§ Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stetchford)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to extend provision to hospitals, nursing homes, elderly persons homes, mental institutions and similar premises; to limit the time available to occupiers or owners under the Act for bringing premises up to standard; to make further provision relating to the installation of sprinkler systems in public buildings and other places of public assembly; to ban the use of polyurethane foam in furniture; and to provide for educational and publicity programmes.It is a sad irony that it requires a major disaster before the House amends the fire regulations. This year, we have had the Ringway airport disaster and the Bradford football ground fire.Last Christmas in Bury, Greater Manchester, a family of eight and a family friend died in a tragic fire accident because Christmas wrappings fell into the fire grate and set the suite of furniture ablaze. Thus nine people died because of toxic fumes given off by the polyurethane foam that was used in that suite of furniture. It is a chilling prophesy, but it is likely that this Christmas we shall once again read of young children or indeed whole families dying in fires in similar circumstances.
The Home Office, in its review of fire policy in 1980, argued:
loss of life through fire is insignificant".However, in 1984, 700 deaths were caused by fires in England and Wales—550 took place in the home and approximately three quarters of them were caused by the poisonous fumes given off by smouldering polyurethane foam. The Home Office, in its review of the Fire Regulations Act 1971, stated:Although our present arrangements may bear favourable comparison with other countries, there is no room for complacency.That is right, but the sad truth is that the Home Office has been extremely complacent in updating our fire regulations.The deaths in Bury and, to some extent, at Manchester airport would not have taken place if the lessons of another disaster in Manchester had been learnt — the fire in Woolworth's in May 1979. Ten people died and a further 48 were injured. That disaster led to demands from Members of Parliament and the city of Manchester that something be done to tackle the problem of poisonous fumes as a considerable number of the deaths were caused by the fumes emitted from blazing furniture in the furniture department. It was said that the fire regulations were difficult to enforce and that it was difficult to prosecute Woolworth's because it had not been given time to bring its fire precautions up to scratch.
That is one of the reasons why this Bill would prevent prolongation of the period during which dwelling or company was allowed to bring its precautions up to scratch, thus preventing what happened with Woolworth's.
Woolworth's learnt from that disaster and, on reopening the store, ceased to stock polyurethane foam-filled furniture and installed sprinklers. The Home Office, having threatened regulations, brought in the modest regulation—the so-called cigarette test—which tests whether furniture will catch fire when a cigarette is dropped on it. The Home Office failed to introduce the other part of the regulations which were promised—the so-called match test.
179 The regulations which the Home Office brought in, nominally as a result of the Woolworth's fire, would not have stopped that fire taking place. They did not stop the fire taking place in Bury last year. The majority of the 500 deaths due to polyurethane foam-filled furniture could have been prevented, however, by adequate regulations in 1980 and if the Home Office had not acted so complacently.
This Bill would bring in the match test and other more stringent fire precautions for furniture and lead to the banning of the use of polyurethane foam in furniture. The Bradford football disaster is still fresh in the memories of hon. Members. Fifty-two people died but many believe that lives could have been saved if sprinklers had been installed at the ground. That is why my Bill would require the installation of sprinklers in relevant circumstances. There is another simple lesson to be learnt from Bradford. Self-regulation, which Bradford operated, does not work. The Home Office has argued that efficient precautions are the most cost-effective way in which to ensure the safety of people and property, but it is going in precisely the opposite direction by attempting to introduce self-regulation. My Bill insists that regulation should be extended to elderly persons' homes, mental institutions, hospitals and nursing homes.
Most people's thoughts turn to children and the home at Christmas. The House ought to turn its attention to the protection of children by introducing more adequate regulations to prevent the outbreak of fire. The Fire Brigades Union has said that the Bill will reduce deaths and injuries. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill as this is an important issue throughout the year.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. James Lamond and Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones.