HC Deb 13 July 1973 vol 859 cc2058-70

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

It may be a little ironic that this debate takes place on Friday the 13th, and if one were superstitious, one might feel a little diffidence about it, but in raising The subject of the danger of polyurethane foam in the home I wish to draw attention to the complacent attitude of the Home Office in the fact of considerable evidence available to it, particularly from the Department of Employment. This underlines the highly dangerous nature of expanded foam plastics being used in furniture and furnishings.

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Mr. Ronald Brown

It is interesting to note that some 60,000 tons of this material is manufactured each year. One ton will occupy the space of over 1,000 cubic feet—roughly 2 lbs. per cubic foot. The average room measures 10 feet by 10 feet by 8 feet high—a typical council dwelling in my constituency. Supposing that it has a foam-backed carpet from wall to wall, the ceiling covered with polystyrene tiles, a three-piece suite entirely upholstered in polyurethane, perhaps the fireside chair upholstered with polyurethane as well, with a pouffe stuffed with polyurethane foam chips, and perhaps a child's 2 foot teddy bear stuffed with polyurethane foam. There will be about 10 cubic feet or more of polyurethane spread over the room. With the available evidence, the Home Office should be striking a very different note from the plaintive inactive posture it is adopting. The issue is crystallised by the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State on 14th June. He said: The evidence we have, I want this to be well understood in view of the spreading of some reports which I consider to be excessively alarmist, is that plastic foam presents no greater hazard than other inflammable material in the home. I took some exception to that reply because it was widely assumed that the hon. Gentleman was referring to me when he spoke of alarmist views. As a result, I sought this debate to get from him what he meant. But what he said in my belief crystallised his view that plastic polyurethane foam presents no hazard which is different from that presented by any other material ordinarily used in the home.

Not only did I find the hon. Gentleman's answer less than straightforward but it was contradictory of the evidence. A report by the factory inspector to the Department of Employment said: The feature that particularly distinguished foamed plastics from most other combustibles, however, was the production of hydrogen cyanide and isocyanates. They were involved in amounts fully comparable in toxicity to the carbon monoxide. They represent an important additional hazard which may not previously have been properly recognised. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's reply indicated how right the factory inspector was in his assumption. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman could have made the claim that there is no difference between polyurethane foam when it is burning and any other material when it has been shown that not only is it different but that people have been misled into believing that it is not different.

The temperature of the material within 30 seconds of combustion is 650 degrees centigrade or 1,270 degrees fahrenheit. The smoke temperature within two minutes is about 1,000 degrees centigrade or 1,840 degrees, fahrenheit. Therefore, the oxygen concentration falls very quickly to a level well below that which is needed to support life. Hence victims of fires involving polyurethane foam always die from asphyxia, not from burning, and are dead within a very few minutes. Therefore, escape from the room I have just described is virtually impossible, especially if the fire begins at the door. Within seconds those trapped inside will be insensible, and they will be dead soon after.

The Minister recently produced figures showing the increase in the number of deaths from fires. In 1972 they totalled 1,030, of which 750 occurred in private dwellings. The figures represent an increase of 25 per cent. in the total and an increase of a third in deaths in the home. Therefore, my strictures upon the Minister for his complacency are justified.

I requested the hon. Gentleman two years ago to break down the figures for fires and instruct his Department to introduce an extra column so that we could see how many were of polyurethane foam origin. The Department refused, and said that it was not worried, that it was waiting for a report. Now when we ask the Minister how many fires involve polyurethane foam, he glibly says that he does not know. He does not want to know.

I hope that he will stop presenting the absurd argument that foam is as safe as, or no more dangerous than, other materials in the home. He must know that that is untrue. He can consult the factory inspectorate and fire officers on the matter. I could read a number of cuttings about it if I had more time. Day after day evidence is being given in the coroners' courts of how dangerous the material is.

The cause of ignition has been a matter of sharp disagreement between the Home Office and me. I have tried to draw its attention to coroner's inquests on victims of polyurethane foam fires, where a common theme has emerged. The cause of the fire is always speculative. If a child is involved, the standard form of words used is that the child must have obtained matches from somewhere and set fire to an armchair. If an old person is involved, it is said that he must have fallen asleep while smoking a cigarette and set fire to the armchair. There is not a shred of evidence for such speculation, only a desire to produce a rational solution because there was a fire and it must have started somehow. Significantly, the verdict is always couched in speculative form: " It might have been a lighted cigarette end … It could have been … It is possible that … It probably was … It is suggested that …".

Yet all the evidence is that polyurethane foam spontaneously combusts, particularly within 48 hours of manufacture. Insurance companies are aware of that and raise their premiums to ensure that people store foam separately with sprinklers and hose reels covering the stacks.

If coroners verdicts are difficult to comprehend, what about the Home Office? I have raised with it the issue of furniture factories which burn down. I have spoken about one in London where there was a serious fire, I believe due to spontaneous combustion of a store of cellular plastic. The factory was gutted. The Home Office replied that The fire was believed to have started in a stock of rigid polyurethane foam chair shells in a covered portion of a yard at the rear of the factory, and aided by the gale force wind which was blowing at the time to have spread via a window into the main factory building. Ignition of the chair shells was thought to have been caused by a lighted cigarette end which was blown by the gale force wind into the stack. No evidence existed to show that anyone in the area was smoking in a gale force wind, let alone that anyone threw a cigarette end away in the gale force wind. It is interesting to speculate what the mathematical probability would be of a gale force wind taking up a cigarette end and directing it straight into the stack of chairs. Once the cigarette end arrived there, it is interesting to note that it was placed conveniently beside an open window. Further, I do not know of any workers who leave a window open when a gale force wind is blowing.

That seems to be an odd answer. However, even if it is thought that that explanation is possible and one is prepared to accept that it has a mathematical possibility, what is the Home Office view of the possibility? In a letter which it sent, the Home Office stated: It has been suggested that dropped cigarettes might ignite the foam fillings in chairs and bedding, but research has shown that, in fact, neither rubber nor plastic foam can be ignited in this way. That seems odd when it is suggested that if a cigarette end is picked up and thrown into a stack of chairs it can set the stack on fire and burn down a whole factory. Nevertheless, I have a letter, which in effect, tells me not to be silly as researches have shown that such igni- tion cannot happen. One letter was written in 1971 and the other in 1973.

Fire losses average out at about £120 million a year. That is a frightening situation. If the additional losses are added the total is approximately £360 million. I do not know how we can value the lives of husbands, wives and children who have died as a result of fires occurring in the home, particularly those fires involving burning polyurethane. It is my view that society cannot accept the platitudinous excuses which have been made by the Home Office for its inactivity.

I have received a letter from someone who wrote to me having seen an article to which I contributed. He said that he had always been sceptical about my argument supporting spontaneous combustion. He said that he wanted to tell me what had happened to him. He has four children who sleep in two bedrooms. There are two children in each room. The oldest boy is six years old. After putting the children to bed one evening in May, within an hour and a half a smell of burning was apparent. The boy of six was found lying on a pillow with smouldering polyurethane foam filling. The boy was removed from the pillow and the pillow was taken downstairs and water poured on it. The fumes were extinguished. Apparently there were no flames, only smouldering.

When the fire brigade came they found no cigarette ends or matches. They immediately looked at a table lamp and then said, "It must have been the table lamp which set it on fire." That is an extraordinary argument. It was suggested that the heat from the bulb of the table lamp was directed on to the pillow and that it was the heat which caused the pillow to smoulder. What an extraordinary argument! Especially when one considers that the lamp was not switched on.

I do not accept that it is my responsibility to prove the case for spontaneous combustion. I believe that that has been done. Certainly the excuses which have been put forward about matches and cigarette ends are speculative and unacceptable. They cannot be shown to be true. They are speculation in the absence of a rational answer which society is asked to accept.

I offer one line of reasoning to the Home Office. I draw attention to a block of coloured foam which ignited spontaneously in the centre. The cause was found to be the result of an organometallic blue pigment which caused an exothermic catalytic reaction with another additive in the foam. In this case it was thought to be a compound containing organic chlorine. The heat generated by the chemical reaction could not escape because of the thick insulating mass of surrounding foam and hence it became hotter and hotter until ignition occurred.

I do not know why I should have to submit this solution since it is the responsibility of the Home Office because there are blues, reds, yellows and greens of this pigment used to identify the different qualities of foam. An examination might tell us why this material combusts internally in various situations.

We have discussed this matter for many months, indeed years, and if it had not been for an offensive remark in this House I would have continued to discuss the matter with the Under-Secretary as before. We need a crash research programme to produce a new generation of safe foam. The industry is taking too long to find a solution and the Government decision to put £46,000 into a project which will take three years is hardly dynamic.

Therefore. I believe that perhaps the insurance industry could give a lead. I suggest that they give 1 per cent. of the yearly average direct fire loss in the United Kingdom in proportion to the amount that each pays out in fire compensation, the money to be devoted to establishing a research programme to develop a new safe foam. Not only will it help to save lives and property, but it will be an investment in reducing the amount of money that goes up in hot toxic smoke each year. Legislation could then be produced to ensure that only safe foam was manufactured.

Let us be done with all the excuses and apologies and finish with trying to prove that it is someone else's responsibility. We must accept that in the year in which man was put in orbit around the earth to carry out major repairs on the outside of a space ship, it must be possible here on earth to ensure that the materials used in our furniture and furnishings is a great deal safer than the present generation of cellular plastics.

4.18 p.m.

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

I am glad that the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) raised this subject though I regret the tone in which he spoke. He has a great knowledge of and interest in the matter and we have worked together on it in the past. I hope that we may continue to do so in the future. I was not specifically referring to him in talking about alarmism. My remarks were much more general and I do not see why he should have taken offence in the way he did.

I deny that the Home Office has been complacent or inactive or that we are not being straight. The hon. Member said that we did not want to know—or I personally did not want to know—about the figures. I reject that also. I have a great deal of statistical information, although perhaps not precisely in the form in which he has always requested it. He said that we should consult fire officers. I have been doing exactly that about this problem on any suitable occasion I have had since I took responsibility for this work just over a year ago. I shall continue to do so and I assure him that the views of the fire officers I have spoken to do not bear out some of the things he has been saying about polyurethane foam.

We need firm evidence and not speculation by either the hon. Member or by myself. There has been a disturbing rise in the number of fires in the last year or so and in the number of deaths as a result of fire. The Home Office is taking this matter very seriously, as am I personally. There is public concern and the Government are responding to it. We must, however, strike a balance in two senses. First, in the interests of better living we want to make the maximum use of objects of modern technology while guarding against any dangers they may bring in their train. Secondly, we have to avoid complacency at one extreme and alarmism at the other. The position is, from the best advice I have, that there is no proof that polyurethane foam is more dangerous than other materials, such as latex, wool and leather as used in furniture. However, we are actively researching and we shall keep the hon. Gentleman and the public informed as we go along.

The Government are well aware of the concern that has been expressed over the last two or three years about the inflammability of plastic foams, either polyurethane or polyether, which are being used increasingly in the manufacture of upholstered furniture and bedding. This concern was initially caused by the tragic fire which occurred in Glasgow in 1968.

In the time left to me I want to explain what the Government and others are doing to establish the degree of hazard and possible ways of reducing the fire risk. I am entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

There is no doubt that polyurethane foam ignites easily, burns readily and produces dense smoke containing toxic gases. So, of course, do many other materials which are found in the home. My answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about the factory inspectors' views is that the main differences between a home and factory situation are that the amount of foam in the home is very much smaller and so spread out that a fire would not necessarily involve the total quantity present. That is in contrast to a factory. Furthermore, the ease with which it is ignited in the home depends largely on the material with which the furniture is covered.

It has been alleged—the hon. Gentleman repeated it today—that polyurethane foam is liable to ignite spontaneously, but there is no evidence so far as we are aware that this has happened in furniture. We have investigated a number of cases, which I have not time to go into in detail, though I have been looking at the facts produced in the inquiries, where this is alleged to have happened, but we have always found that ignition has been caused in some other way.

Leaving aside the possibility of spontaneous combustion within 48 hours of manufacture, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I understand that attempts to simulate spontaneous ignition by heating and malformation of foam have all failed. Since the tragic Glasgow fire the Department of Employment has investi- gated the behaviour of large quantities of plastic foam in fires and has made recommendations about safe storage of the material in bulk.

I want to talk mainly about the use of polyurethane foam in the home, because that is the subject the hon. Gentleman has chosen and about which we are most concerned. The hon. Gentleman has implied that the increase in the use of polyurethane foam in furniture has led to an increase in the number of fires in the home. I should like to give some key statistics, because the annual fire statistics for the United Kingdom, compiled by the Joint Fire Research Organisation, show that the number of fires attended by brigades in which upholstered furniture has been the material first ignited has remained fairly static at about 2,500 for each of the past 10 years. I do not think that suggests that the increasing use of polyurethane foam has led to an increase in the number of fires in the home.

The statistics show that about half the fires in which upholstered furniture is the material first ignited have been caused by smoking materials or by children playing with fire. Many of the materials used for covering upholstered furniture can be ignited in these ways, and once ignited most upholstered furniture will burn whatever the filling material.

Mr. Ronald Brown

rose—

Mr. Lane

The hon. Gentleman has left me very little time and I want particularly to say—

Mr. Ronald Brown

It is not true and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Lane

I deny that it is not true. If the hon. Gentleman will hear me as patiently as I listened to him I will give the facts.

The research now in progress to determine more precisely the degree of risk presented by polyurethane foam should be carried out as quickly as possible. We want no doubt to remain about the extent of the risks. We want to see our way to providing whatever antidotes may be necessary, and a great deal of research is now going on.

The major project is the three-year programme of research which is being carried out by the Rubber and Plastic Research Association into the burning behaviour of plastic materials, including these foams, used in the manufacture of furniture. This is an important project and I intend to visit the Fire Research Station later in the summer to see how the programme is getting on and what lessons have so far been learned. This project began only a year ago and we are now expecting a preliminary report. I hope that the results of the tests that have already been made will be published later this year.

This research is being carried out under the management of the Joint Fire Research Organisation, and the Home Office is meeting the greater part of the cost. We are represented on the body that is carrying out the research and we shall be kept informed of its progress. I have made arrangements for my Department to be informed immediately if any significant findings emerge at any stage of the programme, and we shall immediately take advantage of any such interim findings without waiting for the completion of the entire project.

There are also important research programmes going on into different aspects of the problem, such as the smoke-producing and toxic properties of burning plastics. This is being done by two contracts. One is at Queen Mary College, London, a two-year programme, and the other is at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton. The basic mechanics of smoke generation are being studied at Queen Mary College, and the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton is investigating the toxicity of the gas mixtures produced in fires.

At the same time—the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to this—the trade itself is making considerable efforts to produce flame-resistant foams. One development has been the production by the Dunlopillo Company of a new foam known as "neo-morphic" foam, which is more difficult to ignite than other foams, burns less quickly and gives off less smoke. The difficulty is that it is less strong and needs more care in handling than other foams because it has a tendency to tear. For that reason it has not yet proved acceptable to the furniture industry and its use may be limited. Other manufacturers have experimented over the years with different processes to produce flame-retardant foams, but none of these has yet combined an adequate degree of flame retardance with the physical properties needed for furniture manufacture.

The other current development that I have just time to mention is that some chemically-treated flame-retardant grades of polyurethane foam have been available for some time, but research by the Department of Employment into the hazard presented by polyurethane foam stored in bulk in factories has shown that, while these foams are slightly more difficult to ignite than untreated foams, they offer no other advantages. Once alight some of them burn even faster than the untreated varieties, and in every case much denser smoke is produced and at least the same amount of toxic gases.

Looking to the future, which is what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about and so am I—namely, that all upholstery materials should be as safe as possible—I can tell the House that the Government are not shirking their responsibility. They are not shutting their eyes to the hazards presented by polyurethane foam, but the tests so far have shown that it is no worse than rubber latex foams which have been used in the manufacture of furniture for more than 30 years, and also that the material used for covering the foam has a considerable bearing on whether the furniture can ignite easily.

No alternative safer materials are available at present for the purpose at similar prices, and I do not think it is realistic to expect manufacturers to go back to the filling materials used in the past, quite apart from the fact that these, too, were inflammable and produced carbon monoxide in lethal quantities.

The Home Office is continuing—this is one of its major efforts—to give publicity to precautions which should be taken to avoid fires in the home from any cause, and as soon as the results of the research projects that I have mentioned are known, and before then if any interim significant developments emerge, we shall seek whatever means are available to reduce the fire risks. I hope that in the meanwhile the House will agree that we would not be justified on our present knowledge—I put this to the hon. Gentleman to reflect upon—in introducing bans or controls on the use of polyurethane in the manufacture of furniture.

I acknowledge the great concern that there is, and I deprecate jumping to premature conclusions about causes until we have further evidence. I am anxious as is the hon. Gentleman to get to the bottom of this problem, but let us make sure that jumping to premature conclusions or drawing deductions that are not justified by the facts, do not lead house- holders to disregard the normal sensible precautions that ought to be taken to prevent fires.

I have tried to deal as fully as I can with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have pointed out what we are doing to try to get to the bottom of this problem. We shall deal vigorously with the matter, and I shall report the results to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.