MISDESCRIPTION OF FABRICS BILL. (Hansard, 11 August 1913)

§ LORD STRACHIE

My Lords, this Bill originated in the House of Commons as a Private Member's Bill. It was then described as the Fabrics Misdescription Bill, and had for its object the dealing with flannelette. This question was taken up by Mr. Theodore Taylor in another place in consequence of the many accidents, especially to children, through their flannelette clothing catching fire. A Home Office Departmental Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter. The only recommendation that the Committee made was that the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 should be amended making it penal to describe as non-inflammable material which was not non-inflammable; but the Board of Trade, under whose province it would have come had it been desirable to amend the Merchandise Marks Act in that direction, pointed out that they did not think that that Act could be used for this purpose, because the Act only dealt with false trade description, and to describe flannelette as non-inflammable and safe in other ways was not a misdescription under that Act. Therefore it became necessary either for the Home Office to take this question up or for some private Member to deal with it. As I have explained, this Bill was brought into the House of Commons by Mr. Theodore 1753 Taylor and passed through that House, and is now sent up to your Lordships by the Government and comes before you as a Home Office Bill.

The Bill is modelled on the Rag Flock Act of 1907. It prohibits the sale of any textile fabric described as non-inflammable unless such textile fabric conforms to such standard of non-inflammability as may be prescribed by regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. There was strong opposition on the part of traders in the House of Commons until the Bill was altered to apply not only to flannelette but to all textile fabrics. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which represents the trades interested, pointed out that it would be very unfair to prejudice the sale of one particular article, flannelette, when there were many other textile articles that ought to be treated in the same way; but they withdrew their objection after the Bill had been turned into one dealing not with flannelette only but with textile fabrics. There was another objection taken—namely, that if this Bill passed into law it would give a very unfair preference to the firm of Messrs. Whipp Brothers and Tod, who have a "non-inflam" flannelette which is treated by a special process found by tests made by the Home Office Committee to be, as they stated, non-inflammable. But in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons the owners of this valuable patent wrote to Mr. McKenna saving that they were ready to give up their patents, and they trusted that the result of their so doing would be a speedy diminution in the number of accidents in which children have been the chief sufferers through their flannelette clothing catching fire. Great praise is due to this firm for their willingness to revoke their patents in order that the Bill might pass through the House of Commons. I hope that your Lordships will have the same feeling as the House of Commons had, the matter being put on the ground of being fair all round to traders, and that you will pass the Bill in the interests of the children, and so help to diminish to a considerable extent accidents to children due to their flannelette clothing catching fire. I beg to move.