FAIRGROUNDS (SAFETY) (Hansard, 26 June 1972)

§ Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath)

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate a debate on the subject of safety in travelling fairs, and I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his willingness to take part in it.

There is not a Member of this House who has not at some time or other enjoyed the pleasures of the fairground. The same can be said of countless numbers of our fellow citizens. One has only to go to the seaside or sites occupied by travelling fairs to find testimony to that. The thrills and noise of the fairground have an attraction for people of all ages. The fairground is a place of pleasure and enjoyment. But unfortunately many things which give us pleasure and enjoyment can turn equally to being means of bringing sadness and tragedy, and the fairground is no exception. One has only to recall the bad holiday tragedy at Battersea Pleasure Park to realise that.

Although I have used the Battersea illustration of how tragedy can come so suddenly, it is not my purpose to deal with permanent pleasure grounds or amusement arcades because they are not in any way alike to travelling fairgrounds in their manner of operation. I shall refer to them only as a means of clarification to show that there are differences between them and travelling fairs.

As I have said, accidents can and do happen at fairgrounds, and since they are places to which millions of our people are attracted, I believe that they merit the attention of the House so that we can identify the problem and, where necessary, take steps to eradicate the hazards which create it. In this way, I believe we shall help a lot in creating confidence in the public in the enjoyment and pleasure to be found at fairgrounds.

I have seen it alleged that considerable numbers of people are injured at pleasure fairs each week, such high figures as 1,000 or 2,000 a week being quoted. It has, further, been stated in these allegations that many of the accidents are caused by defective appliances or apparatus. I must challenge the validity of those allegations since there is no supporting evidence to show them to be accurate. Indeed, the Home Office Circular 1154 48/72—"Safety in Fairgrounds"—makes exactly the same point.

Regrettably, the information we have on this subject is very scanty. Therefore, to gain greater accuracy, I have consulted the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, which is the only organisation concerned specifically and exclusively with the organisation and running of travelling fairs in the United Kingdom, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, whose experience in accident prevention is paramount. They have both provided me with information concerning the number of fatal accidents at fairgrounds and pleasure parks from 1963 to 1970. This information is confirmed in information which has been collected by the Home Office during this same period, namely, that 15 fatal accidents occured at fairgrounds, both travelling and permanent during the period of these years.

Of these 15 fatalities only seven can be identified as having happened at travelling fairs and of these seven I am informed that in only one, namely a machine known as an "Octopus" in 1967, was an accident caused by a defect in the machine. A further accident in these seven happened to an employee who was electrocuted while working on a generating plant. An accident of this nature is not a characteristic solely of the fairground. If this evening we were debating industrial safety—a phrase I do not like using—or industrial accident prevention, we would discover that this kind of accident happens much more frequently in other industries than on the fairground.

Returning to the question of fatal accidents, the details are as follows. There was one from a "Swirl" or "Skid" due to probable failure of supervision at a busy time. In this accident the car was overloaded. The accident took place in 1970 at Salisbury. Another accident occurred on a "Cyclone Twist" in 1963 when a girl fell out and was caught between the car and platform. But there was no defect in the machine on this occasion. As a result of the accident the manufacturer modified the design of the machine to leave a clear space underneath. Another of these accidents occurred when a person walked in front of a moving car. The person was not a passenger on the machine. The remaining two fatalities occurred when 1155 people fell out of cars, and at least one person was sitting on the edge despite a warning. There was no defect in either machine.

There were two serious injuries in the incident involving the fatality with the defective "Octopus" machine in 1967. There have been approximately 10 other cases of serious injury known to the Showmen's Guild in the period 1963–70. Of this number two people were badly injured due to an admitted defect in a "Dive Bomber" in 1964. The remainder were not caused by the machine involved in the accident but by misuse by the public, subject, of course, to any possible criticism of the operator for not preventing it.

Other injuries certainly occur, but the figures have been exaggerated. The best evidence of the extent of such injuries is the St. John Ambulance Brigade, which is in attendance at all major fairs. I am further informed that the Showmen's Guild has on occasion taken an analysis, of which Hampstead Heath on a busy, fine August Bank Holiday Monday in 1970 was typical. That revealed that 29 persons were reported as having suffered injury, or having reported to the ambulance facilities. Only five had any connection with the rides and only two were of a significant nature. Neither of these accidents was due to defective machines.

These figures tally with a similar census taken in 1964 by the Guild at Newcastle Town Moor. In my constituency of Neath, which holds one of the largest travelling fairs in Wales there is evidence in a letter from the St. John Ambulance Brigade, dated 23rdSept., 1970, which further supports that I have been contending concerning minor injuries.

There is also in the allegations made a suggestion that poor maintenance and defective equipment is the cause. I would remind the House that the travelling fair does not stay in one place for much more than a fortnight and therefore inspection and maintenance is much more easily carried out. The World's Fair of Saturday, 24th June, quotes Mr. T. H. Jackson, Clerk and Engineer to Marlow, Buckinghamshire, Urban District Council as telling council officers last week that if Marlow Bridge had been taken down and put up again every two weeks 1156 like the travelling showmen's rides it would not have broken.

To quote from a letter written by Mr. Robert Edwards of the Sunday Mirror, which carried out an investigation following the tragedy at Battersea: May I add that our reporter was most impressed with the way in which the inspections were carried out; and, apart from one or two very minor faults in respect of which repair notices were issued, also with the standard of equipment. Taking into account the number of travelling rides and the number of fairs attended it is estimated that at least 10 million rides are given annually. Therefore if the known number of significant casualties are doubled the accident rate for an adventurous form of entertainment, such as the fairground is, compared favourably with any other form of activity involving movement, whether or not any form of statutory inspection was involved.

It is not disputed that accidents take place on travelling fairgrounds but I believe that I have been able to show that the position can be grossly exaggerated. I urge the Minister to resist the blandishments being held out to him to legislate in these matters. I suggest that he relies upon the proper use of existing powers which I am sure would have the backing and support of the responsible bodies to which I have referred.

I have a final suggestion and it is that a more efficient system of collecting information about fairground accidents be instituted. It is only on the basis of sound information about the problems that solutions can be found. This is as true of travelling fairgrounds as of any other human activity.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane)

This is a timely debate, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) for raising this subject now and for the way in which he has introduced it. We are in the midst of the fun fair season, with an average of about 150 travelling fairground events each week, in addition to the 25 or so at permanent amusement parks mainly at holiday resorts.

The public are anxious about safety, and all of us who are involved in this—the Government, the local authorities and 1157 others, fairground operators in particular—must do our utmost to allay that anxiety.

The hon. Member has spoken mainly about the problem of travelling fairs, but we all realise that our debate today is overshadowed by the tragic accident at Battersea Festival Gardens on 30th May as a result of which five children have died, and 14 people, mainly children, were injured. My right hon. Friend and I were deeply distressed to learn of that accident and its consequences.

Investigations into the cause are being conducted by the Metropolitan Police with the help of engineers from the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment. I cannot say anything further at present about this accident. The coroner's inquest is to be held on 9th August.

Battersea pleasure fair is in a permanent amusement park, but whenever an accident occurs on a ride of any sort, whether in a permanent amusement park or in a travelling fair, it naturally gives rise to public concern about the safety of rides generally and raises the question whether existing safety arrangements and legislation are adequate. I, too, want to say a word, as the hon. Member did, about the scale of the problem and the number of accidents. I think the hon. Member has done the House a great service in putting this in perspective.

As far as I know, the tragedy at Battersea was the worst accident which has ever occurred at a fairground in this country. There have been other fatalities in fairgrounds over the years, but, fortunately, they have been few in number. Here, my figures are slightly different from those of the hon. Member, but these are figures I have from the Office of Population Census and Surveys and they show that there were 17 deaths in England and Wales involving fairground apparatus between 1963 and 1970 inclusive. These figures cover all pleasure fairs, permanent and travelling.

As the hon. Member said, accidents on rides at fairgrounds are not necessarily attributable to mechanical faults in the devices. I am sorry that I cannot say, from the information which we have, precisely how many of the 17 fatal accidents were caused by possible defects of this kind and how many were caused 1158 by other factors. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving some examples. He drew attention to the need for more complete information. I do not disagree with that at all, because we have not at present national statistics, relating to non-fatal accidents in fairgrounds. I shall consider very carefully the point which the hon. Member made at the end of his speech about that.

I agree with him that these allegations which have been made have been a good deal exaggerated—allegations that, say, 1,000 or 2,000 people a week are being injured at pleasure fairs, and that many of the accidents are caused—so it is alleged—by defective appliances and apparatus. I want to stress this: as far as I am aware, there is no reliable evidence to support estimates of this kind. In fact, the information we have at the Home Office—and what the hon. Member said bears this out—suggests that the accident rate is quite low. To give one example, in the 12 months ended 30th June, 1970, 21 accidents in fairgrounds and amusement parks were reported to the Metropolitan Police. Two of these were thought to have been due to equipment which had become dangerous from lack of proper maintenance and inspection.

Even though the number of fairground accidents attributable to defective apparatus may be very low, it is obviously necessary that everything possible should be done to ensure that fairground apparatus is safe and that it is kept in a safe condition, although part of the excitement of fairground rides is that they often appear to be adventurous or risky. As far as I know manufacturers of fairground equipment are well aware of the importance from the safety aspect of sound construction and design and the need for safety devices which will come into operation if there is a failure of any kind.

Accidents which are attributable to badly designed apparatus are rare. But apparatus which is safely designed and safely constructed will not remain safe unless it is properly maintained. It must be examined regularly by a competent engineer and any defects which are revealed must receive immediate attention if the continued safety of the public using the ride is to be ensured. In addition, those who are concerned with the 1159 everyday supervision and operation of each ride must watch out for any signs of improper working which could have a bearing on safety. Even if their knowledge of the mechanical operation of the ride is limited, they will often be able to tell if something is not quite right and draw attention to it.

I agree that preventing accidents is a more positive way of looking at the problem than merely talking about safety. I will say a word about legislation and then about voluntary schemes.

One way in which the safety of fairground apparatus and its maintenance can be controlled is by means of legislation. I accept the hon. Gentleman's scepticism whether more legislation is needed, although this will be looked at carefully.

Local authorities, including the London boroughs, have power to make and enforce byelaws relating to fairgrounds, whether static or mobile, under Section 75 of the Public Health Act, 1961. Byelaws may be made under this section for the purpose of securing safe and adequate means of entrance to and exit from pleasure fairs; for the prevention and suppression of nuisances; and for the preservation of sanitary conditions, order and public safety. In particular, these powers enable local authorities to make byelaws relating to the safe construction and maintenance of amusements such as roundabouts, switchback railways, dodgems and similar devices.

The Home Office has prepared model byelaws for the guidance of local authorities which make express provision for the safe construction and design of all amusement devices and require them to be maintained in this condition. The terms of these model byelaws, which were discussed and agreed with the local authority associations and the organisations representing pleasure fair operators, are kept under review and we shall now re-examine them urgently to see whether any amendments are required.

To bring the House up to date, 53 local authorities have so far made byelaws either under the 1961 Act or under local Acts. This represents only a small proportion of the local authorities who could take advantage of the byelaw-making power but not all local authorities are 1160 visited by travelling fairs and some prefer to rely on voluntary systems of control such as those operated by the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain or by managers of individual fairgrounds.

That brings me to the second recourse we have for preventing accidents—the voluntary schemes. The Home Office has welcomed the voluntary inspection scheme for fairground equipment which the Showmen's Guild introduced in 1966. This scheme ensures that every machine operated by a Guild member is inspected by a competent engineer in accordance with the Guild's Rules at least once every year. Those local authorities which prefer to rely on voluntary schemes such as this are therefore in a position to take advantage of the Guild's scheme, for example, by refusing permission for travelling fairs operated by members of the Guild to be sited on land which comes under that local authority's control unless current certificates of fitness relating to every ride in the fair can be produced. In a circular about fairground safety issued by the Home Office to local authorities on 3rd March this year, attention was drawn to the Showmen's Guild's inspection scheme and it may well be that the scheme, and the certificates of inspection issued under it, are proving to be helpful to local authorities. The Guild, over many years, has co-operated with the Home Office with a view to ensuring the safety of the apparatus in travelling fairs and this co-operation has been very much welcomed. I want also to commend the safety code for operators that the Showmen's Guild issued to its members some two years ago after consultations with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

I end by bringing the picture right up to date, in view of the most recent accident at Battersea. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has directed that the existing law relating to safety in fairgrounds should be reviewed to see whether and in what way it needs to be strengthened. Urgent discussions are to be held with the local authority associations and with the Greater London Council. If those discussions lead to proposals for new legislation, other interested organisations, including the Showmen's Guild, will then be consulted. In the meantime—and this is relevant to the position during the 1161 months of this summer—local authorities have been asked by the Home Office to take all practicable steps within their present control arrangements, whether statutory or voluntary, to ensure the safety of members of the public visiting fairgrounds.

I want to appeal to local authorities to tackle this urgently. All over Britain this 1162 summer millions of people will be enjoying themselves at fairgrounds and amusement parks, and we must make certain that, so far as humanly possible, accidents are prevented and parents especially can have peace of mind.