Upholstered Furniture (Safety)

HC Deb 29 March 1983 vol 40 cc303-16 11.53 pm

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan)

I beg to move, That the draft Upholstered Furniture (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved. I welcome the opportunity to explain these rather complicated regulations, because they will help to reduce the number of accidents due to upholstered furniture catching fire. Cigarettes are the most frequent cause of such fires, and two thirds of furniture fires are due to smouldering cigarettes. The victims are usually overcome by the dense fumes that come from modern upholstered furniture when it is set alight. Suffocation and poisoning from fumes is much more likely than actual burning. In 1981 alone, 154 people died in this way, and 830 were injured.

It is clear that if the upholstery used in such furniture could be made less likely to catch fire, many accidents could be avoided. We have already taken some steps. Since the beginning of the year, all new upholstered furniture coming on to the market has had to pass British standard 9 for resistance to smouldering cigarettes. As the new furniture replaces the older furniture over the next 10 to 15 years, we should have far fewer fires and a major improvement in home safety.

The other cause of this type of fire is matches. Such fires are also fairly common, although matches cause fewer fires than cigarettes, because most people know when they have dropped a match and put it out. Nevertheless, there are accidents. In 1981, 24 people died and 150 people were injured in fires started by matches. There is now a match test, and we hope gradually to apply it to a wide range of furniture. At present, furniture covered in wool or leather is more likely to pass the test than furniture covered with other materials. If it does not pass—and that will happen in the case of most furniture—it has to carry a warning label.

That is the present position. All furniture now has to pass the cigarette test, and it has to carry a label if it does not pass the match test. Unfortunately, however, labels can fall off, or people can forget to put them on. So after discussing the matter with the trade, we think that it would be clearer for everyone to have a positive safety label on the furniture. That is what regulation 4A will do. I should add that this is widely welcomed by the furniture trade.

Apart from old stock which is still held in shops, in future all furniture will have to be labelled. There will be two kinds of labels. The first will be a square green-edged label, saying that the furniture passes the safety standards for both cigarettes and matches. Alternatively, it will have to carry a warning label that it does not pass those standards. As all furniture has to pass the cigarette test, this will simply be a warning that it is not totally safe in the case of fire caused by matches.

Another aspect of the regulations involves children's upholstered furniture. Just over a year ago, we had reports of fires from this kind of upholstered furniture—not due to cigarettes and matches, but because they were placed too close to fires. To prevent such fires, I issued a prohibition order last April, the Children's Furniture (Safety) Order 1982. It was to last for one year only. It limited the amount of polyurethane foam and expanded polystyrene that could be used in the upholstery. I am glad to report that since then there have been no further accidents.

This order will expire on 6 April, and it is important that the prohibition should now be made permanent. The industry pointed out that by detailing the materials as we did it is possible for one dangerous material to be replaced by another, and that in its view it would be much better to have an overall safety standard. I agree. We would have done that in the first place, but it would halve taken a considerable time to develop new standards, and I thought—correctly, as events turned out—that it was urgent to have some control. That is why I detailed the materials.

We are now in a position to require that the materials pass a British standard test, as set out in the regulations. Children's furniture with very little upholstery will be exempted, and there are some rather complicated transitional arrangements in regulation 5A(i)(b). The purpose is to avoid having a gap between the ending of the previous order on 6 April and the coming into force of the new regulations. The regulations will apply to goods for sale here, and goods made here for export. I do not claim that these regulations are the complete answer. It would be very nice if all furniture could pass both cigarette and match safety tests, but that is not practicable at the moment. It would mean either that the furniture became excessively expensive—the cost of a suite of furniture would be increased by about £30 to £40—or that the furniture was unpleasant to use and that people would not want to buy it.

A good deal of research is being done into this problem. My Department is sponsoring research into useful ways of classifying upholstery, and the British Standards Institution is investigating ways of measuring the rate at which a fire develops. The Government are also following, and contributing to, research into the filling materials used in padding furniture. It is the dense smoke that these materials can give off that is so dangerous. When I visited the fire research station recently, I was allowed to drop a match on to an upholstered armchair. The flame went up the back of the chair quite slowly until it was about an inch from the top, and then, to my great surprise, it spread with appalling speed. Within seconds the room—we had left by then—was filled with some of the densest black smoke that I had ever seen. I was told that on average this happens after only 1½ to 2 minutes, and that escape from the premises would then be extremely difficult. I was told that this is one of the causes of family deaths. An adult in the family smells something wrong, goes downstairs to see what is happening and then, because of the fumes, cannot get back to rescue the rest of his family.

The regulations are not a perfect solution but they are a step in the right direction. I believe that they will reduce the incidence of deaths and injuries, and I recommend them to the House.

12.2 am

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

I welcome the regulations and the progress that has been made in protecting consumers from furniture that is highly inflammable or that is toxic when it catches fire. I welcome the fact that the smouldering cigarette test will now apply to all furniture and that the labelling will be more permanent. In previous debates there has been some criticism of the tie-on labels that are sometimes used.

Eventually, consumers should be protected from furniture that remains liable to catch fire under the match test. The Minister has just given a graphic example of how furniture can become lethal within minutes. That example reminds us that it should be our aim eventually to protect consumers from all furniture which is likely to have that characteristic.

The Minister tells us that research is being carried out. It would be interesting to know whether there are any leads which might result in safer furniture. Some manufacturers claim that at little extra expense they could produce fabrics that could pass the butane gas test.

Can the Minister tell us what change in the pattern of sales there has been since the regulations were introduced in 1980? I in no way criticise the idea of labelling furniture, but the mere labelling of furniture only gives warning of the risk; it does not eliminate it. I may be wrong. Consumers may have changed their patterns of furniture purchasing dramatically as a result of the information statutorily made available to them about the risks involved, but I suspect that that is not the case and that, despite the interference with freedom that it entails, mandatory prohibition of dangerous furniture will eventually be necessary. In this context, one thinks of the recent tragic loss of life in the Italian cinema fire, in which I suspect that foam seat filling was involved as well as neglect of safety regulations. I should be grateful for any information that the Minister can give about whether purchasing patterns have changed markedly as a result of the regulations or whether he agrees that progress should continue to try to ensure that all furniture is absolutely safe.

The dangers of foam-filled furniture came to the fore after the Woolworth fire in Piccadilly, Manchester. I realise that the Home Office was responsible for the inquiry into that, but as long ago as May 1980 the Home Secretary said: I agree that suitable regulations should be made under section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to control the display in shops and department stores of polyurethane foam-filled furniture, and have authorised the necessary research to be put in hand to devise the details of such control."—[Official Report, 20 May 1980; Vol. 985, c.104.] I do not know what liaison there is between the Department of Trade and the Home Office in these matters, but perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that research has led to any recommendations that might be followed by the Department responsible for consumer protection.

The question of consolidation was raised, with justice, in the previous debate on housing benefit regulations. It is important that regulations relating to any matter, but perhaps especially to safety, should be clearly and easily understood by anyone who has to operate them. There is great advantage in not having subsidiary legislation by amendment or by reference but whenever possible reenacting the legislation and putting it in the simplest and clearest possible form. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when these regulations will be consolidated.

12.7 am

Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire)

Given the right conditions for combustion, all upholstered furniture will burn. Almost every filling, whether traditional or modern, will burn, and most will give off fumes.

Considerable research has taken place in the development of fillings that are cost-effective and can be used in the modern designs that consumers wish to buy. The only sure way to prevent fires is to ban matches, cigarettes and all other sources of ignition, but that is neither realistic nor practicable. We must therefore continue to search for other answers.

The British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations, for which I speak, have always taken a constructive but realistic attitude towards the public desire for safer upholstered furniture. In so doing, they have acknowledged the technical and financial implications of compliance with the match test, to which I shall return in a moment.

The associations' attitude towards the amended regulations now before us can be summarised as follows. They favour positive labelling. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the associations and I proposed positive labelling at the outset, but we were informed that this would not conform with the provisions of the Act. The associations also favour bringing children's furniture within the regulations. Again, I remind my hon. Friend that the manufacturers said last year that this was a better way to deal with the problem than prohibiting specific materials.

The BFMFA believes that no really worthwhile purpose will be served by making the match test mandatory at this point. Indeed, in the present state of technical knowledge, it would not be very wise to set a date for this test, no matter how far in the future it may be. I would go further and say that it would be irresponsible to make the match test mandatory, or to set a date, when the technical problems have not yet been resolved.

To set a date could result in even more time and energy being expended to very little purpose, because after all, it is the smouldering cigarette that is the real problem and the main source of accidental fire for upholstered furniture. Indeed, as has been said, two thirds of fires stem from that source. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister would also accept that most of the solutions to fires stem not from objective but from subjective analyses. They are made after the event, and it is difficult to prove whether a smouldering cigarette or a match caused the fire unless the individuals in question can say what the source was.

As the cigarette test is now mandatory, it would seem sensible and reasonable to leave the match test out. Anyone who has studied this problem will be aware that the handle of material and the feel of the finished product have much to do with design and customer appeal. At the end of the day we must realise that it is the customer who is the final arbiter on all these things. It is no good—as they discovered at Linwood—making cars that no one will buy. It is no good the British furniture manufacturers making furniture if people decide that they do not want to buy it simply because the design no longer appeals and so buy other products.

Furniture is a fashion industry and is very much influenced by the pressure on pockets. Anyone who has studied how the British public spends its money will realise that more money is spent on drinking, smoking and gambling than on furnishing, or indeed on buying homes. Therefore, we can see the pressures on the furniture industry.

The classification of fabrics and fillings has much to commend it, because in some instances the fabric on the wrong filling can produce a finished article that is more liable to ignition than the same fabric on a different filling. Therefore, the combination of filling and cover is important, and positive labelling in that respect is very welcome.

Some technical problems must be resolved before legislation can be introduced for the match test. The Furniture Industry Research Association has carried out considerable work in this area, and is of the opinion that an objective study would need to be carried out before the Minister could introduce legislation for the match test. In the opinion of the association, to do so on present knowledge and information would be a gamble—an absolute gamble. In the present state of the British furniture industry we cannot take such a gamble.

Instead, the Minister should conduct a study to determine the current fabrics in use and their ability to be upgraded. Indeed, only a tiny proportion of the total fabric that is used on British upholstered furniture would pass the flame test at the moment. I refer largely to the wool fabrics which represent a small proportion of the total used in the furnishing industry. Obviously there will have to be a change in the composition of fabrics, and we will have to know about the effective treatments, the likely treatments that are being developed, and new fabrics and new materials. There is a distinct need to forecast the availability and cost factors involved in these important solutions.

It is suggested that we should conduct a survey of at least 30 domestic furniture manufacturing companies and a substantial number of key retailers to discuss the problems with them in depth and hence find out the problems that they perceive on the introduction of the match test. As a result of the study, it would be possible to forecast the cost implications. My hon. Friend the Minister touched on that, and perhaps the figure of £30 was on the low side. I always thought that it would be much higher if one tried to account for every item of furniture upholstered in a fabric that would comply with the match test. For example, upholstery covered in wool is much more expensive than that covered in man-made fibres. There is much more work, therefore, to be done. We would also have to look at the 95 per cent. of fabrics that are on the market that would not pass the match test and develop treatments or alternatives, and that could not be done easily.

I understand the pressures that my hon. Friend and his Department face from those concerned with fire safety. We are all worried about fire safety because one death in a fire is one death too many. But we must also put such deaths into perspective against the number of homes in the United Kingdom and the number of people who die every day on the roads and as a result of other accidents. One can then see that the deaths from upholstery fires are comparatively few. However, I repeat that one death is one death too many. Consequently, I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend accepts that the arguments need to be studied in greater depth and that he will take full account of the views and evidence of the furniture industry.

I can remember that when we last debated this subject the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) told us of the cushions that he kept in his garage. A long time has passed since then and I imagine that they are still in his garage. I have not heard that they have combusted as he said they would. I look forward to hearing his observations and comments. It seemed to me at that time that those of us who had had such furniture for many years were under some threat. I have had the upholstery that I sit on at home for nearly 30 years and I wonder how much I am at risk if one can leave such cushions to combust in the garage. Of course, I am being a little frivolous, but this is a serious problem both for the individuals who wish to use the upholstery and those who work in the industry. Somehow we must get the balance right. We should not be panicked by those who wish us to bring in unworkable regulations that would not be cost-effective.

12.16 am

Mr. Ronald W. Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

I have just spent part of the last hour reading the speeches that were made on 22 May 1980. I notice that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) has been sacked from a few jobs since then. He had to declare many interests on that occasion but today declared only his interest in the British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations. I too must declare that I have been sacked. For 14 years I was a representative of the Furniture Timber and Allied Trades Union, but because I am no longer a member of the Labour party and because the Communist general secretary of that union decided that I was not competent to represent it, I am no longer its parliamentary adviser. The Communist general secretary does not like to have a member of the Social Democratic party representing the union. Therefore the hon. Gentleman is not the only one who has lost a few jobs.

I still maintain my close interest in the subject of polyurethane foam. The hon. Gentleman misses the whole point. He keeps asking the Minister to introduce inquiries and to do this and that to the industry, but, as I said in the last debate, no manufacturer has the right to produce anything that is not safe. It is nonsense to produce an unsafe material and then demand that the Minister should use taxpayers' money to find some way of overcoming the by-product. It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head because that is the position.

Mr. Bill Walker

I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there are some who think that cigarettes should be banned because there is evidence to suggest that cigarettes can be harmful. Yet as a non-smoker I would not dream of saying that cigarette manufacturing companies must carry out tests and so on in the way that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Brown

The hon. Gentleman is changing the subject. We are talking about a material that is known to be dangerous.

Mr. Walker

So are cigarettes.

Mr. Brown

They may be harmful, but they are not dangerous.

Mr. Walker

They are.

Mr. Brown

That is a matter of opinion. I do not want to enter into an argument across the Floor of the House. The foam is dangerous.

I thought that the Minister had been reading the speech that I made in the debate on 22 May 1980 when he rehearsed the argument that within 30 seconds the temperature of the flames will rise to 650 deg. C. He forgot to add the other bit that after three minutes the toxic fumes are superheated to 1000 deg. C and, as he rightly observed, people are killed by the inhalation of the superheated smoke and the toxicity of the smoke rather than by the burning. Therefore, I come back to the point that anybody who manufactures that sort of material has a major responsibility, which they cannot offload on to the Minister or anyone else. The manufacturers cannot expect the Minister to hold an inquiry to find a way of covering up their mistake. It is no good taking that attitude. Society and the House are entitled to expect the industry itself to take action.

I am sad that the Minister, so long after the 1980 debate, has been unable to tell us what work has been undertaken by the manufacturers to produce a safer foam. When he replies, I hope that the Minister of State will tell us exactly what work has been carried out by the industry, what steps have been taken to make the foam safer and whether he proposes to tell the manufacturers at any time that unless they can produce a safe foam they cannot go on manufacturing it.

In regulation 2(3)(b) it is proposed that the word "resistant" should appear on every label. I am not sure that it can be proved that the material is resistant. In 1980 we could not claim that it was resistant. I was assured by the right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) that she could not use the word "resistant" because if an article caught fire and it was shown that it was not resistant, she would be culpable; therefore, the Government would be responsible and could be taken to court. We had a long argument in private discussion about why she could not use the word "resistant". The Minister has not told me what has taken place between then and now to allow us to use the word "resistant" rather than the cautionary term indicating that people should be careful when using the furniture.

We have moved away from the major problem of the foam to the manufacturers of the fabric. When I was speaking in 1980 I said that it was disgraceful that the poor old textile industry, which was on its uppers then—it is even more so now—should have the responsibility of covering the dangerous material for the foam manufacturers who are on a gravy train. They make a great profit because foam is a by-product of petroleum; it is what is left over and so they do not pay for it. Yet the textile manufacturers have to go to great expense because the foam manufacturers have to have their bad material covered. I do not know why a levy is not put on them to contribute to the cost of £30 which has been referred to. Why should they not have to pay something, because it is their material that is causing the trouble? The Minister has again let the foam manufacturers off very lightly.

In regulation 2(3)(c) it is proposed that the label shall carry the words: Meets the requirements for resistance to cigarette and match ignition in the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations All those words will mislead a purchaser into believing that the furniture is safe, but it will be no safer than it was. If it catches fire, as the Minister rightly observed, people will not get out of the house; within three minutes they will all be dead. The words in the parent regulations were much better because they drew attention to the product itself and to the need for caution. Those words requiring caution should remain in the regulations. We should not give anyone the impression that if upholstered furniture which contains polyurethane foam has passed the cigarette test and/or the flame test there is no danger.

I believe that regulations 3(a) and (b) are not as dynamic as the 1980 regulations. I find regulation 5(a) a little odd. When it is read in its entirety it comes out about right, but it seems a little odd to have This Regulation applies to any children's furniture other than children's furniture". There is then a hyphen and the regulation continues with (a), (b) and (c). I should have thought the regulation could have been worded slightly differently so that the meaning was plain—that children's furniture is excluded in certain circumstances only. I accept the Minister's point that the regulations have had some effect on children's furniture. However, he did say that if the furniture were moved nearer the fire, the fire had an effect on the foam and caused it to burn.

I still have the cushions in my garage and they are growing bigger and bigger and fatter and fatter. I had the feeling that hon. Members representing places such as Perth and East Perthshire would try and make a funny, so I checked the cushions this morning. Fortunately, the garage is not mine. I hired it so I can continue the experiment. It is fascinating and I am waiting to see the end product. I shall take the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire to see them one day and he will see them growing.

The Minister is now telling my tale so I shall not have to speak for so long. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire also told my stories so I shall not have to cover that. In 1968 when I first began this trek I was either a fool, an educated fool or a malicious educated fool, because it was said that nothing that I was saying was true. I can claim to have moved from illegitimacy to legitimacy between 1968 and 1983. I find myself utterly kosher and returned to society. I have been, as it were, rejigged.

I am happy that the House, the Government and the Minister are beginning to appreciate the importance of this issue. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has always appreciated it. I have paid tribute to him for that. When he became Minister responsible for this subject he gave every consideration to all the information available to him. These regulations were started through his diligence. If he had not lost office before they were approved his name would have been on them rather than that of the right hon. Member for Gloucester.

I am prepared to support what is being put forward, but these regulations are not sufficient. The Minister did not tell us how many deaths he thinks may have been avoided because of the regulations. Can he assess whether there has been an improvement? I could not hear the number of deaths that he mentioned because of the talking that was going on around me, but I believe that he said that there had been about 800 injuries.

I am not sure whether the number of deaths has decreased. I have sought the figures and it does not appear that there has been an improvement. If the regulations were successful I should have thought that we would have seen a marked reduction in the number of deaths and injuries caused by fire.

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, and the Minister also, I believe, said that two thirds of the fires are caused by smouldering cigarettes. As I said on the previous occasions when the matter was debated, there is not a shred of evidence that that is true. It is a subjective judgment made by a fire officer going around the scene when the fire is out and when the place is full of water. He looks round to see what he can find. He sees certain things. He sees whether electrical wiring is showing signs of wear. He tries to see whether coal from a fire has caused the fire and whether there has been arson by petrol and so on. He asks the people "Do you smoke?". They reply "Yes." He says "Ah. Were you smoking just before the fire?" "Yes." "Ah. What has happened is that you must have put a cigarette out." "I did not." "Yes, you must have put a cigarette out, but it did not go out properly. It smouldered and caused the fire." He writes the report on that assumption.

Dr. Vaughan

No.

Mr. Brown

The Minister says no, but I say, "yes". I read many coroners' reports, giving evidence of the cause of death. None of them says that the fire was due to a cigarette or a match. They all say "It could be", "It might be", "It possibly was", "There is evidence that", but not one says "It was". The one piece of evidence that is not available to the officer is the polyurethane foam. The reason why it is not available for the officer to examine is that it has been consumed. He would not know what the filling in the chair was because all the foam is consumed.

Mr. Walker

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that research conducted in Glasgow showed that over 50 per cent. of those who died that sort of death were intoxicated beyond the level at which they would be considered drunk? Does he think that that is a contributory factor?

Mr. Brown

No, I do not believe that that is a contributory factor because my view is that, even in those circumstances, if the foam had not been there, they might have been safe. That is what I believe to be true. The hon. Gentleman will keep on eliminating the foam as part of the cause. It is the cause. The hon. Gentleman said that anything burns. That is true. There is no argument about that. I have asked the hon. Gentleman before and I ask him again to name one combustible in the home that has the same burning characteristic as foam. There is not one. The hon. Gentleman does not have to think about that. I am telling him that not one combustible in the home will reach 650 deg C within 30 seconds of catching fire. No fumes reach 1,000 deg C within three minutes—from wool or anything else.

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would understand that. He is trying to make excuses, saying "Brown and the others are making a song and dance about this." He may be a representative of the British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations, but he does not have to grovel on his knees for them. It is perfectly straightforward that the foam is a problem. Now society is beginning to learn the important lesson that many people have died who need not have died if we had taken a stronger line on foam.

I welcome this further step with the regulations and sincerely hope that it will go some way towards helping to stop further deaths, although I very much doubt it. I again appeal to the Minister to insist that the responsibility of the manufacturers of foam is to find a safer foam. I was assured four years ago that much research was going on and that everyone was putting his hand to the wheel to find it. Four years have gone by and there have been no reports. I have tried to find out what has happened, who is doing the research and what progress is being made. The answer is that nothing is being done.

Why cannot the Minister say that he will give the industry one or two more years to get itself into good order and manufacture a safe foam, or he will give notice that he does not intend to extend the regulations beyond 1984? Putting the labels on is only a sign. The real problem is with the foam. Get rid of the foam, and many deaths due to fires in the home will cease.

12.35 am

Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North)

I doubt whether anyone will give other than a welcome to the regulations, but it is only fair to remind the Minister that many hon. Members consider the regulations to be only a modest step in the direction that is necessary if we are to have complete safety in the furniture used in our homes.

Pressure on the Minister's predecessor led to the introduction of the 1980 regulations, which were not directed primarily against the fabrics which covered the furniture. They were a response to a broadly felt public outcry against the deaths from fires which caused toxic fumes from the furniture's filling. When the 1980 regulations were introduced, many of us felt that, while it was desirable to seek to protect with a cover the dangerous material used for filling, the regulations were only a palliative. What is really necessary is the introduction of furniture fillings which may be combustible—I accept that almost anything is combustible under the right circumstances—but are not so combustible as polyurethane foam, and which do not give off toxic fumes when they are in flames.

I recognise that the regulations have a value inasmuch as they provide for safer covers to be used in furnishings or at least ensure that where safer covers are not used, the public who make the purchases know the risks they are running. However, in practice, the covers do not normally cause great injury or death. Certain synthetics flare and can melt, and the melted fabric can stick to the skin and cause serious burns. Therefore, I trust that the Minister will press on with the necessary arrangements, after the introduction of which he will not be prepared to tolerate furnishing covers which do not meet the match lest. It would concentrate the minds of the textile and furniture industries wonderfully if a date were fixed for the introduction of the match test for all furnishing fabrics. At the same time, we should recognise that even if that were done, we should not have dealt with the basic problem of dangerous fillings. I appeal to the Minister to consider the banning of polyurethane foam in furnishings and to follow the line for children's furnishings and phase out the use of those materials as far as possible and as quickly as possible.

I do not accept that, in a world that can put men on the moon, we cannot produce cheap, flexible fillings for furnishings. I am certain that we will go on using polyurethane foam for as long as it is legal and profitable so to do. We have had to say that dangerous children's toys cannot be sold, that dangerous electrical equipment cannot be sold and that dangerous motor vehicles cannot be sold. In the end it is necessary to introduce regulations because until they are introduced we will hear the argument that the better product would cost more money. That is a specious argument, because if we had less combustible fillings which, if they did burn, did not produce toxic fumes, it would not be necessary to have the same expensive processing of the covers. Reductions in the cost of covers could be set against the possibly increased cost of the fillings.

The regulations have further weaknesses concerning covers. The labels are likely quickly to become lost or removed. They are not likely to be available for the second and third-hand users of the furniture. It is common for furniture to pass from one room to another and then to be passed on to others for their use. There is a danger that furniture which may be acquired or received as a gift will not carry the necessary warning.

As furniture wears, the thickness of the covers is reduced. When the pile is at its thickest it may be able to meet the mandatory cigarette test, and may even have retardant properties to meet the match test, but after receiving heavy wear and when it becomes old it will not have the same resistant properties as hitherto.

I am concerned about the re-covering of furniture either professionally or by the use of furnishing fabrics that are used in the home, including the use of loose covers. The newly fitted cover may be more flammable than the material that it covers. A fabric which has good retardant properties may be subject to a greater flame from the new cover.

I am equally worried about the use of cleaners and solvents on furnishing fabrics. In a home where there are children there are spills on furniture which need to be removed. The chemical effect of the use of solvents, or scrubbing with soap and water, will be considerable on the flame retardant properties over a period.

As long as we follow the blind alley of retardant qualities for covers we shall continue to face the problems that I have listed. All these dangers could be removed by providing a safe filling.

I welcome the regulations and the progress that they represent in fire precautions, but they are still grossly inadequate. We should be directing our attention to the real culprit, which is the filling.

12.43 am

Mr. Raymond Whitney (Wycombe)

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate, especially as it allows me the chance to offer my commiserations to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who has been removed from his post as adviser to the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union by a Communist member of the union. The hon. Gentleman's contribution to the union and his assiduity over many years is widely respected in the furniture industry. It is highly regrettable that such action should have taken place. We may all have our views on the wisdom or otherwise of joining the Social Democratic party, but that scarcely merits the sort of treatment that the hon. Gentleman has received, especially when we bear in mind the service that he has given to the union.

I join in the welcome that the House has given to the regulations. They have been produced after extremely careful co-operation with the furniture industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) has said, the industry welcomes the labeling proposals that are set out in the regulations and those on the setting of ignition performances for children's furniture.

I commend the Minister's decision not to put a date on the mandatory introduction of the match test. In that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). Given the importance of putting no more strain on the industry in its present delicate state, nothing must be done, within the limits of safety, to jeopardise the future of that industry. There is a balance between the safety requirements and the economic health of the industry. The Minister's proposals have struck that balance.

Without more technological progress, the problem of the consumer attractiveness of the materials and the cost implications to which the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire referred could be severe and have serious repercussions on the industry and on jobs.

I hope that the Minister will continue to pursue his wise course and use all the means in the Government machine and in the industry to find a final solution—if it is to be found—to the flammability problem. I hope that in the meantime he will hold to the line between the safety needs and the needs of the furniture industry.

12.46 am

Dr. Vaughan

This has been an interesting debate. It is extraordinary that so many hon. Members have such a deep knowledge of the subject. It is encouraging that the general view is that this is an important issue which we cannot let rest. Further research is needed and we must press the industry to get on with it, because we shall keep returning to it.

I have been asked many questions. I was particularly pleased to hear the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who said that we must keep a sense of balance and recognise the efforts that the furniture industry has made. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) made the same point. The furniture industry is co-operative and it recognises the need to come forward with safer materials.

Listening to the interesting remarks by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) I wondered how many furniture manufacturers there were in his constituency. He will know that their profit margins are very small indeed. We are not talking about an industry which slaps a high price on its products, so we must look at the industry's general problems if we are to do something which will push up the costs and reduce sales. The figure that we have heard tonight of the increase in cost of a suite of furniture would be even higher than the cost that I mentioned of £30 to £40. That is considerable.

The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) asked about research and less expensive substitutes. We have heard much about the importance of finding a substitute for foam. Foam creates the greatest danger, but substitutes cost three to four times more; they are extremely hard and unlikely to be acceptable to customers. It is not realistic to set a definite time limit when all furniture must conform to a match test. However, I know that the industry is carrying out research, some of which is sponsored by the Government, as quickly as possible.

Only 10 per cent. of furniture coming on to the market can carry the new label. Customer purchasing power is tremendously effective. I hope that customers will look out for furniture with a safety label and ask traders why they do not stock more of that furniture. In that way we shall increase the incentives for the industry to produce such furniture.

The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch asked about figures. We do not have any realistic statistics. It takes 10 to 15 years to get stock out of the system. I forecast that within a few years definite figures will show a decrease in fires, especially those caused by smouldering cigarettes. I mentioned earlier that children's furniture—it is rather specialised furniture—has been made much safer. There has been a dramatic drop in the number of fires, which is pleasing.

The hon. Member for Norwood asked about the Home Office. It is currently considering regulations under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 in the light of recommendations made by the central fire brigade advisory council. That has occurred as a result of the serious fire in 1979 at the Woolworth store in Manchester. I understand that consultations with the trade and other interested parties are taking place. I undertake to follow up that matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. John Fraser

I hope that the Minister will follow up that matter urgently. I know that it is not his responsibility, but it has been four years, which is a long time, since the Home Secretary gave an undertaking to toughen up the regulations. The history involves not months, but years—even decades—before something happens.

Dr. Vaughan

I appreciate the wisdom of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Home Office is taking some steps. It is asking that furniture in residential care homes passes both the match and cigarette tests. I know from my experience as a health Minister of the amount of attention that I and others gave to having fire-resistant materials in hospital wards and places where the elderly and mentally handicapped are nursed.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the regulations could be consolidated. We have no plans to do that, but if it becomes necessary to amend the regulations again we shall consider consolidation rather than endless amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire spoke about the British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations, which have been of great help to us. My hon. Friend did indeed recommend positive labelling some time ago, and he must be pleased that we have now moved towards that.

As to children's furniture, I hope that I have explained why we introduced the requirement about materials at the beginning. It was the simplest and quickest way of dealing with the problem. It has taken some time to get a BSI certificate for the furniture. The requirements for children's furniture will be extremely stringent, as it applies to furniture for children under the age of 11, although it is usually used by much younger people. We are not referring to wooden high chairs and similar furniture.

I hope soon to be able to advance a standard for bedding and mattresses. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire referred to the lack of evidence of cigarette fires and smouldering. He must be aware of the commonness of the 2 am fire when someone has gone to bed smoking and has fallen asleep and the smouldering cigarette has set fire to the bedding. Surely the incidence of fires in regard to people who smoke and have a high rate of alcoholism is conclusive that that type of cause is relevant.

The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch referred to the responsibility for production. I hope soon to introduce proposals on general consumer safety. I hope that part of those proposals will be that the responsibility for production, major distribution and importing of dangerous goods will lie much more firmly on those people, rather than on shop traders. I hope that when those proposals come before the House, the hon. Gentleman will welcome them.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown

Does that mean that the EC regulations for product liability will apply to foam production?

Dr. Vaughan

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until I introduce the proposals. The Department is also producing an illustrated handbook for the trade, as the regulations are difficult to understand in detail.

I hope that I have covered most of the points that hon. Members have raised. If I have not, I shall be glad to take them up afterwards personally and individually if hon. Members so wish. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth,. North (Mr. Griffiths) wanted progress. We want it too. He referred to toxic fumes. I was not sure whether he was thinking of the majority of cases where death or injury is due to suffocation and carbon monoxide poisoning—that is the common cause—or whether he was concerned about hydrogen cyanide which is much less significant as it comes from specific types of plastic. When he talks about using other materials, he should be aware that the fumes from wool, silk and nylon can all be toxic. I only say that to show how complicated it is to find an effective substitute.

I hope that I have covered all of the main points. The debate has been helpful. I know that it will be studied by the industry and I hope that the House will approve the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Upholstered Furniture (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.