ACCIDENTS IN THE HOME

HL Deb 12 April 1961 vol 230 cc259-70

2.57 p.m.

LORD AUCKLAND rose to call attention to the heavy loss of life due to accidents in the home; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion for Papers standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is the first occasion which it has been my privilege to move a debate in your Lordships' House and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity for being able to do so at such an early stage. I should like at the outset to thank all the persons and organisations who have helped me in connection with this debate—if I may mention a few in particular: Courtaulds, ROSPA, the British Standards Institution, the Mount Vernon Hospital at Northwood, British Nylon Spinners and many others. Though I have not mentioned them all by name, they can rest assured that they have my deep gratitude. I should also like to thank at this stage all noble Lords who are taking part in what I believe will be a stimulating debate.

Tomorrow in your Lordships' House there is to be the Second Reading of a very important Bill, the Road Traffic Bill; and nobody will deny the appalling seriousness of accidents on the roads. I can assure your Lordships that this debate is in no way intended to detract attention from the appalling tragedy of the slaughter on our roads to-day. As I shall prove later, however, by figures, the number of accidents in the home in the 1960s, with all modern science and electrical equipment, is still higher than the number of accidents on the road.

There are approximately six sources of accidents: the home, roads, railways, mines, factories and offices. For the roads there is legislation to punish the negligent driver or the driver who is convicted of driving under the influence of drink. An accident in a coalmine or a factory is the source of an inquiry; and an accident in an office similarly so.

There are, too, a number of very tragic accidents on farms, particularly with children. A child climbs on to a baler, and perhaps slips and gets caught in the machinery, and a tragic accident occurs. Publicity of accidents on the roads has been considerable—and rightly so, my Lords—but for accidents in the home it is a rather different story.

Both Houses of Parliament are fully conscious of this menace, and perhaps I may again mention a few names. The honourable gentleman the Member of Parliament for Bilston, the honourable gentleman the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the honourable lady the Member for Belfast, North, and the former Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, Mrs. Mann, have all striven hard, in various capacities, to do something about these accidents. The Consumer Protection Bill is about to go through its Report stage in another place, as is the Home Safety Bill, moved by the honourable gentleman the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. The Oil Burners (Standards) Act is now law as is the Fireguards Act—though it is not enforced nearly strictly enough.

There is one obvious difficulty concerning accidents in the home. An Englishman's home is his castle, and entry of his home—or a woman's home—by any form of official is resented. There are various reasons for this. There is always the bogus official who poses as a meter reader or census-taker, or somebody like that, who has in fact come to rob. If the housewife is on her own, particularly in an area where there have been assaults or robberies, she is naturally reluctant to open the door to a stranger unless she has adequate confirmation showing who he is; and it often takes time to establish that. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to compute the real implications of accidents in the home.

There are certain statutory requirements with regard to electricity. Where a house changes hands the Electricity Board has to inspect the wiring, but rewiring a house, as I know from experience, can be a costly job. In some of the old Victorian mansions, and some houses built before the last century, often inhabited by elderly people, some of the electrical wiring defies comment. There are loose wires everywhere; the plugs are often completely unsafe, and it is here that accidents frequently happen. New houses to-day are wired on the ring main system. I am not an electrician, but I will try, briefly, to explain what this means. Each plug has its own self-contained fuse, and there is no question of going to some dilapidated outside fuse-box and fiddling to find out whether 5-amp or 15-amp wire is needed: it is just a question of putting in another fuse. Of course, this does not completely eliminate electrical accidents. There is still the television set; there is the person who will tinker about with the television set without switching it off, or who removes the back of it and tinkers, and there is an explosion, often with fatal results.

Then, my Lords, there is the amateur handyman. I have nothing in principle against the person who does a job in his own home. It is often expensive these days to get labour. To have a fuse mended is often an expensive job, and there is no reason why it should not be done by a man who is capable of doing it. But the week-end opportunist handyman is often a menace. He will say that he will fit another flex on to the electric fire. He will probably do that, fitting on an extension which is sometimes worn, and he will half finish that job and then do another job. The occupant of the first house that I bought after I was married was a Post Office engineer. He was a man who called himself an amateur handyman, and he would do about six jobs all at once. He would fit an extension to an electric fire; then he would perhaps get his electric drill and do a few other jobs, and so on. These jobs were half done. When we bought the house, I and some friends of mine who are knowledgeable on electricity examined the circuits and the plugs, and the sight was a deplorable one. How on earth a fatal accident was avoided I have yet to understand.

Then, of course, there is the old multi-plug. How often have we seen a plug socket supplying a television set, and possibly a hair drier and electric light and other equipment at the same time? Every now and again the wiring is overloaded and there is an accident. Not far from where I live there was a very tragic accident recently. A young mother was in her home; her husband had gone to visit neighbours across the road, and she was with her six months old daughter. She plugged in the electric fire, and somehow this came into touch with the gas poker. There was an explosion and she was thrown across the electric fire and killed. Accidents of this kind can, and do, happen.

I would now say a brief word on an aspect which is not often mentioned: firearms. I am going to say only a brief word on this subject because a Bill on firearms and gun licences is at present before another place. All too often a gun or rifle is taken into a room when it is loaded. Boys, being what they are like to tinker about with these things. They show it to their parents. The safety catch is probably not on; the gun is fired and a tragedy, often fatal, occurs. Such an accident, which was well publicised, took place in Essex recently. A boy was killed when his friend was trying to demonstrate the workings of a gun.

Now, my Lords, oil fires. This matter has also been the subject of legislation, and I believe that other noble Lords are to deal with it in more detail. I should like to mention just two fairly recent accidents. At Ware, in Hertfordshire, there was a terrible accident (I think it was last year) in which five children were burned to death. Then there was the case of a caravan in Tipton, where children were left, I believe, unaccompanied, without anyone looking after them: the oil fire went up and four children died.

My Lords, I am now going to quote a few figures. Of all accidents in the home, 80 per cent. take place among children under 5, and elderly people over 65. I am going to deal primarily with children. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who has had great experience of welfare and hospital work, is, I understand, to deal primarily with the elderly people. In 1959, 6,520 people died on the roads and 327,000 people were injured. In the same year, 8,157 people died in their homes—the highest figure since 1940—and 1,260,000 were injured. The latter figure does not include those who were injured and had treatment either at home or possibly from their general practitioner, and it may not include even all hospital cases.

Among children under 5, accidents in the home are the third largest cause of death. There are more deaths among children from accidents in the home than there are from poliomyelitis; and, even with the great co-operation which manufacturers of textiles, oil heaters and so on are giving to-day, these accidents are on the upgrade. It is true that the birthrate is increasing and that the number of elderly people in this country is increasing. That must be borne in mind. None the less, these figures are, to say the least of it, shattering. Nearly 2 million people a year seek hospital treatment due to accidents in the home—5 per cent. of the population. The cost is £5 million a year, and doubtless the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is very much more experienced on this subject that I am, will elaborate on this matter.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord could tell us the source of that figure of £5 million. We were under the impression that the cost to the hospital service was very much higher than £5 million.

LORD AUCKLAND

That, I understand, is the basic cost. I have not the full figures, but those I have quoted are from reports which I have received from R.O.S.P.A.—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—though I have no doubt that, particularly taking into account the very serious cases, the real cost is probably considerably higher.

My Lords, as I said earlier I am dealing primarily with children, and particularly with burns and scalds. It should not be thought that burns account for the largest number of accidents in the home. In fact, falls account for the largest proportion, particularly among elderly people. A young child can have a fall without causing any damage, and it is surprising what resistance to falls a youngster has. But if an elderly lady or an elderly gentleman—and many of them live in these two- or three-storey tenement buildings, often on their own—have a fall, they may remain undiscovered for two or three days. There are various causes of such falls—badly laid lino, bad lighting, a foreign body on the stairs and so on—and the result is often tragic.

In 1957, in England and Wales, 644 people died from burns. In 1959, the figure was 719. Of these 90 per cent. were due to unguarded fires; approximately 70 per cent. of the people were over 65 and approximately 20 per cent. were children under 4. As to suffocation, the dangers from polythene bags have already been the subject of quite a national campaign—and these bags are indeed terribly dangerous. A child who finds a polythene bag is naturally fascinated by it, and may put it over his head or over a friend's head. Then, quite often, because he cannot get it off, and there is no breathing outlet, the result is fatal. In 1959, 481 people died from suffocation. Of these, 331 were children under 4, 133 were in bed or were cradled, and 174 were due to some form of choking.

My local hospital at Epsom gave me some interesting figures which, with your Lordships' permission, I will quote. In the twelve months from January 1,1960, the Epsom and District Hospital and the four hospitals under its control had referred to them 146 accidents in the home. Of these, 22 were burns, of which 12 involved children under 14, 6 of them being due to fireworks. My Lords, I am not going to suggest that November 5 should be outlawed. Far from it! There is nothing like a decent firework display, properly organised by the local authority, such as those in famous places like Lewes or Edenbridge, where it is tradition, or organised in a garden under parental or adult supervision.

I believe I am right in saying—and those who have more legal knowledge than I will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—that no child under 12 may be supplied with a dangerous firework; but, my Lords, this law is often completely abrogated. We find these cheap and often dangerous fireworks given to a child, who will light it; and off goes his hand. Firms like Brock's and Payne's are makers, generally speaking, of good-quality fireworks. Some years ago there was a great controversy over a certain firm that was producing very dangerous fireworks, and it was eventually put out of business, I believe. But November 5 is often a doctor's nightmare, and a fireman's nightmare; and the local hospital casualty departments, wherever they may be, are grossly overworked. I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government whether he will consult with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary about tightening up the law on selling fireworks, particularly to young children, because, as I say, this matter is not controlled nearly strictly enough.

Another hospital which I should like to mention is the Mount Vernon Hospital, at Northwood. Here is one of the largest and most efficient plastic units in the country. Treatment is given to persons from an area extending from the Wash to Peterborough, and South to the Medway towns. Last week my wife and I toured this hospital, paying special regard to the burns unit, and we saw some pretty terrible sights. I will quote one of them. A 6-months old girl was in hospital; she had been there for four months. When she was 2 months old, she was in her cot and the cot clothing caught fire. The child screamed, but the parents took no notice. It was not until burning was smelt that one parent went up to investigate.

My Lords, I need hardly go into the result: the child, miraculously, was not killed, but one leg had to be amputated below the knee. The foot of the other leg is deformed. The sight of one eye may well be permanently impaired. The top of the child's head has been very badly burned, and one ear has been burnt off. We saw this child. She is a cheerful little girl, full of courage; but what her future will be, I do not know. It was a harrowing sight, and surely here is a case of criminal negligence. I do not know what the penalties are for parents who wilfully neglect their children—because I would go so far as to say that this was a wilful case of neglect. There was a case where a parent who had lost two children was punished very severely. If a man drives a car negligently on the road, particularly under the influence of drink, even if a relative of his is killed, if a charge is proved that he was so under the influence of drink, or was driving negligently, he can be prosecuted and quite heavily punished.

I am forced to the conclusion that this principle should be more rigidly applied to some accidents in the home. Of course, no accident in the home is always preventable, as I shall stress later, but accidents of this kind can be prevented. We saw other cases in this hospital. For example, a girl of nine was burned while tampering with an electric fire. Her father was an electrician. There were also other cases which time does not permit me to mention.

I should like at this stage to pay a glowing tribute to the staff of the Mount Vernon Hospital. The deputy senior surgeon took us round, and some of the work which is done there is quite miraculous. We visited the photographic unit and saw a photograph of one case which was brought in, where whole lumps of flesh were burned away. Then we saw a photograph of the man taken three weeks later, and a marvellous transformation scene had occurred. If more people would go round these places and see the work which goes on, and see some of the heartbreaking sights in these hospitals, it would surely bring to the public conscience the fact that we are concerned here with a very grave matter. In the hospital I have mentioned the surgeon emphasised two very important points. Sixty per cent. of all cases brought into this hospital, on a general average, are due to accidents in the home; and approximately twenty-five major operations per week are carried out. One particularly important point was stressed by the surgeon—and the same point ha-s been brought out by Courtauld's representative, to whom I have spoken—and I hope that it will get some Publicity. If only more children would be put into pyjamas, rather than into nightdresses—particularly the rayon type of nightdress—the incidence of fire, and often fatal burns, would be cut very drastically.

Last Saturday I attended the tenth anniversary Conference of World Health Year, organised by the United Kingdom branch of the World Health Organisation, and the theme of the conference was accidents. At the Conference a film called "Hazard" was shown. It was made by the Iron and Steel Federation, and it told the story, in colour, of two steel-workers who went on a climbing holiday in the Dolomites. One wore a climber's safety helmet; the other wore a woollen cap which he was wont to wear when he supported his favourite football team. A boulder fell. It struck the man wearing the safety helmet, and he was not seriously hurt. But if it had struck the man in the woollen cap, the result would probably have been fatal. And this man had beforehand said to his pal: "Well, Jim, I'll take a chance. People have to die some time."

But, my Lords, there is a moral there. Whether it is an accident in the home, an accident in a factory, or an accident on the road, there are certain simple, common-sense precautions that can be taken. Yesterday I visited the research laboratories of Courtauld's, at Bocking, Braintree, in Essex. At these laboratories garments and fibres are tested for fire resistance. I spent about an hour watching the burning of certain materials. Rayon, particularly brushed rayon, is extremely dangerous, and very few firms will now make it. Viscous and raised pile substances are also very dangerous. I have in my hand some nightdress material treated with Proban. I have carried out an experiment with this material using a match. I tried to get it to burn. Your Lordships can see the result. But had that material not been treated, or had it been brushed rayon or synthetic cotton, it would have been a very different story. Cotton twill is also extremely dangerous. Marks and Spencer's carried out an experiment when Proban was first introduced. They would not sell to children or parents garments which were not treated with fire-resistant material. If more retail shops would do that, a great many accidents would be prevented. There are difficulties, fashionwise, I know. Of course, children in their first party dress like to look nice. But which is the more important—a life saved, or a glamorous but dangerously made party dress? That is the question which parents must consider, in the light of the accidents that have been taking place.

Proban have done good work in research. Initially they lost £300,000, but they are now making something of a profit. I am going to put a specific suggestion to the Government, which may or may not be workable; that is, that Proban, and any other firm which can seriously do something towards impregnating materials to prevent these tragedies, should be affiliated to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and given facilities, both in manpower and in finance, to carry out their researches. I am not a lover of subsidies, and I am not going to suggest that every fire-prevention organisation should be subsidised. But Government help, through more consultation with retailers and manufacturers, as the Report of the Molony Committee recommends, could do a lot of good. As the Molony Report says, it is not always possible completely to fireproof every garment, because it is not always practicable and often it is too expensive, but a good deal can be done.

In the Drapery and Fashion Weekly of March 16 of this year, there was an article about a Mr. Norman Wilson who, in partnership with his brother, is the proprietor of a drapery chain store in the North. The heading of the article is "Brothers say cost of 'a packet of fags' can save a child's life". I quote from what Mr. Wilson said: I asked two mothers, both wheeling prams, if they always insisted on flame-resistant night clothing for their children. The first replied that she didn't even know there was any to be had. The other had once bought a treated nightie for her daughter. But it had been so hard that it had chafed her daughter's shoulders. She had been forced to revert to the ordinary kind. The article continues: Meanwhile inside the caravan a film was showing the dangers of fire at bedtime. On either side of the screen were shelves stocked with the new soft-to-touch nightclothes and stockings. The proprietors of this shop have done all they could to advertise these safe fabrics, but there is no accounting for the follies of some parents.

In the Scotsman of Friday, April 7, there is an article by Mr. Russell Galbraith headed "Bid to Cut Toll of Accidents", which was written to commemorate World Health Day. In it, Mr. Galbraith says: It is particularly necessary that young girls' nightclothes and dresses should be flame resistant. In Britain today twice as many people die from burns as from polio, while five to ten times as many children as adults suffer burns. In many cases these accidents would not have happened if skirts and nightclothes had been flame resistant. There are other aspects of this problem on which I could touch, but other noble Lords are going to do so.

Scotland has been very forward in their campaign. Many hospitals and local health authorities keep close records of accidents. There is an extremely good book by Dr. MacQueen, the Medical Officer of Health for Aberdeen, about accidents in 1955. In that year there were 4,500 home accidents in Aberdeen, and 46 general practitioners and 60 home visitors kept the local health authority fully informed of them. The same is done in Kilmarnock, where, in 1955, there were 9,000 accidents of all kinds out of a population of 44,000. Of these, six were fatal home accidents, five of them to elderly people and one to a child of two months; two were fatal factory accidents and one was a fatal road accident. From inquiries which I have made, I find that Scotland is much more versed in the use of publicity for the prevention of accidents, both in the home and elsewhere, and I feel that our Home Office could probably take a leaf from their book.

I should like to say a word about toys, because, as a parent of two young children, I am conscious of this problem. Removable eyes in teddy bears, dolls and other "cuddly" toys can be a menace, and the Molony Report draws attention to this. I think that here possibly the British Standards Institution, which is doing so much good work, could strengthen their control. Toys with jagged edges present another problem.

Finally, what can be done? It is wrong to expect any Government, of whatever Party, to be able to deal completely with accidents in the home by legislation. Legislation cannot control everybody. This must be a combined operation—if need be, on the same scale as a war-time operation. I have suggested a few methods by which the Government can help, sometimes financially and with publicity. Both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. television can help, by showing not only the glamorous side of garments but their safer side also, through the use of flame resistant fabrics. Local authorities can help. The schools are already doing very good work, and the fire brigades co-operate with them in this. The cinema can do a great deal, as in films like "Hazard", if only private film companies or the C.O.I. could produce films like this and show them. Pictures are especially telling. We can speak here in your Lordships' House or in the House of Commons, or in local village halls, but what we say does not carry the same weight as a pictorial record or a personal visit. I am sure that if all these methods are used in a combined operation a great deal can be done. I think that this is going to be an interesting debate, because following me are noble Lords who have a great deal of practical experience in this subject, at the Home Office, in the medical profession and elsewhere. I beg to move for Papers.