Domestic Furnishings (Flammability)

HC Deb 01 July 1987 vol 118 cc600-8

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

10.27 pm

Mr. Conal Gregory (York)

Tonight I wish to raise the subject of the Government regulation of the flammability of domestic furnishings.

I extend a double welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude). First, I am delighted about his appointment as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for corporate and consumer affairs. Secondly, I welcome him to the Dispatch Box on the occasion of his first Adjournment debate.

This evening I wish to raise the danger that is posed by much modern polyurethane foam-filled furniture. It is a killer. Unless action is taken to improve safety standards, it may claim 3,000 lives over the next 10 years. I praise the Yorkshire Post for its campaign. Most of the victims will be children and old people. Many will die, not from burns but from the thick, acrid smoke and toxic fumes that are rapidly generated when foam ignites in upholstered chairs and settees. Over the past 25 years, deaths from furniture fires have increased fivefold. Now one in five domestic fire deaths involves upholstery, compared with one in 20 in 1962.

In arguing for better fire resistance in modern furniture, firemen emphasise the challenge that they now face. From the moment that a foam-filled settee catches fire, the occupants of a house may have no more than three minutes to escape before they are overcome by noxious gases, smoke and intense heat. By contrast, it takes a fire crew, on average, between five and eight minutes to reach the scene in response to a 999 call, which is usually made after a fire is well established. It is a race against time which they and the occupants of the house often lose.

In a recent Birmingham flat fire, in which six people died, the first firemen arrived four minutes after the emergency call, but it was already too late. Those who tackled the blaze cite it as a classic example of a fire involving modern furnishings. In 1984, the most recent year for which fire statistics are available, there were 157 confirmed deaths as a direct result of furnishings, and 130 deaths as an indirect result. After food, textiles are the most common source of material for a fire, amounting to a staggering 16,589 in 1984

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gregory

I have only just got under way.

In North Yorkshire, fire fatalities in the 1980–84 period were 11, 11, four, nine and four. In the three neighbouring counties of Humberside, West and South Yorkshire, fire deaths amounted to 56 and 43 for 1983 and 1984 respectively. Clearly, there is a story behind these grim figures, which I shall reveal.

As long ago as 1978, a Home Office report "The Fire Risks of New Materials" concluded that manufacturers ought to produce upholstered furniture with increased fire resistance as a matter of the utmost urgency. That followed research into the burning characteristics of furniture, which found that polyurethane foam produced more rapid fire growth with a greater risk to life and damage to property than traditional furniture. The report stated: In mere terms of the volume we think it likely that upholstered furniture has the largest single potential of contributing to fire and toxicity hazards. We cannot over-stress the urgency of the need to bring domestic and residential upholstered furniture back towards the level of fire performance prevailing before the introduction of polyurethane foams in all or any sort of formulation. It is the speed of development of fire which we think makes all the difference by virtue of its effect on available escape time. We therefore believe that quantity production of upholstered furniture with a reduced flammability is a matter of the utmost urgency. That conclusion came as no surprise to thousands of firemen who had already faced the effects of modern furniture fires, not under controlled laboratory conditions but in people's front rooms. For 20 years, firemen have been pointing to the dangers, but in spite of better training, quicker response times and more sophisticated firefighting equipment, they are still unable to save many people because of the sheer speed with which flames and fumes spread. The loss of 10 lives at a store in Manchester in 1979 touched the nation. The coroner issued a stark warning about fires involving furniture containing polyurethane and polypropylene. He said: Anyone who has furniture with this foam either in a public place or in the home—and that means just about everybody —should remember that if a fire occurs there does seem to be a critical time of just a few minutes. Although the exact cause of the Woolworth fire remained a mystery, furniture containing polyurethane and polypropylene was blamed for the rapid spread of the blaze. During the inquest, the head of combustion products at the Government's fire research station at Borehamwood, said that new fire regulations would soon be introduced requiring all furniture made in Britain to be resistant to smoking materials. He said: They will not set alight when in contact with a cigarette or a match. But when the regulations were drafted in 1980, and revised in 1983, they fell short of that safety expectation. Although the first half of his promise was fulfilled in principle with the introduction of the compulsory cigarette test, the match test was made voluntary. Today, most furniture made in Britain is likely to fail the match test, not only in the laboratory but, more importantly, in the home.

In 1980, the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations were approved by Parliament. They followed two prvevious noteworthy publications; first, the report on "Fire Risks of New Materials" of November 1978, to which I have referred, and, secondly, British Standard 5852 part 1 1979 "Fire Tests for Furniture: Methods of Test for ignitability by Smokers' Materials of Upholstered Composites for Seating". The former publication recommended that top priority should be to reduce ignitability from small ignition sources. A second priority was to reduce the rate of fire development. The British Standard test method addressed the matter of testing for ignitability by cigarettes and matches, the latter by a gas flame simulating a match. The regulations introduced the requirement for upholstered furnishings seating to be resistant to a smouldering cigarette, but for labelling only with respect to its performance in the match test.

The safety of domestic furniture is being dictated by those who use the cheapest materials which will satisfy the minimal cigarette requirement. Yet, since that tragedy in Manchester in 1979 fire-retardant treatments have been developed for most fabrics that cover foam, and safety standards have soared in contract furniture.

California has its own regulations. If I compare Los Angeles and greater Manchester, which are not too dissimilar in urban size, residential fires in greater Manchester generally result in twice as many fatalities as in Los Angeles. Examples of combusion-modified foams include Carefoam DX from Dunlopillo, made in Harrogate, and Beaverfoam, made in Derbyshire. Synthetic fabrics are available, such as those from Joseph Newsome and Sons of Batley, and the flame-resistant Dralon velvet developed by Lister of Bradford. Skopos Fabrics of Dewsbury have produced flame-retardant cotton furnishing fabrics for more than 10 years, which would add an estimated £24 to a £500 three-seater sofa. Therefore, the foams and fabrics are available.

West Yorkshire, which is a typical local authority. reveals that 20 per cent. of the fires in homes are caused by children playing with matches, which is a risk that is not covered by the present safety regulations. Nationally in 1984, only road accidents claimed more lives of children under 14. The Government's own body, the Property Services Agency, insists on fire-resistant furniture but the Government do not for their own citizens. Is that an example of double standards?

Although firemen and safety watchdogs have called repeatedly for the introduction of the match test to reduce the number of furniture fires, and were supported recently by some textile manufacturers, the industry was successful generally in persuading the previous Minister responsible for consumer affairs to shelve the match test in his review of the regulations. The compromise of a code of practice which aims to outlaw some of the worst combinations of fabrics and foams will not in any way encourage manufacturers to upgrade their products.

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and should like to congratulate him on securing this important debate. On the code of practice, will the hon. Gentleman urge the Minister to tell us when that code will be published, or at least when the consultation document on that code will be published, so that we know what the Government now have in mind, however inadequate that might be?

Mr. Gregory

I am grateful for that intervention, not only for the encouragement to make this an all-party matter but also because it raises the valid point that we have still not yet seen the code of practice. Indeed, it is surprising how few people concerned with this great industry are aware of it. That applies also to the consumer bodies and I shall refer to that in a moment.

Mr. Holt

rose——

Mr. Gregory

I shall give way if my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment more.

I have suggested that cheap competition will win over safety. The code does not propose a match test equivalent. It was drafted by the Furniture Industry Research Association and was based on a biased questionnaire. One of the association's members who was sent the questionnaire has stated: to lobby the Government to delay the passing of more stringent legislation is tantamount to asking them unnecessarily to risk further loss of life. That is pretty strong stuff.

The code has gone to a Department of Trade and Industry working party, but its membership was hardly objective. Only one representative of the fire services was included in the 25-strong group. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which is Europe's largest safety organisation was, amazingly, excluded. If the British Standards Institution had been consulted at an early stage it could have ensured that the safety measures in the code were subjected to proper validity tests. Even that key element was missing. The code cannot and will not be a soft option on safety.

Mr. Holt

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way.

May I declare an interest, Mr. Speaker? Could I ask my hon. Friend whether, before embarking on his crusade, he took the trouble to speak to the furniture industry, whether he has been to FIRA, whether he has examined the nature of the problem on the ground as well as reading the Yorkshire Post? Will he accept an invitation from me, as the parliamentary spokesman for the furniture industry, to come with me to see the nature of the problem? Perhaps he might then suggest that we stop motor cars from going on the roads because they carry petrol, which causes fires in the same way as furniture?

Mr. Gregory

I am fascinated, as I am sure that the Registrar of Members' Interests will be, to hear your declaration which was not published in the Register of Members' Interests, which I sought to obtain before tonight.

Mr. Holt

It is.

Mr. Gregory

However, I congratulate you on this new interest——

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is not me.

Mr. Gregory

I hear what you say——

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Gregory

I hear what my hon. Friend has said, and I shall take note of those points.

What should the Government now do? I should like to make five suggestions. First, if the Government are really determined to see safer furniture, they should set a firm date for the match test under BS 5852. Such a naked flame test would complement the existing cigarette test. That should be from 1 January 1988. There should not be a further three-year delay as proposed by the British Textile Confederation. That decision should be taken urgently and after advice from a truly representative group of consumer, industry, fire and trading standards sectors. But, in the light of the Minister's written reply today to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), will he give an assurance that match test equivalents will be implemented immediately?

Secondly, the Government should revise the regulations so that manufacturers cannot shelter behind a loophole on children's ages. Currently children's furniture designed exclusively for under-11 -year-olds is protected, but who is to say that teenage brothers and sisters do not enjoy bean bags depicting the A Team and other televisions stars?

Thirdly, the penalties for contravention are clearly inadequate. Level five, which means a maximum of £2,000 and/or three months' imprisonment, is not an adequate disincentive.

Fourthly, a levy should be imposed on the furniture industry to fund inspection and control by trading standards officers, rather than leaving it to the small local authority budgets. The industry, rather than the ratepayer, should fund impartial quality control.

Finally, there should be a public awareness campaign by the Government. Asbestos was known to be toxic for many years, but once the media and public became aware of the danger, it had to be removed. Most modern foam-filled furniture can create lethal fire conditions within three minutes. That means that a suite of furniture is an incendiary device.

While tonight I have suggested a live-point plan, invite my hon. Friend the Minister, when replying to the debate, to advise how far domestic furniture sales will come within the general duty to trade safely, enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act passed by the House only last month, and how far specific regulations will still be required.

I welcome my hon. Friend in his new role, arid hope that he will speak out for consumers. Public safety rather than industrial muscle and inertia should be the order of the day.

10.42 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Francis Maude)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) for his kind remarks. He has pursued this subject over the years with great vigour and force. During the past two years when I was lurking in the Whips Office, I was able to observe with some admiration the skill with which he deployed his arguments.

I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend and the House, especially the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who raised the issue specifically, that today we issued consultation papers to all interested parties, setting out proposals for a new code of practice. As has been suggested, it will not be a voluntary code, but it will he a basis for new regulations to replace the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations 1980. It should be stressed that non-compliance with the provisions of the code would be a criminal offence.

Before I deal in detail with the issues, it is right to remind the House that the United Kingdom already leads the world in legislation on fire resistance of domestic furniture. Our insistence on resistance to ignition by a smouldering cigarette has been followed only by Ireland.

The 1980 regulations and the 1983 amendments addressed the question of ignitability alone. The reason for doing so was the availability at that stage of a new British standard method of test for ignitability. The regulations called up that standard as the basic underlying test method essential to all safety regulations. They made labelling concerning cigarette and match resistance a requirement from 1 October 1980 and resistance to cigarette ignition became mandatory from the end of 1982. It is a fact that the statistics on accidental domestic fires show that smouldering cigarettes are the main cause of fires that start in upholstered furniture, so the regulations went to the heart of a known and serious problem. Comparatively few fires start as a result of small flames such as those of a match.

The design and manufacture of upholstered furniture was revolutionised early this century by the invention of foam materials, made first from natural rubber and then from synthetics. These very versatile and relatively cheap materials combine the functions of the metal springs and fibre padding which used to make up the inside of easy chairs and sofas. They thus simplified furniture manufacture and greatly reduced costs to the consumer, as well as extending the range of consumer choice of the shape and appearance of furniture. The material which is now dominant as filling for upholstered furniture, as my hon. Friend knows, is polyurethane foam. The behaviour in fire of this material led to widespread concern, forcefully expressed over the years by my hon. Friend and others. The amendment regulations of 1983 introduced positive labelling for upholstered furniture in relation to both cigarette and match tests. The intention was to encourage the consumer to see and buy furniture with greater resistance to ignition than that required by law to enable informed and clear decisions to be made.

Mr. Holt

I have listened to my hon. Friend. Do the Government intend to introduce legislation, or a code of practice, for the carpet industry as well as for the furniture industry? What plans do the Government have to introduce the banning of cigarettes and matches, which are the igniters of furniture and carpets?

Mr. Maude

Carpets will come under the general safety requirement at the appropriate time, under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Of course, my hon. Friend makes a vivid point in suggesting that the only safe way of avoiding fire is to avoid any flame whatever. There is no such thing as a completely safe house; there cannot be. All that we can do is to try to establish regulations that outlaw the most dangerous of substances and materials, and enable the customer to make sensible and informed choices as far as possible.

The regulations, as amended in 1983, also imposed a stringent requirement on children's upholstered furniture of a particularly lightweight and moveable kind. I stress again that the existing regime in the United Kingdom is the most rigorous in the world. We take the view that the most constructive approach to the problem is the development of types of foam with better performance characteristics. To that end the industry and my Department jointly financed a research programme at Queen Mary college. The persistence of researchers has recently been rewarded by a breakthrough. From this year there are grades of polyurethane foam available on the market with significantly improved resistance to ignition, with satisfactory technical qualities, and at acceptable prices. Meanwhile there have been promising technical developments in textile materials used for covering furniture, which enable the furniture manufacturers to choose from a wider range of materials with match flame resistances than was available in 1980. These developments widen the options available for legislation. We have therefore been urgently considering what further steps should be taken.

It was suggested some 18 months ago that new legislation could be loosely based on parts of a classification scheme produced by the Furniture Industry Research Association, which classifies both filling materials and covering materials. This makes it possible to devise a code of practice under which the less fire-resistant covers would only be permitted in combination with the more fire-resistant fillings, and vice versa. This approach has the merit of obliging both groups of component manufacturers to upgrade their products. It is a flexible and imaginative response to the problem. This approach seems to me to provide better protection for the consumer than either of the apparently available and simple measures that are generally advocated in this field—the mandatory match test for covering materials, and a complete ban on polyurethane foam as a filling material. My hon. Friend homed in on that in the debate. The most fundamental objection to the match test on its own is that it says nothing at all about the fire resistance of the filling materials. It is a test that covers just the covering material and not the filling material.

The code of practice proposals will be mandatory and will enable furniture manufacturers for the first time properly to specify the ignitability characteristics of their components, whether covering fabrics, filling fibre or polyurethane foam. They can be applied to loose cushions and eventually to loose covers and to materials sold for upholstering or re-upholstering furniture bought separately or already in the possession of the customer.

Most importantly, they will encourage the use of the more fire resistant polyurethane foams now available.

The draft code of practice and accompanying consultation documents are being issued today. Replies are requested by the end of September and I shall make a statement as soon as I have considered all the comments. I should like to emphasise that all constructive comments will be welcome.

Mr. Holt

Would my hon. Friend care to say how the Government intend to regulate the importation of furniture from overseas? Will such furniture be tested at the port of entry or at the port from which it is sent? What proposals do the Government intend to produce for imported furniture?

Mr. Maude

I cannot answer that point now, but I shall make sure that my hon. Friend has an answer as soon as possible.

In all these areas we have to take account of the customer's right to choose. It is essential that consumers be warned of possible flammability hazards. None the less, they may choose an item on the grounds of comfort, cost, appearance or durability. There is a clear case for minimum standards for upholstered furniture and for mattresses and we are legislating for these. Our present aim about other furnishings is to ensure that consumers are able to make choices based on clear and reliable information.

This is not a simple subject and there are no simple answers. Our standards are already the strictest in the world, but what is acceptable at one time may become unacceptable later. The regulations made in 1980 and amended in 1983 now require radical revision. I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the wider debate in the working group set up last year by my predecessor. They included technical and commercial experts from the furniture, textiles and chemical industries and from research establishments in these fields, as well as local authority and fire brigade professionals.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

The Minister has told us about the people who contributed to the working group. He will be aware that the Fire Brigades Union was not invited to take part in that. Will he give a guarantee that all those who are concerned with fire protection and fire safety will have their views properly evaluated and taken into account in the consultative process?

Mr. Maude

Yes. The consultation papers will be available to anybody who expresses an interest and the comments of such people will be welcomed. I think that the fire professional who sat on the working group was a fire officer from Manchester who had particular knowledge of the Woolworth store plan, about which reference has been made. Comments from all those who have a professional interest in the matter will be welcomed.

All of us involved in this subject are engaged in an effort to save lives, and nothing could be more important. The issue today of this draft code of practice and the accompanying document is a major step towards new and better legislation on the flammability of domestic furnishings. I look forward to a wide range of constructive responses and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York for once again raising this matter. I apologise if I have not dealt with all of the specific points that he raised, but he will understand that I have been in this post for a fairly short time and am not as familiar with the intricacies of the subject as I hope to be in a few months. I shall certainly make sure that he receives detailed replies to all the points that he has raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.