours 16 minutes, two that were on duty for 16 hours 40 minutes, one that was on duty for 18 hours 20 minutes, two that were on duty for 20 hours, one that was on duty 21 hours 11 minutes, another for 21 hours, and two that were on duty for 22 hours 10 minutes, and I find that one man who was on duty for 16 hours and 40 minutes on Monday, February the 1st, is out again on February the 2nd, and goes on duty for 18 hours 30 minutes?—Yes, that is possible; may I ask where he runs? 17,680.—It is a Lockwood train, and he got something like 14 hours' rest in two days out of 48 hours?—Yes, that book is correct. 17,691 (Sir Seymour Fitzgerald).—On February the 2nd I find that 20 of your guards were on work for more than 16 hours a-day?—If it is in the book, that is so. 17,692.—And I find that one man was on duty on that day for 13 hours who had been on duty for 211 hours the day preceding?—May I ask what train that is? He had received this statement from Mr. John Graham, the London District Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. He had not been able to verify the fact, though he had ascertained that their source was reliable:— The porters and guards on the Metropolitan and District Railways commence work on Sundays at 7 o'clock in the morning, and finish at about 12 o'clock at night; time of duty, 16 and 17 hours. On the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, on the London, Chatham, and Dover, on the North London, and on the London and South-Western Railway, the same thing exists; while on the South-Eastern Railway the hours of duty are with some of the guards as many as 19. The engine-drivers and firemen on the South-Eastern Railway have turns of duty varying from 12 to 20 hours, and these men can be easily seen either at the Charing Cross or Cannon Street Stations. The Chatham and Dover engine-drivers do the same thing, but not so often. The drivers and guards of the 6.30 a.m. goods train, Redhill to Bricklayers' Arms (South-Eastern Railway), have for a week to work each day 14 and 16 hours; of the 7 o'clock a.m. goods train, Redhill to Reading, 13½— to 14½ hours; of the 12.30 a.m. goods train, Redhill to Reading and back, 13 to 14½ hours regularly. A porter at Basingstoke (London and South-Western Railway) came on duty at 6 a.m. on Thursday last, and remained on duty 36 hours. These cases can be multiplied to any extent, but as I do not know whether such information as this is required by your Grace, I will give no more now. Experience at sea had taught sailors that the look-out should be divided into four-hours' watches, and in the engine-room six-hours' shifts were adopted. The Government would not entrust the mails, or individuals their lives, to a ship whose hands were on duty 20 hours; and shipowners knew they must conform to those rules in which safety was insured, or other vessels would be started and take their trade; but the Railway Companies had a monopoly, and were in a position that whatever they did the public must travel by them and take their chance. He believed that in unfortunate times 1 per cent on the working expenses would cover compensation; and a sufficient staff to deal with the extra work which at certain seasons of the year fell on railways would cost considerably more. Therefore it was best economy for a Railway Company to run the risk and pay the damages than to prevent accidents. The 2nd clause of the Bill limited the hours during which railway servants might be employed in any 24 hours to 12 hours, except when unforseen circumstances rendered a longer employment necessary for the security of life. The number was only tentative, and suggested itself to him as adopted on board ship as one which sbeuld not be exceeded; but he trusted it would seldom be reached. Clause 2 made the employment of railway servants contrary to its provisions an offence punishable in each case by a penalty of not less than £5, and not more than £50; unless it could be proved that such employment was necessary for the security of life; but if it were proved that the employment was wholly or partially during the night, the minimum penalty was fixed at £10 and the maximum at £100. Clause 3 was framed with a view of recouping a Railway Company penalty and costs to which they might be liable by the contravention of the Act (contrary to their wishes) by some of their officials; and it provided that though the Company should in the first instance be liable, the official who employed the railway servant contrary to the Act, and without the consent, knowledge, or connivance of the Railway Company, might be ordered by the Court to repay to the Company the fine incurred by them ands the costs of the proceedings. Clause 4 enabled penalties to be recovered in the manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Act. Clause 5 allowed an appeal to quarter sessions. He had endeavoured thus to secure that the matter should be settled in a summary and inexpensive way. Clause 6 defined what should be meant by a "Railway Company" and "Railway servants" under this Bill; and as to this much might be said about including stationmasters; but, on the whole, he had tbeught it more convenient not to do so. Railway servant under the Bill would mean engine-driver, fireman, stoker, guard, signalman, pointsman, platelayers (he proposed to omit platelayers), breaksmaa, shunter, wheel-tapper, wheel-examiner, and porter engaged in working the traffic. When platelayers were eliminated, those only on whom the public safety actually devolved would come under its enactments. The remaining clauses provided for the technical working of the Act, except Clause 7, which allowed the Court to give to the complainant or informer half the fine when it seemed desirable. Such was the measure which he had the honour to present to their Lordships. Better means might suggest themselves to others of arriving at the end which he had in view. Though the noble Lord who proposed to put the extinguisher on this Bill (Viscount Bury) paid its principle a qualified praise the other night, even if the Bill survived that night he could not be sanguine of its becoming law this year; but this thing he did regret—that the fact would go forth that a Railway Director moved its rejection. He knew that the noble Lord was actuated by conscientious motives; but he was afraid the public would regard him as a Director of the London and South-Western Railway.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Duke of St. Albans.)

VISCOUNT BURY,

in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he had been for many years a Railway Director, and he had devoted considerable attention to the working of railways: he hoped, therefore, he would be pardoned for interposing between the Motion for the second reading and the vote which their Lordships would be called upon to give on that Motion. He admitted that if the Preamble of the noble Duke's Bill was true, a case had been made out for some such measure as this; but he asked whether that Preamble was true? He denied that it was. It was inaccurate to say that railway servants were habitually overworked; and he ventured to assert that if this Bill passed, railways would become unworkable, the traffic would be at a standstill, and the railway system of the country would be paralyzed. On a former occasion he said that while not being able to concur in the resolutions contained in the Report of the Royal Commission, he did bear willing testimony to the manner in which the Commission had collected and summed up the evidence—what it had done in that respect was beyond all praise. He had referred to the Royal Commissioners as experts, and he asked what they said as to railway servants being overworked. One of the Commissioners, Mr. Galt, whose bias seemed to be in favour of the purchase of the railways by the State, made a Report of his own, and having analyzed all the evidence bearing on that point, Mr. Galt said he felt bound to admit that the railway servants generally were satisfied, and their hours of work were not excessive. There were 119 railways in England, and in respect of only two of those had it been shown that the men were overworked. One of those was a mineral line in South Wales, and the other was the Great Eastern. In the case of the latter line the overwork was in a goods shed at Cambridge; but it was explained by the manager that the overwork in that shed was due to exceptional circumstances, and would not recur, and that the work, if excessive, was certainly not dangerous. The General Report of the Commission stated that, if to meet the exceptional cases in which the men were required to work for an excessive length of time, legislation should become necessary, such legislation would require to be accompanied by many safeguards. The fact was that in scarcely any other employment was there such diversity as to the nature of the duties as in that of railway servants. The General Report stated that the men employed by the railway companies were the best available in the existing state of the labour market. That was true, and it was also true that there were no better-behaved class of workmen. And if the men behaved well it was because they were paid well and treated well. There was no class in this country better able to take care of themselves than the unskilled werkmen. As was stated by one of the witnesses before the Commission, if those men were not treated well on the railways they would take up their jackets and walk away. The trades unions with which they were connected would not allow them to be "put upon." It was an injudicious thing to assert that the service of railways was conducted in such a way as to expose the public to danger. The general managers of a line with which he was not connected had sent him some statistics as to the number of persons employed on that line, and as to the number of hours during which they wore on duty. The total number employed was 8,944. Of those 23 worked 7 hours a-day, 91 worked 7½ hours, 266 worked 8 hours, 123 werked 8½ hours, 265 worked 9 hours, 244 worked 9½ hours, 1,189 worked 10 hours, 858 worked 10½ hours, 929 werked 11 hours, 353 werked 11½ hours, 1,022 worked 12 hours, 89 worked 12½ hours, 62 werked 13 hours, 32 worked 13½ hours, 26 worked 14 hours, 11 werked 14½ hours, 16 worked 15 hours, and 2 worked 16 hours. The greater number of those who worked for long hours were employed at intermittent employments, and had not their attention on a constant strain. When men werked over hours they were paid for it at the rate of from one and a-half to twe hours' pay for each hour. On week days, when werked overtime, they had an hour and a-half's pay for an hour's werk, and on Sundays they had two hours' pay for one hour's werk. A few years ago the railway servants agitated against overtime; but when the matter came to be examined into, it was found that they did not care so much about working overtime, as about securing that they should be paid for it. At that time they were paid by the day; but now they were paid by the hour for their overwork, and the noble Duke might take it from him that the railway servants would not regard him as their benefactor if he succeeded in passing this Bill. As to the engine-drivers, it was quite true that many of them worked over 12 hours a-day; but that was generally in the case of goods trains, which had to go a certain distance, wait a cer- tain time, and then return, and which had also to get out of the way of the fast trains. He was not connected with the Great Western Railway, and he might, therefore, refer to it in illustrating the case. If, on the Great Western, a goods train started from Bristol for London it might find itself between Slough and London at the end of 12 hours. The engine-driver could not be relieved at the end of the 12 hours, because the manager of the Company could not know on what part of the line he would be found then, and consequently it would be an impossibility to have a relief ready on the bank. If the time was absolutely fixed at 12 hours, were the men to leave their engines at whatever spot they might be? The provision in the Bill enabling Railway Companies to proceed against negligent servants for damages already paid by a Company could have only a mischievous effect. As to signalmen, the number of hours per day during which they were worked was in populous districts 8 hours, and in less populous districts 12 hours. It was necessary occasionally to exceed that a little in order to make the day shifts and the night shifts fit in when there was a change at the end of the week. He had anticipated that his noble Friend would bring up the 37 hours' case, because it was the stock instance always referred to on those occasions; but if noble Lords referred to the evidence in the Blue Book they would find that the 37 hours' case arose from an agreement made between three signalmen themselves, unknown to the Company, in order to obtain a holiday. Some little time ago Railway Directors tried an eight hours' shift for signalmen instead of a 12 hours' one in agricultural districts. The result of it was that the signalmen hired themselves to the farmers, and came back to their shifts so tired from work in the fields, that the shortening of the hours was a source of danger to the public. The feeling expressed by the men generally was that railway work was hard, but that the hours, while well paid for, were not excessive. The Bill showed on the face of it great want of consideration and ignorance of details, and he could not conceive that their Lordships could possibly give it a second reading. If tho noble Duke had consulted those who were acquainted with railway manage- ment, they would have told him that the Bill was altogether unworkable. The best way of remedying any grievance that might exist was to leave the matter to those who were responsible for the management of the Company's affairs.

An Amendment moved to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day six months.")—(The Viscount Bury.)

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

said, the noble Lord (Viscount Bury) had treated the question from the view of the railway servants; he wished to say a few words in the interest of the public, who were constantly horrified by reports of accidents, which, on investigation, were frequently found to be attributable to overwork of the railway servants. It was an undoubted fact that in 1875 no fewer that 780 railway servants were killed, and over 3,000 wounded, of whom a large proportion perished by accidents occasioned by over work and exhaustion. That was the case as to the railway servants—now, as to the travelling public. In a case of accident it was sbewn that a boy between 16 and 17 years old had been kept for 14 consecutive beurs managing a telegraph, and very probably it was in consequence of the bey's inability to perform the duty for such a length of time that he committed the error that was the cause of the catastrophe. What was the use in telling them that on some line or other the men were not overworked, if on another one's spine was injured or one's leg broken in consequence of overwork, such as that bey had to perform? The Government appointed a Royal Commission in 1874 — he presumed that inquiry was thought necessary at that time, or a Royal Commission would not have been appointed. He took an interest in the work of the Royal Commission, and after about a year and a-half had elapsed he began to inquire what it had done. He was told that unfortunately the noble Duke who had been appointed Chairman of the Royal Commission (the Duke of Buckingham) had gone to India. Well, where was the Report The noble Duke had taken the Report with him. Where was the Secretary? He had gone with the noble Duke. It was no wender that the Railway Commission had been a little distracted in its proceedings, and that its Report required a very long time for its consideration. As to the responsibility of Railway Companies, there was much misapprehension. What did that responsibility amount to? It sometimes happened that when a Government Inspector went over a line he found the permanent way very defective. The next time the Company met it was announced to the shareholders and the public that gangers had been sent down the line to put everything in order. But what did the public know about the responsibility in this case? The only persons who could be held liable for the condition must be some of those who were connected with its management. To whom were they responsible? To the shareholders? But the shareholders were only anxious for a good dividend. So far as the Government were concerned, they might incur a responsibility by not interfering to protect the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects. No doubt, the Government had great difficulty in interfering; but still there were cases in which Companies neglected to adopt improvements that were urged upon them; these were Companies that were worked on what were called most economical principles. When accidents happened on their lines, and it appeared that the lines were not in a proper condition, or the number of servants was insufficient, or their hours were too long, he hoped that juries would give heavy damages, porportionate to the degree of neglect that was established. He was afraid, from a speech which was delivered the other night, that there was little chance of the Government interfering on behalf of the public at present; but before long they would be obliged to interfere in sonic way, unless tho Companies were wise enough to take the advice that had been given to them by increasing their break powers, taking care of their permanent way, and introducing the block and telegraph systems wherever they were required. Until the Government had done that which they seemed disinclined to do, the only way to bring home responsibility to the Companies was to make them pay heavy compensations to those who might be injured through their negligence or parsimony.

THE EARL OF BELMORE

said, that though he admitted that there existed ground of complaint against the Railway Companies, still if the noble Duke in charge of the Bill went to a division, he should be obliged to vote for the Amendment. He understood the railway servants were disappointed at the little notice that had been taken of their case in a recent discussion; but it was very fully considered by the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, before which their case was fully represented by their energetic secretary. The railway servants set forth six grievances—namely, excessive hours of labeur, nonenforcement of rules, non-adoption of improvements, want of accommodation for the traffic, the employment of inefficient persons, and the insufficient number of railway servants. They did not succeed in making out all their case. There were exceptional cases of excessive hours, and there were rules, such as that against "fly shunting" which involved getting off and on carriages in motion, that were not enforced, and there was the non-employment of superior officers to enforce them. The non-adoption of improved appliances affected the public as well as the servants, and on this head the Commissioners recommended an extension of the powers of the Board of Trade. If the Government saw their way next year to legislate on this recommendation, that would meet the case of the railway servants and of the public too. The noble Earl quoted the conclusions of the Commissioners on these points, also the following passage from their Report bearing on the subject of the Bill:— In our opinion railway servants have some grounds for seeking exceptional measures for their protection, from the fact that owing to certain incidents of the law of Master and Servant, the law of liability, upon which (as the Royal Commissioners of 1866 say) Parliament has relied for the safe working of railways,' is practically a dead letter as far as they are concerned. But all such special measures are unequal in their operation in contrast with general laws, the influence of which is constant and even; and, therefore, we would recommend such a change in the law as will place railway servants in as nearly the same position with the public in these respects as is consistant with the law of Master and Servant. Whether these principles are wise and just we do not stop to inquire. We assume that they are so. But there are certain incidents in their application to railway labour, on account of which they press harshly, if not with positive injustice, upon the servants. There are other spheres of employment, no doubt, in respect of which this is equally true, but we confine ourselves to the precise question which concerns us. The distinction which the law of liability maintains between a master's liability to strangers and to Ms own servants is intelligible; but, at all events, to deal with the general law is beyond our province. But the grievance of the railway servants is not that they have, in common with all other servants, to prove what the law deems personal negligence on the part of their master in order to enforce a claim to compensation, but that in their case the law, instead of attaching this liability to a master who is, in fact, and not merely by a legal fiction, a person, and can, therefore, be reached and made amenable, confines it exclusively to a corporation so remote from them that proof of complicity with the wrong from which they suffer is almost invariably an impossibility. That was the substance of their recommendations. It was not to be expected that the Government would pronounce an opinion on this matter at once. For himself, he would be satisfied if in the present year they dealt with the subject of break power. He hoped the result would be that either by legislation, or some other means the public would soon be placed on some better footing than at present with regard to the numerous railway accidents that occurred.

EARL DE LA WARR

said, he could not agree with his noble Friend who moved the Amendment (Viscount Bury) as to the very small number of overworked railway servants whose cases had come before the Commission. If his noble Friend referred to the Evidence, he would find there had been many such cases—among others cases of engine-drivers who worked 18, 20, and even 24 hours at a stretch. A case was mentioned by one of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade, where an accident on the Limerick and Waterford Railway was attributed to the fact that the engine-driver could not observe a distant signal in consequence of exhaustion, having been continually employed for 21 hours. He had entire sympathy with the noble Duke, so far as regarded the object he had in view—the regulation of the beurs of werk of railway servants; he feared, however, that the mode in which he proposed to attain that object was impracticable. He could not help thinking there was a certain laxity on the part of Railway Companies in enforcing their own regulations with regard to the length of time their servants should be employed. The men were, perhaps, too ready to work over-hours for extra pay; and if the Board of Trade would impress upon Railway Companies the necessity of carrying out their own rules and restrictions and enforcing better discipline, the evils they all desired to remedy would be very greatly diminished. He hoped the noble Duke would not think it necessary to press the second reading of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he should oppose the second reading. The noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had rather objected to the line of observation adopted by his noble Friend (the Duke of St. Albans) in confining his remarks entirely to the case of railway servants. But there was the very best reason for this—namely, that the Bill under discussion only dealt with railway servants, and therefore the noble Duke himself was himself rather irregular in travelling out of the record with regard to railway passengers. He ventured to think if this Bill passed the comfort of railway passengers would be very much interfered with. It would be very dangerous to establish such a precedent as would interfere between the employer of adult labour and the employed as to the number of hours they sbeuld labour. This Bill, if passed in anything like its present shape, would so hamper Railway Companies as to render it perfectly impossible to carry on the traffic. As matters at present stood, every facility and comfort were given to the public; the utmost efficiency was preserved and the utmost speed maintained. Those who were in the habit of travelling to the North must be aware that the Limited Mail left Euston Square at 8.30 P.M., and arrived at Perth at 9 A.M., being under the charge of an experienced guard who saw to the comfort of the passengers and the regularity of the trains. But if this Bill passed, no such arrangements could in future be made. One important point was this—where any accident occurred in consequence of the employment of railway servants for an undue length of time, the fact was always reported on by the Inspector, and the publicity thus given to it operated as a very considerable check in the way of preventing Railway Companies unduly employing their servants. He was astonished to hear the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans) state that Railway Companies were actuated in this matter by the feeling that it was cheaper to pay damages than to take steps to prevent accidents by em- ploying men at high wages and for shorter periods of time. That statement, in his opinion, was not borne out by the facts of the case. The noble Duke on the Front bench (the Duke of Somerset) did not think it possible for the Government, having so much business in hand, to bring in a Bill this Session to deal with the matter. He entirely agreed with the noble Duke on that point. As was stated the other night by his noble Friend at the head of the Government, the subject was one which was entitled to, and was receiving, every consideration; but they were not able this year to legislate upon it. As to the remarks of the noble Duke about break power, the Companies, he believed, were now endeavouring to ascertain which was the most efficacious and best continuous break with a view to prevent accidents. The noble Duke also alluded to the block system. That system was now in operation, if he was not mistaken, on all the great lines. But even with that system accidents did occur. As the noble Duke was aware, one of the worst accidents had occurred on a line which had the block system in operation and was one of the first lines to adopt it—the Great Northern. He opposed the Bill before the House because he believed it would be perfectly impracticable in its working, the Preamble to be incorrect and incapable of proof, and because, if the Bill were to pass into law, it would add to the present difficulties and not take away any of the dangers of railway travelling.

LORD ABERDARE

thought his noble Friend (the Duke of St. Albans) was perfectly justified in bringing forward the Bill, though it would be wise not to press it. He confessed it was no satisfaction to him if an accident happened to know, as had been stated by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that the men who were worked 15 or 16 hours at a time were handsomely paid. This discussion weuld, no doubt, be of service, as the attention of the Government would be directed to the question of the number of hours railway servants might be employed; but he thought his noble Friend would take the best course in not pressing the Bill. The subject was one which, before any steps could be taken in the way of legislation, required inquiry by a Select Committee.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

wished it to be understood that he did not pledge the Government on the matter. He had only said it was one of great importance, and should receive consideration.

Then the said Amendment, Original Motion, and Bill (by leave of the House), withdrawn.