FABRICS (MISDESCRIPTION). (Hansard, 4 February 1913)

§ Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR

I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to deal with misdescription of fabrics."

Public attention is more and more being drawn to the terrible death-roll from casualties by fire, for which the wearing of flannelette is largely responsible. Let me say at once this is not a Bill to prevent the use of flannelette, which though inflammable, and therefore a dangerous fabric, is undoubtedly a benefit to the poor. It is warm and cheap, but many forms of it are very dangerous and very liable to catch fire. What is flannelette? It is a moderately thick, cotton fabric which has gone through a process known as "raising," by which the fibres which compose it 2012 are more or less raised and a state of fluffiness produced, which state of fluffiness is not merely the reason why it is warm, but is also the cause of this great inflammability. In some types of flannelette so great is this inflammability that if a person dressed in it stands near the fire a single spark touching the dress will set the whole garment on fire with a great sheet of flame in less than half a minute. Unfortunately, the number of deaths from fire appears to be increasing, and this in spite of the fact that the Children Act of 1908 prescribed fire-guards for children. But sparks will fly through fire-guards, and we should remember that this, above all other countries, is the country of open fire-places which are a special source of danger of clothing taking fire. I could give a large number of painful instances. Suffice it to say that deaths occasioned by sparks coming on to flannelette seem to be increasing at a rapid rate, and some are of a very sad nature. I have a cutting from a Manchester newspaper, about a fortnight ago, about a deaf-and-dumb cripple, aged twenty-two, who was tied in a chair and could not move, and who, owing to a spark falling on his clothing, was burnt to a very sad death in a very short time. Members of Parliament will probably have received to-day a statement of deaths for the last month—January, 1913—which is of itself a great indictment of flannelette as at present worn. Fortunately, in future the Home Office is going to require coroners to say when these deaths have resulted from this cause. The statement to which I refer is necessarily a partial account of what happened last month, and, to put it shortly, eighty-seven deaths are recorded in newspapers in a general way from setting fire to clothing, which is at the rate of 1,044 a year. Of these, forty are distinctly attributable to flannelette, at a rate of 480 a year. Probably flannelette plays a large part in the death of others not so recorded. When we consider that this is only a partial statement and that there is only one case from Scotland and none from Ireland in it, it is not at all an understatement to say that in all probability the deaths from fire owing to flannelette alone are at the rate of a thousand a year or more. These are only the cases where death results; there are many more casualties where there is not a death at all. Let it be remembered, too, how agonising death by fire is, and I am sure the House will be willing to do all it can to lessen that hideous total.

2013 In December, 1908, the Home Secretary-appointed a Coroners' Committee which in August, 1910, reported that flannelette has been used since 1885, that the death rate from clothing catching fire has greatly increased since then, and that flannelette is specially dangerous, and they recommended that it should be made penal to describe as non-inflammable material which will really not stand certain prescribed tests, for unfortunately, since it has become known how dangerous some sorts of flannelette are, some dealers have actually advertised and declared to be safe fabrics which are highly dangerous. I have a list of a great number of advertisements of this kind of thing. I will read the title of some qualifications attached to some of these articles which the National League for the Physical Education of Children, with the late Bishop of Ripon, Dr. Boyd Carpenter and other eminent men at its head, has examined and found to be highly inflammable and dangerous. These are different descriptions—trade advertisements—of articles which are dangerous: "Will not flare," "safety," "will not blaze," "new safety," "safest substitute for flannel," "as safe as woollen," "safe to wear," "the only safe flannelette which will not flash or burn." All these are false statements, and some are hypocritically associated with appeals to mothers for the safety of their children. This Bill is simply to stop that practice and nothing else. It empowers the Home Office to set up a standard of safety and penalises those who sell as "safe" fabrics which do not comply with such a standard. It is a very modest and moderate measure to which surely no one can object. It does not, as many would desire, prohibit entirely the sale of this dangerous fabric. It does not, as many others would desire, require even that dangerous fabrics should be ticketed or marked as dangerous. It merely demands that dangerous fabrics shall not be advertised, ticketed, stamped, or marked as safe. I hope the House, seeing that I have only taken six minutes out of the ten, will pardon this small digression for the sake of a very great evil which can be partially remedied by a little, innocuous Bill of this kind, recommended unanimously by a Departmental Committee which reported three years ago.