HL Deb 28 June 1960 vol 224 cc704-22

5.22 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this is a Bill which is born out of tragedy by frustrated hopes. Millions of people in these Islands have thought that they had found a cheap, convenient and safe form of heating of the home. Cheap, yes; convenient, yes; but not so safe as had been thought. Of course, there have been oil stoves for many years. They fall mainly into three different types. There is the wick type, which we all know, an upright stove with a handle by which it is carried about. There is the pressure type which is blown up by an internal pump; and there is the drip-feed radiant type of heater which has become very popular and is of more recent invention.

Obviously, all oil stoves are subject to dangers. For instance, if they are knocked over there is bound to be risk of fire. The wick type is rather easily overturned. The pressure type, which has always filled me with fear, is, in fact, supposed to be the safest of them all; but as it will not hold a great deal of oil it is not very popular for heating purposes. The drip-feed radiant type is the latest and most popular kind of heater and there are several million of them in use; but it has proved to have unsuspected dangers.

First, how does this type of heater work? It looks rather like a tubby electric convector fire. It has two compartments; one has an oil tank at the back which allows oil to flow through a regulating valve into a circular trough which is in the front chamber. That trough is surmounted by a metal sleeve perforated with holes, with a burner at the top. The oil comes through into the circular trough, is vaporised and the vapor mixing with air drawn through the holes in the metal sleeve rises and is ignited at the burner. The Committee on Consumer Protection—the Malony Committee—reported in April last drawing attention to the rising number of fires in proportion to the quantity of paraffin delivered into the home. The figure doubled between 1947 and 1956—which was the last year for which figures were available. The Report considered that more attention should have been paid to these figures. In that, perhaps the Committee were being wise after the event.

In November of last year there was a very great disaster at Ware, in Hertfordshire, in which five children perished. This focused public attention on the danger of these oil stoves. By coincidence, about that time the Fire Research Organisation Obtained, for the first time, the use of a wind tunnel for testing apparatus. As a result of that tragedy, radiant drip-feed heaters were tested in that wind tunnel and the hitherto unsuspected fact came out that when subjected to a draught of more than seven miles an hour these stoves are liable to flare up and catch fire. Why is this? The reasons are very technical, but in a few rather sketchy words, the explanation is this.

Instead of the fuel vaporising, rising and being ignited at the burner, the flame is driven downwards, igniting the oil in the circular trough, which catches alight and passes heat to parts of the apparatus which were not intended to bear heat. This tends to vaporise the oil in the tank and also to ignite any oil spillage or seepage that there maye be. There can be leakage from pinhole defects in the tank due to insufficient welding, or as a result of corrosion through long use. The wind tunnel tests showed this susceptibility of this type of heater to draughts. That was completely unknown to the manufacturers, fire authorities or consumers. The manufacturers were not to blame because they had made the stoves in conformity with the existing British Standards specifications. Perhaps the scientists were too slow to appreciate, from the rising figure of fires, that some unknown hazard was at work—as the Malony Report suggested; but whether they could have "spotted" the defect before they had a wind tunnel to make tests one cannot tell.

At any rate, somebody thought to try a stove of this type in the new wind tunnel, and this defect, of which until then all were in ignorance, was found. As a result of this rather alarming discovery new British Standards specifications were drawn up. By reading a few words of that, I can show the purport. In the foreword to this new British Standards Specification 3300 of 1960 it is stated: The main feature of the revision is the inclusion of a draught test. This will ensure that appliances will not create a fire hazard even when exposed to draughts up to as strong as 26 feet per second (17 to 18 miles per hour). A requirement has also been included to limit as much as is practicable the hazard which might result should the appliance be overturned. The specification for the material used in constructing the fuel containers has been strengthened in order to provide against corrosion occurring during the life of the appliance. An additional requirement, again aimed at increasing safety in use, is that every appliance must include some feature which will enable it to be secured either to the floor or the wall to prevent overturning. The opportunity has of course been taken to introduce other amendments to bring the standard up to date and to make the appliances generally more efficient and safer. In addition, there are new stringent provisions about marking. The apparatus must be marked with the manufacturers' name or trade-mark, the manufacturers' type number, the British Standards specification number, a warning against the use of petrol, a warning against carrying when alight, a warning on the need for adequate ventilation, a warning on protection from draughts and a warning against placing the appliance where it can be knocked over, and this is to be on a permanent label to last as long as the useful life of the appliance. So in revising the British Standards specifications opportunity was taken not only to guard against the hitherto unsuspected hazard of draught but also generally to improve the standards of construction of this apparatus.

Meanwhile, the public-spirited Member for Kidderminster, in another place, produced a Private Bill, and on the Committee stage this was redrafted with Government help and represents the Bill before us now. The effect of the Bill is that it will be illegal to sell or stock stoves which do not conform to regulations to be produced by the Home Secretary, and these regulations are expected to provide that all stoves must conform to the new British Standards specifications.

In the Bill itself, Clause 1 provides the power to make regulations; Clause 2 makes it an offence to sell if the stoves do not conform to the regulations; Clause 3 makes the local authority the enforcing body; Clause 4 is a penalty clause—£100 for illegal stocking or selling and £20 for obstructing an inspector. Clauses 5 and 6 are routine. Clause 7 provides that the regulations should be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. Clause 8 is the Interpretation Clause, and that is careful to exclude any oil apparatus which requires the use of a flue running into the open air.

I submit, my Lords, that the Bill is necessary for three reasons. First of all, unsuspected dangers in oil stoves have been found. Secondly, conformity to British Standards specifications is not enforceable by law, and these new Standards specifications not only deal with the new danger but also provide for safeguards against the old and well-known dangers. Thirdly, even if all British manufacturers were to conform to these specifications, it would still be possible for retailers to sell imported goods which did not come up to the British standards. The new season's stoves for selling next winter will be in order. The stocks in the shops, I understand, have been returned and, where possible, modified by the manufacturers.

In another place the Under Secretary drew attention to the fact that some, if not all, manufacturers have offered to make modifications to stoves owned by the general public, but he was very disappointed in the small response there had been up to date. In those circumstances, my Lords, as regards existing stoves in consumers' hands the only thing we can do is to provide for publicity so that the public may appreciate and guard against dangers, which I must emphasise will always exist with oil stoves—and regardless of whether they conform to the new British Standards specification or not. Some dangers, of course, are obvious, like upsetting, and the newly-found danger of the seven-mile-an-hour or over draught is not common. In spite of what some of your Lordships may think you have experienced in your homes, a draught of seven miles an hour is a pretty considerable one and is not common. Providing these unmodified stoves are set up where no uncommon draughts can get at them they are not specially hazardous. The danger of leaking fuel tanks is one which is likely to increase as the years go by, as these things become older and older and corrosion gets to work; and against that only watchfulness and care can possibly guard.

The Bill is expected to work like this. Next winter's models will conform with the British Standards specifications; the Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association have said so. They will be marked with the "kite" mark, have the full instructions permanently fixed to them and will pass as safe under the regulations which are at the moment under discussion with the various interests concerned. The local authority will appoint some or other of their officers to act as inspectors. I may emphasise that I do not think it will be a highly technical matter to be an inspector under this Bill, because the inspector will really only look to see whether the thing has been stamped with the "kite" mark. If it has, I think he will assume that it is all right. But if he finds a stove which is not so stamped he will rightly be suspicious and will then buy it and send it off to some laboratory to be appointed by the Home Secretary where tests can be carried out. If the apparatus fails to pass the test, then that retailer has been committing an offence; but it will be a defence if he can prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the apparatus complied with the regulations.

Deaths on the roads have had—always have had—very great publicity. But I believe I am right in saying that an equal number of people are killed in the home. I do not claim that they are killed by oil stoves; but an oil stove is certainly one of the hazards in the home. Many of these dangers in the home can be guarded against only by people using common sense and care, and by exhortation to use care. But where there is a danger of fire, the State has usually thought it its duty to step in, and to provide statutory safeguards. The Member for Kidderminster, in introducing this Bill in another place, has made it possible for the machinery of the State to step in, and I think that the public owes some degree of gratitude to him for doing so. I think his reasons for thus acting were both public-spirited and very adequate. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)

5.42 p.m.

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, it may be convenient to your Lordships if I intervene at this early stage in the debate to review briefly the hazards which this Bill—which my noble friend has moved so ably and with such great clarity over the technical subject of this particular type of stove—seeks to prevent, and the machinery proposed for carrying into effect such prevention.

Oil heaters as a form of domestic heating have rapidly increased in popularity since the war, and there are now some 12 million oil stoves of all sorts in use in homes to-day—of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said 3 million are this particular drip-feed type. The statistical evidence available to the Home Office showed that these heaters were causing an increased number of fires and accidents, and a detailed analysis of these figures was made in 1956. Unfortunately, the information available did not provide a basis for determining whether it was a particular type of heater, especially of the type which the noble Lord has described to us so graphically, or whether it was a defect in design that was responsible.

In November last year, as the noble Lord told us, there was this tragic accident which occurred at Ware, in which a drip-feed oil heater caused the deaths of five young children; and I should like to add my tribute to tributes paid in another place to the coroner, the fire service and the officials of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, for their prompt action in investigating the cause of this tragic fire. It was perhaps a fortunate coincidence in this terrible story that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research had just recently completed the installation of a wind tunnel, which made it possible to carry out experimental tests on the type of heater which caused the accident at Ware, and which my noble friend has already described. A Report of those experiments, during which over 30 models were tested, was published in February of this year, and I do commend this Report to your Lordships. If my noble friend has not already done so, I will place a copy of it in the Library, together with the Report of Mr. Malony, whom noble friend has mentioned, although that, of course, covers a much wider class of dangerous appliances.

This Report established beyond doubt that there was a particular risk associated with the use of the drip-feed oil heaters in draughts such as are encountered in houses in this country with exterior doors or windows which are open. My noble friend has described some of these, and I must say that I am most surprised to find that the draught found was only 7 feet per second. I should have thought a very much higher speed of draught was found in many houses.

LORD HAWKE

It is seven miles an hour, I think, is it not?

EARL BATHURST

Twenty-seven feet per second, I think, was one criterion mentioned, which is apparently a strong draught. I beg my noble friend's pardon; that is seven miles an hour. I should have thought that a draught of seven miles an hour was pretty slow, bearing in mind some houses that I know.

The Report indicated, as my noble friend has said, how heaters could be improved to guard against this hazard. The British Standards Institution promptly incorporated the new feature in the revised standard which they were in the course of preparing, and the revised standard was published on April 11. My noble friend has described the standard. The Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association announced that all drip-feed heaters made in future would comply with this new British standard. Thus, my Lords, a considerable amount has been achieved by the prompt and responsible action on the part of the manufacturers and others concerned, and the Bill to a large extent provides a guarantee for these arrangements. But, my Lords, it does more than that. The safety standards which will be embodied in regulations made under Clause 1 of the Bill will apply to all heaters, including those imported and any that might be made by a manufacturer who was not a party to the agreement that I have just mentioned. It is, indeed, the State contribution which my noble friend mentioned, to enable private individuals to overcome this completely unforeseen fire hazard by such stoves.

Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Home Secretary power to prescribe safety standards for oil heaters, or the component parts of heaters, and to prescribe the labels giving instruction as to the working and use of heaters. I think this latter power is an important one, because no improvements in design can eliminate all risks. Owners must be warned about the simple precautions they should take, such as using the right kind of fuel; and they must be encouraged to use and maintain their appliances in the safest possible way. My noble friend has described how these labels will be marked upon the stoves, and he has also given hints and tips about the safety recommendations. There is one other recommendation which appears in this Report; that is, that if such a stove should catch fire on no account should that stove be moved while still burning. Apparently a bucket of water is sufficient in almost every case completely to douse the fire, and a second bucket of water will make quite certain that the stove cannot ignite a second time. If, as I hope, this Bill becomes law, Her Majesty's Government will lose no time in initiating discussions with a view to making the regulations as rapidly as possible.

Some discussion of the contents of the regulations will, of course, be necessary, for it will not be possible simply to give statutory effect to a new British standard for oil heaters. The standard will provide a useful basis for the regulations, but some of the requirements of the standard deal with matters other than safety, and others are not in a suitable form for incorporation in a statutory instrument. The regulations will be designed to deal with the essential safety points—in particular, protection against the effect of draughts, stability, and the prevention of corrosion in the fuel container, a matter which my noble friend particularly mentioned. I have already referred to the power to prescribe labels to be attached to the heaters.

The method of enforcing these regulations has received much consideration. Short of setting up another Government inspectorate, there were three possibilities open. The first was to rely on manufacturers' and retailers' ensuring, in their own interests, that the regulations would be complied with, and to dispense with any special scheme for inspecting or testing. Local authorities would simply have the power to prosecute when a breach of the regulations came to light. This scheme was rejected as not providing sufficient safeguard to the public. The second possibility was compulsory prototype testing, and certification of every model of heater tested. This would have had to be supported by some system of inspection, to ensure that heaters in production continued to conform to the approved prototype; and, to do the job properly, it would have been necessary to set up a Government inspectorate for this purpose. Moreover, it would not be easy to apply this system to imported heaters, which I have already mentioned.

The third possibility open is that adopted in Clause 3 of my noble friend's Bill—namely, to make local authorities responsible for enforcement by giving them the right of inspection and a power to buy heaters in order to have them tested by approved laboratories. The local authority associations were consulted on the proposed method of enforcement, and none of them objected to this responsibility being conferred upon them. Indeed, your Lordships will no doubt recall that this follows the recommendation made in their interim report by the Committee on Consumer Protection. I must say, however, that sonic preference was expressed, notably by the Association of Municipal Corporations, for the second alternative I mentioned—that is, compulsory prototype testing. However, we still think that there are objections to a compulsory scheme of this kind.

There is every reason to expect that in practice manufacturers will voluntarily submit their heaters to the approved laboratories for testing, both in their own interests and because retailers will demand some guarantee that heaters comply with the regulations. Thus, by arrangement with the manufacturers and the approved laboratories, local authorities should be able to ascertain whether a particular model has been tested. This would avoid unnecessary expense and duplication in testing, and the amount of testing left to be done by the local authorities would be small. I think that the system adopted in this Bill will not in practice be very different from that advocated by some of the local authority associations and it should operate without any undue hardship upon those affected by the Bill.

It can be said that the safeguards proposed for the heaters produced in future are now satisfactory. As to those already in use, I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that arrangements for modifying heaters are now progressing and that by August fourteen of the manufacturers will be in a position to undertake these improvements. I trust that in their own interests members of the public who own these drip-feed stoves will avail themselves, in good time, before winter, of the facilities the manufacturers are offering. My noble friend has particularly referred to this aspect.

My Lords, one of the problems is that we all know that the pressure type of heater is an inherently dangerous gadget. My noble friend said that he was terrified of them, and probably other noble Lords have been afraid of them at one time or another. But the pressure type of oil stove seems to be so satisfactory and warm, and so sturdily built, that it does not occur to the public that it is dangerous, and that it is extremely dangerous when a door or window is unexpectedly opened or left open. In supporting my noble friend Lord Hawke in the Second Reading of this Bill, I welcome the chance to emphasise this to all householders who own these stoves. I am certain that your Lordships will support my noble friend in bringing this measure into law as soon as possible.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I say that I was interested to learn that fourteen manufacturers have agreed to modify existing models. Has he by any chance the possible cost, because no doubt that is what will interest or deter a great many owners?

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, I do not know the possible cost, but I understand that the modification, which the noble Lord accurately described, is a simple one and presumably would not cost very much. Possibly I could find out and give noble friend the information at another stage of the Bill.

5.56 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, it is customary for the Opposition to oppose in principle Bills that are placed before your Lordships' House. It becomes boring to be continually in conflict with noble Lords opposite. And this is certainly an occasion when we can give our utmost support to the Bill the Second Reading of which has been moved this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and which has been supported by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government. On behalf of my noble friends, I should like to congratulate not only the noble Lord but also the promoters of the Bill in another place. They acted with speed to deal with a grave situation.

In some ways this Bill is a sad commentary on the lack of legislation for protecting the consumer. The Government were forced to make a statement in another place on the Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on this type of stove, but they were unable to take action, since legislation did not exist as an instrument of Government policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, this Bill was born out of tragedy and frustrated hopes. And I think it would be well if we gave some thought to other dangers which exist in the home. We spend large sums of money every year for the protection of workers in factories, yet we do relatively little to protect people at home. And perhaps the people at home need greater protection than the workers, for in the home we have old people, sometimes absent-minded and sometimes infirm, and young children who have no regard for the danger that may exist in electric plugs and the like. I think it is now time that the Government seriously considered the whole problem of safety in the home.

Last year, over 7,900 people died in home accidents, and for every one who died there must have been 10 or 100 who were seriously injured or maimed. The situation is most grave and action is required. At least the Government should set up an inquiry to find out what types of accident are prevalent in the home, whether they are due to appliances or to construction, to the sort of flooring used or to the sort of fabric used. If we could obtain this information, which I believe does not exist to-day, we might be able to find a pattern that would make it possible for us to have regulations in regard to the building of houses and the materials which should be used, which might help to reduce the terrible toll taken every year.

The Government set up the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection, which produced an Interim Report in April of this year, and I congratulate them upon this step. That Report dealt with a variety of articles where there is certain danger in the home. It dealt with the electric appliances. It showed that there are being imported into this country electric appliances of which the coloured wires do not correspond to the normal codes adopted in this country, and that if somebody was not aware that an appliance was imported a serious accident might well occur. This is quite unnecessary. Surely it only needs a regulation in our import regulations to say that the wiring of an imported article must correspond with the standard specification laid down and adopted by the British manufacturers. We also have the cases of electric blankets and the dangers that may arise from them. There was the question of Christmas tree lighting, where again danger arises, and of toys. The house seems to be full of articles which are a danger to those people who do not know how to look after them or how to use them.

The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, when he introduced this Bill, maintained that the danger became apparent very quickly. But surely he must be aware that there has been over the years a considerable increase in accidents and in deaths. In 1956 there were 1,200 fires caused by oil-burning appliances; in 1958, only two years later, the number rose to 4,464; and during the months of January and March this year 11 people lost their lives due to oil burners.

I do not put great blame upon the manufacturers. Many of them have done their best to maintain the highest possible standards. There are, however, certain factories whose equipment falls far short of what is regarded as a safe standard for the lifetime of an appliance. As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, mentioned, there is a fear in relation to certain of the appliances that the tank and the connections are so fragile that they will become dangerous through corrosion.

I am glad that this Bill has been brought in. At least we shall know that this coming winter the stoves that will be on sale will be up to a specification agreed by the Government. But what concerns me is the 3 million-odd appliances that have already been distributed. This winter they will be one year older and, therefore, less efficient and far more liable to cause fire. When the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, announced the report of his Department on these burners we made a plea, which he accepted, that there should be wide publicity. There was certainly wide publicity at that time; but since then I am not conscious of any publicity by the local authorities, by the manufacturers, or even by the oil companies. No doubt sales have gone down, but that may be due to the summer weather.

I agree with the two noble Lords who have spoken that there must be far more publicity in this matter. These 3 million stoves that exist are a great threat. We understand from the noble Earl that fourteen manufacturers have agreed to take them back. Do the public know which manufacturers are prepared to take them back? Do they know the trade marks connected with the manufacturer? It is no good the manufacturer saying that he will take them back without the public knowing the name of the manufacturer and the trade mark. The public must also know the method by which the equipment is to be returned. Is it to be returned direct to the manufacturer, or to the retailer, who will send it forward? These matters require publicity.

LORD HAWKE

Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, because he may give a misleading impression by what he has said. He referred to "taking them back". I think it may well occur to people who read the Report of this debate that the manufacturer is agreeing to take the apparatus back and refund the money, which I suspect to be not the case. I assume that they are agreeing to take them back for modification at the consumers' expense.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. I appreciate that the manufacturer is taking them back for modification, which I understand cannot be done in the retail shop or in the home, and that they have got to go back to the factory. But the noble Lord will see my point: that the public must know which factories are prepared to take them back and the method to be adopted for collection and redistribution. The public would also like to know which factories are not prepared to take them back. I hope that the noble Earl will put that suggestion to the night quarter.

What can the oil companies do? The oil companies are the people who penetrate right into the home. They supply the oil. I would ask the noble Earl whether his Department could not approach the oil companies and point out to them that they are the real people who can get into the home and draw the attention of the public to the dangers of the equipment, and to what can be done to get it modified and to make it safe. The oil companies may be a little loth to advertise a weakness in an appliance of which their oil is an integral part, but I believe that it is a public service which they would accept; and I am sure that, in the long run, they would gain by it.

The only other point I want to make is this. I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was right when he said that if the inspector felt that there was an appliance in a shop without the "kite" trade mark he would purchase the appliance and send it for examination. As I understand it, the regulations will lay down that all appliances must show the "kite" trade mark, and if they do not, it will be an infringement under the Bill. I understand that to be the case, but I think we should get it clear from the public point of view that no appliance sold in a shop after the passage of this Bill and the regulations should be bought without the "kite" trade mark on it. We do not want any mix-up in the public mind: if they are buying these stoves, they must insist that they carry the "kite" trade mark.

As I understand it, the Home Secretary will be responsible for these regulations. Certain of these appliances, I believe, are imported. I wonder whether the Board of Trade, who are responsible for the regulations governing imports, could not be brought into the discussions with the Home Secretary to see that none of the imported appliances which do not come up to the standards is imported into this country. It is going to be difficult to inspect every shop. About the shops which sell their merchandise openly we have no basic fear. It is the smaller shops round the corner who often sell cheap, imported merchandise. I am sure that if we can prevent the importation of appliances which do not come up to the standards, we shall be going a long way to meeting the objects of this Bill. That is all I wish to say. I fully support this Bill, and my noble friends on this side of the House will do everything possible to speed it up. In fact, the sooner it is on the Statute Book the better.

6.12 p.m.

LORD AUCKLAND

My Lords, I am certain that not only your Lordships' House but the country as a whole will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Hawke and to the honourable gentleman the Member for Kidderminster for initiating this Bill. I propose to be brief, because I may have to crave your Lordships' indulgence for leaving early owing to a long-standing political engagement in Farnham.

Speaking as a parent of young children, I feel strongly about this Bill and any other measure which can make for increased safety in the home. I possess one of these drip-feed oil heaters made by one of the pioneers, Rippingills, and I contend that they are one of the best and safest oil heaters in the country. Common sense must obviously enter into this matter. If the heater is going to be filled in front of an open fire—and some people even go to those crazy limits—of course an accident will occur. The particular model which I have works on the system of two cylindrical bottles which are filled with the requisite oil, and they are placed to act on the plasma drip system. I always fill my bottles in the garage, where they cannot come into contact with an open fire, and the heater is then lit in relative safety—in other words, the oil is not placed directly into the heater as in some makes, which could make it much less safe.

It is, of course, children who are the principal victims of these tragedies. I believe I am right in saying that in the dreadful fire at Ware it was largely due to lack of parental supervision. The children were allowed in a room alone and presumably tampered with this heater. I think it should be impressed upon parents that oil heaters are lethal weapons, and that children should not touch them. I know from experience that it is difficult to watch a young child the whole time, and children must obviously come into contact with danger. But it is largely the responsibility of the parents to prevent these accidents. The Government can bring in legislation and the oil companies can make suggestions, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his reference to the increased accidents in the home, that unless it is impressed upon parents and householders generally that these things are lethal weapons these accidents will continue.

Subsection (1) of Clause 2, referring to the seller of an oil heater says that if: the oil heater does not bear instructions in compliance with the requirements of any regulations made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (b) of section one of this Act, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guilty of an offence. A label attached to an oil heater is not sufficient, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the possibility of making it compulsory for manufacturers of oil heaters to have printed on the heater in a prominent place instructions on how they are to be operated.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I think that that is precisely what the British Standards specification says.

LORD AUCKLAND

I am grateful to my noble friend. I think the more prominent place the better, because so often with heaters of all kinds one gets printed instructions which get lost or burned, and somebody might try to fill the heater, switch on or light the fire and have no idea as to how to do it. That is all I have to say, but I feel sure that the country as a whole will welcome this Bill as an attempt to curb the fearful toll of tragedies in our homes to-day.

6.17 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of Her Majesty's Government, and I am grateful for the services and facilities which have been put at my disposal by the officials of the Home Office. I hope my noble friend Lord Bathurst will be able to produce some more information at the next stage or at some stage of the Bill about this modification by the fourteen manufacturers. I am grateful to the Opposition in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his support of the Bill and his pertinent remarks about consumer protection in the home generally. There is probably a great deal in what he said about imports of cheap electrical apparatus. But as one who in some respects is rather old-fashioned and conservative in thought, I personally do not see any need for cheap electrical imports at all. However, there would be a great opportunity no doubt for the Member for Kidderminster to produce another Bill on the subject of electrical appliances.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is quite right when he says that we must have more publicity about the dangers, particularly the dangers we are dealing with to-day. I am not quite sure how that can be done, but there are many media available to-day, and I for one should be very interested. I would even forswear my lack of allegiance to television to watch the Home Secretary and the Member for Kidderminster having a debate upon the subject.

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, if I may interrupt for one moment, may I say that Her Majesty's Government are also most concerned about the propaganda to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred. I will most certainly bring all his remarks to my right honourable friend's notice and will write to the noble Lord personally to let him know, so far as I can, how far progress and discussions have reached. It might be a suitable question which I invite the noble Lord to raise at a convenient time in your Lordships' House.

LORD HAWKE

I am certain that a debate between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Member for Kidderminster would be a very popular item in the evening programme. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked about the regulations and the "kite" mark. The regulations cannot make it compulsory to stick a "kite" mark on the article; they can only make it compulsory that the apparatus shall conform with certain standards. The manufacturer might say, "My trade mark is better than a 'kite' mark. I conform to the standards, but I am going to stick only my trade mark on." In any case a foreigner cannot stick a "kite" mark on; so that would be impossible under the regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for his support, and also as a father of young children I can say that these things are highly dangerous if used improperly or meddled with.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, might I ask a question? I was going to ask it in my speech. In Clause 4, which deals with offences, it states that a person guilty of an offence under this Bill will be liable to a fine not exceeding £100. Presumably that is for the first offence. It is normal, I believe, in cases like this, to have a ladder of fines for further infringements. Can the noble Lord give an explanation why that has not been done in this Bill?

LORD HAWKE

I am extremely ill-qualified to speak about fines in magistrates' courts, because I really know nothing about them at all. If the noble Lord casts his mind back to the Offices Bill, I think he will remember that a very similar clause was in that Bill, and I do not think there was an escalator clause in it. At any rate, £100 a time is rather heavy for the selling of a stove which does not conform with the regulations. I have no doubt that for the first offence the man would not be fined the full amount.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.