RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT WORTLEY. (Hansard, 26 January 1891)

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I rise to move for a Copy of the Report of the Inspector of Rail ways to the Board of Trade relative to an accident which occurred at Wortley, near Leeds, on the Great Northern line on the 24th December last. I should state that my object in doing this is that your Lordships may have before you one of the Reports of the Inspectors of Railways to the Board of Trade which show the connection between some accidents and the excessive hours of work of railway servants. I believe that in this Report the Inspector specially alludes to that fact. I understand that besides this accident there are others which are reported upon in a similar manner, namely, as connecting them with the excessive hours of work of railway servants. I should have been 1010 glad to have had the whole of the Reports upon such accidents together; but I have been informed, as probably your Lordships know, that the Reports of all railway accidents that are inquired into are laid upon the Table of your Lordships. I am not quite certain to what period they reach, but your Lordships will find that within the last 12 months, or nearly that time, there have been a number of accidents to which the Inspectors have referred as being the result, more or less, of the overwork of the servants. I should have been glad to have had all those Reports together laid before your Lordships; but inasmuch as they are already in the possession of the Board of Trade, it will be unnecessary for me to ask permission to extend the notice which I have upon the Paper. I would, therefore, ask that this Report may separately be laid before your Lordships as a specimen of Reports connecting railway accidents with overwork. This matter has become of the greatest importance, as your Lordships must know, especially lately, seeing what we have read and heard, and these Reports are of value, as showing that there is a certain class of accidents which are materially connected with the overwork of railway servants.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)
My Lords, as the noble Earl has asked for it, there will be no objection to laying this Report specially upon the Table of your Lordships' House, and I will do so; but I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that these Reports are systematically presented to both Houses of Parliament at periods of a few months. The Reports for the first half of last year have already been printed and are in the hands of your Lordships. The Returns for the last half of last year are in the printers' hands, and will be laid upon the Table of the House as soon as possible. This Report, which the noble Lord refers to in his Motion, was dealt with in the usual way at the time it was presented, that is, that after 1011 being presented to the Board of Trade it was communicated to the Railway Companies concerned, and their attention called particularly to any matter which seems to require to be called to their attention, and it was made public through the usual channels of information. It is quite true that in his Report upon the accident at Wortley Major Marindin does call attention to the length of hours which some of the servants of the company had worked, but he clearly exonerates those servants from any blame for the accident, and, so far as his opinion is concerned, he lays the blame for the accident upon a servant who had been on duty about seven hours and a half. At any rate, your Lordships shall be able to judge of the Report for yourselves, for I shall be glad to lay it upon the Table of the House.

§ LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS
The noble Earl who brought forward this subject alluded, in the outset of his remarks, to a connection between the railway accident he refers to and lengthened hours of labour of the servants on the line. Probably he has never seen this Report, for if he had he might have read a paragraph in it where the Inspector of the Board of Trade says that "the persons responsible for the collision were the signalmen," and nobody else. Therefore, the long period which this driver had been with his engine had nothing to do with the question whatever. But upon that subject of the lengthened hours which the man had been driving his engine I wish to make this explanation: he commenced his work at a quarter past 3 in the morning; he went a distance of six miles, and then for six hours and ten minutes he never moved; he then went a distance of eight miles, and he then rested for three and a half hours. In fact, during the long period of 18 hours he was upon the engine he drove but a short distance on account of a dense fog which existed throughout the day, so that it was hardly possible for the engine to move at all. During the whole time he was upon the engine he only travelled 29½ miles.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
I would call the noble Lord's attention to the concluding paragraph on page 5 of the Report, which states that— 1012 The driver and fireman of the Great Northern engine had at the time of the collision been on duty for 18¼ hours, which is far longer than any driver should be allowed to remain upon an engine, both for his own sake and for the safety of the public.

§ LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS
That was the driver of the engine which was run into, not of the engine which caused the accident.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My question was directed to the whole circumstances attending the accident, and was not confined to the fact of one driver having been on duty for 18¼ hours.

§ LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS
It had nothing to do with the accident.