Upholstered Furniture (Safety)(Amendment) Regulations 1983 (Hansard, 30 March 1983)

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper: that the draft Upholstered Furniture (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which are to be made under the Consumer Safety Act 1978, be approved. I stress to your Lordships that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the text and did not comment on it. The draft regulations supplement the provisions of the 1980 Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations, and need to be read in conjunction with those regulations. I would not claim that this makes for easy reading. However, the two main changes are, in themselves, relatively straightforward.
1594 Your Lordships may remember that the 1980 regulations required domestic furniture to carry red warning labels if it could not pass two British Standard tests for resistance to ignition by a smouldering cigarette and a small butane flame simulating a lighted match. Draft Regulation 2(c)—new Regulation 4A—would require furniture which does pass the two tests—the match test and the cigarette test—also to be labelled with a new green-edged square label stating that the piece of furniture passes. The problem at present is that this safer furniture can be identified only by the absence of warning labels. I would ask noble Lords to consider whether, faced with unlabelled furniture, they would readily deduce that this was cigarette and match proof. I am assuming that those noble Lords present have much greater familiarity with the requirements of the current regulations than the average consumer or buyer of furniture, but, even so, I wonder whether any of your Lordships who have this expertise would not ask yourselves whether somebody had forgotten to put on the warning labels or whether they had merely fallen off.
The new regulations will require suppliers who are satisfied that their furniture does meet the tests to make a positive statement to that effect. Both the furniture industry and the enforcement authorities welcome this clarification. All furniture first placed on the British market since the end of last year has had to satisfy the cigarette test. The new labels will draw consumers' attention to furniture which satisfies the match test and this should help to stimulate demand for match-proof furniture.
The other main purpose of the draft regulations is to make provision for the safety of children's upholstered furniture. This category was exempted from the 1980 regulations on the ground that it was unnecessary to subject items of nursery furniture, such as high chairs, with only small amounts of upholstery, to tests dealing with the dangers of cigarettes and matches. The Government still consider this unnecessary. However, just over a year ago the Government began to receive reports of accidents involving, not high chairs, but what we call novelty chairs for small children which are constructed almost entirely from combustible materials such as polyurethane foam or expanded polystyrene. Some of these were actually marketed as "fireside chairs" and young children were pushing them close to electric, gas or coal tires and leaving them there. Sometimes the chairs caught fire and, in one case, the mother of the child concerned was overcome by fumes from the burning upholstery, although fortunately she recovered after hospital treatment.
In order to prevent further accidents my honourable friend made the Children's Upholstery Furniture (Safety) Order on 6th April last year. This prohibited, for one year, the supply of children's furniture containing more than small amounts of polyurethane foam and expanded polystyrene. One or both of these two filling materials was used in all the potentially dangerous chairs of which we were aware, and a prohibition on these specific materials was the most effective way of getting them off the market quickly. However, it would be quite possible to construct equally dangerous furniture using other materials. The only systematic safeguard is to set an objective performance standard 1595 for the furniture as a whole. After extensive consultation and research the Government concluded that furniture which passed the ignition test in British Standard 5852 Part 2 (Ignition Source 5) would also be likely to be safe when closely exposed for prolonged periods to typical domestic radiant heating such as gas or electric fires. This is a considerably more stringent test than either the cigarette or match tests.
Under Regulation 2(e) (new Regulation 5A) all children's upholstered furniture, apart from beds and items such as high chairs with only small amounts of upholstery or low density framework material, will have to pass this exacting new ignition test. This requirement will enter into force on 7th April to coincide with the expiry of the prohibition order. However, to give suppliers sufficient time to adjust it will remain possible—for a limited transitional period—to go on supplying children's furniture which would not have been prohibited by the order if it had remained in force. This exemption is contained in new Regulation 5A(1)(b). I think that your Lordships will find that right at the bottom of page 3 in the regulations that are before us.
All of these regulations carry forward the Government's commitment to reducing the fire risks of modern upholstered furniture. But they are by no means the last word. The Government will continue to explore actively other aspects of the problem. The 1980 regulation and the amendments are designed to promote the sale of furniture with reasonable resistance to ignition in everyday circumstances. More remains to be done to reduce the risks when furniture, for whatever reason, does catch fire. Work has started in the British Standards Institution to devise means of measuring the rate at which fires develop in upholstery after ignition. The Government are also monitoring and helping to sponsor research into the development of safer tilling materials, particularly acceptably priced substitutes for the types of foam currently used in 90 per cent. of modern furniture. As solutions emerge the regulations will need to be further reviewed.
Meanwhile the draft regulations before your Lordships' House will promote greater safety on these aspects of furniture flammability for which current technology already provides solutions. For that reason, I would ask your Lordships to approve them. I beg to move.

§ Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining very lucidly these regulations. I must say that his explanation of the regulations makes them much more understandable than the actual reading of the regulations themselves. As the noble Lord said, these particular regulations have to be read in conjunction with the 1980 regulations. I wonder whether the noble Lord could advise your Lordships whether there are any proposals to consolidate the two sets of regulations so that they can be read in a more digestible form than will be possible at present?
The proposals contained in the regulations are proposals which are certainly to be very much 1596 welcomed. The hazards of furniture which can ignite too easily are very well known. The fact that the furniture is to be marked in this particular way to protect the consumer so that the consumer will know that the furniture has been tested in the appropriate way is certainly a step forward. Also, I was glad to know that it was proposed that children's furniture, and particularly, as the noble Lord said, novelty furniture, was also to be subject to regulations in the same way.
The noble Lord in explaining the regulations talked about the duties of the suppliers of the furniture. He did not in fact mention, I think, the question of the responsibilities of the retailers of the furniture. He did tell your Lordships that there was to be a transitional period so far as the suppliers are concerned. What will happen with regard to existing stock in retailers' premises? Will that be subject to some form of labelling? Will it be inspected or, in fact, if it has not been inspected, will there be some form of negative labelling for that to show that it does not comply? It could well be that some of that stock will remain in retailers' premises for a considerable period of time before being sold. But in general, we welcome the laying of these regulations.

§ Lord Auckland
My Lords, there is just one point about these regulations in paragraph 3(e). I declare an interest, non-financial, as an honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The paragraph says: be attached to the furniture in such a way as at all times when the furniture is exposed for sale by retail either both faces are visible and legible or, if only one of them is visible and legible, the other may readily be made so by reversing the label by hand. I think it is generally recognised that, first of all, the printing on some of these labels becomes affected very badly by washing and other means and that this means that the labelling becomes, so to speak, negative. Are there in the regulations—perhaps my noble friend the Minister can confirm this—means by which the labelling must be such that it is indelible and by reasonable washing the instructions on the printing can remain? This is vital if these very valuable regulations are to be made effective.

§ Baroness Phillips
My Lords, these are very important regulations. Anybody who has seen the terrible effects on children who are burnt knows how important the regulations are. There have been terrible accidents from burning furniture of all kinds, but particularly of this kind. Can the Minister tell us whether the British Standard is a mandatory one and, if so, will the article be kite marked in addition to it being mentioned on the label that it has come up to the specification? There is a very important difference, as your Lordships will know. Many years of working on the British Standards to get mandatory standards against flammable nightwear, and, indeed, against dangerous furniture, have led me always to follow whether all these regulations are mandatory.

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, my noble friend Lord Auckland and the 1597 noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for the attention which they have paid to these rather complicated regulations. We are very grateful for their continuing interest, in view of their expertise and knowledge in this particular area.
If I may attempt to answer the first question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, concerning consolidation of the 1980 regulations in with the 1983 regulations, certainly the noble Lord has raised a very interesting point. We will certainly consider consolidation of these two sets of regulations if there are further substantial amendments. When I asked about the definition of "substantial" this morning, I was told that it would not just be one or two words, or a minor definition, but if there were large paragraphs or really major sections of the regulations to be altered we would certainly consider consolidation of these two sets of regulations.
The noble Lord also raised a point about what happens to stocks. I wonder whether he was thinking only of children's furniture, or all furniture. The noble Lord raised the spectre of novelty chairs, which I must say I am not aware of. I do not know whether they are similar to the type of chair across which Tom chases Jerry. I am not entirely aware of these so-called novelty or fireside chairs. However, I understand that so long as they are in the showroom, existing stocks will be allowed to be sold, but if I may ascertain the exact details of the stocks of children's upholstered furniture and fully upholstered furniture, I shall write to the noble Lord.
My noble friend spoke about ensuring that the label is legible, perhaps by reversing it by hand. I have obtained a very valuable little guide from the department for which I speak. Probably my noble friend is already aware of this particular point, which is more than I was before I became acquainted with the regulations. The guide is entitled, Furniture and Fire—A Guide to the New Furniture Safety Regulations. I understand that it contains details of labels that will be attached to upholstery by string, a pin, or some such method. But we propose to have other labels—green ones—which I understand will have to be firmly fixed to the cushion or other part of the upholstered piece of furniture. I think that the label has to be 90 millimetres square. All the details of what the labels shall look like and the definitions of the labels are set out in the booklet. I shall certainly send a copy of it, together with explanatory literature, to my noble friend, in the hope that they will go most of the way towards satisfying the point that he raised.
I fear that I am not able to answer the question asked by the noble Baroness. It goes a little wider than the precise regulations which I have been trying to explain this afternoon. Perhaps I ought to be able to answer the question, but I must apologise and say that I do not think that I can give a satisfactory answer at present. I hope that the noble Baroness and your Lordships will be content if I study her comments and write to her very fully, giving all the answers that I can. If no other Member of your Lordships' House wishes to raise a point on the regulations, I would commend them—

§ Lord Somers
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he give an English translation of "90 millimetres"?

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale says "two point something". I know that 2.54 millimetres approximates to one inch. I am sorry, my Lords; I should have said 2.54 centimetres; that is, 254 millimetres, according to my noble friend. I shall attempt to discover the Imperial or British measure equivalent to 90 millimetres, and write to the noble Lord, Lord Somers.